Page 259 - Global Project Management Handbook

12-20 COMPETENCY FACTORS IN PROJECT MANAGEMENT

Sub-sector: Public buildings program status
As of 11 August 2004

Scope Schedule Budget Tasking Obligation Definalization Design % Construction % Commissioning Acceptance
Task order Value = $M
Prog/ETC Pin/Act Pin/Act Date Pin/Act Pin/Act Pin/Act Pin/Act
BP-001 Ministry of environment G G G 4.8/4.8 G G G 38/38 5/10
BP-001 Opt 1 ministry of trade Gy G 8.2/8.2 G G 3/18/04 90/95 35/30
BP-001 Opt 2 ministry of industry & minerals G G G 13.7/13.7 G G G 65/70 05/05
BP-001 Opt 3 ministry of Education & Hi Ed G Gy 12.3/25.0 G G 8/25/04 35/30 03/04
BP-002 Independent electoral commission G GG 3.5/3.5 G G G 55/55 40/40
ETC: Estimate to complete
Pin/Act: Planned vs. actual
FIGURE 12.8 Sample project status summary report.

● Level 2 reporting called sector consolidated report and update for management
(SCRUMs) were held every two weeks at first and then moved to ever three weeks.
These sessions typically lasted one to two hours. Contents were similar to those in the
DUBs; in fact, there were many duplicate slides, but discussion was more in-depth, and
more projects were reviewed. Using a project status report chart such as the one in
Figure 12.8 allowed a sector to report project status on all projects within the sector in
about one hour.
● Level 3 reporting was standard project meetings between the SPCOC (the engineer) and
the DB contractor. Meetings covered project details and would last from one to four
hours depending on the current situation.

LESSONS LEARNED

The lessons learned listed below are not in a priority order but instead are grouped by topic.

Outsourcing

Outsourcing all functions, for example, engineering, design build, computer services,
support systems, etc., creates some issues.
● Scope becomes difficult to manage because scope overlaps occur. This was most
evident in the project management systems when initially each of the following
groups hired project control personnel: the government, the SPCOCs (the engi-
neers), the design build contractors, and the Army Corp of Engineers. This resulted
in duplicate work, inconsistent data, and lengthy discussions about who should do
what and how with regard to project tracking.
● When you outsource everything, the management function does not go away. This was
particularly apparent in the IRRF I program when many projects were started quickly
and the scope management function was left to contractors rather than to the U.S. gov-
ernment, which was the bill payer.