· A new development
· A modification of an existing system
· A system integration
Select an Appropriate Life Cycle
The life cycle provides an organizing structure with which to align project objectives with appropriate technologies and resources. Different projects require different degrees of rigidity in the sequencing of their phases. Long, complex projects intended to modify familiar systems typically yield to more rigid sequencing. On the other hand, less rigid sequencing may be required to achieve a series of innovations under conditions of high uncertainty.
Deal with Shifting Priorities
Business needs may change. All requirements must be formally managed. Address downstream changes in the life cycle through systematic risk assessment.
Make Progress Visible to All
Project participants need a clear idea of how well the project plan is working. Establish a set of key progress indicators and make them visible to all project participants.
Know The Limits of Automation
Don’t simply automate existing processes. Rethink existing processes instead of simply "paving the cowpaths." If your agency lacks the skills, use consultants to facilitate business process reengineering (BPR) and information modeling prior to defining requirements.
Leverage Expertise in Established Management Areas
Managing Inputs. Encourage project participants to address evolving technical priorities with appropriate resources. For example, employ contract incentives to deliver the desired results in accordance with the projected cost and schedule. Offer high incentives (18 - 20%) to in-house staff.
Managing Activities. Use scope management techniques such as a Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) to organize project activities and tasks. Graphically display the work to be accomplished. Update the display periodically to reflect reality.
Managing Outcomes. Encourage all staff to identify potentially problematic outcomes. Use formal risk management techniques to anticipate and mitigate project risks.
Controlling Tasks
Put Meaning in the Metrics
Define requirements so that they may be thoroughly tested and validated at the unit and systems level of granularity. Identify frequent milestones with a defined set of measurable pass/fail performance criteria. Structure related contracts so that they reflect the same units, granularity, and milestones. This enables you to measure earned value throughout the contract life. These criteria should comply with a pre-established test plan.
Leverage Expertise in Control Areas
Controlling Inputs. Conduct life-cycle cost analysis to evaluate the impact of design implementation alternatives throughout the project. Use agreed upon plans to control the resources applied to the project. For example, periodically review actual project expenditures and compare them to the projected budget.
Controlling Activities. Standardize processes which deal with the most routine activities. For example, routine progress reports can be structured to capture and highlight exceptions from anticipated progress.
Controlling Outcomes. Use configuration management processes to ensure the project is building what the customer wants. The implications of changes along the way can be understood and incorporated while driving toward the desired result. |
One reviewed project was situated within an agency which had recently undergone major budget reductions and large-scale structural changes. Because senior management was unclear about customer expectations, the agency had been unable to articulate a clear strategic view of the project and its role in the new environment. Customers had insufficient information to guide them in improving work processes. The commission recommended that the agency work with customers to accelerate development of a new strategic plan, and that it publish a concept of operations to communicate how the system would operate in future years.
One reviewed project reversed its declining fortunes by making substantial revisions to project requirements several years into the project. Project leaders had conducted an evaluation of requirements, leading to large but necessary reductions in both scope and requirements. Though initially disorienting, this reduction did much to stabilize the project, leading to a significantly improved outlook for project success.
The Commission encountered a project which, after eight years of planning, had yet to define an architecture. The project had come to rely heavily upon the functional program knowledge of the technical contractor, and there were insufficient technical resources involved in crucial technology decision-making. The Commission recommended that the organization establish technical requirements for deliverables, define modular delivery of specified interim products, monitor product delivery, and generally strengthen the role of contract management.
|