To achieve effective and economical management of
projects with visible and clearly established project
leadership.
It is the policy of the government that
projects:
- have well defined objectives within an accountability
framework;
- be approved in accordance with project approval requirements
as set out in Chapter 2-1 of this volume;
- employ sound project management principles;
- be adequately resourced by departments;
- have a comprehensive and coordinated definition of the
overall scope of the project; and
- be managed in a manner sensitive to risk, complexity and
economy of resources.
This policy applies to departments and agencies
listed in Schedules I and II of the Financial Administration
Act.
The policy applies to projects and to capital
projects as defined in the Glossary of this volume. It applies to
all such projects funded in whole or in part by the federal
government regardless of whether the method of funding is through
outright purchase, lease-purchase, lease, or other arrangements.
This policy does not apply to certain project-like activities
funded by the federal government through Transfer Payments
(Grants or Contributions) or assisted through loan guarantees or
other contingent liabilities.
When the total projected cost of a project will
exceed $100 million and the Treasury Board would assess the
project as high risk, it is deemed to be a Major Crown
Project (MCP). Treasury Board may direct that projects with total
projected cost less than $100 million but with a current risk
assessment of high be managed as an MCP. Further, Treasury Board
reserves the right to require any project exceeding the
sponsoring minister's delegated project approval authority to be
managed as an MCP. Projects deemed to be Major Crown projects are
subject to the Major Crown project policy, Chapter 2-3 of this
volume.
Note: The formation of a Senior Project Advisory
Committee (SPAC) is required to address procurement review
requirements for all projects over $100 million. SPAC
requirements are addressed in Appendix B of Chapter 2-3.
1. Accountability for projects: Sponsoring
departments must establish an accountability framework for
adequate definition and responsible implementation of projects.
The central focus of this framework is a manager within the
sponsoring department, at an appropriate level, who is appointed
as the Project Leader. The project leader, for each project
assigned to him or her, is accountable through the normal chain
of command to the deputy minister for:
- all external aspects including: the continuing interpretation
of operational needs and wider government objectives, and the
validation of planned project end-product in that context;
interfaces with the senior management of the sponsoring
department and participating departments; and serving as the
spokesperson for the project; and
- all internal aspects including: general supervision of the
project management framework to insure that project managers will
meet all objectives approved for the project; preparing project
approval documents; vetting proposals to amend objectives due to
changed external or internal factors; and acting as the authority
for the submission of such changes as well as for progress
reporting to project approval authorities.
2. Project management principles: Departments
are expected to establish and approve sound internal policies,
guidelines and practices to be followed by project leaders,
project managers and other staff responsible for identifying,
planning, approving/budgeting, defining, and implementing
projects; and for participating in projects sponsored by other
departments. Project leaders are to preserve the integrity of the
accountability framework by ensuring that the requirement to
follow standard project management principles, such as those set
out in Appendix B together with those found in the Project
Management Institute's project management book of knowledge are
included in all pertinent project agreements.
3. Authorities and resources: From project
inception, sponsoring departments must delegate authorities and
allocate adequate resources appropriate to the scope, complexity
and risk of the project, enabling the project leader to:
- represent the sponsoring department on matters pertaining to
the project;
- fully define objectives for each phase of the project;
and
- be accountable for the achievement of each approved
objective.
4. Project scope: Project leaders are
accountable for the full definition of the scope for all projects
including the wider interests of the government. This definition
of scope is to be accomplished with early consultation with other
departments or central agencies affected by the project. In
addition to other elements, the project scope must describe all
the project objectives as identified in other chapters of this
volume. Project scope may also be affected by procurement review
or other environmental considerations.
5. Management framework: Project leaders are
accountable for the establishment of an adequate project
management framework, for detailed project definition and to
complete project implementation. For certain projects, the regime
may be relatively simple with an internal, essentially
self-contained management office headed by a project manager
responsible for all details of the project. However, other
projects may require a quite complex management framework
involving several significant parallel activities and external
agencies, each with its own manager or project officer. In all
cases, the project leader must maintain the integrity of his or
her accountability through written agreements with any previous
project leaders, project managers, and any external agencies that
carry out activities essential to the accomplishment of the
project. These agreements are to define details of the task to be
accomplished, as well as financial and progress reporting
arrangements.
6. Project risk, complexity and economy:
Project leaders must ensure that project managers perform
adequate project planning that addresses the size, scope,
complexity, risk, visibility and administrative needs of specific
projects. Project leaders must ensure that the proposed project
management framework and allocation of project management
resources are based and optimized on the complexity and the
assessed risk for the individual phases of a project. The
selected project management framework is to describe risk and
complexity will be managed and reduced in each phase and
throughout the life of the project.
7. Project Profile and Risk Assessment
(PPRA): Early in the life of a project, the project leader is to
prepare a Project Profile and Risk Assessment (PPRA), in
consultation with the contracting authority and, when
appropriate, with participating departments and common service
organizations, as part of the process of developing the
management framework within for the Treasury Board approval
submissions. Guidance for the preparation and documentation of
the PPRA is provided in Appendix C. When appropriate, the project
leader should use the PPRA document for systematic dialogue with
project participants and with Treasury Board Secretariat
regarding the management framework and reporting baseline for the
project.
8. Project management practices: Guidance for
project management practices, and the preparation of risk
assessments, PPRAs, supporting documentation, and progress and
evaluation reports is provided in Appendices B through F.
Project Leaders
Project Leaders must notify other federal
government departments or agencies who may be affected by a
specific project, inviting them to participate in an active or
coordinative role as appropriate. The project leader is also
responsible for ensuring that all relevant project submissions
and approvals have been obtained prior to initiating any part of
the project. It also includes the submission of updated project
information to appropriate authorities for significant changes
beyond the reporting baseline established in the original or
amended approvals.
The project leader should consult as early as
possible, with Treasury Board Secretariat, particularly for
larger projects of higher risk and complexity, proposing a
suitable management framework for staff concurrence. Project
leaders are to ensure that a specific project is managed in
accordance with the approved management framework. Updated
project documentation may also propose a change in management
framework should the risk assessment conducted in accordance with
the guidelines in Appendix C demonstrate a decrease (or increase)
in project risk.
Project Managers
Project Managers are responsible for the
day-to-day management of the project as set out in the charter or
agreement with the project leader.
Participating departments
Participating departments are to determine the
nature and degree of the effect of the proposed project on their
operations, asset base or other interests. They then respond to
the project leader defining the nature and extent of proposed
participation in the project. Joint commitment to any project
specific activity to be carried out by a participating department
that is deemed essential to the success of the project must be
documented in an appropriate interdepartmental agreement.
Participating departments are to select their
project officers based upon an established human resources
management profile, project management experience and abilities,
and in consideration of the significance, scope, complexity,
risk, and visibility of the project.
Contracting Authority
The Contracting Authority is responsible:
- for participating in the project as a participating
department (as per paragraph 3 above);
- to ensure the legal soundness of any contract and to maintain
the government standards of prudence, probity and equity when
dealing with the private sector;
- to support the project in accordance with any existing
legislation or general interdepartmental arrangements;
- to provide any project-specific services (such as
procurement) as described in any agreement or MOU concluded with
the sponsoring department; and
- to make submissions to the Treasury Board for authority to
enter into contracts and to amend contracts as set out in the
Contracting volume of the Treasury Board Manual.
The Treasury Board Secretariat will monitor
departmental compliance with this policy through review of the
quality of the Project Management Framework and other relevant
sections of project approval submissions, and by reviewing
adherence to the content of Treasury Board decisions.
The effectiveness of this policy will be reviewed
periodically by the Administrative Policy Branch of the Treasury
Board Secretariat.
This policy replaces Chapter 542 and the project
management aspects provided in Chapter 540 of the Treasury Board
Administrative Policy Manual. It is issued under the authority of
Section 7 of the Financial Administration Act. It should be read
in conjunction with the other chapters in this volume and other
Treasury Board policies, particularly those dealing with Real
Property, Risk Management, Materiel Management, Information
Technology Management, Contracting and Common Service
Organizations.
For enquiries related to policy interpretation or
concerning submissions related to contracts for specific
projects, departments should contact the Executive Director, Procurement and Project Management Policy Directorate, Comptrollership Branch, Treasury Board Secretariat.
For questions relating to details of specific projects, departments should contact their analyst within the Treasury Board Secretariat Program Sectors and, as appropriate, their specialist analyst in the Real Property and Materiel Policy Directorate, or the Chief Information Officer Branch.
Within the limitations defined in the application
paragraph, this appendix applies to the management of projects
jointly funded by federal departments with other levels of
government or foreign government agencies. Cabinet may appoint a
specific department as lead department for such a project,
however, normally the federal department sponsoring the project
acts as lead department. The lead department provides the project
leader, who performs the role and assumes the responsibilities
defined in this chapter.
Project leaders should coordinate with all
project participants (including Treasury Board Secretariat), an
appropriate project management framework based upon a current
project profile and risk assessment (PPRA). The management
arrangements must be consistent with this policy and must be
documented in Interdepartmental agreements, Memoranda of
Understanding or equivalent documentation. The agreements must
include how any deviations such as cost overruns will be treated.
They must include a termination option should funding be deemed
insufficient.
Submissions to amend approvals for jointly funded
project approvals must specify how any additional costs or
obligations will be shared.
These provisions also apply to projects funded
totally or in part by the federal government but that are covered
by agreements providing for implementation by another party.
Contributions, loans, loan guarantees and similar
financial instruments are frequently used for federal government
funding or joint-funding of project-like initiatives falling
outside the application limitations of this policy (for example,
foreign aid). Policy and requirements for the management of such
financial instruments are provided under Chapter 4-1 and in the
Financial management volume of the Treasury Board Manual.
The Project Management Council (PMC)
Several federal government departments have
agreed to participate in a PMC. The PMC's mandate includes:
- providing advice to the Treasury Board Secretariat and
assisting it in the development, revision, and evaluation of
policy for the management of projects; and
- fostering within the government project management community:
communications, professional development, training and
orientation, improved methodologies, exchange of "lessons
learned" and liaison with external organizations to increase
efficiency and effectiveness of project management.
Basic project management concepts
General
Several departments maintain detailed manuals for
the management and delivery of projects. There are also many
commercial texts providing theoretical and practical principles
and guidance for project management.
The following high-level concepts are not
intended to replace or to supplement existing project management
manuals nor provide sufficient detail to assist experienced
project managers. They are intended as background for project
leaders and as a common reference for communication with senior
management within the sponsoring department and with other
participating departments, Treasury Board Secretariat and
Treasury Board. As documents and manuals are amended, departments
should attempt, through the PMC, to harmonize the terms and
concepts in this guideline and those used in their related
departmental manuals.
Departments that are developing or amending
internal project management manuals at a greater level of detail
than provided here are encouraged to standardize their
documentation through coordination with members of the Project
Management Council.
Concepts
Project leader: The project leader establishes
the context and resource allocations of a specific project and is
the interface between the project and senior management of the
sponsoring department, with participating departments and with
Treasury Board Secretariat. This includes ensuring that all
relevant project submissions are made and approvals obtained
prior to initiating any portion of the project. The project
leader prepares a project profile and a risk assessment and uses
it to establish, with all project participants and with Treasury
Board Secretariat, an appropriate management framework for the
project.
Departments may assign a group of projects that
are related in some significant way, but that do not form a
single entity for change control purposes, to an individual
Project Leader for overall management. Submissions to Treasury
Board, when required, may request approval of the group of
projects or individual projects as appropriate. Care should be
taken to ensure that there is no perception of "project
splitting" to avoid approval authority limits or an adequate
definition of a complex project. The accountability of the
Project Leader for each specific project is unchanged by this
approach. However, the Project Leader may be held accountable for
defining and managing the relationship between the projects when
this is a factor in project approval considerations and for
dealing with any significant change in departmental program
delivery resulting from the cumulative effect of the group of
projects.
Project manager: The project manager works
totally within the context established by the Project Leader in
an agreement or charter, carrying out the more detailed
day-to-day management of project activities.
Project charter: The project leader and the
project manager should prepare and commit to a project agreement
or charter. This is a document that sets out the approved project
objectives, and the project manager's responsibilities, delegated
authorities and allocated resources. The project charter should
be updated after any significant change to these items.
Responsibilities of the project manager: They
include:
- based on a fully scoped view of the project, establishing an
appropriate organizational structure for managing the project
itself, and assigning and detailing roles and responsibilities
identified in pertinent internal and interdepartmental
agreements;
- negotiating and obtaining written agreements with
participating departments when project-specific resource
commitments or activities need to be documented in the interests
of effective management of the project. A model interdepartmental
agreement is provided in Appendix E. Project managers should be
cautious in planning any arrangements with private sector
companies that could be deemed to be "joint ventures", as the
government could incur unintended legal and financial
liabilities. In such instances policy requirements in Chapter 4-1
may apply. Project Managers considering any such arrangements
should consult first with Treasury Board Secretariat;
- applying systematic techniques to define (or to complete the
definition of) the project for approval and to manage the project
as approved. The application of these techniques could
include:
- organizing the project using planning and analytical tools
for work breakdown, responsibility assignment, and schedule
preparation;
- using these tools to estimate benefits and costs for project
alternatives;
- using these tools to estimate risk and to plan for risk
reduction;
- phasing the project to limit risk, with the aim of achieving
improvement in accuracy of project cost, schedule and performance
objectives with each phase;
- implementing a suitable database system to track key
objective and numerical information for the project. A simple
database structure suitable for virtually any commercial database
management system supported by a personal computer is outlined in
Appendix D;
- implementing a Project Performance Management System (PPMS)
appropriate to the size and complexity of the project. For a
small procurement project, this could be as simple as noting and
following up on delivery dates and acceptance criteria in the
contract. For other projects, periodic contractor management,
financial, configuration and test reports controlled by formal
data item descriptions in the contract may be appropriate. For
more complex projects, a comprehensive cost-schedule-performance
management system may be necessary. A government standard
(Canadian General Standards Board CGSB # 187.1.93) for project
cost/performance management has been agreed between government
and industry and accepted by several departments, details of
which are available from the Project Support Branch of Government
Services Canada. It is strongly recommended this standard be used
in developing a PPMS for a specific project;
- implementing a systematic method to report progress to
internal management (and to Treasury Board if required). A
suggested format for a progress report is provided in Appendix D;
and
- drafting a communications plan and keeping it up-to-date.
Should the project not proceed as expected, or experience
technical or financial difficulty, the project manager should be
prepared to support the project leader in responding to inquiries
from the media and the general public;
- preparing documentation in support of the project leader for
dialogue with senior management of project participants and for
submission to ministerial and Treasury Board approval
authorities, as necessary;
- preparing, for the project leader, a timely request for
consideration of amended project objectives when it is clear that
the existing ones cannot be met;
- identifying specific performance milestones in the work plan
where withdrawal or termination would be practical, should the
project cease to be viable during execution; and
- submitting, when specified by project approval authorities,
an evaluation of the performance of the project. The evaluation
should be prepared in coordination with the project leader. The
evaluation should be submitted within a reasonably short period
of time following project completion (for example, three months).
A suggested outline for a project evaluation is provided in
Appendix F.
Introduction
Adequate risk assessment and management is
important for all projects regardless of dollar value. This
guideline provides a framework for conducting risk assessments,
for preparing the Project Profile and Risk Assessment (PPRA)
document, for describing risk in project approval submissions,
for considering the effect of the state of the risk estimate on
estimating cost, and for the ongoing management of project risks.
An adequate risk assessment usually requires the contribution and
expertise of the contracting authority as well as any
participating departments. This is particularly important during
the initial assessment, which necessarily would be based upon
early project planning data.
Reference
Departments should refer to the Treasury Board
policy on Risk Management, which sets out requirements for
identifying and managing of all types of risk to government
activities including, but not limited to, those due to accident
(insurable risk).
Risk assessment and cost estimates
Project leaders should ensure that cost
estimates, including their classification (see definitions in the
Glossary) reflect the assessed risk for the various phases of
projects and that they have been developed using appropriate and
comprehensive risk estimating practices in conjunction with other
cost impact assessments. Commercial risk assessment software
packages are available to assist the project leader in
determining internal project risk.
Project risk assessment
External risk factors are circumstances over
which project management cannot exert a controlling influence.
These factors include such elements as externally imposed
deadlines, cooperative development obligations or statutory
requirements.
Internal risk factors are circumstances that
project management can control. These factors include such
elements as the allocation of adequate resources and the
reliability of cost estimates.
Both internal and external risk factors should
always be considered in the overall risk assessment. Internal
risk factors may be more tangible and their impacts on cost
estimated with a greater degree of confidence. For external risk
factors, it may not always be possible to provide cost impacts.
However, these external risks must be identified and sufficiently
detailed in project management and project approval documents to
apprise approval authorities of their existence and potential
impacts on the success of the project.
Levels of risk
The risk assessment should indicate an overall
project risk level as either high, medium or low. As project
definition progresses, the risk assessment should be periodically
updated to reflect the additional information available.
Assessment of Risk
The following is a list of the type of factors
that should be considered when assessing risk. These factors are
only indicators of the possibility of risk. The assessment should
consider the significance of these indicators for a specific
project:
- the department's allocation of resources to the project may
be affected by changes in government priorities;
- the schedule is externally imposed or the project is
susceptible to time delays resulting from: relatively minor
changes in technology; requirements of participating departments;
available windows of opportunity with international partners;
seasonal considerations (for example, access to the Arctic); the
need for regulatory approvals (such as environmental
assessments), or other similar factors;
- at the time of the assessment, the private sector does not
have the requisite capability in terms of the technology,
expertise, industrial practices, management techniques or skilled
and stable labour force required to undertake the project;
- the sponsoring department is not experienced in managing and
developing cost estimates for a project of a particular magnitude
or type (for example, international cooperation including the
effect of exchange rates), or cannot assign sufficient in-house
expertise;
- the project is particularly large in scale and complexity,
involving more participating departments or contractors than
similar projects previously sponsored by the department;
- there are no feasibility studies, test or user trial
programs, pre-production appraisals, similar production items,
reliable construction estimates, or other similar data upon which
the base a risk assessment;
- project deliverables require research, development and
testing of unproven technology or assemblies of products;
- the project requires that work critical to the end-product be
done in several different locations, particularly when the
locations are isolated or environmentally sensitive;
- the project involves inherent hazards of a biological,
chemical, environmental, radiological, explosive, toxic or other
similar nature;
- the continuity or availability of a portion of project
funding or other project activity is contingent upon the ability
of other participants, especially non-federal government
participants, to meet their obligations when and as defined in
project agreements; and
- the impact of potential contingent or residual liabilities
arising from participation in joint or shared funded projects
including liabilities caused by withdrawal from the project by
one or more participants.
Examples of arrangements addressed by the last
two factors include sharing of financial responsibilities in
federal/provincial or government/private sector joint projects.
To the extent the private sector is involved in the project, the
assessment of these risk factors must involve a review of the
technical and financial stability of the firm and of the industry
or environment the firm operates within. Where there are
third-party financial backers, the assessment of these risk
factors must examine the stability of these companies in view of
the security they have offered the Crown.
Assessment of high risk
A project (or element of a project) may be
assessed as high risk if one or more of the above hazards exist
in a significant way and, unless mitigated, would result in
probable failure to achieve project objectives. Project
management should prepare approaches to reduce this risk through
strategies such as phased development, funded system design by
private industry, prototyping, pilot systems and user trials.
Project management should ensure that senior departmental
management is kept fully briefed regarding these plans as well as
project progress and be prepared to quickly request access to
sources of expertise within the sponsoring and any participating
departments as well as the contracting authority.
Assessment of medium risk
A project (or element of a project) may be
assessed as medium risk if some of the above hazards exist but
have been mitigated to the point that allocated resources and
focused risk management planning should prevent significant
negative effect on the attainment of project objectives.
Assessment of low risk
A project (or element of a project) should be
assessed as low risk if the above hazards do not exist or have
been reduced to the point where routine project management
control should be capable of preventing any negative effect on
the attainment of project objectives.
Management of project risk
Project leaders should ensure that project
management:
- initiates, during the project planning phase, a continuing
process for assessing project risk;
- includes, during the project definition phase (when
applicable), formal steps to reduce project risk;
- prepares outline plans for dealing with actual project
contingencies;
- prepares a Project Profile and Risk Assessment as defined in
this Guideline and keeps it up-to-date;
- specifies these measures in the project management framework
sections of project approval documentation;
- prepares revised project approval documentation when the
project risk assessment changes significantly; and
- prepares an outline of a communications plan for high risk
activities that may attract media or public attention, including
the appointment of a spokesperson.
Project Profile and Risk Assessment (PPRA)
The Policy Requirements section states that the
sponsoring department is to prepare a Project Profile and Risk
Assessment for all projects for consultation with project
participants, including Treasury Board Secretariat, regarding the
appropriate management framework for an individual project. This
is the management framework that will be developed and specified
in the submission document for Treasury Board ministers to
approve. A PPRA document that is coordinated with Treasury Board
Secretariat should record the concurrence or views of other
participants in the project, or members of the SPAC, if
applicable. Particular use of the PPRA is to obtain concurrence
from project participants to propose to Treasury Board that the
management framework for a project:
- that has a projected total cost exceeding $100 million, may
be tailored based on the current risk assessment; or
- that has a projected total cost less than $100 million but a
current risk assessment of high, should include part or all of
the MCP framework management controls (include proposed SPAC
membership).
When a department has created a database with the
structure outlined in Appendix D, revised PPRA documents
reflecting the current status of knowledge concerning the project
could be generated very quickly.
The PPRA should be prepared as early as possible
after the project leader is assigned and be updated as necessary.
It should address the following:
(a) an outline of the political, international or
strategic context in which the project is proceeding, including
direction given by Cabinet as part of approval-in-principle, if
applicable;
(b) the reporting relationships (including
membership of the SPAC, if applicable) that the sponsoring
department has established or proposes for the project;
(c) the status and major effects of any proposed
or finalized agreements;
(d) the results of the current project risk
assessment, including the estimated effect on project costs, and
risk management strategies proposed; and
(e) the proposed management framework.
Departments should encourage the use of
information technology to generate, store and retrieve key data
relative to projects.
Content of project progress reports
Project progress reports, when required, should
be prepared in accordance with the Treasury Board Submissions
Guide (TBSG), with content consistent with this list of topics.
These topics are intended to relate directly to, and can be drawn
from, a project database. The report should be prepared with very
little additional text. Departments may wish to delegate
authority for the submission of reports to the project leader.
The procedure to be followed for this delegation is provided in
the TBSG. Information to be provided in the progress report
should include:
Security classification ________________
Date ________________
Report number ________________
Treasury Board Decision number
________________
Report Item (using relevant supporting database
field names that follow in the database section of this
guideline)
Signatures
Project Leader Date
|
Deputy Minister Date
|
Minister Date
|
Representative databases for project management
The simple data field descriptions given below
can be incorporated into a project database supported by
virtually any personal computer (PC) database software. These
database definitions are intended to be a starting point for
future electronic interchange of data (EDI) concerning
projects.
Field name
|
Explanation
|
Sponsoring Department
|
See Glossary
|
Project Title
|
As chosen by sponsoring department
|
Project Number
|
As assigned by sponsoring department
|
Treasury Board (TB) Number
|
Provided by Treasury Board Secretariat with the
Decision letter
|
Project Summary
|
Include relationship to any Cabinet direction,
department's roles and missions; and net change in service or
function, PYs or O&M costs
|
Project Life-Cycle Cost
|
Total estimated cost during the life of the
project
|
Duration
|
Estimated duration of the overall project
|
Risk Assessment
|
Short summary of the risk assessment and
reference to substantiating documents
|
PM Framework
|
Short description of the project management
framework (include provisions to address assessed risk level)
|
Project Plan
|
Short description of the project plan
|
Class of Estimate
|
For the current phase
|
Cost Objective
|
The authorized expenditure for the current
phase
|
Cash Flow
|
The estimated cash flow by year until project
completion
|
Regional Expenditures
|
Estimated project expenditures by region
|
Schedule Objective
|
For the current phase
|
Performance Objective
|
For the current phase
|
IRB Objectives
|
Industrial and Regional Benefits (IRBs)
objectives for the current phase
|
Other Objectives
|
Other project objectives for the current
phase
|
Contracts
|
Short description of the status of contracts
awarded, with name of contractor and contract value
|
Actual Expenditures
|
As of the most recent update of the database
|
Estimate at Completion
|
Estimate at completion consists of the sum of the
actual expenditures for the current phase plus the associated
latest estimate of costs for work remaining in that phase
|
Elapsed Schedule
|
In relation to the approved schedule (in
months)
|
Time to Complete
|
To meet the approved objectives for the current
phase, as of the most recent update of the database
|
Estimate at Completion
|
A calculated field totalling "Actual
Expenditures" plus "Cost to Complete"
|
Cost Deviation
|
A calculated field totalling "Estimate at
Completion" less "Cost Objective"
|
Schedule Deviation
|
A calculated field totalling "Elapsed Schedule"
plus "Time to Complete" less "Schedule Objective"
|
Objective Deviation
|
A short recapitulation of the achievement of
performance, IRBs and any other objectives compared to those
approved by Treasury Board for the phase
|
Lessons Learned
|
A summary of lessons learned during the phase and
after its completion, focusing on key words to assist in
subsequent database searches
|
This model agreement may also be used for
interdepartmental arrangements with appropriate revisions.
THIS AGREEMENT IS MADE BETWEEN
(sponsoring department) "A" and (participating
department) "B"
Preamble (to establish the context for the
agreement)
"A" has initiated a project to (description of
project), requiring performance of. . .(certain specific
functions, e.g. conducting an assessment of environmental
impact); and
"B" is capable of undertaking the performance of
a specific function; and
"A" and "B" have agreed that the performance
shall be undertaken by "B" according to the terms of this
agreement,
IT IS AGREED THAT (specific
agreements)
Definitions.
Delegated authorities, naming individuals
responsible to act for the parties.
Scope of agreement in project context, possibly
an attached statement of work and schedule.
Specific undertakings, including financial
arrangements, e.g. cost recovery basis and method, commitment to
use approved project management principles, etc.
Project management organization and
representation
AGREEMENT EFFECTIVE
This agreement shall come into force on . . . and
shall expire on . . ., unless . . .
AMENDMENT
This agreement shall be subject to amendment as
mutually agreed by . . .,
signature block
|
signature block
|
"A"
|
"B"
|
Date
|
Date
|
Project leaders should ensure that a project
evaluation is performed for all projects. Project evaluations
should be prepared within three months after completion of
project implementation and with content consistent with this
guideline. The evaluation report should be filed with other
formal project documentation as well as with those departmental
authorities responsible for coordinating project management
policy and procedures. These project evaluation reports would
form a valuable resource of "lessons learned" to support
improvements to policy and procedures.
When warranted by the nature of a specific
project, project approval authorities (either departmental or
Treasury Board in the case of projects beyond the approval
authority of the sponsoring minister) may require the submission
of a report evaluating the implementation of a project. When
preparing such a report, the nature and depth of the evaluation
should be coordinated between the project leader and project
approval authorities. It is possible that a separate evaluation
of the project definition phase may also be required. Such a
report should be prepared in accordance with the Treasury Board
Submissions Guide and submitted within three months after the end
of the project definition phase.
This guideline provides some general advice on
the structure and content of the project evaluation. However, the
project leader should ensure that an evaluation is prepared with
depth and detail appropriate to the particular size and nature of
the project. Other departments involved in the implementation of
the project should be invited to submit their evaluation and
associated lessons learned. Further, project leaders may wish to
refer to this guideline for purposes of periodic in-progress
evaluation.
Evaluation factors
The evaluation should be based on the originally
approved project objectives, and any subsequently approved
changes. The following factors should be considered:
- attainment of objectives;
- effectiveness of any agreements between sponsoring and
participating departments;
- effectiveness of the project plan, the project organization
and management systems;
- appropriateness of the project management principles and
practices of the sponsoring and any participating
departments;
- adherence to policies and practices and interpretation of
guidelines,
- deficiencies and problems experienced, such as:
- delays in obtaining approvals;
- unplanned work stoppages;
- personnel shortages;
- outstanding items or activities not completed by project
management personnel at the time of project evaluation.
Evaluations should conclude with an
identification of lessons learned and suggested improvement of
these guidelines for the conduct of future projects.
|