Office Of Government Commerce Research Articles

Assessment of Project Management Maturity Models Strengths and Weaknesses

The purpose of this article is to analyze the most popular maturity models in order to identify their strengths and weaknesses. Research conducted by international project management communities such as Software Engineering Institute (SEI), Project Management Institute (PMI), International Project Management Association (IPMA), Office of Government Commerce (OGC) and International Organization for Standardization (ISO) showed that organizations with high managerial maturity are more likely to achieve their planned project goals than those that do not identify and standardize their best management practices. This circumstance has encouraged scientists from all over the world to start developing various models that can measure and evaluate managerial maturity in projects. Nowadays, the variety of models created has led to considerable difficulty in understanding the strengths and weaknesses of each model. To solve this problem, the article authors conducted a critical analysis to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the most popular project management maturity models. The results obtained will be of interest to project managers, members of project teams, heads of organizations, project offices and everyone involved in the development of project activities. Based on the analysis, it was found that the most developed maturity models are based on international codes of knowledge of project management. Most maturity models ignore the presence of structural and infrastructural elements, such as a workplace, the necessary equipment and software, the availability of professional standards, instructions, regulations, etc. It was also revealed that there are no processes for assessing the effectiveness and efficiency of using the best practices in the maturity models.

Essential Factors that Increase the Effectiveness of Project/Programme Risk Management

The Office of Government Commerce (OGC) (2005, p.2)states that “there are several factors that could make the project fail such as the lack of a clear link between the project and the organisation's key strategic priorities, including agreed measures of success and the lack of clear senior management ownership and leadership”. The purpose of this paper is to investigate factors that contribute positively into increasing the effectiveness of project risk management in an enterprise context. This paper is an outcome of an on-going research project with Rolls-Royce plc. which explores the effectiveness of risk management within the project/programme and further to the organisation context. Observation, Interviews and a questionnaire survey were the main tools of the research methodology. Results of this indicate that there is room for improving the integration risk and programme and project management. In some cases, there is an opportunity for developing in projects/programmes a more risk-aware culture. The contributory factors are leadership and senior management support, different education and training for all the levels of the organisation, support from a dedicated risk manager, communication and use of the risk management data for making decisions. All the above are factors that contributes in increasing the effectiveness of risk management process in the organisational context by creating a more risk aware culture.

Project management (PRINCE2) foundation qualification

This qualification is aimed at anyone who works as part of a project team, regardless of their organisation’s size or type (public or private sector). I took the course in December 2009. PRINCE2 (projects in a controlled environment) is a structured project management method developed by the UK Office of Government Commerce. The PRINCE2 foundation qualification is internationally recognised in project management. For a general practitioner, projects are an important way to introduce change and innovation into the practice and are …

Public-private partnerships and the Private Finance Initiative

The November 2006 Bulletin paper by Martin McKee et al., Public–private partnerships for hospitals (84(11):890–96), makes several valid and useful points about the Private Finance Initiative (PFI) in the building of new United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (UK) hospitals. In particular, the emphasis on the failure of the UK government to undertake a rigorous evaluation of the PFI is welcome, as is the coverage of ministers’ attempts to discredit the work of scholars whose research has disproved many of the claims made in favour of it.1,2 At the same time, the paper has some serious weaknesses. First, at several points it treats the key issues raised by the PFI as if they were still open, when from a scientific viewpoint this is unjustified. The paper fails to draw attention to an extensive and detailed empirical literature dealing with the affordability problems created by PFI and their impact on public expenditure and the scope of service provision. Given the quantity of detailed research devoted to this and related issues over a period of more than ten years, not least by my own research team (previously at University College London and now at the University of Edinburgh)3–9 and the failure of any PFI supporter to refute the findings, it is surprising to see the debate as a whole described by fellow scientific researchers as “ideological”. The paper’s concluding statement that “it is impossible to say whether the model underlying public–private partnerships is flawed or whether the difficulties … are the result of mistakes in its execution” is not even consistent with the authors’ own apparent conclusions in the body of the paper. Second, the authors seriously understate some of the problems they acknowledge that the PFI presents. There is no reference to the systematic failures of risk transfer, which underpins the government’s justification for using private financing, rather than less costly public financing. The paper claims that PFI investments are high-risk and near “junk bond” status, suggesting extensive risk transfer. The paper cites the Office of Government Commerce (OGC) in this context. But the OGC’s claim does not relate to the risks borne by investors, which are generally triple A, and only refers to bonds (www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/6066B/ppp_GuidanceonCertainFinancing.pdf). It is true that the underlying credit strength of PFI projects is usually in the range of BBB– to BBB+. However, most PFI bonds to date have been “wrapped” by a monoline insurer, allowing the bonds to benefit from an AAA rating. The cost of this insurance is borne by the public. Therefore, risk transfer in bond financing is paid by the public through the costs of private finance and the insurance costs. The paper acknowledges that the very low risk actually transferred to the private consortia has enabled the latter to enjoy “significant benefits”. But the scale of the profits made through refinancing – in the case of the Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital project giving returns of 70% on the contractors’ original investment – is surely more than a “significant benefit”: it is a misuse of public funding that fundamentally undermines the risk transfer argument. Third, the authors overlook further research that has demolished “the one positive finding” they claim has been established concerning the PFI: the government’s often-repeated assertion that it reduces the cost and time overruns of hospital procurement relative to the traditional system. A study of the evidence for this claim shows that it rests on a single erroneous report by a consultancy with a major interest in PFI projects (http://www.health.ed.ac.uk/CIPHP/publications/unison_2005_pfi_a_policy_built_on_sand_pollock.pdf, http://society.guardian.co.uk/societyguardian/story/0,1600183,00.html).10 The focus of this report was on price certainty after contracts are signed – a method that is bound to favour the PFI. A more valid comparison between PFI and traditional procurement pricing would involve increases from the Outline Business Case (OBC) stage, not post-contract increases. The PFI process from OBC to Final Business Case (FBC) is relatively longer than that in traditional procurement, and there are bigger differences between OBC and FBC figures for price and delivery time. Department of Health figures show that the average cost increase between OBC and financial close for “prioritised” PFI projects is 74.5%. Therefore, the paper’s statement that “compared with the traditional system, PFI facilities are more likely to be built on time and within budget” is unfounded. ■

Projects in controlled environments (PRINCE2). Two levels: foundation and practitioner

FURTHER INFORMATION Also see: Office of Government Commerce—www.ogc.gov.uk/methods\_prince\_2.asp ADM Group—www.apmgroup.co.uk Project managers in any industry. Doctors with a project management role, including research. I would not recommend it for doctors who are not involved with projects or management. November 2006. I had been in management for several years, having originally been a senior house officer. At the time, I was a project manager for a national pilot for the junior doctors' Working Time Directive for 2009. I was expected …

The measurement and role of government procurement in macroeconomic statistics

This article details the measurement and role of government procurement in the UK National Accounts. The need for an accurate estimate has increased following both internal and external users’ analytical requirements, in particular the development of measures of market sector gross value added, emphasis on government productivity and new methods for estimating National Accounts. Existing data collection methods are detailed, and specific initiatives are identified, some of which are already underway. These initiatives, which will involve working closely with HM Treasury, the Office of Government Commerce and other government departments, will focus on improving the product breakdown of, and price deflators for, government procurement data.

Managing value as a management style for projects

Value management (VM) is presented as a methodological management style for enhancing value in projects. It draws together conceptual thinking on the project as a value chain with historical and international developments in value management and value engineering (VE). Lessons are distilled from the authors’ and others published material and from their experience of conducting a diverse range of VM studies across the private and public sectors, at all project stages from inception to operation/facilities management, under all forms of procurement, and more recently as an underpinning in the development of a national asset strategy for the UK’s Environment Agency and for improving property asset management across the central civil government estate for the UK’s Office of Government Commerce. A series of study styles for conducting value management are presented with the potential to take VM to its next stage of development.

The importance of context in programme management: An empirical review of programme practices

The widespread use of programme management has outpaced our ability to grasp and codify a complex and subtle phenomenon. The dominant perspective of programme management is essentially project-based, tending to view programme management as an extension of project management. The most comprehensive and widely used programme management framework in the UK, Managing Successful Programmes, is published and used by the Office of Government Commerce, and purports to be pragmatic guidance in the form of key principles and techniques. This paper describes research on the actual practices used on programmes in commercial and UK public sector organisations. Using Managing Successful Programmes as a template for the data collection and analysis, we studied six programmes. Even in cases where Managing Successful Programmes was the mandated approach, the processes and techniques were not consistently applied, rather elements of the framework were selectively chosen and adapted. The research revealed significant and on-going crafting of programme content, structures and processes to reconcile divergent aims and interests, to expedite progress in the face of adversity and to engage multiple sponsors, contributors and stakeholders. The research highlighted the importance and influence of context, namely the dynamic cultural, political and business environment in which the programmes operate, and the organisationally embedded nature of programme management.

Public Policy and the Development of a UK National Geographic Information Strategy

In March 2005 the Government published a report assessing the progress that had been made since 1999 in embracing digital technology in the UK. It declared that there had been a transformation in its use within the UK economy and civil society and that Britain had moved dramatically up international league tables in the take-up of IT and in its engagement in the e-economy. Since the Millennium, the Government has been busy re-organising its procurement and service arrangements and information channels. It has encouraged departments and agencies to embrace digital technology and to capture the efficiency gains that this can offer. New offices have been established within the reporting structures of the Cabinet Office and HM Treasury to drive these initiatives forward. They are the e-Government Unit, the Office of Government Commerce and the Office of Public Sector Information. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is also active in the management of geographic information. A key driver for these Offices is engaging with digital technology in a form that will both advance the UK economy and improve business and consumer access to information and services. This paper explores these issues in the context of one specific area of policy viz., the creation, development and exploitation of geographic information within a spatial data infrastructure. The latter raises, in microcosm, many of the issues that the Government must tackle as it develops its digital and eGovernment transformation agendas. This paper will assess to what extent the Government can be said to have clear objectives as to how it plans to develop a geographic information strategy for the UK. It also considers what needs to be done to enable the diverse range of organisations, both within the public and private sectors, to move forward in the promotion of geographic information services as a supporting mechanism to the delivery of eGovernment policies.

The National Audit Office's review of the OGC's initiatives in respect of IT procurements

On 5th November 2004, the National Audit Office (NAO) issued a value-for-money review of the work carried out to date by the Office of Government Commerce (OGC) in respect of IT procurements. It specifically reviewed tools, guidance and other literature issued by the OGC and assessed the OGC's input in respect of five major projects affecting three government departments. Of specific note to lawyers, the NAO report does not comment upon the latest version of the Successful Delivery Toolkit produced by the OGC at the end of October 2004.

The new OGC guidance: The future roadmap for government IT procurement

In November 2004, the Office of Government Commerce (OGC) published important new guidance and model contracts for Government IT procurements known as the “ Decision Map Documentation”. This article gives an overview of the Decision Map Documentation and looks at its implications for both private sector contractors and Government procurement professionals.

Policy Network Analysis of UK Central Government Civil Procurement

This paper analyses recent policy developments in civil procurement by UK central government departments and agencies using policy network analysis. The research was funded by an ESRC personal research grant (No. 000237023), and included a questionnaire survey and follow-up interviews of heads of procurement in government departments and agencies, as well as interviews with members of management boards responsible for procurement. The paper maps changes in the policy networks from 1995 to 2000, showing an increasing recognition of the importance of procurement in government policy and a commensurate rise in the status of the procurement function. In particular, the extent to which procurement is seen as contributing to core government policies and processes, such as obtaining better value for money from public expenditure, is reflected in the integration of procurement networks at the centre of government with traditionally powerful policy networks based within Treasury and the Cabinet Office, demonstrated by the establishment of the Office of Government Commerce (OGC) within Treasury. However, that integration has not occurred within all departments and agencies, with the result that procurement's contribution is not being optimised fully across government, and attempts by the centre to ensure uniform implementation of procurement policy raise issues of centre departmental power and interdepartmental relationships. Finally, the paper concludes that policy networks provide a valid and useful theoretical framework for the analysis of public procurement.