PROJECT

MANAGEMENT
FRAMEWORK

Guidance Notes

January 2005
Introduction
Cardiff University strives continually to improve the effectiveness of its management
processes. The University does this to give its stakeholders the best value-for-money.
Income has grown substantially in recent years and the large annual budget, £160
million in 2001/2, funds an increasing number of high-value projects. The larger
projects include new buildings and new IT systems. Furthermore, the University's
success in research is leading to the award of many high-value and longer-term
research contracts. These large projects are a welcome sign of our success and our
investment for the future, but if for any reason we fail to meet timescale, budget or
performance we could incur serious financial and reputation loss. Consequently one of
the most important management processes in the University is 'project management'.

The University has a number of project management processes, and they have evolved
over time to meet the needs of individual schools or budget holders. Many of these
processes have served the University well, however the larger size and complexity of
current projects has put a strain on our management systems. One common problem in
Cardiff and the wider community is that formal project management processes often
commence at the time of contract award. Consequently there is a risk that pre-contract
work is inadequate or unable to integrate fully with post-contract management
processes. To mitigate this risk and introduce best practice on project management we
have reviewed proven processes from the public and private sector.

The review of best practice revealed a need for an integrated set of processes
throughout the project 'life-cycle'. The life-cycle can be described as a series of distinct
stages, with work progressing from conceptual stages through to implementation
stages and into operational and evaluation stages. A key management activity in this
life-cycle approach is a searching and independent review of progress at the end of
each stage to determine whether objectives have been achieved, and whether the next
stage can commence. The review at the end of each stage is often referred to as the
'gateway' to the next stage.

Cardiff University has developed a Project Management Framework based on best

practice. Five 'trial' projects using the new Framework have shown that the new
process achieves its key objectives. Consequently I am pleased to endorse the enclosed
guidance notes and the associated selection criteria for projects that will be managed
under the new process.

Dr David Grant
Vice-Chancellor
 Contents

The Project Management Framework 1

Definition of a major project 2

Planning a project 2

Risk identification and assessment 3

Application of the Framework 5

Major research awards 5

The project manager 6

The independent reviewer 7

The head of school/director of division 8

Review meetings 9

Steering group 10

Support 11

Feedback 11

Appendix 1: Project life-cycle 12

Appendix 2: Checklist 13

Appendix 3: Research grant application Checklist 16

Appendix 4: Sample project plan 17

Appendix 5: Review pro forma 18

Appendix 6: Key players in the Project Management Framework 19

i
 A Project Management Framework for Cardiff University

1 What is the Project Management Framework?

1.1 The University is constantly involved in the management of a large number of

projects ranging from the very simple to the very complex. Proper
management of these projects is essential to ensure success. Many project
management techniques are already in regular use at Cardiff but are not always
described in these terms. The Project Management Framework aims to provide
consistent practice and guidance across the University to help those involved in
projects to deliver successful outcomes.

1.2 The Framework is designed to:

 be simple to understand and to operate;

 be flexible and adaptable to the type and scale of each project;
 ensure adequate control and provide an appropriate level of reporting;
 provide an appropriate level of consistency of approach across projects;
 incorporate existing University processes wherever appropriate;
 be acceptable to all involved with benefits clearly evident.

1.3 Most people consider project management to be concerned simply with the
practical implementation stage. However, it is important to consider every
stage from the initial conception of the idea to the longer-term impact of the
project. The Framework therefore adopts a life-cycle approach and separates
each project into the following five stages:

• Stage 1: identification of need;

• Stage 2: option analysis and approval;
• Stage 3: implementation of the project;
• Stage 4: evaluation of the project and the supporting Framework;
• Stage 5: long-term review.

1.4 In considering the options in Stage 2, it is particularly important to consider the

resource implications associated with each phase of the project all the way
through to Stage 5. The importance of thorough planning in the initial Stages 1
and 2 of a project cannot be over-emphasised and this can be a time consuming
process. In addition, most projects will not end with the completion of the
implementation phase but will continue in the longer-term probably with
associated costs. Therefore, when assessing the resource implications of the
various options in Stage 2, account must be taken of the staffing and non-
staffing costs associated with the full life-cycle of each option. The mechanism
for the selection and approval of the chosen option will depend on the nature of
the project e.g. in accordance with current practice, large-scale projects will be
subject to formal committee approval whilst research applications will be
approved by heads of schools/RACD. Under the Framework, monitoring and
control of the progress of the project are provided through review meetings
held at pre-determined key stages; these meetings will be conducted by an
independent reviewer. The evaluation stage will not only be concerned with
comparing the outcomes of the project against its objectives but also with
assessing the usefulness of the Project Management Framework itself with a

1
 view to identifying areas for improvement. Depending on the nature of the
project, the final stage of the process is concerned with a long-term evaluation
of user satisfaction with the project outcomes and/or the planning of a follow-
up phase. A diagrammatic representation of the life-cycle approach adopted in
the Project Management Framework and its various stages is provided in
Appendix 1.

2 When do you use the Framework?

2.1 The Framework is only required to be applied in full to major projects

and, for this purpose, a project is defined as ‘major’ if it involves:

• a total cost in excess of M£1; or

• a high risk in relation to the achievement of the University's aims/objectives;
or
• strategically important issues at a University-wide level.

2.2 Projects which do not meet any of the above criteria may still be deemed
‘major’ if they involve:

• three or more schools/divisions;

• significant time constraints/dependencies.

If, at any stage, you are unsure whether your project requires the application of
the full Project Management Framework, please contact the Planning Division.

2.3 The full Project Management Framework will only be applied to projects which
are classified as major. However, the Framework’s basic, underlying principles
of identifying need, analysing options, setting and monitoring targets for each
phase of the implementation stage, evaluation and long-term issues, should be
applied to any situation regardless of its complexity. As users become more
familiar with the process, this general approach will be integrated into everyday
working practice.

2.4 It is expected that all appropriate University procedures e.g. personnel,

procurement, will be followed as required by the project. These University
regulations are not set out in the Project Management Framework; guidance
should be sought from appropriate sources within the University as and when
necessary.

3 Planning

3.1 Much of project management is basically common sense but probably the most
important key to success is adequate planning at all stages of the project,
particularly at the beginning. To fail to plan is to plan to fail! However, in
order to plan, it is essential to establish at an early stage the precise objectives
of the project.

2
3.2 The key factors to be taken into account in planning any project are the
objectives/scope of the project, resources and time. All three are linked as
shown in the following diagram and if one of the parameters is altered, then
either or both of the other two will have to change e.g. if the scope of the
project is increased, then more time and/or resources will be needed.

T
ime

Scope Cost

3.3 When the project is given approval at the end of Stage 2, all of the above three
factors should be clearly defined and agreed.

4 Risk Identification and Assessment

4.1 The University has established a risk management system at the

corporate/governance level but it is equally important to apply risk management
at the individual project level. Risks will obviously vary between projects but
they will also vary within a project as it progresses from one stage to the next.
The Framework therefore requires that a risk assessment is carried out at every
review stage during the process. The key is not about avoiding risks totally but
identifying the main risks that can cause problems and finding ways of dealing
with them. Risk identification is the responsibility of the whole project team
and cannot be left to one individual. Identification of risks requires experience,
lateral thinking and common sense. A useful starting point is the criteria against
which the success of the project can be measured. The top-level risks are those
that can result in the success criteria not being met. Risks should also be
identified through:

• thorough research and understanding of all the aspects of the project

requirements including its interaction with other developments;
• seeking the advice of people who have experience and expertise in a
particular area;
• sharing the information gathered by members of the project team.

4.2 Risk assessment is a method of prioritising the relative importance of the risks
that have been identified and this can be facilitated by a subjective but simple
quantitative approach. The effect that a particular risk may have on the project
will depend on two factors:

• the probability that the risk will happen;

• the impact that the risk will have either on the specific project outcomes or
their subsequent effect on the University at large.

3
4.3 The probability that a risk will happen can be graded on a scale of 1 (Low) to 3
(High) using the following criteria:

Probability Value Description

Low 1 Unlikely but not impossible (0% - 20% chance)

Medium 2 Fairly likely to happen (20% - 50% chance)

High 3 More likely to happen than not (> 50% chance)

4.4 The impact of the risk can be generally broken down into one or more of the
factors to be considered when planning the project:

• project scope/outcomes.
• resources;
• timescale.

The impact on other areas may also be relevant e.g. impact on related projects
and these should also be included in the risk assessment.

As in the case of the probability of the risk occurring, the impact can also be
graded on a scale of 1 to 3 using the following criteria:

Impact Value Description

Low 1 Causing a small delay; or
Causing a small increase in cost; or
Causing a minor shortfall in project outcomes; or
Having a minor impact on the University.

Medium 2 Causing a significant delay; or

Causing a significant increase in cost; or
Causing a shortfall which may significantly affect
the project outcomes; or
Having a significant impact on the University.

High 3 Causing a major delay; or

Causing a major increase in cost; or
Causing a major shortfall in project outcomes;
Having a major impact on the University.

4.5 Risk = (Probability of the risk occurring) x (Impact on project outcomes).

Using the above grading schemes, the value of the risk will either be 1, 2, 3, 4,
6 or 9. If the resulting risk turns out to be greater than or equal to 3, then a
risk management/mitigation procedure must be devised.

4.6 Risks can generally be managed in one of four ways:

4
 • Treat – most risks will fall within this category and the purpose of
treatment is not to eliminate risk but to contain it to an acceptable level e.g.
through contingency plans;
• Tolerate – if the cost of the appropriate risk control is disproportionate to
the potential benefit gained, toleration of the risk may be an appropriate
response;
• Transfer – responsibility for containing the risk can be transferred to a third
party e.g. by taking out an insurance against the risk;
• Terminate – in some cases, the risks will only be containable to acceptable
levels by terminating the activity.

5 How do you apply the Framework?

5.1 The Framework identifies a set of checklists for each of the five stages to
ensure that all the key issues have been addressed. These are listed in Appendix
2 and the questions probably form the most important and useful part of
the Framework. In planning and running a project, it is essential that all the
issues identified in the checklists are addressed.

6 What happens in the case of major research awards?

6.1 As the University continues to increase its research profile, more research
awards will qualify as major projects as defined under Section 2 above.
However, it is recognised that, in many cases, monitoring the progress of such
projects during the implementation phase will be a formal part of the research
programme. In order to avoid any unnecessary duplication, holders of major
research awards will not be required to introduce separate review arrangements
for Stage 3 provided RACD is satisfied that the project has in place
appropriate monitoring arrangements which will meet the requirements
of the Project Management Framework. In cases where satisfactory
monitoring arrangements are not in place, the principal investigator will be
referred to the central contact point in PLAN so that an appropriate project
plan for the implementation phase (see Section 7 below) can be devised and an
independent reviewer appointed in accordance with the University's Project
Management Framework.

6.2 In the case of the development of major research applications, it is equally

important that due consideration is given to all the relevant issues identified in
Stages 1 and 2 of the Framework. In order to ensure that proper consideration
is given to these matters, the principal investigator and head of school are
required to complete the pro forma attached as Appendix 3. This pro forma
must be submitted to RACD before the final application is submitted to the
sponsor and this arrangement will also apply to grant applications that are to be
submitted electronically.

7 What is the role of the Project Manager?

5
7.1 The project manager will normally be identified during Stage 2 of the process
and will be appointed by the relevant committee/senior management/head of
school/project budget holder as appropriate. He/she will not necessarily be the
same person who conceived the idea or who undertook the option appraisal.
The project manager will drive the project forward from the implementation
stage to completion and will be responsible for:

• preparing the detailed project management plan from Stage 3 onwards;

• identifying risks and planning their management/mitigation;
• ensuring the project’s overall objectives, targets at various key stages, and
individuals’ responsibilities are clearly understood by all concerned;
• monitoring performance against the plan;
• highlighting areas of slippage and identifying/initiating corrective action;
• arranging meetings with the independent reviewer at key stages and
preparing summary progress reports prior to each meeting;
• ensuring appropriate communication between the members of the project
team and other project stakeholders including, where appropriate, the end
users;
• ensuring that the project complies with all appropriate University procedures
and regulations, e.g. personnel, financial and procurement etc.

7.2 One of the most important documents that the project manager will have
to prepare is the detailed project management plan which specifies the key
tasks, targets and timescales. Production of this plan must be regarded as
the top priority for Stage 3 as any delay can have serious impacts on the
successful implementation of the project.

The main steps in preparing a project plan can be summarised as follows:

• Identify the main tasks that need to be undertaken to achieve the project’s
objectives. These activities will generally occupy periods of time and
should be planned so that the overall project time is minimised; some will
occur concurrently whilst others will run consecutively.
• Identify responsible individual(s) for each task and the amount of
time/effort they will be required to provide. Occasionally very high levels
of resource will be necessary to meet programme requirements but ideally,
the project should be planned so that there are relatively smooth changes in
terms of staff input.
• Identify the key milestones which will enable the progress of the project to
be monitored. Milestones, just like the ones by the side of the road, simply
indicate the distance the project has travelled. They are concerned with
what progress has been achieved rather than how. As such, milestones
allow those monitoring the project to check progress without becoming
involved in operational issues which are the responsibility of the project
manager and project team. The best milestones involve simple “Yes/No”
answers to the question “Have we reached this particular milestone yet?”

7.3 Project plans can usefully be represented in a diagrammatic form by a so-called

Gantt chart (named after its inventor Charles Gantt). Simple Gantt charts can

6
 be prepared using a spreadsheet and an example is given in Appendix 4
showing the plan for the first two years of the project to implement the Project
Management Framework itself. The chart can also identify the individual(s)
responsible for each task.

7.4 Consideration is currently being given to the possibility of adopting Microsoft

Project as the standard software tool in the longer term. It is recognised,
however, that many projects will not be overly complex and will not require the
application of sophisticated software packages.

7.5 The project manager will generally be supported by a project team. Depending
on the nature of the project, the project team will be appointed either by the
relevant committee/senior management/head of school/project budget holder as
appropriate. The size and composition of the team will vary according to the
nature and complexity of the project but will generally consist of those directly
involved in implementing various parts of the project.

8 What is the role of the Independent Reviewer?

8.1 The Independent Reviewer is appointed from within the University by the
project’s ‘internal sponsor’ e.g. relevant University committee, senior
management etc. The reviewer will normally be identified, and become
involved in the project, towards the end of Stage 2 of the process. He/she is
required:

• to take a broad and independent view of the progress of the project;

• to decide at the end of each review meeting whether sufficient evidence has
been presented by the project manager to justify moving on to the next
phase of the project plan;
• where progress has not been made in accordance with the agreed plan, to
submit a report to the internal sponsor giving details, in particular, of any
factors which may impact adversely on the successful completion of the
project;
• to ensure that before moving on to the next stage:
♦ revised milestones are agreed where appropriate;
♦ the necessary time, skills and/or resources are available to complete the
next phase;
♦ any associated risks for the remainder of the project have been
identified and plans for their management/mitigation put in place.

8.2 At the end of each review meeting, the independent reviewer should complete a
pro forma (attached as Appendix 5) and forward it, together with the
supporting progress report from the project manager, to the central contact in
PLAN for processing as appropriate.

8.3 The initial involvement of the independent reviewer will normally be during the
early planning stages of the project towards the end of Stage 2 so that he/she is
aware of the general background to the development of the project and the
particular issues that may have to be faced. However, it is essential that the

7
 independent reviewer should not become a ‘Champion' of the project but
should remain at arm’s length at all times so that appropriate independence can
be demonstrated. Furthermore, the independent reviewer should not become
involved either in the direct management of the project or in the management of
the project manager. These responsibilities will rest with the Head of
School/Director of Division charged with implementing the project (possibly
through an intermediary such as the project budget holder).

8.4 The prime purpose of the independent reviewer is to act as a gate-keeper and
ensure that adequate checks are made on the progress of the project at key
stages before it is allowed to move on to the next phase. Where reservations
are identified, these should be raised in the first instance with the project
manager/project budget holder/head of school to identify the necessary
remedial action. If reservations subsequently remain, these will be formally
recorded on the pro forma by the independent reviewer and drawn to the
attention of the internal sponsor. This may result in the project being allowed
to proceed to the next phase with conditions attached or, if the lack of progress
is of major consequence, the overall scope, timescale and/or resourcing of the
project may have to be revised. The independent reviewer can only recommend
such changes; they will have to be formally approved by the internal sponsor.

8.5 The independent reviewer should follow the appropriate questions in the
checklists in Appendix 2 to ensure that the project manager has addressed all
the relevant issues.

9 What is the role of the Head of School/

Divisional Director?

9.1 Within a school/division, up to three people may be involved in the

implementation of the project:

• the Head of School/Divisional Director given responsibility for

implementing the project;
• the budget holder for the project;
• the project manager.

In certain cases, two or more of these roles may be merged.

9.2 The Head of School/Divisional Director charged with implementing the project
is ultimately responsible for:

• the management of the project manager (possibly through an intermediary

such as the project budget holder);
• for ensuring that the project proceeds according to the agreed plan.

(Depending on the nature of the project, the project manager and project team
will be appointed by the relevant committee/senior management/head of
school/project budget holder as appropriate.)

8
9.3 The relationship between the Head of School/Divisional Director and other key
players in the Project Management Framework is illustrated diagrammatically in
Appendix 6.

10 What happens at the review meetings?

10.1 Review meetings are held at key stages in the project as specified in the project
plan, and their purposes are:

• to review progress to date against targets;

• to determine in the light of progress made whether the project should be
allowed to proceed to the next stage; and, if so
♦ to ascertain whether the targets, timescale and resources for the next
stage are appropriate;
♦ to report accordingly to the appropriate University authority via the
central contact in PLAN.

10.2 Review Group meetings may take place throughout the project although
normally they will be held in Stages 3 to 5. Where there are significant
intervals between the key review dates in the project plan, additional interim
review meetings should be arranged so that the progress of the project is
formally monitored by the independent reviewer at least once every six months.

10.3 The following will be regular attendees at review meetings:

• the independent reviewer;

• the project manager;
• appropriate representative(s) of the senior line manager of the project
manager;

If appropriate, the independent reviewer may also invite to the meeting,

representatives of those sections, which may be internal or external to the
University, who are responsible for providing services /goods to help achieve
the specific targets for that particular stage.

10.4 On occasions, it may also be necessary for the independent reviewer to invite
additional people to the meeting with relevant experience of/expertise in the
specific issues being addressed. These individuals may be internal or external
to the University.

11 What is the role of a Steering

Group?

11.1 For the larger scale/more complex projects, it may be felt appropriate to
establish a Steering Group. The Project Management Framework can
accommodate such a Group and it can provide a valuable channel for the
involvement of, and input from, the clients of the project. However, the

9
 establishment of a Steering Group is not a requirement of the Project
Management Framework. It should only be set up where there are clear
benefits to be gained and it is essential that its role in relation to the other key
players is clearly defined and understood by all parties from the outset.

11.2 A Steering Group will normally be involved in Stages 1 and/or 2 of the Project
Management Framework. The Steering Group should not be involved either in
the management or monitoring of the project. These responsibilities rest with
the Project Manager/Head of School/Divisional Director, and the Independent
Reviewer/Internal Sponsor respectively.

11.3 The role of the Steering Group is purely advisory, and it plays no direct role in
the operation of the Framework. It may:

• be involved in needs analysis and/or identification of the project’s objectives

(Stage 1 and/or 2);
• offer guidance on the preparation of the original project plan (Stage 3);
• advise the internal sponsor on any subsequent changes to the agreed
objectives as may be necessary as the project proceeds, and how these
changes may be accommodated within the project plan (Stage 3).

Responsibility for implementing/approving any changes to the project plan rests

with the Independent Reviewer/Internal Sponsor.

11.4 The Independent Reviewer must not be part of, nor replaced by, a Steering
Group.

12 What support is available?

12.1 Project management will be a new experience for many staff and it will be
essential to provide appropriate initial and on-going training to those involved.
Training will be provided in three main areas:

• understanding the process as operated in Cardiff;

• general project management principles (including people management
skills);
• specific project management tools and techniques.

12.2 A central contact point in PLAN will be established to provide advice on

project management issues and to ensure a consistency of approach throughout
the University.

12.3 In addition, this individual will:

• maintain a list of all major projects satisfying the criteria noted under
Section 2 above;

10
 • ensure that for any new major project, the supporting project management
process is consistent with the University’s Framework and also appropriate
for the complexity of the individual project;
• refer to the Planning and Resources Committee, any projects which do not
meet the selection criteria noted above but which might benefit from the
adoption of a formal project management approach;
• forward any negative reports from the independent reviewer to the internal
sponsor for appropriate action;
• review the lessons learnt from the operation of Framework, and in
particular the evaluation phase of each project, and to develop the
Framework accordingly, referring any proposals for change to the Planning
and Resources Committee as the regulatory body for the Framework.

13 Feedback

13.1 The Project Management Framework is designed to encourage users to plan

and implement projects in a disciplined way so that all the relevant issues are
addressed thereby maximising the chances of successful outcomes. Feedback
on the usefulness of the Framework and the supporting Guidance Notes is
always welcome and should be sent to the Planning division (Ext. 4793/
Planning@cf.ac.uk).

Kath Hoose
January 2005

11
 STAGES OF PROJECT LIFE-CYCLE Appendix 1

Stages 1 2A 2B 3 4 5

Need Option Approval Implementation Evaluation Long-term

Identification Analysis review

START END
Project Project Review user
Progress Progress Completion outcomes Managmt. satisfaction/
Review 1 Review 2 against Framework future plans
objectives

Clear Feasible Option chosen; Progress Progress Sponsor Improvement Areas for
Outputs benefits solution(s) Resources Report: Report: satisfaction of Project improvement/
From identified identified committed; proceed if proceed if Management Follow-up
Stage Project satisfactory satisfactory Framework proposal
Manager/
Review Chair
identified

Planning and Risk Management

12
 Appendix 2

Checklist

1 Introduction

1.1 The following is a checklist of generic factors to be taken into account at the five key stages during the
life-cycle of a project viz. needs analysis, option analysis, implementation, evaluation and monitoring user
satisfaction/developing future plans. The checklist is not exhaustive and, in parts, it may be necessary for
the project manager to devise more specific questions in consultation with the independent reviewer. It
should also be remembered that different people may well be involved in answering questions at different
stages of the project e.g. the project manager may only be involved in answering questions relating to
Stages 3 and 4 whilst the project initiator may only be involved in Stages 1 and 2.

1.2 In some cases, particularly for projects where there are no identifiable associated costs e.g. the
development of a strategy, some of the questions below will not be relevant.

2 Stage 1: Identification of need

• Has the need been researched and justified?

• Is the project consistent with the University’s strategy?
• Is the project consistent with the School’s/Division’s strategy?
• Has the cost benefit to the University been identified taking into account any longer-term recurrent
costs e.g. staffing, as well as shorter-term capital costs e.g. accommodation, equipment?
• What is the impact of the investment on the University’s budget?
• Have the major opportunities and risks associated with the project been taken into account?
• Are the appropriate internal resources (including time, personnel and/or skills) available to progress
Stage 2 and subsequent stages of the project??
• Has ‘in-principle’ approval of the project been sought from the appropriate individual(s)/bodies?

3 Stage 2

3.1 General

• Is a general description of the overall project available?

• Have the project’s overall objectives been established?
• Have any overall time constraints/dependencies been identified?
• Have the criteria been defined against which the success of the project can eventually be judged?

3.2 Stage 2A: Analysis of options

For each option (including the ‘do nothing’ option):

• What other schools/divisions/external agencies will be involved /affected?

• What are the implications for them and have they been consulted?
• Will this project impact on any other projects?
• Have you included:
♦ a provisional breakdown of capital costs e.g. accommodation, equipment etc.;
♦ the estimated annual revenue costs (staffing and non-staffing) before, during and after
implementation of the project?
• Have you sought professional advice on these costings where appropriate e.g. PURCH?
13
 • Are the resources needed consistent with the proposed scope of the project and the time-scale for its
implementation?
• Have the source(s) of funding and, where appropriate, the preferred procurement route been
identified?
• Have the significant risks and the method proposed for their management been identified?

3.3 Stage 2B: Approval

• At what level within the institution will approval be sought for the proposal, the budget and the
provision of any other supporting resources?
• Have the project manager and the independent reviewer been identified?
• Who will assume responsibility for Stages 4 and 5 of the project?

Note: In the case of some projects, Stages 1 and 2 may be merged.

4 Stage 3: Project Implementation

• Does the supporting project team, which will be drawn from those directly responsible for the
successful completion of the project, have the necessary experience and skills?
• Do all individuals directly and indirectly associated with the project (including the independent
reviewer) clearly understand the objectives of the project and the impact it will have upon them?
• Are their responsibilities clearly defined?
• Has the plan been discussed with the independent reviewer?
• How do you propose to communicate with members of your project team and other stakeholders in
the project?
• Does the proposed project management process follow the University’s Framework?
• Has a detailed project management plan been prepared with SMART (specific, measurable, agreed,
realistic and time-limited) targets?
• Are key milestones specified and procedures established for the formal monitoring of the project so
that progress and achievement of targets can be measured at appropriate times and corrective action
taken at an early stage where necessary?
• Where there are significant time gaps between key milestones, has provision been made for
appropriate interim reviews?
• Does the project management plan require that a risk management exercise is undertaken at each key
milestone?
• To which University authority will the independent reviewer report?

5 Stage 4: Evaluation

• How do you propose to evaluate the outputs of the project on immediate completion in relation to
the original objectives and success criteria?
• Are further evaluation review(s) planned e.g. 6/12/24 months after completion?
• To which body will these project evaluation reviews be submitted?
• What lessons have you learnt which could be used to improve the management of similar projects in
the future and the University’s project management framework in general?
• Are there any questions that can usefully be added to the checklist at any of the stages?

6 Stage 5: Future Plans

• How will the project be monitored in the longer-term to ensure that users are deriving maximum
benefit?
14
 • Will there be a successor project and if so, what is the time-scale for its planning/subsequent project
management?

7 Stages 1 – 5 inclusive: Additional Information

• Are there any other relevant questions that need to be asked?

15
 Appendix 3

Research Grant Application Checklist

This check list is designed to help ensure that all major research grant applications involving total costs in
excess of M£1* have been developed in accordance with the University's Project Management Framework. The
principal investigator should ensure that all the factors listed below have been taken into account.

• Is the project consistent with the School's strategy?

• Are the appropriate internal resources (including space, time, personnel
and/or skills) available to plan and implement the project?
• Will other academic schools/administrative divisions e.g. INFOS/
ESTS/PURCH/external agencies be involved/affected?
• Have they been consulted about the implications for them?
• Have you considered the impact of this project on any other on-going or
planned projects?
• Have you considered:
♦ all capital costs e.g. accommodation, equipment etc.;
♦ the estimated annual revenue costs (staffing and non-staffing) before,
during and (where appropriate) after implementation of the project?
• Have you sought advice from RACD on the costings?
• Where appropriate, have the preferred procurement routes been identified
e.g. for the purchase of equipment, external services etc.?
• Does the project require any special licences e.g. ethical approval?
• Does the project involve collaboration with another institution and, if so,
have you obtained their formal approval to submit the proposal?

* Projects costing less than M£1 may still be deemed ‘major’ if they involve:

 a high risk in relation to the achievement of the University's aims/objectives; or

 strategically important issues at a University-wide level; or
 three or more schools; or
 significant time constraints/dependencies; or
 funding from multiple external sponsors

(Please contact PLAN if you are unsure whether the project constitutes a major application.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We confirm that all of the above factors have been taken into account in developing the following research grant
application:

Title

Principal Investigator

Sponsor Deadline for submission

Signatures:
Principal Investigator…………….……………………………Date …………………..

Head of School …………………………….…………….Date …………………..

16
 Appendix 4
Implementation Plan for the Project Management Framework

Task 2002 2003

Number Activitiy Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
1 Define 'major project' Project Team

2 Finalise check lists & write guidance notes Project Team

3 Arrange seminar for non-pilot projects Project Manager

4 Roll-out to depts/divns & Report to HoDs Project Manager

5 Approve pilot plans Project Team

6a Monitor pilots On-going

6b Learn from other non-pilot projects On-going

7a Identify training requirements Review in light of discussions with individual project managers

7b Provide training programmes Frequency of programmes will depend on results of Task 7a

8 Identify and solve Framework problems Frequency will depend on results of Tasks 6a and 6b

9 Report changes to P&RC Frequency will depend on Task 8

Key milestones 6 month interim reviews

17
PROJECT: Appendix 5

Project Manager:

Independent Reviewer: Review Meeting No.

Date of Meeting: Date of Previous Review of this Stage (if appropriate) :

Main Issue(s) for the Review:

Have all the milestones been achieved? Yes No *

Is the project proceeding within budget? Yes No *

Have the project’s overall objectives been affected? Yes * No

Have any new factors been identified which may

impact on the project or related developments? Yes * No

Should the project proceed to the next stage? Yes No *

If Yes:

Are the milestones set for the next stage appropriate? Yes No *

Are the necessary skills and resources available? Yes No *

Have the associated risks been analysed and plans Yes * No

for their management identified?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Comments (including brief statement on the overall status of the project):

* Please provide further details above.

Signature of Independent Reviewer ………………………………………………

Date …………….. Date of next Planned Review ……………………….

18
 Appendix 6

KEY PLAYERS IN PROJECT MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK

Project Initiator(s)

Internal Project Sponsor

(University Committee/Senior Management etc.)

Regular reports
via PLAN contact
Relevant
Head of School/
Divisional Director

Independent
Reviewer

Could be the
same or different Budget holder
people depending for the project
on the nature of
the project.
Reviews at times
specified in the
detailed project
plan
Project Manager
(& Project Team)

Formal report

Informal report

Suppliers of Products/
Services to the Project

19