This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
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 Definition of a major project Planning a project Risk identification and assessment Application of the Framework Major research awards The project manager The independent reviewer The head of school/director of division Review meetings Steering group Support Feedback Appendix 1: Project life-cycle Appendix 2: Checklist Appendix 3: Research grant application Checklist Appendix 4: Sample project plan Appendix 5: Review pro forma Appendix 6: Key players in the Project Management Framework 12 13 16 17 18 19 1 2 2 3 5 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 11
A Project Management Framework for Cardiff University 1 1.1
What is the Project Management Framework? 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. 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.
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.
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 nonstaffing 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
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 followup 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 2.1 When do you use the Framework? 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: • • • 2.2 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.
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. 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.
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.
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.
When the project is given approval at the end of Stage 2, all of the above three factors should be clearly defined and agreed. Risk Identification and Assessment
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.
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.
The probability that a risk will happen can be graded on a scale of 1 (Low) to 3 (High) using the following criteria: Probability Low Medium High Value 1 2 3 Description Unlikely but not impossible (0% - 20% chance) Fairly likely to happen (20% - 50% chance) More likely to happen than not (> 50% chance)
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 Low Value 1 Description 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. 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. 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.
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.
Risks can generally be managed in one of four ways:
• • • •
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. How do you apply the Framework?
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. What happens in the case of major research awards?
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. 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.
What is the role of the Project Manager?
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.
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?”
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
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. 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. What is the role of the Independent Reviewer?
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.
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. 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
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. 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.
What is the role of the Head of School/ Divisional Director?
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.)
The relationship between the Head of School/Divisional Director and other key players in the Project Management Framework is illustrated diagrammatically in Appendix 6. What happens at the review meetings?
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.
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. 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.
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.
What is the role of a Steering Group? 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
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. 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.
What support is available? 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.
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. In addition, this individual will: • maintain a list of all major projects satisfying the criteria noted under Section 2 above;
• • • •
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. Feedback
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
STAGES OF PROJECT LIFE-CYCLE Stages 1 Need Identification 2A Option Analysis 2B Approval 3 Implementation 4 Evaluation
Appendix 1 5 Long-term review
Progress Review 1
Progress Review 2
Project outcomes against objectives Sponsor satisfaction
Project Managmt. Framework
Review user satisfaction/ future plans
Outputs From Stage
Clear benefits identified
Feasible solution(s) identified
Option chosen; Resources committed; Project Manager/ Review Chair identified
Progress Report: proceed if satisfactory
Progress Report: proceed if satisfactory
Improvement of Project Management Framework
Areas for improvement/ Follow-up proposal
Planning and Risk Management
Appendix 2 Checklist 1 1.1 Introduction 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. 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. Stage 1: Identification of need • • • • • • • • 3 3.1 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?
Stage 2 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?
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?
• • • 3.3
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?
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 • • • • • • • • • • • 5 • • • • • 6 • 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? 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? Stage 5: Future Plans How will the project be monitored in the longer-term to ensure that users are deriving maximum benefit?
Will there be a successor project and if so, what is the time-scale for its planning/subsequent project management?
Stages 1 – 5 inclusive: Additional Information • Are there any other relevant questions that need to be asked?
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 Signatures: Deadline for submission
Principal Investigator…………….……………………………Date ………………….. Head of School …………………………….…………….Date …………………..
Appendix 4 Implementation Plan for the Project Management Framework
Task Number Activitiy 1 2 3 4 5 6a 6b 7a 7b 8 9 Define 'major project' Finalise check lists & write guidance notes Arrange seminar for non-pilot projects Roll-out to depts/divns & Report to HoDs Approve pilot plans Monitor pilots Learn from other non-pilot projects Identify training requirements Provide training programmes Identify and solve Framework problems Report changes to P&RC On-going On-going Review in light of discussions with individual project managers Frequency of programmes will depend on results of Task 7a Frequency will depend on results of Tasks 6a and 6b Frequency will depend on Task 8
2002 Q1 Q2 Q3
Project Team Project Team Project Manager Project Manager
2003 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul
6 month interim reviews
PROJECT: Project Manager: Independent Reviewer: Date of Meeting: Main Issue(s) for the Review: Review Meeting No. Date of Previous Review of this Stage (if appropriate) :
Have all the milestones been achieved? Is the project proceeding within budget? Have the project’s overall objectives been affected? Have any new factors been identified which may impact on the project or related developments? Should the project proceed to the next stage? If Yes: Are the milestones set for the next stage appropriate? Are the necessary skills and resources available?
Yes Yes Yes Yes * Yes *
* * No
No 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 ……………………….
Appendix 6 KEY PLAYERS IN PROJECT MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK
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 people depending on the nature of the project.
Budget holder for 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
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.