When We’re Done

Initial Project Health Assessment

Prepared by Why Fail, LLC

When We’re Done Initial Project Health Assessment

© 2013 Why Fail, LLC 11/06/2013 1
 Agenda

 Introductions
 Executive Summary
 Findings, Analysis, Recommendations and Risk
 Overall assessment summary
 Interviewee questionnaire results
 Generic CSF assessment
 Information Technology CSF assessment
 Conclusions
 Questions

When We’re Done Initial Project Health Assessment © 2013 Why Fail, LLC 11/06/2013 2
 Introductions

 Why Fail, LLC

 Project management and project health assessment consultancy
 Founded in 2001
 Conducted over 25 project health assessments for public and private sector projects
 20 projects completed successfully
 3 recommendations to cancel projects because of risk and/or diminished business value
 2 projects cancelled by organization for internal reasons

 Assessment Team
 Lead Assessor  Tom Threat, PMP
 Assessor  Olive Opportunity, PMP

When We’re Done Initial Project Health Assessment © 2013 Why Fail, LLC 11/06/2013 3
 Executive Summary

 Why Fail engaged as project health assessment vendor through a competitive acquisition conducted by the When We’re Done project
team and the WHO contract office and began assessment work on September 2, 2013
 WHY conducted interviews of key stakeholders and reviewed various project artifacts to determine the current status of the project
and any risks to its success
 29 project team members, users and key stakeholders interviewed
 Approximately 23 project artifacts reviewed
 Assessment team attended over a dozen project related meetings
 Assessed project against 10 generic CSFs and 6 IT CSFs
 Completed initial assessment and submitted to project sponsor and project manager on October 23, 2013
 Assessment results
 Medium current risk for project management processes
 Low current risk for IT CSFs

When We’re Done Initial Project Health Assessment © 2013 Why Fail, LLC 11/06/2013 4
 Overall Assessment Results
CSF Finding Analysis Recommendation Risk
Rating
Generic One High and six Medium at risk If scope, time, cost and quality In next four weeks, make every Medium
CSFs management processes do not effort to implement
improve, the project will move into recommendations in individual
High risk status. CSFs.

A follow-up assessment will begin

in two weeks; unimplemented
recommendations will likely result
in increases to CSF risk ratings.
IT WonderBooks COTS implementation Data conversion and migration As defined in the Generic CSF Low
and FastBooks data conversion and scheduling leaves no room for error. assessment, resolve scope definition
migration project has necessary and Scope definition issues if not resolved issues. Move data conversion and
sufficient methodology and process in will impact timely completion of migration analysis, design and
place or at an acceptable point in analysis and solution design activities development activities to parallel
planning. and put overall project at risk. COTS development activities and
overlap their testing with
functional integration and user
acceptance testing.

When We’re Done Initial Project Health Assessment © 2013 Why Fail, LLC 11/06/2013 5
 Interviewee Questionnaire Results

 When We’re Done sample interview questionnaire only populated for one interviewee

When We’re Done Initial Project Health Assessment © 2013 Why Fail, LLC 11/06/2013 6
 Generic CSF Summary – 1 of 2
# Critical Success Finding Analysis Recommendation Risk
Factor Rating
1 Stakeholder Stakeholders identified and are onboard No stakeholder risk at this point Maintain close stakeholder contact Low
Management
2 Risk Management Ongoing risk management is weak and assumptions Continuous risk identification, analysis and Add new/changed risk identification to project team Medium
are not treated as risks response planning is critical to project success. meetings and follow-up.
Unless assumptions are considered risks waiting to Treat assumptions as risk, perform at least
happen, they can become untrue and cause serious qualitative risk analysis on them, set tracking
impact to project objectives triggers and monitor

3 Scope Management Two months into project and scope is not finalized Without finalized and stakeholder approved scope, Take scope issues to Steering Committee for Medium
yet design is in progress it will be continuously in question and potential decision on mandatory requirements for current
delay or require rework and/or change orders release and deferred requirements for future
impacting cost, quality and/or schedule. releases. Set as baseline scope requiring formal
change control.
4 Time Management Overall project planning is incomplete and uses Project schedule cannot be effectively used to Significant project planning and scheduling work Medium
poor practices leaving the project schedule much in monitor project progress, calculate schedule required over next 4 weeks required to avoid time
question: WBS decomposition levels, estimates not variance or report status CSF increasing to "High: risk.
by doers, fixed date constraints, activity
dependencies missing, insufficient interim
milestones, WE deliverables ill defined, activity
durations > 2 reporting periods, and schedule not
approved or baselined
5 Cost Management Cost estimates based solely on COTS contractor Small scope will likely cause project to run out of Baseline budget, include EVM in cost and schedule Medium
costs, budget has < 3% contingency reserves, budget; plus, cost tracking, status and variance variance reporting, and ensure sponsor and senior
budget is not baselined, EVM not used for cost reporting inadequate stakeholder management understand criticality of
status reporting small budget reserves

When We’re Done Initial Project Health Assessment © 2013 Why Fail, LLC 11/06/2013 7
 Generic CSF Summary – 2 of 2
# Critical Success Finding Analysis Recommendation Risk
Factor Rating
6 Communication Communication management is in good order; but, No critical risks in communications; however, Ensure corrective actions in scope, time, cost, Low
Management could use improvement. improved budget, schedule and external quality and integration mangement are properly
dependency definition will improve reporting reflected in status and issue reporting.

7 Quality Management Deliverable content and acceptance criteria are not
included in quality management plan and have not
been defined, reviewed and approved for WE
deliverables.
Without deliverable content and acceptance criteria, Require WE to collaboratively create Deliverable High
approval/rejection of deliverables is not objective Expectation Documents (DED) for each contract
leading to disputes between COTS integrator (WE) deliverable defining both content and acceptance
and project team and increases in project risk. criteria to be approved by WHEN PM and
appropriate stakeholders.

8 Human Resource Design and UAT resources rely on availability of
operational users. No skill assessment performed
and no training plan developed.
Availability of operational users critical to Develop contingency plan for additional design and Medium
successful, timely completion of design and UAT UAT resources should operational user availability
activities. Availability of knowledgeable staff at risk change. Update human resource management plan
without skill assessment and training plans. and perform skill assessment and develop necessary
training plan. Seek funding for training.

9 Procurement As RFP for COTS product with system integrator is No procurement required. Monitor project resource availability for need to Not
Management complete, no further external procurement is procure outside resources and develop procurement Rated
planned. management plan, as required.
10 Integration Project charter and authority roles clearly defined. Needs follow-up assessment after scope and Within next 4 weeks, complete missing and Medium
Management Integration management plan missing maintenance schedule defined, reviewed, and approved. incomplete portions of integration management
process plus sub-processes incomplete. plan.
Configuration management plan missing. Other
integration CSFs not rated in this assessment.

When We’re Done Initial Project Health Assessment © 2013 Why Fail, LLC 11/06/2013 8
 Information Technology CSF Assessment
Critical Success Finding
Factor
IT Analysis & Design WHEN team trained in and using standard WHO
Methodology A&D methodology. Scope definition issues have
delayed completion of analysis, design and
business process definition.
IT Development WHEN team using & experienced in WHO
Methodology development methodology. Additional business
requirements will be included in migration from
FastBooks to WonderBooks.
IT COTS Many WE tasks have duration > 2 reporting
Implementation periods. Requirements scope issues impacting
COTS gap analysis and solution design.
IT Data Conversion & Data conversion and migration are required. They Data conversion and migration is a major risk in Commence data conversion and migration
Migration are scheduled but will not commence for six
months.
IT Testing (Functional, WHO development methodology contains good
Capacity & testing practices. WE RFP response defines an
Performance) appropriate functional, capacity and performance
testing methodology. Details and plans not
examined in the initial assessment.
IT Training WHO development methodology and WE RFP
response define training framework to be used.
Training material development will start following and system support training needs.
completion of analysis and solution design.
When We’re Done Initial Project Health Assessment © 2013 Why Fail, LLC
Analysis Recommendation Risk
WHEN Steering Committee needs to prioritize Issue will be taken to WHEN Steering committee Low
requirements and define scope. for resolution within two weeks.
WHEN project team is experienced and capable of None at this time. Low
building necessary reporting and business
intelligence infrastructure and taking over
maintenance of WE developed APIs.
Level of detail and WBS breakdown in WE project WE to decompose tasks further and provide Low
schedule insufficient for accurate progress additional interim milestones to facilitate progress
tracking. tracking and WHEN/WE schedule integration.
Following scope decisions by WHEN Steering
Committee, expedite gap analysis and solution
design.
Medium
any COTS implementation. Current schedule activities immediately upon completion of analysis
leaves no room for conversion issue delays. and solution design.
Health assessment following completion of Include assessment of testing in follow-up Not
analysis and solution design is more appropriate. assessment after solution design is complete. Rated
WHO and WE training methods overlap and are Subsequent assessments will evaluate training Low
complimentary. Both address user, administrator development progress against schedule and
WHEN/WE defined practices.
11/06/2013 9
 Conclusions

 When We’re Done Project needs the following improvements:

 Treat assumptions as potential risks
 Set and baseline project scope
 Bring both WHEN and WE project schedules into compliance with best practices
 Baseline project budget and seek funding for contingency reserves
 Require WHO collaboration with WHEN team to create and approve deliverable expectation documents for content and acceptance criteria
 Monitor resource capacity for design and UAT; seek additional funding for temporary staff as required
 Move data conversion and migration planning, design and development forward in schedule to start as soon as solution design is completed
 If assessment recommendations implemented, reassessment should indicate a “Low” risk rating.
 If assessment recommendations not implemented, reassessment will tend towards a “High” risk rating and put the project in
jeopardy.

When We’re Done Initial Project Health Assessment © 2013 Why Fail, LLC 11/06/2013 10
 Questions?

When We’re Done Initial Project Health Assessment © 2013 Why Fail, LLC 11/06/2013 11