This report will accurately describe the interrelation of KPIs and the status of the project. Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) of Cost, Quality and Time fundamental issues with Collins Class and how through current best practice we can achieve key outcomes.
Table of Contents
Executive Summary 3
Current Best Practice in Project Management 4
Skills in complex projects 6
KPIs of Cost, Quality and time and their interrelationship 7
Cost Management Plan 10
Quality Management Plan 11
Schedule Management Plan 12
Risk Management 14
Lesson Leant 14
This factual report will accurately recognise traditional Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), non-traditional KPIs, contemporary projects, and the logical inter-relationship with Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK.
This is a good opportunity to capture lessons learnt for current status of the project and to reduce the risk of future errors or omissions.
As the Project Director of the Collins Class Submarine I will provide a list of Lessons Learnt from the Collins Class Project and identify agreed deliverables through the use of PMBOK.
The CCS was intentionally designed to adequately replace Oberon Submarine. The CCS design The Collins class submarine was headed by Captain Graham White and became the most expensive and complex Defence procurement programs in history (Yule & Woolner, 2008 p30). The procurement of the CC has not been without criticism. The CC submarine project has experienced numerous project management issues that lead to increased cost and blown schedule. Success factors represented a significant role in driving outcomes and culture in the Collins Class Submarine Project. This report will address issues relating to traditional Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), non-traditional KPIs, and contemporary projects, and their interrelationships.
Current Best Practice in Project Management
The number of cautions that should be highlighted for the management of Sea 100 is stated on the CCS original risk control strategy, which was to select a design, which was based on a submarine in service. However, we know presently that no existing design could’ve achieved its requirements. In-terms of best practices the nine elements are critical for projects successfully implementation (Salapatas, 2000). According to PMI, 2017 transparency and open colarboration are absolutely key in relation to Best Practices methods. The importance of transparency is seen in Yule and Woolner, 2008, p. 194, whereby the swedes felt that Don Williams ignored the interests of the shareholder.
It has been proven that most organisations involved in project business employ the nine elements of success to identify how the organisations manage projects successfully as stipulated in figure one. (Salapatas, 2000). Also, effective project risk management processes eliminates’ any risks associated with design selection and selecting the right design (Bourne and Walker, 2008). An effective tool to minimise and share information between stakeholders is through a risk register or risk log. During the initial stages of design selection stage of the CCS, through current best practise, it is essential for project managers to maintain track of any unaccepted problems and change that may arise through the risk registry (PMBOK, 2017 pp. 396-420). Therefore, one the most effective ways in Best Practice management is developing best practices with everyone involved in the project, as depicted in figure four.
Skills in complex projects
Some projects are considered complex and challenging to manage, such as the CCS. McIntosh-Prescott report indicated that there were substantial inconsistencies between “the operational requirements and the contracted requirements” (Yule and Woolner, 2008, p. 281). This misunderstanding would’ve been eliminated through the PMI talent triangle, which represents the skill sets a project manager needs to effectively manage complex projects (PMI, 2017). To be effective, project managers need to maintain a balance of technical project management, leadership, strategic and business management as outlined in figure one (PMBOK, 2017 pp. 57-74).
Figure 1 (PMBOK, 2017)
Technically project management skills are effectively applied to project management knowledge to deliver the desired outcomes. Technically project managers have the skill set required to perform a specific task or function (PMI, 2017). According to PMBOK, 2017 p. 58 project managers constantly demonstrate several key skills including these are but not limited to, the ability to;
• Focus on the critical technical project management elements.
• Tailor both traditional and agile tools, techniques, and methods for each project.
• Make time to plan and prioritise.
• Manage project elements, including but not limited to, schedule, cost, resources, and risk.
Strategic and business management skills require project managers to have a high-level of overview of the project and effectively negotiate and implement decisions (PMBOK, 2017 p. 58). Project managers need to have domain knowledge to be able to;
• Explain to others the essential business aspect of a project;
• Work with the project sponsor, team, and subject matter expert; and
• Implement strategy to maximise project potential and outcome (PMBOK, 2017 p. 58).
Leadership skills are an essential capability to able to negotiate, communicate, problem solve, think critically, and have interpersonal skills (PMBOK, 2017 p. 60). Research has shown that of a leader includes:
• Being visionary;
• Being optimistic and positive;
• Being collaborative
• Manging relationships and conflict;
• Being respectful
• Exhibiting integrity, a problem solver, and decisive;
• Constantly learning and is results driven (PMBOK, 2017 p. 61).
Complex project such as the CSS require a closer examine. When approaching system behaviour, human behaviour and ambiguity the project manager should consider elements that are both outside and inside the project. Project managers in the CCS should examine the characteristics or property as shown in figure two (PMI, 2017).
Figure 2 (PMBOK, 2017)
When project managers examine components of figure two, this should help the project manager identify key areas when planning, managing, and controlling the project to ensure integration (PMBOK, 2017 p. 68).
KPIs of Cost, Quality and time and their interrelationship
Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) is a method that can track and forecast project success in project management (Kerzner, 2017). In the case of the CCS this would improve objectives and outcomes because KPIs monitor performance and drives outcomes and objectives (Kerzner, 2017). KPIs in CCS project can be used to measure project success. KPIs, are guides which in the help the CCS project measure cost, time and quality of the project. At this stage of the CSS project the three things that we should be tracking is schedule, resources, labour cost. According to Woolner, 2001 when establishing specific and measurable KPIs it is recommended to converse with your stakeholders and project team to ensure awareness and acceptance throughout the project.
Effective KPIs share some common attributes, which is called SMART as shown in figure six; (S)pecific, (M)easurable, (A)ttainable, (R)elevant (Kerzner, 2017 p. 134). The interrelationship of KPIs and the project management triangle provide significant implications on how the CCS could’ve have been management.
The Royal Australian Navy’s (RANs) persistence with the CDS and changing the basis for evaluating suitability for potential submarine designs represent a critical failing point in the project. (Woolner, 2002). Furthermore, this oversight could’ve been avoided through the project management triangle and KPIs of Cost, time, and quality. Quality of work typically is controlled by the project’s scope, budget and deadline. The project management triangle as depicted in figure three represents a model that underpins project management. The CCS objective was to replace the Oberon, at the stage of planning it was believed the objective would be achieved by building the first boat overseas and was scheduled to commence in 1986, which was expected to take four years (Woolner, 2001).
Figure 3 (Hillson, 2001)
At this stage the RAN as an organisation recognised success as consisted of their product to be built overseas. Moreover, an audit on the procurement process, including risk management/assessment, scheduling and performance against KPIs would’ve ensured effective product acquisition, construction and sustainment. An effective way to monitor KPIs for Cost, time and quality is through project management maturity model (ProMMM) (Hillson, 2001). The ProMMM represents an empirical and systematic approach in assessing project management approach to capability and the project status. When organisations wish to improve effectiveness of their project management need, ProMMM can measure current capability and define improvement strategies (Hillson, 2001).
The ProMMM model gives way to determining current position as well as presenting a distinct target in the next ProMMM level, which allows improvement to be planned and provides a foundation for measurement of progress. According to Hillson, 2001 organisations find ProMMM approach both valuable and cost-effective, as ProMMM allows organisation to assess their project management against agreed criteria, establish realistic targets for improvement, and measure performance through improved capability. Through effective communication CCCS project status needs to be communicated to all stakeholders and all members involved in the project. All stakeholders in the CSS need to understand through KPIs in accordance to project lifecycle stage versus project constraints. Project KPIs gives project managers a snapshot and idea on the status of the project. According to PMI, 2017 project success is governed by the people implementing the plan.
Figure 4 (PMBOK, 2017)
Cost Management Plan
At this stage of the project the cost management plan will describe the project cost so far. The cost management plan identifies the process and the tools needed for an effective cost management plan and seen in figure five (PMBOK, 2017 pp. 238-230). Any change to project needs to go through the organisation’s change control process via change request, which include;
• Cost management plan. Changes are incorporated in the feedback from relevant stakeholders.
• Cost baseline. Incorporated in response to approved changes in scope, resources and cost estimates. Revised cost baseline can be incorporated to provide a realistic basis for performance measurement.
• Performance measurement baseline. Changes to the performance measurement baseline are incorporated in response to approved changes in scope, schedule performance, or cost estimates (PMBOK, 2017 pp. 269).
Figure 5 (PMBOK, 2017)
Quality Management Plan
Quality is a major issue component of the CCS project. According to Yule and Woolner, 2008p. 192 delivering the combat system was failure. PMBOK recommendation is to measure quality into each deliverable, which will contribute to the product. As depicted in figure six whereby assessing product/service specifications to achieve agreed quality deliverables. According to Kerzner, 2017 SMART are executed throughout the project lifecycle via testing, inspections walkthroughs, etc. Moreover, through the audit of product/service project managers reach required quality criteria. In addition a requirement of Project managers to ensure that agreed of new goals are communicated to and agreed by all stakeholders through the stakeholder (PMBOK, 2017 pp. 288-290).
Figure 6 (PMBOK, 2017)
CCS project originally inaugurated without a distinct goal in relation to the project triangle which embodies cost, time and quality. To circumnavigate changes, agile methods call for frequent quality and review steps which are built throughout the project, iterative life cycles improve the product or result through successive prototypes or proofs of concept, as per figure seven (PMI 2018, p. 93).
Figure 7 (PMBOK, 2017)
Schedule Management Plan
Project Scheduling provides a detail plan that represents how and when the project will deliver the products, services and results defined in the scope and services as a tool for communication, managing stakeholders’ expectations, and as a basis for performance reporting (PMI 2018, p. 175). The project schedule management process establishes policies, procedures, documentations, units for measure, schedule baseline, project duration, and risk assessment which is used to control the project schedule as per figure eight (PMI 2018, pp. 175-184).
Figure 8 (PMBOK, 2017)
The challenge for CCS project at this stage is the managing agreed deliverable by all stakeholders. Schedule, quality, Cost are the main constrains that, have impacted agreed deliverables. The unsystematic nature of the project was due to not clearly identifying project scope and documenting what product specifications were required by the RAN (Deep Trouble, 1999; PMBOK, 2017 pp. 130-171).
The interrelationship between cost, schedule and quality are known to work in tandem with one another. According to Bourne and Walker, 2008 the strategic relationship KPIs are tools that are widely used for monitoring strategic based decisions and the focus lays with time, cost and quality as key measurement indicators for performance management. The dissatisfaction with traditional performance indicators marked the introduction of multidimensional frameworks, which was Performance Measurement System (PMS) models and balanced score card (BCD) model (Bourne and Walker, 2008). The introduction of PMS sorts to address the limitations of the traditional concept. Figure nine highlights the constraints cost and time have on project lifecycle and how all agreed deliverables needs to be communicated to each stakeholder through effective change management (PMBOK, 2017 pp. 515 -528).
Figure 9 (PMBOK, 2017)
To date CCS recognises that the selection process to select companies and design was defective (Deep Trouble, 1999; Yule and Woolner, 2008 p. 26). Yule and Woolner, 2008 explains where the “Project Scope, Quality, Stakeholder, communications, and Risk Management”, were applied ineffectively and how it affected the overall project. It is imperative to remember that each project is unique, which makes it necessary to modify and adapt the way project risk management is applied (Project Management Body of Knowledge, 2017 pp. 400-410). Figure 10 identifies the process in utilising an adaptive approach to complex projects.
Figure 10 (PMBOK, 2017 p. 395)
Risk management eliminates any risks associated with agreed deliverables.It was evident no risk mitigation process was in place when understanding stakeholder agreed outputs/deliverables. An effective tool to minimise and share information between stakeholders is through a risk register or Risk Log (Bourne and Walker, 2008). This is a master document which is produced during the initial stages of the project. Risk register will general help project managers manage risk by maintaining track of any unaccepted problems and change that may arise (PMBOK, 2017 pp. 396-420).
The exclusive way a project manager can successfully complete the steps identified in figure two is through effective communication. This is through developing an appropriate communication strategy. It is imperative that stakeholder engagement is defined early on because this will affect the decision, activity, outcome and project (PMBOK, 2017 pp. 501-551). The PMBOK Guide 2017 and Agile Practice guide 2017 offer an insight into the steps, approach, and knowledge areas to deliver a project successfully (Project Management Institute, 2017).
Another step which is interlocked with risk management is stakeholder analysis. First, identify your stakeholders, brain storm who you stakeholders are that will be affected by the project. Secondly, prioritise your stakeholder by utilising the power/interest grid model. Lastly, understand stakeholders expected deliverables and advise on realistic deliverables. Through effective communication project managers will be skilled to recognise stakeholder needs/objective/motivates and influence. An excellent management strategy for stakeholders represented in the power/interest model (PMBOK, 2017 pp. 501-551).
Figure 11 (PMBOK, 2017)
Another tool for implementing risk management is identified in figure 11. According to Ward, 2003 there are six dimensions of project risk management development these include; what, when, why, whichway, who, and wherewithal. This model developed by Ward, 2003 characterises project risk management based on suitability, acceptability and feasibility, which is motivated by organisational capability such as knowledge, experience, and expertise of organisational personnel.
Fundamental issues with the CCS were the geographic challenge in the sense that the design selection team was in Sweden, 15,000 km away, the hull construction team was at Adelaide and the project office in Canberra (Yule and Woolner, 2008). Moreover the absence of the design phase saw the quick agreement of the design and when the contract was signed only two percent of the contract was signed and the CCS represent a new design with technically risk involved (Yule & Woolner, 2008 p. 322).
Construction of the hull began on 1989 and at that stage drawings were not complete. As stated by the Australian Submarine Company (ASC) stating product in the CCS before the design and drawings represent fundamental error, which resulted in costly adjustments and changes needed to the design (Yule & Woolner, 2008). Furthermore, not delivering the design completed before the launch in 1993.
The CCS project represent a chance to accurately describe the interrelation of KPIs and the status of the project. By identifying Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) of Cost, Quality and Time we are able to identify risk, together with best practice this successfully achieves key outcomes/output/agreed deliverables. Furthermore, the interrelationship of all discipline of the PMBOK suggestively develops a PRM for subsequent projects.
- Bourne, L. and Walker, D. (2008). Project relationship management and the Stakeholder Circle™. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, [online] 1(1), pp.125-130. Available at: https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/17538370810846450
- Hillson, D. (2001). Benchmarking organizational project management capability. Paper presented at Project Management Institute Annual Seminars & Symposium, Nashville, TN. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.
- Kerzner, H. (2017). Project management metrics, KPIs, and dashboards (3rd ed., pp. 190-286). New York: International Institute for Learning.
- PMBOK (2017). A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide)-Sixth Edition (ENGLISH). 6th ed. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.
- PMI (2018). PMI | Project Management Institute. [online] Pmi.org. Available at: https://www.pmi.org/
- Pennock, M. and Haimes, Y. (2002). Principles and guidelines for project risk management. Systems Engineering, [online] 5(2), pp.89-108. Available at: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/sys.10009.
- Salapatas, J. N. (2000). Best practices—the nine elements to success. Paper presented at Project Management Institute Annual Seminars & Symposium, Houston, TX. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.
- Turkulainen, V., Aaltonen, K., & Lohikoski, P. (2015). Managing project stakeholder communication: the Qstock Festival case. Project Management Journal, 46(6), 74–91.
- Ward, S. (2004). Developing project risk management. Paper presented at PMI® Research Conference: Innovations, London, England. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.
- Yule, P. and Woolner, D. (2008). The Collins Class Submarine Story. New York: Cambridge University Press.