Agenda item

To review and comment on the new project governance and management framework.

The CE introduced the report and informed Members that it outlined a revised plan for the Council’s project management and governance arrangements. He added that it came as a response to the audit recommendations of audit report NN2001 project management framework. It was reported that the new management structure sought to increase and strengthen project governance and management arrangements to provide greater clarity of project objectives, improve project delivery and closure/learning. The CE stated that the proposals included establishing a Corporate Delivery Unit that would promote and support strong project governance at both a Member and officer level. A new project governance framework and guide were included in draft form for review, which combined with the proposed Scrutiny Panels and a major projects Cabinet Working Party, were intended to improve ownership and scrutiny of projects.

Questions and Discussion

   i.          Cllr C Cushing stated that he had extensive experience as a project manager in the private sector, and had a number of comments on the proposals that he had shared with officers prior to the meeting. The first point referred to project proposals being written by the project manager, which Cllr C Cushing suggested should be written by the project owner or sponsor. He added that a project manager wouldn’t normally be appointed until the project was agreed. The CE replied that with respect to the Councillors experience, local government had considerable differences to the private sector. As a result corporate priorities were defined by the administration, and there was a separation of roles between the Cabinet Member as project sponsor, and officers, as the former would not be responsible for delivering the project themselves. The CE therefore suggested that in local government, the project manager would be appointed at an earlier stage to develop the project proposal, prior to its approval.

  ii.          Cllr C Cushing suggested that GDPR issues should be given consideration early in the development of projects, to which the CE replied that this would be the case for projects that made specific use of or reference to personal data.

iii.          Cllr C Cushing referred to the development of a business case for projects, and suggested that this should again be part of the initial stages of the project management process. The CE replied that as the Council often had to respond to time sensitive bidding processes, this required a two stage sign-off on projects which began with a political proposal seeking approval in principal, prior to the preparation of a business case. The PPPM added that the purpose of projects going to business planning meetings was to consider which projects should proceed, as opposed to approving projects, acting as a filter or sieve to avoid expending unnecessary officer resource.

iv.          Cllr C Cushing referred to comments within the report that suggested that full project costs needed to be known upfront, and suggested that this could be very difficult. The CE accepted these concerns and noted that with previous projects issues of potential optimism bias had been raised, therefore the proposals sought to make this process more robust.

 v.          Cllr C Cushing referred to who should be the project sponsor and suggested that in the case of large projects this should be the Cabinet portfolio holder. The CE agreed and stated that this would be appropriate for purposes of political accountability.

vi.          Cllr C Cushing noted that his principal concern was on project delivery and noted that the proposals did not provide substantial detail on the format of delivery. He added that in most cases projects would be delivered using either a waterfall or agile methodology, and asked whether these skills were available within the Council. It was noted that the project lifecycles may also have been overlooked, and concerns were raised regarding the use of Microsoft Project. In regards to project budgets and funding, Cllr C Cushing noted that little detail had been provided, and suggested that Prince2 would provide an adequate methodology. The CE replied that the Council had experience of both Prince2 and Agile methodologies, and the appropriate methodology could be determined by the nature of the project. He added that there were various software packages available to the Council to facilitate project management, though MS Project had been used previously. The PPPM stated that whilst some officers were qualified in differing methodologies, the proposals being discussed focused on how this methodology might be used in a local authority setting, looking at the project processes, including the approval. The methodology could be dealt with through training officers using key project management techniques such as Prince II. It was noted that the introduction of Inphase software may provide an additional opportunity, as it included project management features.

vii.          Cllr A Fitch-Tillett stated that she had reviewed the proposals and noted that they were textbook for local government and were commendable as a result.

viii.          Cllr N Dixon stated that at previous meetings he had sought to ensure that the new proposals would learn from previous mistakes, and suggested that an exercise should be completed to ensure this. The CE replied that even once approved the proposals would remain under review to ensure that lessons could be learnt and changes implemented, where required.

ix.          The Chairman asked whether there was a date for implementation, to which the CE suggested that it was planned for the first quarter of 2021, alongside the implementation of the management restructure.

RESOLVED

To review and comment on the proposals.