Mr Glen Alleman
Abstract: Keynote Presentation
Integrating Systems Engineering and Program Performance Management creates a Match Made in Heaven
Project (and program) management supported by project planning and control has overall responsibility for project delivery in accordance within the parameters of cost (budget), schedule (time) and a technically compliant "fit for purpose" solution.
Systems Engineering is responsible to project management for the specification, design, build and implementation of the technically compliant "fit for purpose" solution.
Project success begins with understanding what "Done" looks like in units of measure meaningful to the decision makers.
Understanding what "Done" really looks like starts with systems engineering which is an interdisciplinary field of engineering and management focused on how to design and manage complex systems over their life cycles. At its core, systems engineering utilizes systems thinking principles to organize this body of knowledge.
Systems Engineering use Measures of Effectiveness (MoE) and Measures of Performance (MoP) and their Technical Performance Measures (TPM) and Key Performance Parameters (KPP) for each end item deliverable to measure what "done" looks like. Each measure provides steering targets for the project work and the baseline for feedback needed to make corrective and preventive actions to keep the project moving toward to goals.
The MoE's state the Operational measures of success related to the achievements of the mission or operational objectives evaluated in an operational environment. The MoP's define that characterise physical or functional attributes relating to the system's operation.
With these, TPM's are attributes that determine how well a system or system element satisfy or expected to satisfy a technical requirement or goal are used to define the planned work. For this work, KPP's, represent the capabilities and characteristics so significant that failure to meet them can be cause for reevaluation, reassessing, or termination of the program.
Project management is dependent on Systems Engineering to provide meaningful measures of "done" as inputs into the project planning and control system.
This presentation explores mutually beneficial initiatives and approached that can be undertaken to increase the collaboration between project management and systems engineering which offers many opportunities for increasing the probability of project success and creating the match made in heaven.
Abstract: Stream Session
Integrating Systems Engineering (SE) and Program Performance Management (PPM) to Increase the Probability of Delivering the Needed Capabilities for Project/Program Success
This presentation examines the Systems Engineering (SE) management processes and Program Performance Management (PPM) processes both of which are required for project/program success.
The intersections between the two process groups are reviewed highlighting the SE contributions to PPM and the benefits to both SE management and PPM of the SE inputs to PPM in contributing to overall project/program success.
Abstract: PGCS Masterclass
Integrating Systems Engineering and Project Management. The Match Made in Heaven Which Increases the Probability of Project Success
All projects ‒ no matter the domain ‒ are fraught with Technical, Cost and Schedule uncertainties, that create risk and reduce the probability of project success.
The contributing factors leading to project failure have been long identified and include unrealistic cost and schedule estimates, inadequate risk assessment, unrealistic technical performance expectations, unrealistic (un)anticipation of technical issues, and poorly performed and ineffective risk management. 
This workshop will teach participants:
- The 5 immutable principles that must be addressed to achieve project success
- That project success requires a collaborative engagement between systems engineering and project management, supported by project controls
- The Seven principles of Systems Engineering needed to lead, manage and direct the processes and practices essential for project success  
- The Measures of Effectiveness (MoE), Measures of Performance (MoP), their Technical Performance Measures (TPM) and Key Performance Parameters (KPP) all of which are needed to know what "Done" look like in units of measure meaningful to decision makers
The workshop will teach students the practical application of the immutable principles of project success, the seven systems engineering Principles, Processes, and Practices and the supporting project management and controls processes essential for achieving project success using an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) case study project.
The workshop will develop the Integrated Master Plan (IMP) and the Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) and associated Risk Management processes.
Attendees will leave the workshop with immediately actionable systems engineering and project management processes that when implemented in the workplace will increase the Probability of Project Success.
 "The Seven Deadly Risks of Defense Projects," F. N. Bennett, Security Challenges Vol. 6, No. 3, Spring 2010, pp. 97‒111. Bennett was Chief of Capital Procurement, Australian Department of Defence, 1984‒1988.
 Systems Engineering Principles and Practice, 2nd Edition, Alexander Kossiakoff, John Wiley & Sons, 2011.
 "Unifying Systems Engineering: Seven Principles for Systems Engineered Solutions, 20th International Symposium of the INCOSE, Denver, 2011
Professor Charles Keating
ABSTRACT: Keynote Presentation
Title: Complex Systems Governance: A New Approach for Addressing the 'Messes' and 'Wicked Problems' that are By-product of Modern Projects Which Overwhelm PM Practitioners
Complex System Governance is an advanced systems approach that offers project practitioners new and novel insights to improve complex project performance, including:
1. Identification of 'deep system' failure modes for projects beyond traditional cost, schedule, and performance deficiencies
2. Examination of systems based failures in design, execution, or development of critical system functions for projects,
3. Development of systems-based strategies to 'design out' system failures throughout the project life cycle
ABSTRACT: Stream Presentation
Title: Responding to Complex Systems Challenges for Project Management
Managing complex projects is quite possibly the most difficult profession devised by man.
Dealing with increasing complexity, uncertainty, and ambiguity while trying to maintain consistency in budget, schedule, and performance can challenge the most seasoned project and systems engineering manager.
This presentation will examine several contemporary challenges facing project and systems engineering managers from a 'systems' perspective.
Each challenge is:
(1) framed from a 'systems perspective' to offer a different explanation of the challenge,
(2) examined for project performance impacts and implications, and
(3) provided with a set of practical 'systems-based' strategies to address the challenge in a project environment.
The presentation concludes with three key take away points for project managers and systems engineers to implement.
ABSTRACT: PGCS Masterclass
A Practical Guide to Implementing Complex Systems Governance Concepts on Projects
The purpose of this workshop is to provide a hands-on experience for Project Management (PM) professionals for application of Complex System Governance (CSG) concepts. CSG is a new and novel approach to improve performance through purposeful design, execution, and evolution of essential system functions. These functions sustain project performance in the midst of external turbulence and internal flux. CSG addresses the 'messes' and 'wicked problems' that are the by-product of modern projects and continue to overwhelm PM practitioners. Application of CSG for PM is examined to:
(1) appreciate and map the complex environment faced by modern PM,
(2) discover sources of 'deep system' project failure modes that ultimately produce schedule delays, cost overruns, and missed performance targets,
(3) explore the 'systems' basis for those failure modes, and
(4) develop responsive and feasible systems-based strategies to preclude failure modes in the design, execution, and development of complex projects.
The workshop objectives are:
(1) Examine the nature and implications of the complex problem domain facing PM professionals.
(2) Explore CSG as a systems-based response to better deal with increasingly complex projects.
(3) Apply CSG methods to discover 'deep system' failure modes in design, execution, or development of projects.
(4) Determine feasible strategic responses to preclude or mitigate CSG failure modes in complex projects.
As a result of the workshop, participants will be better prepared and equipped to apply CSG concepts and tools. This will permit identification and assessment of systems-based project failure modes, mitigation of negative consequences, and identification of feasible actions improve project performance through design, execution, or development modifications.
Professor Vernon Ireland
Engineering Failures and Lack of Recognition of Complex Systems Parameters
A group of engineering projects are examined, all o which failed in a disastrous way, leading to deaths, or failed in spectacularly exceeding the proposed budget. The projects include two NASA projects which had deaths, The Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear plant, BP's Deepwater oil platform in the Mexican Gulf and the Boston Big Dig project. All projects have been shown to have neglected to recognise a group of complex systems parameters, which, if recognised, would have led to avoiding the project failure. The complex systems parameters are examined, some of which are not recognising: Complex rather than complicated; Requisite Variety; Dynamic systems; Beer's Viable Systems Model; We don't know what we don't know; Cascading risk; Systemic risks; Mindfulness; Not dumbing down including reluctance to simplify; Preoccupation with Failure; Normalising deviance; Causal loops; Reference class Forecasting; Generate open communications, clear boundaries and a strong value system.
Professor Kerry London
Designing for Project Success - The Power of Many and the Undoing by Multitudes
In my keynote rather than focusing only on my research activities I would like to share my observations and explore how we can design for project success from various perspectives; as a researcher, as a teacher, as a mentor of doctoral students, more broadly as an academic leader in the built environment tertiary sector, as a past architect and project manager in government, as a past construction industry policy maker; as part of professional industry associations and now as part of a client organisation in the fastest growing area in Australia.
Much of the research in relation to major capital acquisition projects or mega projects in recent years has tended to focus on the theme that we have such massive time and cost overruns because we don't spend enough time in the beginning of a project to develop realistic planning schedules and realistic budgets. Realisation of this in Australia has resulted in the development of targeted approaches to the pre-planning budgeting. What is the next step then in designing for project success?
As part of a client organisation with a large capital works programs sometimes I have a knot in my stomach. I can see how there are often two speeds in relation to decision making on projects in the early planning and briefing stages; the speed at which the project manager and the delivery team are seeking to achieve deadlines set by the client and the glacial speed of the client organisation. The client organisation has a business to run and decisions they are making about the future business; of which this building is an important initiative of their strategic direction, sometimes changes on a weekly basis. How do we anticipate those decisions that we need to wait and spend time on as they will be critical to success and how do we know when to move quickly? How do we manage the internal politics of these organisations? As a project manager
I have three PhD students focusing on three different areas of project management including what does it means to be a good client on mega projects, what are the impacts of culture on leadership for major projects and then finally how process business re-engineering might help to support our efforts on integrated project delivery. A common theme is the insider view. Each student is trying to understand and analyse from the inside but that is difficult when you are an outsider. Enduring research is underpinned by intuition and insights just the same as a project manager's capability is underpinned by such individual characteristics of leadership. I am of course passionately interested in project management leadership and capabilities.
On an individual level: What shapes an individual project manager's approach? Who shapes our "schooling" and early formative years on projects? What significant events on projects change the way we see things? What shapes our approach to managing projects? What adversities do we meet along the way? Who are the meaningful voices that guide you?
On an organisational level: As large clients do we have a responsibility to shape the industry we want or do we leave the industry to their own devices? Can we shape the responses we want? And if so how should we go about doing that? How can professional associations contribute to education and training and be boundary spanners between industry, government and academia?
And finally what are some of the frontiers in education and research that can help us to co design, collaborate and co-deliver successful projects of the future?
Mr Gavin Halling
Deriving Certainty from Uncertainty - Value from Project Risk and Contingency Management
The International Risk Management Standard ISO 31000 describes itself as a guide. Its application varies widely across organisations. This is to be expected when the context is substantially different (eg a compliance risk process will be different to one for projects). There is also the recent (version 2 Feb 2019) IEAus Risk Engineering Society "Contingency Guidelines". Both these documents tell you what is expected but do not give too much practical insight into HOW to undertake project risk and contingency management.
Project risk has two components that separate it from other risk processes:
1. A rapidly changing risk profile which requires a particularly dynamic process and
2. Consumption of precious capital
This presentation describes a well-honed process that will enable you to:
- Ensure your project risk management process is as efficient as possible
- Explain how to simply derive cost contingency for qualitative risks (those that may happen)
- Assess and manage estimate uncertainty
- Deliver good Project risk governance from the Planning phases through to Finalisation.
The presentation will include the use of toolsets so participants can appreciate how simple these processes can be undertaken and how they enable leading edge Project risk governance from project level through programme and up to the executive.
The processes described have evolved over many years of Consultancy and are both practical and in some aspects leading edge. They will enable users to gain real (measurable) value from project risk and contingency management.
Mr James Bawtree
Bring Organisational Agility through Improved Alignment to deliver Greater Capability and Value in Large and Complex Organisations
Many organisations are challenged the adapting to the changing environment and needs driven by digital disruption, innovation and security. This is especially true for government organisations, which are risk adverse, hierarchical and procedural based. These organisations often follow processes that are not value or customer orientated, and cause significant delays and addition effort to complete similar tasks in our benchmarking studies. This talk will explore our experience over the last 10 years helping introduce a program based approach to defining capability needs based on community input, efficiently delivering these customer and key stakeholder prioritised capabilities, and sustaining the new ways of working based on the new enhanced capabilities.
We will explore how a hybrid of global best practice standards such as AgileSHIFT, MSP, PRINCE Agile and P3O should be leveraged along with techniques such as Design Thinking, Earned Value and systems of system thinking to enhance transition and operations management improving adoption rates and the time it takes for new resources to come up to speed. We will also run through how all these new practices should be reinforced by using a standard set of fit for purpose tools, resulting in improved transparency, accuracy and ultimately trust, in the decision making information, by organisational leaders.
The talk will be an interactive session showcasing some dashboard and program, project, work package delivery examples and how benefits, risks, actions, decisions, dependencies, issues, changes, assumptions & lessons learned can be more actively managed.
Mr Damon Hancock
What makes for Successful Infrastructure Delivery
Damon Hancock is uniquely placed to understand the challenges of big infrastructure. With over 30 years of experience and working on iconic projects such as the New Parliament House and Chep Lak Kok Airport and Tsing Ma Bridge in Hong Kong. He is currently a senior member of the Samsung infrastructure team and represents the company at board level on its current Sydney WestConnex projects. Having the M4 open recently and the new M5 next year, with the M4-M5 link in 2023 he has participated in a complete risk cycle management that includes continuous improvement and development of new ideas from old learnings. The issues faced by major infrastructure are not new, however many of the people dealing with them are. How do you overcome this 'churn' and maintain a learning perspective in high pressure constant tension environment? Come and hear Damon's view on what we do well, with the contracting market constantly evolving with some large local contracting firms up for sale, some projects are making unprecedented losses and foreign entrants lining up hoping to get a slice of the action. What will prevent them from succeeding and what will push them to success?
Mr Maisara Al Rais
Utilising Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning in Project Controls
Over the last few years, the number of projects failed to be completed on time and within budget have been increased. Despite increased usage of technology, the amount of data for each of these projects required an integration from the design stage until delivery to get the best outcome from the digitalisation process. Analysis of these data to drive the projects' decisions either unreasonable by Human Intelligence for Major projects and required a long cycle process, Or repeated many times for medium and small projects and costing more than the expected outcome. That's justifying the needs of utilising Artificial Intelligence in driving the process of project controls.
Commence the Project Controls involvement from the early stage of the design and get Integration between all project elements across the other stages allowing for project success at the end.
The expectation from the integration cycle is to get a Building Information Model in place includes most of the required DATA to move forward from 3D to 4D with schedule information and 5D with cost information.
Utilising of AI/ML technology in project Controls will be done in 2 stages;
1. historical data for similar projects in a different discipline; collected from As-Built Model, including 4D and 5D data and the validated previous stored projects' data.
2. Current project cost/time performance considering expected risks (EVM calculation with a risk factors algorithm), to predict real-time monitoring for time and cost at completion during the delivery stage.
The methodology of building ML application for any project will be the same as the following steps
1. Collect Date (depending on the project discipline, Business intelligence application to be used in data analysis)
2. Develop Multi-Objective Genetic Algorithm "MOGA" for CPM analysis and EVM calculation with Risk Factors
3. Train Model / Supervise learning (Neural Network to be considered)
4. Deploy Model / get the data back to Maintain and update the model
Dr Li Qiao
Design Structure Matrix based Modular Analysis and its Applications
Modular analysis is a mean to manage complexity in system design processes in order to achieve competitive advantage. It identifies highly interactive groups of components and/or functions which can potentially form good modules. Modularity has various virtues including deep understanding complex system, making complexity manageable, enabling parallel work and creating options etc. Baldwin and Clark claimed that the principles of modularity apply equally to social and legal institution as well as technologies in their book "Design rules: The power of Modularity". Among various modular analysis approaches, Design Structure Matrix (DSM) method has proved to be an efficient matrix-based modelling and modularity analysis approach. It is a highly flexible, network modelling method with extensive applications in engineering management and many other fields. DSM has been a subject of research at the Capability Systems Centre in University New South of Wales, Canberra. We attempt to explain DSM methods and demonstrate a range of example applications (e.g. product modularity, multidisciplinary team organization, supply chain outsourcing, task sequencing), addressing a wide variety of problems in different industrial situations.
Dr Keith Joiner and Dr Rani Yesudas
Solving Tensions of Overlapping Project Management and Systems Engineering with the Elegance of the Complex Systems Governance Approach
Major reviews of large public service projects by the Australian Senate and then Government have found significant deficiencies in the way they are governed [1-2] suggesting the prescient international warnings on the mega-project phenomenon of a decade earlier  were not heeded. Significant effort in such acquisition departments is being expended trying to re-integrate program management and systems engineering for complex systems through overlays [4-5], ostensibly to achieve more successful programs through better teaming, communication, collaboration and alignment. Such overlays are pursuing more agility to exploit information technology and be more resilient to growing advanced persistent cyber-threats [6-7]. The Complex System Governance (CSG) model foundationally fuses these disciplines in new governance meta-functions . Further the associated pathological approach developed for CSG implementation  provides a path of least resistance  and thus greatest parsimony for such change management. In this presentation we overview research illustrating the CSG underpinnings with the concepts of parsimony, requisite saliency, minimum critical specification, power law, and requisite hierarchy; thereby providing more elegant organizational approaches to complex program management and systems engineering than re-integration overlays.
. Australian Senate, "Senate Inquiry into Defence Procurement." Canberra: Australian Parliament House, 2012.
. P. Shergold, "Learning from Failure: Why large Government policy initiatives have gone so badly wrong in the past and how the chances of success in the future can be improved," Australian Public Service Commission, Canberra, 2015
. B. Flyvbjerg, N. Bruzelius, and W. Rothengatter, "Megaprojects and Risk: An Anatomy of Ambition," Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
. A. Gray, H. Nasser, A. James, K. Richardson, and K. Rooke, "Foundations for improved integration – Using Systems Engineering in Programme and Project Management," INCOSE Conference, Adelaide, 15-20 July 2017
. E. S. Rebentisch, "Integrating Program Management and Systems Engineering: Processes, Tools and Organizational Systems for Improving Performance," ISBN: 9781119258926, John Wiley & Sons, 2017
. A. Ghildyal, E. Chang, K. F. Joiner K, "A Survey of Benefit Approaches and a Human-Centred Innovation Loop embedded Benefit Realisation Framework, Archives of Business Research, vol. 6, 2018.
. K. F. Joiner, A. Ghildyal, N. Devine, A. Laing, A. Coull, and E. Sitnikova E, "Four testing types core to informed ICT governance for cyber-resilient systems", International Journal of Advances in Security, vol. 11, pp. 313 - 327, 2018.
. C. B. Keating and J. M. Bradley, "Complex system governance reference model," International Journal of System of Systems Engineering, vol. 6, no. 1-2, pp. 33-52, 2015.
. C. B. Keating, P. F. Katina, K. F. Joiner, J. M. Bradley, and R. Jaradat, "A Method for Identification, Representation, and Assessment of Complex System Pathologies in Acquisition Programs", in Proc. 15th Ann. Acq. Res. Sym., Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, pp. 500 - 524, 9-10 May 2018, www.researchsymposium.com/conf/app/researchsymposium/unsecured/file/461/SYM-AM-18-104-AP_Keating.pdf
. H. L. Davidz, S. Jackson, and D. Thomas, "Systems Engineering Pathology: Comprehensive Characterization of Systems Engineering Dysfunction," INCOSE Conference, Washington 7-12 July, 2018
Mr Mahmoud Efatmaneshnik
A Modelling Approach for Integration of Systems Engineering and Program Management
Defence systems acquisition is fraught with all sorts of financial, technical and political risks. The most effective way of mitigating risks associated with acquisition of complex systems is through identification of these risks as early as concept examination phase. One possible avenue to de-risk complex acquisition projects is through the integration of program management and systems engineering views. In General terms, project/program management is concerned with timely and on the budget execution of projects where as Systems Engineering is concerned with complexity management and successful systems integration. While the two domains are not the same, it is obvious that good systems engineering practices lead to better execution of acquisition projects. This paper will outline an approach for risk and complexity evaluation and mitigation of capability concepts to be used, in risk mitigation planning, systems engineering planning and project control activities. The approach will be based on a Bayesian and Probabilistic Systems Engineering Model that will utilize probabilistic success or failure in execution of systems engineering tasks and the early estimation of the resulting reworks. This work applies probabilistic analysis to a network view of the physical system (software and hardware) where the projected building blocks of the system are considered to obtain an estimation of the final system assured and unassured quality, reliability and utility. The resulting test and integration processes will be characterized in terms of their expected rework, time and budget. The network of the inter-related tasks will be solved as a Bayesian Network for expected time and cost of execution and variances of those, that can together be used to evaluate project level risk.
Dr Raymond Young
For Boards and their 'Accidental Sponsors' - Guiding Questions to Implement Policy, Strategy and Create Value through Projects
This presentation will raise the question of whether there is a dysfunctional relationship between top managers and projects to implement their business strategy. Evidence will be presented to suggest that projects are not contributing much to strategy and a project governance mechanism will be presented as a possible solution. The proposed governance solution has been recognised by Wiley as leading edge and they have commissioned Dr Raymond Young (UNSW) and Dr Vedran Zerjav (UCL) to publish their ideas as a book for 'accidental project sponsors'. Attendees at the presentation will be invited to provide feedback on the solution and suggest how the book initiative might have maximal impact on project governance practice internationally.
Mr Collin Smith
<b>Project Leadership: The Game Changer in Large Scale Complex Projects.<b>
It is forecast that within the next 20 years, project-orientated industries will contribute more than USA$20.2 trillion to Global Gross Domestic Product (GGDP). In 2018 the Project Management Institute (PMI) estimated that 9.9% of project value was lost due to poor project management.
It is understood that complex projects need leaders with different skills. The 2018 International Centre for Complex Project Management (ICCPM) International Roundtable Series brought together senior practitioners and leading academics to explore Project Leadership: The Game Changer in Large Scale Complex Projects.
The outcomes report from this thought leadership initiative was launch on the 13 June 2019. It includes insights which help organisations stay at the forefront of successful complex project delivery. ICCPM CEO, Collin Smith will present the key insights from this report.
Mr Kym Henderson, PGCS and Ms Chloe Kempster, CASG
Implementing AS/ISO 21508 Earned Value in Project and Programme Management
Kym Henderson was one of the key contributors to the development of ISO 21508 and ISO 21511 (WBS) and lead the Standards Australia project to adopt 21508, upgraded to include a normative annex customised to the needs of Australian contract managers. This is a unique opportunity to understand the practical implications of how AS/ISO 21508 will affect your projects in the future from the person who literally 'wrote the book'.
Ms Chloe Kempster, CASG
Cost Estimation – Building Better Practice
First Principles Review (FPR) (1 April 2015) highlighted improvements required in Defence on how costs are estimated, contested and managed. Capability Acquisition and Sustainment Group (CASG) in the setup of Functions established the Project Controls Directorate under Program Management Function to improve all the disciplines of project controls (cost, schedule and risk).
The Program Management Function provides Program, Project & Product Management and Project Control Services that enable and assure the delivery of Defence capability by:
*Assuring and enabling delivery of Defence Capability to the agreed scope, schedule, quality and cost.
*Providing competent skilled resources to enable ongoing Program, Project and Product delivery.
- Establishing standardised approach to lessons learned, Pre Gate 2, Program, Project and Product Management to improve capability delivery.
- Implementing standardised transparent Program, Project and Product performance management across the Capability Life Cycle to improve accountability, transparency and trust.
- Providing trusted internal independent assurance and compliance services to ensure Programs, Projects and Products have appropriate oversight and guidance throughout the Capability Life Cycle
In being able to deliver against each of these initiatives this talk will focus on cost estimation and the improvements that are currently being delivered and the roadmap for the future.
Mr Patrick Weaver
Is choosing an agile development methodology an invitation to anarchy? This session will canvass the options available to provide the 'gentle touch' needed to retain effective control whilst allowing the delivery team to be agile and creative. Agile is now a core component of the PMBOK® Guide and Practice Standard for Scheduling 3rd Ed. Based on these standards (and others) Patrick Weaver will look at the interface between Agile and 'traditional controls'.
The session will look at:
- Deciding if the work is a project or not – Agile metrics can often be sufficient for control.
- Planning Agile projects – setting objectives and parameters.
- What matters? Scope, cost or time? The estimating challenges.
- Managing the sprint or iteration.
- Managing change.
- Managing and reporting on the overall project.
- Linking Earned Value to Agile – challenges and opportunities.
- The culture needed to be agile.
The Extreme Cost of Technical Debt
"There's never enough time to do it right, but there's always enough time to do it over."
(John W. Bergman)
A tale of two major rail projects in London. The £14.8bn Crossrail project will finish more than 2 years late and 20% over budget. The £7.bn Thameslink project is running to plan and nearing completion. This paper will look at three factors causing the difference:
1. The physical structure of the projects and their relative complexity.
2. The insidious effect of Technical Debt on the delayed opening of Crossrail.
3. The governance factors leading to the 'Crossrial disaster' and how Crossrail messaging largely caused the 'disaster'.
Technical debt refers to the costs of having to go back and resolve problems that arise because an earlier decision was made to take an easy option, instead of the best one. There are powerful lessons to learn particularly when scoping major projects.
Mr Hadyn Thomas
Needed - Triple Threatd Leaders!
The rise of the International Institute of Business Analysis and the Change Management Institute is both a blessing and a curse. By adding dialog and focus on different areas of business improvement projects, these groups will help businesses and the people that work in them improve their capabilities. However, there is a down side. We run the risk of creating leader-specialists that divide what should be a consistent leadership model. The skill sets are largely the same. The focus is what changes.
Any major change initiative requires consistent and persistent leadership - from the initiation and design of change through to the cultural and procedural change that will result in business improvement. We need the "triple threat leader" who can manage strategic business change design, project execution, and the gradual cultural and procedural embedding that is required for business benefit realisation.
This interactive (and active!) Mindavation presentation will address what is needed to create triple threat leaders and change organisational habits to facilitate greater success in major initiatives for business change.
Presentation Value/Learning Points:
1. Learn how these three disciplines are coming together and reinventing management techniques to produce better business outcomes
2. Discover how they intertwine and learn how to help business analysts, project managers and change managers deliver initiatives with clearer objectives, tighter controls and better results.
3.Assess your ability to be a Triple Thread Leader
The aim of the presentation is to provide insights on how requirements management, project management and change management disciplines can be managed effectively to bring results to the clients and organisations we serve.
Dr Shari Soutberg
An Overview of the Schedule Compliance Risk Assessment Methodology (SCRAM)<b>
Schedule slippage is an unfortunate reality for many large defence acquisition projects or programs. The Australian Defence Capability Acquisition and Sustainment Group (CASG) Schedule Compliance Risk Assessment Methodology (SCRAM) provides a minimally disruptive, independent, non-attributional and non-advocate review process and framework for identifying root causes of schedule slippage and recommendations for going forward to senior and Executive-level management. SCRAM has been used and demonstrated as a highly effective methodology on more than 38 Australian and international complex defence projects in Australia, USA and the UK.
SCRAM is based on a repeatable process that uses a Root Cause Analysis of Schedule Slippage (RCASS) model to locate factors that impact program schedule along with a "health check" of the documented schedule, assessing its preparation, basis of estimates and probability distribution of completion dates using Schedule Monte Carlo Analysis. SCRAM can be used at the commencement of a project to validate a proposal, pre-emptively identify issues and risks, provide assurance, or be used as a diagnostic tool to identify root causes and drivers of schedule slippage. To date, SCRAM has been applied on more than 38 major acquisition programs in Australia, USA and UK.
Mr Stephen McDonald
<b>A View from the Function Lead in Capability Acquisition and Sustainment Group
The Capability Acquisition and Sustainment Group (CASG) was formed following one of the recommendations of the First Principles Review (FPR) (1 April 2015) that called for the establishment of 'a single end-to-end capability development function within the Department to maximise the efficient, effective and professional delivery of military capability.' (Recommendation 2). Two key sub recommendations also identified:
- developing a new organisational design and structure as part of the implementation process for CASG with reduced management layers (recommendation 2.3); and
- examining each SPO to determine where each fits within the smart buyer function, the most appropriate procurement model and achieving value for money (recommendation 2.4).
The FPR recommendation requires Defence to adopt more sophisticated contracting models to ensure that personnel in SPOs undertake predominately contracting, assurance, planning and governance activities, while industry partners focus on execution to support the delivery of capability.
The standing-up and maturing of Functions is critical to support SPO reform.
Functions are responsible for the professionalisation of the CASG workforce to meet its changing business needs. They will provide training assistance, career progression advice and information on policies and procedures to support individuals (APS and ADF staff) to do their job.
This will result in a more flexible and mobile workforce that will be better equipped to support delivery of the Integrated Investment Program and future capability requirements
Mr Simon Vaux
Transforming Infrastructure with Digital Engineering
Digital Engineering (DE) is currently transforming the way projects are planned and delivered, and in future will enable the vision for smart infrastructure and integrated digital twins. For DE to provide the greatest benefits, asset data and information must be created and managed using consistent standards and digital processes. Transport for NSW has committed to realising the broader benefits of DE by forming a dedicated team to develop and roll-out the DE Framework. This presentation will describe the journey so far and the exciting opportunities ahead for DE and transport infrastructure.
Mr Mark White
PMOs by Design
Project Management Offices come in all </i>shapes and sizes, and in my experience, are often established in a non-deliberate, <i> and misguided manner. Through certain experiences in my career, presented here as two case studies, I describe how I discovered the concept of PMOs by design, and how this discovery ignited my late career entry into academic research which has also added to my knowledge on PMO establishment, improvement and performance measurement. I summarise my findings supported by sharing some of the research I have undertaken in project management education, competencies, knowledge, organisational project management and management theory.
Mr Andrew Goodwin
Earned Value Management in Defence
In 1986, the Report into Defence Project Management by the Public Accounts Committee recommended that EVM be introduced to assist contractors upgrade their management systems and that it become the basis for contractor performance reporting. Defence progressively adopted this recommendation, initially calling up EVM on the Collins Submarine & ANZAC Frigate projects.
Australian Cost/Schedule Control Systems Criteria were subsequently developed and published in 1990. The Australian criteria were equivalent to those in the USA and Australian development of policy & procedural documentation drew lessons from the long established US experience.
The adoption of the Australian Standard for Earned Value Management, AS4817-2003 Project performance measurement using Earned Value, by the Defence Materiel Organisation in 2003 as the foundation for its Earned Value Management activities was an important step toward aligning our processes with Industry. This revised approach was less prescriptive on the "how to" with more focus upon the actual information needs of project managers.
However, perceived complexity and a continuing misconception that EVM was a financial tool rather than one of project management led to a lack of acceptance amongst some projects and the benefits of EVM failing to be maximised. In response, the Directorate of Project Controls Services in CASG's Program Management Branch released updated EVM policy and guidance during 2018-19. The new guidance was born out of the SMART Buyer framework and aids project managers in selecting and tailoring EVM requirements to individual contracts based on an assessment of the contract's strategic significance and cost, schedule and technical risk.
This presentation will give an overview of the updated policy and guidance, prefaced by a discussion of the historical driving factors that shaped it.
Mr Roger Vodicka, DSTG & Mr Richard Bartholomeusz, DSTG
Roger Vodicka – Department of Defence, Defence Science and Technology Group
Richard Bartholomeusz - Department of Defence, Defence Science and Technology Group
Donald Lowe - Department of Defence, Defence Science and Technology Group
Management of the Defence Science and Technology Research Portfolio in a Dynamic Strategic Environment
Portfolio management practices are adopted by organisations to meet three major goals: maximising the value of the portfolio, achieving the right balance and mix of projects and linking the portfolio to the business strategy. These goals are sought by both private and public sector organisations and are particularly applicable to organisations where a significant portion of the portfolio is dedicated to research, development and innovation. Research and development (R&D) and innovation projects are high-risk endeavours and the decision to modify, postpone or cease investment is an ongoing and dynamic process. This process becomes even more challenging where the strategic environment is subject to rapid change. This paper examines a number of practical approaches used to re-align a R&D portfolio in response to a shift in strategic direction. In a portfolio with fixed resources, this often means that difficult decisions need to be made regarding the re-allocation of a significant amount of financial and human resources. It was found that changes in strategy and priority have been achievable where there is a single, clear line of decision-making and the impact is limited to a single program or project. In cases where the strategic change has a broader impact across the portfolio, the decision-making process is more complex and as a result there is often a strong pull back to the status-quo. The approaches used have individually had mixed-success and further work is required develop new approaches and to effectively integrate them.
Mr Ben du Bois
Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Cities and Regional Development – Cost Estimation Policy and Implementation
In principle, the public sector has three types of policy instruments at its disposal, which in practice means regulation, economic means, and information. It is important that these instruments, in policy form, are based on sound theory as well as be practical to implement. This presentation will discuss the key principles and implementation of the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Cities and Regional Development's cost estimation policy. It willalso provide a practical example through an explanation of development of the Department's escalation policy, the aim of which is to ensure that the Outturn costs of proposed projects being considered for Australian Government funding are defensible and estimated on a consistent basis.
Mr Phil McClure
Infrastructure Investment Program – Overview and Governance Arrangements
The Australian Government's $100 billion investment program is primarily delivered in partnership with the states and territories. This arrangement is governed through a package of legislation and individual agreements that address how and when projects may be approved, how the scope and costs of projects are developed, and they key requirements and milestones for delivering projects. The key components of this governance arrangement are the National Land Transport Act 2014, the Federal Financial Relations Framework and the National Partnership Agreement on Land Transport Infrastructure Projects, including its attached notes and cost estimation guidance. In this presentation Phil will discuss how these governance arrangements work in practice to ensure the Australian Government's policy objectives are met.
Dr Melinda Swift
Competing Definitions and Differing Understandings: E-Procurement, A Physicist's Perspective
Many authors have examined e-procurement processes and attempted to define their applications within discrete categories and moreover formulate precise definitions. This presentation outlines some problematic issues and addresses some perennial difficulties which inhibit the formulation of a holistic definition of e-procurement and e-commerce and considers the linguistic, temporal, societal, aspirational and philosophical dimensions of the problem in proposing a working solution. These definitions have broad and overlapping spectra of categories, making an attempt to qualify what is a rapidly evolving field confusing if not considered in terms of multi-faceted and interdependent interactions. Further to this, it has long been considered that the adoption of e-procurement has been uneven mainly due to the broad scope of what opportunities it presents and what type and aspirations of the businesses trying to use them. The aim of this presentation is to consider the definitions of e-procurement and how this can be problematic. It poses the question "does a reliance on an ill-defined notion of what constitutes procurement and moreover e-procurement promote a false sense of security and/or foreseeable common misunderstandings?"
Dr Shoeb Ahmed Memon
Exploring Project Teams' Collaborative Behaviour in Hong Kong's Relational Contracting Projects
Relational contracting has been a key approach to deliver successful projects in Hong Kong. Nevertheless, projects still face significant delays and cost overrun. A major cause of the failures points to adverse behaviour of project teams. Researchers in this suggest focussing on attitudes and behaviour of project teams for project success.
This study aims to explore project teams' collaborative behaviour in Hong Kong's relational contracting projects. A qualitative approach was employed using interviews, which were guided by the theory of planned behaviour (Ajzen, 1991). Participants included ten mid-senior level professionals with active involvement in Hong Kong relational contracting projects. Later, the interviews were analysed using thematic analysis procedures suggested by Braun and Clarke (2006).
Results suggest that to enable collaboration among project teams in Hong Kong relational contracting, project teams may develop relational attitudes by ensuring senior management commitment to the project and relational norms. Exhibit collaborative intentions for integrating project team, and promote collaborative behaviour through teamwork, affective trust and extra-role behaviour. Collaborative behaviour developed through the proposed framework would improve collaboration among project teams and chances of project success.
WALT LIPKE AWARD FINALISTS
Prof. Shankar Sankaran
A Model for Organizational Project Management and its Validation
It is important that an organization selects the right projects and carefully manages and governs them to deliver their intended benefits. This paper will describe a model for Organizational Project Management (OPM) to help organizations to do that. OPM is the integration of all project management-related activities of an organization linking strategic decisions (where the project management-related activities are to be carried out) with business decisions (portfolio management and benefits realization) with their management (program and project management) and their governance at both the strategic and project levels. This paper will describe a seven-layered model of OPM with its 22 elements – spanning from the organizational level to the individual project level – derived by the authors using academic literature and their own experience in managing projects. The model adds new elements to OPM such as governance, projectification, benefits realization and organizational design to the conventional 3P (portfolio, program and project management) elements resulting in a more comprehensive model. The developed model was validated with a random sample of organizations in the Netherlands and China. The findings from the validation led to patterns of implementation of OPM in a variety of organizations. The process used for validation as well as the results obtained will be discussed in the paper. The feedback received on this process from academics and practitioners at the PGCS symposium will assist in the development of a web-based diagnostic tool for OPM being put together by the authors.
Mr Saeed Munir
Project Benefits Realization- Academics Aspiration or Practitioners Nightmare
Project Management (PM) literature increasingly calls for making project outcomes (benefits) rather than outputs as criteria for project success. Therefore, PM literature proposes a number of frameworks and measures for effective benefits realization (BR). There is not substantial evidence, particularly in the public sector organizations, as to how benefits are identified, what frameworks are being applied, what role governance plays in effective benefits realization and what are the factors that inhibit and or drive benefits realization? This study aims to address these issues through a qualitative research, based on case study method and uses semi-structured interviews. Our findings show that there is widespread awareness about the significance of BR in the public sector and BR frameworks do exist but rarely used. This research also finds that Project governance does not play effective role in promoting BR. This research highlights the lack of adequate funding, human resources and skills that are haemorrhaging efforts for the implementation of BR. This research also points out that the top management is neither fully committed to the cause of BR nor ready to provide resources and leadership for the implementation of benefits realization in the public sector organizations.
Dr Saeed Shalbafan
A Framework to Manage Uncertainty in Early Planning of Projects, an ICT Project
Identifying sources of uncertainty and tailoring decision-making approaches to meet specific contexts, creates opportunities to reduce effort expended in the early planning phases of project planning. Practical application of these approaches in not yet being widely reported in research on Business Case and Decision-making Frameworks, so this paper seeks to fill the gap by describing an approach based on the Cynefin Framework (C. F. Kurtz & D. J. Snowden, 2003; Snowden, 2018) which distinguishes between complicated and complex decision contexts based on the types of operational constraints (governing and enabling) and nature of practices involved (good and emergent). Recognising the differences during project initiation, improves accessibility to streamlined decision-making, by ensuring 'fit-for-purpose' methodologies are chosen rather than relying on an undifferentiated single method. This paper describes how use of the Cynefin framework, during initial project planning, enables better alignment of plans with situational constraints, and ensures effective calibration of plans to meet required outcomes.