by clicking the arrows at the side of the page, or by using the toolbar.
by clicking anywhere on the page.
by dragging the page around when zoomed in.
by clicking anywhere on the page when zoomed in.
web sites or send emails by clicking on hyperlinks.
Email this page to a friend
Search this issue
Index - jump to page or section
Archive - view past issues
Project Manager : Project Manager Oct Nov 2011
www.aipm.com.au Project Manager 7 include poor alignment between project and organisational goals and a lack of necessar y human resources. Key findings 35% of project sponsors in financial ser vices either wait until a project is in serious trouble before getting involved, or never get involved at all. This is despite the belief of most executives sur veyed (61%), that early action on troubled projects enables companies to better use limited resources. 47% of surveyed firms do not respond to troubled projects until they have officially missed their time and budget targets. A further 15% of financial ser vices firms have no formal process to address project failure at all. Companies with less than US$500 million in annual revenu e respond to signs of trouble earlier than their larger peers . This early action pays off as smaller firms deliver significantly higher rates of project success than larger businesses. Few financial services companies have rigorous project management processes in place to meet their project goals consistently, according to new research from the Economist Intelligence Unit. Sponsored by Oracle, the report, titled ‘Proactive response’, explores how financial services firms identify and deal with at-risk projects and which strategies help them to achieve greater project success. Unrealistic goals are the mo st common cause of unsuccessful projects in financial services firms, revealed the survey. Others Finance sector falls behind neWs • A significant number of business and government technology projects are “ticking time bombs”, according to University of Oxford research. The survey found that one in six projects went over budget by an average of 200 per cent, or overran by an average of almost 70 per cent. Researchers analysed 1500 global projects that had revamped their information technology systems in the past 10 years. They found IT projects were 20 times more likely to run out of control than expected. Common IT pitfalls included companies facing serious difficulties being hit by an out of control technology project at a time when they can least afford it; engineers and managers in charge of project development not having enough understanding of how to implement the new technology; and problems of software compatibility. “We were shocked when the data came in,” said principal investigator Professor Bent Flyvbjerg, BT Professor and Founding Chair of Major Programme Management, Oxford University. “Any company contemplating large technology projects should ask whether the company is strong enough to absorb the hit should it go over budget by 400 per cent. Although this figure may seem excessive, as our research shows, costs such as these can occur all too frequently.” IT projects ‘ticking time bombs’ «ONe iN six prOjects weNt OVer budget by aN aVerage Of 200% Or OVerraN by aN aVerage Of aLMOst 70%» P3M3 methodology questioned Several government agencies scored poorly in a series of Portfolio, Program and Project Management Maturity Model (P3M3) audits. A response to the 2008 Gershon review of the Australian Government’s use of information and communication technology (ICT), the audits show major agencies lack P3M3 maturity to manage ICT projects effectively. Since 2009, agencies governed by the Financial Management and Accountability (FMA) Act with annual ICT expenditure of more than $20 million have had their P3M3 maturity levels assessed. Tax, Immigration, Customs and Human Services and Medicare scored best, with overall ratings of between 2 and 3 (out of 5). While Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and Bureau of Meteorology were the worst performers, scoring between 0 and 1. P3M3 breaks down portfolio, program and project management into a hierarchy of Key Process Areas (KPAs). This approach allows organisations to assess their current capability and then plot a roadmap for improvement, prioritised by the KPAs that will make the biggest impact on performance. agency project program portfolio dfat 2 0 0 boM 1 1 1 fachia 1 1 2 a-g 2 1 2 defence 2 1 2 finance 2 2 1 centrelink 2 1 2 Medicare 2 2 2 dhs 2 2 2 customs 2 2 2 tax 3 1 2 diac 2 2 2 p3M3 ratiNgs Of federaL gOVerNMeNt ageNcies (ouT oF MAxIMuM oF 5)
Project Manager Aug Sep 2011
Project Manager Dec Jan 2012