- Foreword and Introduction
- 1: Putting projects in context
- 2: Entity arrangements
- 2.1 Strategic alignment
- 2.2 People and culture
- 2.3 Effective governance
- 2.4 Common APS Requirements
- Summary for entity arrangements
- 3: Individual project proposals
- 3.1 Clarifying the concept
- 3.2 The business case
- 3.3 Approving the project
- Summary for individual projects
- 4: Project implementation
- Appendices
- Quick reference card
PDF version of guide [3.0MB]
PDF of Quick reference card [0.3MB]
Tips for PDF and HTML versions [0.5MB]
Word version of checklists [0.1MB]
Accountability and authority
Better Practice results: Having effective arrangements for project accountability aids in the implementation of projects as planned – particularly for projects using resources from across organisational boundaries – and increases the prospect of expected business outcomes being achieved.
Achieving planned project results is assisted by:
- having an appropriate coverage of accountability – across organisational boundaries, over programs of related projects, and over both project products and expected business outcomes; and
- properly matching accountability with authority over the necessary resources.
Managing project responsibility across boundaries
Projects will often require the cooperation of different business units within an entity, as well as external parties. For example: business units with national responsibility for programs; regional office networks; call centre operations; ministerial task forces; inter-departmental committees; and areas responsible for ICT development, ICT infrastructure operations, and ICT strategy.
However, an entity’s accountability arrangements may focus on accountability within the units of the organisational hierarchy, with less attention on the management of projects which need to operate across unit boundaries – including projects involving parties outside the organisation.
It is better practice for entities to have established an organisational culture and principles that support the effective allocation of responsibility and authority for cross-unit projects.
In addition, for entities who often undertake projects involving new partners, it is helpful to provide them with practical support on accountability arrangements, such as an induction booklet, and a standard format for an induction briefing. If an entity does not have pre-established arrangements, then time and effort will be needed to establish project-specific arrangements for cross-organisational coordination. This would need to be taken into account in the timeframe, costs, and risk profile of project proposals.
Example: Entity accountability principles for cross-business unit projects
Following is an abbreviated example of entity-level accountability principles.
The standard mechanism of accountability in the entity is through the management hierarchy and business unit plans. Consistent with this approach, for projects operating across business unit boundaries:
- The project, and its overall budget, will be approved by the executive committee.
- A senior responsible officer will be appointed, and the project objectives reflected in their unit’s business plan.
- The senior responsible officer has authority, following consultation, to negotiate and document work to be undertaken by other business units, together with completion criteria and monitoring arrangements.
- The senior responsible officer has authority to apportion the project budget between business units, in consultation with the Chief Financial Officer. This can be ‘fee for service’ (typically operations staff billing time to the project for analysis, testing and training; and Corporate Services billing for publications and legal costs), or by an earmarked allocation to a partner business unit (typically the ICT Development Branch).
For projects involving services to be provided through regional office operations, the senior responsible officer will:
- include an appointee of the Regional Office Committee on the project board; and
- agree with the Regional Office appointee the criteria for hand-over to ongoing operations.
Arrangements for programs of projects
Significant initiatives will generally be delivered though undertaking a program of individual projects, which collectively will achieve a desired outcome. This Guide focuses on the approval of individual projects. Developing, approving and managing programs of projects is a more complex issue, best built on the foundation of a sound capability with individual projects. When entities are moving to a program management14 approach, it is suggested that this be done in a conscious and methodical way. Useful first steps include:
- providing training for relevant senior executives on program management issues;
- conducting a pilot or trial of program management, possibly using external expertise, to help develop the skills and practical experience of the relevant executives and staff in support roles; and
- pre-preparing committee charters setting out the responsibilities of a program management board.
| THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN PROGRAM AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT |
|---|
It is often more manageable to treat complex or large undertakings as a program of projects. For example, an entity may undertake an initiative aimed at allowing service recipients access to information on all of their dealings with the entity, regardless of the legislative basis of service provision. This may be treated as a program over several years, with individual projects for each area of legislation.
The distinction between programs and projects is not absolute, and will be partly based on what will work well for an entity. Broad distinctions are:
| Projects | Programs of projects |
| Time-limited. | Of longer duration, possibly ongoing. |
| Focus on more narrowly defined products. For example, a new payments system. | Focus on broader outcomes, which require the coordination of multiple projects over a longer timeframe. |
| Generally smaller. | Generally larger. |
| Scope tends to be fixed, and more specifically defined. | Greater flexibility in scope, as the nature and number of individual projects may be adjusted to better achieve broader outcomes. |
| Program management focuses on the coordination of a suite of projects, and ensuring that they collectively contribute to the desired broader outcome. This may involve redefining or cancelling current projects, and identifying new projects to better achieve the program goals.
In contrast, project management focuses more on the achievement of the stated project objective within time and budget. |
|
14: In this Guide we use the phrase program management to mean managing a program of projects, rather than the alternative sense of managing delivery of a government policy program.
Unknown outcomes
“The audit of 60 business system projects found that most had not measured whether planned business outcomes had been achieved.”
… ANAO.
Accountability for project products and business outcomes
Program delivery and business projects generally have well defined products, such as a new ICT system, new legislation and guidelines, and trained staff. Allocating accountability for these project products is important – and is usually clear.
These products will then be used to generate the planned business outcomes, such as improved public access to information, reduced costs, or a new program being provided to agreed service levels.
Given that these business outcomes are the real reason for funding the project, it is better practice to also allocate, and document, responsibility for achieving the planned business outcomes.
Example: Accountability for business outcomes
A project has been approved to develop a data matching system which will ensure that payments are being made in accordance with legal entitlements. The project product, or deliverable, is the data matching system which will compare information from several entities (such as payments made to, and declarations of assets by, individuals). The cost of the project has been justified on the basis of expected reductions in incorrect payments. This reduction is the expected business outcome of the project. Elements of good practice in accountability for the project include:
- The project proposal allocates accountability for the business outcome, of reduced program payments, to the Branch head responsible for the program. Responsibility for delivery of the system was assigned to the ICT Development Branch.
- The business case includes a measurement methodology to attribute any changes to the value of incorrect payments to the data matching system, and separate that effect, to a reasonable degree of confidence, from other factors such as changes in client numbers and changes to entitlement criteria.
- The entity’s financial and budgeting system makes provision for recording the anticipated reduction in program expenditure.
Delegated authority matches responsibility
In addition to descriptions of responsibilities in business plans, project charters and duty statements, entities provide legal delegations of authority for such matters as the commitment and expenditure of public money, and entering into contracts. On occasion there may be a mismatch between the responsibilities assigned to officers responsible for projects and their delegated authority. For example, this can happen because resources and funds are being drawn from many parts of an entity – with no single authority to access these resources, or because positions have been created on a project-specific basis – and default delegations for the position are not aligned to the requirements.
Any mismatch of responsibility and authority has the potential to delay projects, or to weaken accountability. It is better practice to match responsibility and authority, while providing appropriate segregation of duties (for example, to provide checks and balances on expenditure). If necessary, resolving any mismatching as part of the entity’s general arrangements for financial delegations will help set a foundation for improved project implementation.
Previous: Project priorities
Next: Data Stewardship