Exaprotect BlogManager

Organizations implement IT projects for a myriad reasons, such as to improve e-commerce capabilities, increase market share or achieve operational efficiencies. Project success will depend on several factors, including the capacity, skills and competencies of the project team and retaining the team once assembled.

Hence, a key project risk factor is the selection of the project team. A key decision many organizations face is ”do we undertake the project in-house, or do we engage consultants to manage and implement the project on our behalf?“ Depending on the nature of the project, the organization may have to live with the consequences of this decision for many years to come.

Significance to the Organization

Before even thinking about the “who” and their capabilities, consideration should be given to the significance of the project to the organization. This evaluation will be instrumental in informing the choice of team. A simple and quick method of describing project significance is by generating a table of weighted criteria that can be scored in terms of degree of importance to the project (see Table 1). The weighting must, obviously, be selected to suit the circumstances. Once complete, the table will provide an “at a glance” visual representation of the importance of the project to the organization and hence the degree of consideration required in team selection.

The table is designed to be used to “score” the importance of the project to the organization using the scale of 1 to 5, where 5 is highly significant and 1 is of minor importance. A number should be placed in the appropriate cell to score each criterion. The purpose of the scoring is to inform decision-making in terms of the allocation of projects between business units or consultants. Projects undertaken by a group with inadequate skills may expose an organization to risks relating to capital expenditure, operational, revenue, contract, reputation and stakeholder issues.

Definitions of numbered columns

5 Highly significant (i.e. national importance, very high capital value and/or wide geographical spread)
4 Significant (i.e. provincial project)
3 Major importance (i.e. localized project)
2 Moderate importance (i.e. incremental improvement in existing infrastructure)
1 Minor importance (i.e. small improvements to existing infrastructure in localized area)

Table 1: Evaluation criteria

B1	General Experience
		Weighting	Score Internal	Score Consultant	Weighted Score (Int)	Weighted Score (C)
1.1	Project Management	20%
1.2	Design Management	20%
1.3	Engineering	20%
1.4	Procurement	10%
1.5	Project Controls (e.g. Cost, Change, Value & Risk Management, Planning)	10%
1.6	Stakeholder Management	10%
1.7	Approvals management, commissioning	10%

B2	Specific experience of the context
		Weighting	Score Internal	Score Consultant	Weighted Score (Int)	Weighted Score (C)
2.1	Interfacing projects	20%
2.2	Location(s)	10%
2.3	Stakeholders	10%
2.4	Technology	30%
2.5	Design of similar assets	20%
2.6	Procurement of similar assets	10%

B3	Capacity
		Weighting	Score Internal	Score Consultant	Weighted Score (Int)	Weighted Score (C)
3.1	Current commitments	30%
3.2	Anticipated commitments	10%
3.3	Current capabilities	50%
3.4	Annual staff retention average	10%

Capabilities and Competencies

Once consideration has been given to the significance of the project to the organization, attention should then be turned to the capabilities and competencies of the potential parties that could undertake the project. Adequate time should be dedicated to the evaluation process and ideally this should be undertaken by experienced personnel. Again, this evaluation will be instrumental in informing the choice of team. As above, a simple and quick method of capturing competencies and experience is by generating a table of weighted criteria that can be scored in terms of degree of importance to the project (see Table 2). The criteria should be selected with care and the weighting must, obviously, be adjusted to suit the circumstances. The table below is only one suggested format. Once complete, the output of the two tables must be combined to provide an overall score. The desire is to make the process more objective and less subjective.

Definitions

5 Highly experienced practitioners
4 Experienced practitioners
3 Practitioners
2 Some experience
1 Minimal experience

Table 2: Competencies/Experience

B1	General Experience
		Weighting	Score Internal	Score Consultant	Weighted Score (Int)	Weighted Score (C)
1.1	Project Management	20%
1.2	Design Management	20%
1.3	Engineering	20%
1.4	Procurement	10%
1.5	Project Controls (e.g. Cost, Change, Value & Risk Management, Planning)	10%
1.6	Stakeholder Management	10%
1.7	Approvals management, commissioning	10%

B2	Specific experience of the context
		Weighting	Score Internal	Score Consultant	Weighted Score (Int)	Weighted Score (C)
2.1	Interfacing projects	20%
2.2	Location(s)	10%
2.3	Stakeholders	10%
2.4	Technology	30%
2.5	Design of similar assets	20%
2.6	Procurement of similar assets	10%

B3	Capacity
		Weighting	Score Internal	Score Consultant	Weighted Score (Int)	Weighted Score (C)
3.1	Current commitments	30%
3.2	Anticipated commitments	10%
3.3	Current capabilities	50%
3.4	Annual staff retention average	10%

The Author
Robert Chapman is a risk management specialist and director of Dr Chapman Consulting. He can be contacted at robert.chapman@drchapman-consulting.com

This entry was posted on Tuesday, February 12th, 2008 at 7:45 pm and is filed under Risk Management. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.