DTE Energy, Major Enterprise Projects Journey to Project Excellence. Victor Allen 18 November 2014 Session #PMO14BR20 1

Transcription

1 DTE Energy, Major Enterprise Projects Journey to Project Excellence Victor Allen 18 November 2014 Session #PMO14BR20 1

2 Objectives To understand what makes a PMO successful To understand the value of project management maturity To understand the role of continuous improvement 2 2

3 Agenda Overview of PMO Success Major Enterprise Projects (MEP) Structure Project Maturity Model (PMMM) Continuous Improvement Conclusion Questions 3 3

4 Overview of PMO Success Project Maturity Continuous Improvement Success! Documented Processes Standardized Templates Project Team Trained Assessed Maturity Problem Identification Encouraged Everyone Practices CI Improvement Measured Project Team Trained Assessed Maturity Predictability On or Under Budget Required Scope Appropriate Quality Safely Completed Satisfied Customer 4 4

5 Major Enterprise Projects Structure Fossil, Environmental, Facilities Distribution Technologies & Renewables Nuclear Development & Other Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant DTE Gas Project Office Center of Excellence Quality Center of Excellence 5 5

6 Major Enterprise Projects Structure 250 Employees 1.3 Billion USD Budget 300 Projects 3.8% PMO Overhead applied to projects 6

7 Major Enterprise Projects Structure Small Project Office (PMO) begins to form 2006 Facilities projects comes to MEP with added employees Organization grows and becomes Major Enterprise Projects focused on environmental projects Fermi 2 nuclear projects come to MEP with added employees Michigan and out of state natural gas projects come to MEP with added employees MEP achieves PMMM Level 3 and Smart Grid comes to MEP with added employees 2012 MEP achieves PMMM Level 4 and APQC Best Practice PMO Award 2014 MEP begins to work outside of the company 7 7

8 Project Maturity Model What is it? An assessment model used to measure project management maturity Heavily focused on the Project Body of Knowledge (PMBOK) 8 8

9 Project Maturity Model Why did we do this? To determine the maturity level of our project management processes To map out a path for improvement Short-term (3 years) Long-term (5 Years) To build a culture of project management excellence within our organization To enhance the capability of the enterprise 9 9

10 Project Maturity Model Benefits of PM Maturity 44% Decrease in failed project 30% Projects delivered under budget 29% Increased improvements in productivity 19% Increased projects delivered ahead of schedule 17% Increased cost savings 10 10

11 Project Maturity Model Value of Project Maturity 11 11

12 Project Maturity Model 9 Knowledge Areas 5 Maturity Levels Integration Scope Time Level 1 - Initial Level 2 - Structured Cost Quality Human Resource Level 3 - Standardized Level 4 - Managed Level 5 - Optimized Communication Risk Procurement 43 Process Areas Processes 12 12

13 Project Maturity Model 9 Knowledge Areas 43 Sub- Processes 400+ Attributes Assessment Process Assessment Team Rating Forms Process Definition Level 1 to 5 Description 13 13

14 Project Maturity Model MEP Overall Results Level 1 HR Communications December 2008 Scope Quality Time Internal Assessment Team Internal Assessment Team Cost Integration Risk Project Procurement 14 14

15 Project Maturity Model 2008 Key Learnings Many processes did not exist they needed to be developed Some processes that were being followed were not pre-specified they needed to be documented Some processes were not being followed consistently Project Manager s and team members needed training The assessors were not always the experts we needed to get the right people in the room The assessment team was not prepared training around the Project Maturity Model was needed 15 15

16 Project Maturity Model MEP Overall Results Level 1 Communications HR December 2009 Scope Quality Time External Assessment External Team Assessment Team Cost Integration Risk Project Procurement 16 16

17 Project Maturity Model 2009 Key Learnings Most processes did exist a few needed to be developed Many processes were very new and were not being followed consistently across projects project managers needed to be educated Apprehension was high on the part of project managers and the processes were intimidating project managers needed one-on-one coaching and help the first time The external assessment team members were experts in project management not experts in assessment there was a learning curve around the assessment process 17 17

18 Project Maturity Model MEP Overall Results Level 3 HR December 2010 Scope 5 4 Quality Professional Assessment Professional Team Assessment Team 3 2 Communications 1 0 Time Cost Integration Risk Project Procurement 18 18

19 Project Maturity Model 2010 Key Learnings Attribute-level breakdown was an improvement process owners had a focus (235 Level 3 attributes) and assessors knew what to assess External assessment team was supplemented with project management assessment experts assessment gap closed Apprehension levels lowered on the part of project managers scalability became a key issue Processes were still new to most - project managers needed time to practice 19 19

20 Project Maturity Model MEP Overall Results Level 2 HR Communications October 2011 Scope Quality Internal Assessment Team Time Cost Integration Risk Project Procurement 20 20

21 Project Maturity Model 2011 Key Learnings and Next Steps As new projects enter the portfolio, it is possible to take a step backwards New Project Managers were not being trained effectively Gating process was needed as projects passed between project phases Document management and information control was lacking Additional computer automation was needed 21 21

22 Project Maturity Model The Road to Level 4 Practice, Practice, Practice Identify Level 4 gaps and begin to fill them Determine the ROI of our efforts Improve organizational capability by way of quality management 22 22

23 Project Maturity Model The Road to Level 4 (continued) Re-energize our Continuous Improvement Program Identify process abnormalities and continually improve processes Train organization in effective problem solving Provide problem solving tools and support Conduct SWARM events Engage in effective knowledge sharing across the company 23 23

24 Project Maturity Model MEP Overall Results Level 4 HR November 2012 Scope Quality Professional Assessment Professional Team Assessment Team Communications Time Cost Risk Project Procurement Integration 24 24

25 PMMM MEP Overall Results Level

26 Project Maturity Model Next Steps No decision to take the organization to level 5 Cost/benefit must be weighed carefully Targeted key process areas to move to level 5 Processes that help to sustain level 4 Processes that bring significant benefit forward Remain watchful as we take on new organizations to ensure we do not take a step backwards 26 26

27 Project Maturity Model Next Steps (continued) Increase focus on organizational change management Conduct project management maturity assessments for other internal organizations Raise the project management capability throughout the enterprise 27 27

28 Continuous Improvement We believe that improvement is our daily responsibility Create processes and standardize tools Train employees to make improvement a daily practice Establish CI expectations Pre Introduction & Awareness Leader Engagement Commitment & Priority Focus Broadening Deepening Becoming Distinctive 28 28

29 Continuous Improvement Introduction and Awareness Pre Introduction & Awareness Leader Engagement Commitment & Priority Focus Broadening Deepening Becoming Distinctive Operating System CI Training Lean/Six Sigma 29 29

30 Continuous Improvement Leader Engagement Pre Introduction & Awareness Leader Engagement Commitment & Priority Focus Broadening Deepening Becoming Distinctive CILW Define Output Metrics Define Key Processes 2008 CI was gaining momentum 2009 employees started to believe in CI Introduction to C1, C2, C3 and C4 SWARM Events 30 30

31 Continuous Improvement Commitment & Priority Focus Pre Introduction & Awareness Leader Engagement Commitment & Priority Focus Broadening Deepening Becoming Distinctive PRT 2010 emphasis on problem solving using the scientific method CIMM Assessments Problem Solving 2011 MEP adopted Kata Coaching Kata 31 31

32 Continuous Improvement Broadening and Deepening Pre Introduction & Awareness Leader Engagement Commitment & Priority Focus Broadening Deepening Becoming Distinctive greater emphasis on using CI to further improve Project Kata s and PRT s were formed around our project management processes PRT Coaching CIMM Assessments Yellow Belt and Green Belt training requirements defined Problem Solving Coaching Kata 32 32

33 Continuous Improvement Becoming a Distinctive Advantage Pre Introduction & Awareness Leader Engagement Commitment & Priority Focus Broadening Deepening Becoming Distinctive 2014 realization that more tools and process was not the answer the culture needed to change All Leaders expected to obtain Yellow Belt, Green Belt and PMP certification over 3 year period Culture work emphasized Exploration of synergies between CI and PM Project management foundational capabilities developed for the enterprise 33 33

34 CONCLUSION The journey to excellence is a marathon, not a sprint expect to take 5 years Roll out process changes, tools and templates using a structured change management approach Change your culture in a deliberate way and recognize it will be hard to do Maintain center stage at all time be consistent and persistent Be patient with your employees 34

35 QUESTIONS 35

36 Victor Allen Victor L. Allen is Director of the Project Office Center of Excellence for Major Enterprise Projects. His responsibilities in MEP have included leading the Project Maturity Assessment (PMMA) within the organization, developing processes and procedures for effective project execution and managing unique high-visibility projects such as the Detroit Recovery Project. In addition, Allen supports various new capital and capital improvement projects which include: Environmental Construction, Nuclear Licensing and Construction, Renewable Energy Construction, and Smart Grid Technology. He also serves as coach, mentor and advisor to project managers. Victor Allen, Director Project Office Major Enterprise Projects DTE Energy Prior to his current position, Allen worked as an Information Technology professional for over 20 years and has extensive experience leading, managing, and designing largescale mission-critical information systems. He specialized in large ERP implementations utilizing Oracle, SAP, and PeopleSoft. Allen is an adjunct professor at Lawrence Technological University teaching graduate level courses in both the MBA and Master of Science Information Systems programs. Allen is a certified Project Professional and is an instructor for the Project Institute. Allen earned a Master of Business Administration (MBA) and Bachelor of Science degree in Information Systems from Lawrence Technological University in Southfield, MI. He has worked at DTE Energy since