رؤيتنا

DAR AL RIYADH INSIGHT #36

Insight #36 Giga Program Manager’s Checklist - Part 3 – Program Management Oversight (PMO) and Risks and Opportunities

Dar Al Riyadh Insights reflect the knowledge and experience of our Board, executives and staff in leading and providing PMC, design and construction management services. Dar Al Riyadh believes in the importance of broadly sharing knowledge with our clients and staff to improve project outcomes for the benefit of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Program management requires a broader, more strategic focus than project management and a tighter integration across all elements of the execution process. The following are a few of the activities that the program manager must pay particular attention to. These should be viewed as supplementing or amplifying more traditional good project management practices.

The checklist contained in this series of Insights is compiled from, “The GIGA Factor: Program Management in the Engineering & Construction Industry”, published by the Construction Management Association of America (CMAA).

The checklist has been segregated into four parts:

Part 1 - Program Management Perspective and Program Governance

Part 2 - Program Initiation and Program Execution

Part 3 - Program Management Oversight (PMO) and Risks and Opportunities

Part 4 – Sustainability and Innovation

 

This is Part 3 of the checklist.

 

Program Management Oversight (PMO)

57. Are the roles of the PMO (Program Management Office or Oversight) and PMC clearly defined and understood by the balance of the owner organization? Is the PMO adequately staffed and skilled to support the overall program?
58. Do all PMC work processes reflect required reviews, reports, audits, and/or approvals required by the PMO?
59. Is the gated process well-defined in terms of required information and scope of each stage? Are gate processes designed for efficient reviews and approvals? Have the PMC activity plans been developed to ensure the foundations for subsequent phases are firmly in place before required approvals to move forward have been given?
60. Is the PMO organization appropriate for the number of programs it is overseeing on behalf of the owner?
61. Is the project audit process well-defined and being used for effect?
62. Are programmatic type audits being effectively conducted by the program team?
63. Are self-audits of program performance from a PMO perspective being carried out by the program team in advance of an actual PMO audit?
64. Are program dashboards being used effectively to status overall program strategic progress as well as progress of the individual projects? Is there a shared view of the state of the program by the PMO and the PMC?
65. Are program dashboards being used to convey program status to key stakeholders?

 

Risks and Opportunities

66. Does the developed safety program sufficiently consider cross-cutting risks and transient activities?
67. Have the owner and PMC team been sufficiently sensitized to the direct and indirect impacts of a safety or loss incident?
68. Have the top reasons for failures in other comparable programs been reviewed and efforts undertaken to inoculate the program against these risks of failure?
69. Are risk management strategies identified as part of the risk assessment process being implemented and effectiveness tracked?
70. Are a full range of risk assessment techniques being used, recognizing that each has limitations?
71. Are risk assumptions and program constraints being tracked over time to ensure continuing validity of program risk strategies and assessments?
72. Have potential correlated risks including emerging risks been sufficiently identified? Are risk pre-cursors as well as the risks themselves being tracked?
73. Have sources of complexity in large engineering and construction programs been carefully considered? Have program approaches and strategies been simplified where possible to reduce or expose potential risks hidden in complexity?
74. Have the dynamic forces impacting risks and risk assessment in long duration engineering and construction programs been considered? Have appropriate risk phases been established to ensure risks are not averaged out through selection of long or total program timeframes?
75. Have scenarios been used to test the resilience of program strategy? Have they explicitly considered emerging trends that the industry or region is facing?
76. Has due consideration been given to the early detection of risk or risk precursors?
77. Are constraint-coupled risks identified and the associated coupling constraint tracked?
78. Are trust-influencing factors monitored for level and trend? Do program strategies, processes, and people reinforce trust building behaviors?
79. Have internal and external systemic risk categories been reviewed by the program team? Are periodic reviews of these systemic risks undertaken?
80. Have candidate strategies to reduce program risk in a large engineering and construction program been developed and the most appropriate strategies selected?
81. Has a structured approach to opportunity identification been undertaken and potential opportunities identified? Have requisite efforts been put in place to capitalize on the identified opportunities?

تحميل