Case Study
Manchester City Council
Addressing the Challenges of Project and Programme
Management
Capacity Building Programme
Supported Communities and Local Government
Published by: The Improvement and Development Agency (IDeA), Communities and Local Government and the London Borough of Lambeth.
Introduction
Manchester has some of the most exciting developments and programmes in the UK but some of the biggest project challenges. To tackle these challenges Manchester City Council is developing skills towards programme and project management excellence.
In 2003 the Chief Executive of Manchester City Council, Sir Howard Bernstein, launched an initiative to introduce a standard and generic method to support the delivery of projects across all service departments. This presented a major corporate challenge for an organisation of 25,500 employees. The mandate included some key deliverables:
Improve project delivery capability through capacity building and sustained support promoting a new language and culture for programme and project management
Bring greater surety to the delivery of programmes for capital work, regeneration and business transformation
Deliver a wide range of service improvements and community benefits to the people of Manchester through successfully managed projects
Raise awareness of project risks and their management
To implement these objectives it was decided to produce a generic approach to Project Management within the organisation. The resulting standardised local government approach, the ‘Manchester Method’, is in the true spirit of project delivery and change management – it is a means to an end, to benefit the community in the delivery of a wide range of projects.
The ‘Manchester Method’ can, has and will continue to improve the lives of those who live, work and visit Manchester; not through any one project, but as a thread through all projects delivered by Manchester City Council. The method has applied common sense in line with the Project Management best practice to benefit the community in the delivery of a wide range of projects.
At a time of major change in local government Manchester City Council has developed a ‘public sector’ Project Management Method based on an industry standard, PRINCE2. Supported by a training programme the approach has attracted the attention of both local authorities and other areas of the public sector. The reputation that Manchester City Council has developed through the adoption of project management best practice has resulted in over 50 other councils and associated partners including the police and fire services expressing an interest in, and in many cases, adopting the approach developed.
The present position of Manchester City Council is that it is better placed to achieve a more joined up approach to the delivery of projects. As the method is generic it can be applied to service development and change management as well as product based projects
The initiative has been well received because it brings added value to service delivery by actively responding to a skills gap. The sense of adding value to the skills and experience of staff has resulted in a popular and over subscribed basic training course. This has been added to by an approach that has involved staff at all levels in the organisation. Currently over 700 members of staff have attended the training course covering the basics of projects
management, the Fundamentals of Project Management. This has promoted the culture of planning and implementing change to a standard method and sharing best practice throughout the organisation and at every level.
“Our ability to manage and deliver projects is increasingly becoming a measure
of our success as an organisation. A Training Programme has been devised to
ensure MCC staff, develop the knowledge and technical expertise to manage
projects confidently and successfully.”
Sit Howard Bernstein, Chief Executive
The requirement of Manchester City Council exemplifies the needs of many enterprises in both public and private sectors throughout the UK. Effective delivery of projects critically depends on the sharing of a common set of data across all members of project teams to provide visibility and control. In turn this helps the organisation apply consistent best practice and enable collaboration to achieve the corporate aims and objectives.
Background on Manchester City Council
Council Situation
Manchester City Council is committed to developing Manchester as a city of national and
international significance where people wish to live, companies choose to invest and where there is equal access to wealth, employment and other opportunities created through successful
regeneration. It aims to achieve these objectives by promoting and supporting sustainable
communities, delivering high quality services, developing strong partnerships to promote initiatives of real, long term benefit and by actively involving local people.
Manchester City Council’s annual Capital Programme has a value in the region of £270m and comprises in excess of 700 projects. In addition, the Manchester Improvement Programme includes almost 100 major change management projects. To deliver this large portfolio of both change and product based programmes and projects, Manchester City Council complements its current capacity for delivery by utilising project management consultants through a Framework Agreement.
As a result of the forecasted regional reduction of project management capacity in the North West, Manchester City Council will have to maintain its delivery capability through capacity building if it is to deliver successful programmes and maintain high quality services to Manchester residents in the future.
For the City Council to successfully deliver its strategic objectives it is required to manage a large number of projects every year over a broad spectrum. Two years ago the Council felt there were significant opportunities to develop project delivery and related areas of work that could be improved across the authority as a whole. Reports from a number of sources identified the need for the Council to take action to improve its performance in terms of project management. The
Comprehensive Performance Assessment from December 2002 identified a number of issues, namely that:
The Capital Programme lacked collaboration and the monitoring processes required improvement
Strategic or systematic approach to implement major change and planning could be improved
The arrangements for ensuring a consistent approach across all services were fragmented
The assessment commented that capacity had been strengthened with the creation of a capital project management team. However the practice of Project Management and service delivery with Manchester City Council was an area for improvement.
Some of the general business challenges that faced the organisation were:
Project Management was inconsistent with only patchy examples of good practice and minimal collaboration on lessons learned
Information was held in a variety of formats creating problems in communicating and transferring data
Analysis and management of risk were poorly understood; there was considerable improvement required in the recognition, management and maintenance of risk generally
Progress reporting was generally an incomplete process and audit trails were difficult to follow
There was no corporate approach or established standard for project management training
There was a need to improve joined-up thinking in the delivery of projects, otherwise there was a risk of ineffective use of limited resources and a potential to miss opportunities
The Capital Programme Group was set up to tackle these challenges and support the City Council’s objectives of delivering better value services through the Capital Programme. Visits by the Project Management Working Group to other authorities undertaking similar exercises established the need for support at the highest level.
A four-phase strategy was presented supported by leadership from the very top of the organisation; a real commitment to a top down and bottom up approach was established and emphasised the importance of the programme.
There was an early focus to build capability and capacity from within the organisation. A training programme was designed to provide trainees with a thorough understanding of the Manchester City Council Project Management Method and the ability to apply a range of basic project management techniques to various aspects of a project. There was also a separate Board Members Overview, which was key to ensuring a high level understanding of the training and its promotion across all services.
Cultural and Organisational Issues
At the beginning of the initiative an early evaluation exercise undertaken by the Project
Management Working Group identified that staff capability in project management was low level and inconsistent. Within the organisation there existed:
Extremely diverse delivery cultures
A silo culture in many departments, where services worked alone with different contact points and separate systems, duplicating functions
A resistance to change the status quo
Poorly defined responsibility and accountability
Reluctance to buy in from departmental Management Teams
After reviewing the culture that prevailed in the organisation it was recognised that there was room for improvement in project management resulting in opportunities to deliver additional high quality services to meet their needs.
“My ability to date to manage a project has been based on hard work, ad hoc training and learning by experience”
Pre-training opinion from a Manchester City Council Project Manager
In 2002 a cross-departmental Project Management Steering Group identified further areas to improve within the organisation:
To develop a corporate approach and establish a standard for project management training
Facilitate joined-up thinking in the delivery of projects leading to ineffective use of scarce resources and maximise opportunities
Recruit experienced and skilled project managers. The appointment of temporary consultant project managers was a significant cost to the authority.
Overall there where many challenges that needed to be tackled by the organisation, but these challenges also produced an opportunity. During a period of major change in local government the time was right for Manchester City Council to develop an initiative to support the delivery of projects across the council, build in-house capacity and promote best practice within the organisation.
Implementation
The key objectives of the initiative were to:
Provide an understanding of the strategic importance of project management to the organisation
Clearly define roles and responsibilities for project owners, board member, project managers, project support and other key stakeholders
Provide new project managers with technical skills to manage projects successfully Formalise and support the skills of existing project managers.
Improvements in performance were expected to be:
Enhanced competencies in project management
Behaviour change through the adoption of best practice and use of common language Early awareness of risk and its impact on project viability
A more joined-up and collaborative approach to working with partners A clearer understanding by senior managers.
Success was envisaged as skilled Manchester City Council staff managing complex projects to time, cost and quality, creating a resource to improve on the delivery of the Council’s objectives.
Approach
Manchester City Council developed a four-phase approach to achieve improvements in performance.
The 4-phase approach
1. Promote cultural change through introduction of a standard method for project delivery
2. Improve project scrutiny through introduction of in internal ‘gateway’ approval process
3. Automate the methods to support collaborative working
4. Create a ‘Centre of Excellence’ for programme and project management
The four-phase delivery was designed to be continuous and overlapping. It is important to recognise that in three years the strategy outline has remained the same.
The initiative started in September 2002 when a unit was formed in Manchester City Council and given the title of Capital Programme Group. The main objective of the Group was and still is to enhance the surety of the Manchester City Council’s Capital Programme. To achieve this a director was employed and staff from Special Projects attached to the group.
The small team that was established had a remit to develop a simple yet coherent project management strategy.
In the December of the same year a Strategic Planner with extensive project management experience in the private sector was employed to support the initiative and develop a strategy for the introduction and implementation of a standard approach to project management for Manchester City Council. His first action was to work with a newly formed Project Management Working Group made up of representatives from various departments within the council. The knowledge, experience and enthusiasm of this group has significantly contributed to the success of the initiative to date.
In line with central government guidelines it was decided that a strategy be developed to standardise and enhance the current method for project management. This would allow effective sharing of information between departments and provide a standard “Best Practice” approach that could be easily understood by both experienced and new Project Managers with Manchester City Council. Project Management was already recognised as a key management standard within the organisation but not in a standard format.
To start the process the Manchester City Council Project Management Working Group made visits to other local authorities undertaking similar initiatives. These experiences revealed that a number of authorities had selected council officers to attend standard PRINCE2 courses, either as delegates on the public schedule of courses, or as closed events delivered by a variety of training providers.
This early research by the Working Group quickly established that this approach was not as successful as anticipated; news of this unsuccessful approach had also reached other councils who were obviously keen to avoid the same outcome. As a result of the limited success that this approach produced some local authorities have a less than positive view on the blanket
PRINCE2 approach.
The Chief Executive of Manchester City Council called a formal for all senior managers setting the stage for a major corporate challenge for the organisation. The briefing outlined the intentions of the Project Management initiative:
Improve the capability of project delivery through building capacity and promoting a new language and culture for programme and project management
Bring greater surety to the delivery of programmes
Deliver a wide range of service improvements and community benefits through successfully managed projects
Raise awareness of project risks and their management
Phase One Standardised Methodology and Project Delivery
The Capital Programme Group’s first major challenge was to introduce a generic process for the delivery of capital projects. The potential benefits of a generic solution for project delivery were apparent from a very early stage in the process. The initiative had the potential to change the way in which a large and very diverse local authority delivered all of its projects in the future. This in turn would lead to an increased ‘in-house’ capacity for project delivery, as well as provide better products and services for the community in Manchester.
The method was based on best practice in line with an ODPM directive, PRINCE2, which could be adopted by all service departments. This standard, generic approach was based on a ‘framework of common sense’ based on guidance from the APM Body of Knowledge. This first phase of the strategy involved careful planning and communication.
After much discussion the Project Management Working Group adopted the strategy for the creation of a Project Management Handbook to be supported by training provision and a basic approach to Risk Analysis. It was imperative for the Handbook to be generic in its approach to suit all departments within the City Council and was based on PRINCE2 in line with central government guidelines.
This approach is now known as the ‘Manchester Method’, this name was important in aiding the promotion of the initiative within the Council. The first version of the Manchester City Council Project Management Handbook was published in 2003. For the delivery of the necessary briefings to project owners, board members, managers and staff it was decided to appoint a training partner.
The provision of training was an important component of the first phase of the strategy. The Working Group agreed that selecting a “training partner” rather than a “training provider” would give greater advantages to both parties.
After a stringent selection process a local training provider was selected as a partner. They were appointed because of their experience in the delivery of project management training and had local training facilities to ensure high quality tuition and meet the demand for places. A partnership model that benefits both parties has been developed. The success of this partnership has recently been acknowledged by being awarded a National Training Award.
As well as the training partner the City Council’s Organisational Development has been a fundamental component in the development and promotion of the Project Management concept. As a result the implementation has been made a much easier process than it would have otherwise been.
The training programme ‘The Manchester City Council Fundamentals of Project Management’ was launched in the summer of 2003. This training initiative has been pivotal in introducing a common language approach and continues to change the culture for managing and monitoring the delivery of projects.
Prior to development of the training programme within Phase One, staff involved in managing projects lacked any structured or coordinated approach. Officers had a wide range of
managerial and technical skills but they lacked an understanding of project management skills, roles and responsibilities. Within the organisation there was little capability to manage more complex high-risk projects initiated by the authority. Also, some board members did not understand their specific responsibilities in line with the new project management method.
By October 2005 over 700 staff had attended the two-day course and 35 had progressed to obtain a formal, national qualification as a PRINCE2 Practitioner. In due course it is proposed to create an internal ‘Centre of Excellence’ (Phase Four), in essence a pool of experienced and qualified programme and project managers who will help to promote best practice and offer guidance to other engaged in project delivery. This will be discussed in more detail in 4.5.2.
Outcomes of Phase One
Some of the outcomes from Phase One are:
Manchester City Council Project Management Handbook based on PRINCE2 but with a local government focus
Over 700 people attending the Fundamentals for Project Management course, the initial target was set to train 180 project managers and board members over a two year period Of those trained, 35 have progressed to gain a formal qualification as a PRINCE2 Practitioner. The MCC pass rate at practitioner level being 18% above the national average
For the first time, projects are formalised and delivered in a structured way to a generic method that is marketed as a ‘framework for common sense’ based on guidance from the APM Body of Knowledge
Manchester City Council’s project delivery culture has changed dramatically with improved organisation, better communication and a common language
Senior Responsible Owners (SRO) and Project Managers have been assigned to all approved projects and monthly progress Red-Amber-Green (RAG) reports are now standard practice
All projects are expected to have common project documentation based on PRINCE2 templates that have been adapted for Manchester City Council
Project risks are given due consideration: risk owners are assigned and risks are managed proactively
In-house capacity and competencies have been enhanced and the medium term prospect is that current spending on Programme and Project Management (PPM) consultancy will be reduced
Prospects for recruitment and relation of PPM staff have been enhanced significantly Enhanced reputation through the adoption of best practice. To date, 50 other councils and associate partners in the public sector have expressed interest in, and in many cases adopted, the MCC approach
PM tools associated with this project have been utilised in a Central Government initiative as a standard for all local authorities
A common culture has been developed supported by training; there is now a consistent approach to workload planning and project delivery Risk management is high on the agenda leading to some high-risk projects being stopped
Improvement in project delivery, time and cost measured via key performance indicators, bringing surety to the Capital Programme
The results demonstrate that project managers are using the approach to provide real benefits for the community across a wide range of projects.
“The speed of progress and the results have been outstanding and there will be further development opportunities within the council over the next few years. We are looking to managers to identify stag who can use project management to benefit Council and achieve significant personal goals.
Director of Capital Programme
Phase Two Manchester City Council Gateway Review Process
Phase Two of the strategy saw the introduction and administration of a scrutiny and approval process. This new scrutiny process, the Manchester City Council Capital Programme Gateway Review, has been introduced to ensure a corporate and strategic fit for programmes and projects and to ensure better application of corporate priorities. There are 8 Gateways covering the complete project lifecycle from mandate to financial completion joining up existing appraisal functions involving the right people at the right time, adding value to existing procedures.
Gateway 0 Drivers – Mandate for service needs, ideas and opportunities
Gateway 1 Evaluation – Strategic fit via Gateway Review Group, accept, revise or reject
Gateway 2 Considerations – Corporate fit via Strategic Management Team
Gateway 3 Evaluation – Detailed bid appraisal via Scrutiny Panel, ‘do we have a viable
worthwhile project?’
Gateway 4 Appraisal – Budget approval via Capital Board, Executive, Council, sign off for
inclusion in Capital Budget
Gateway 5 Appraisal – Approval to spend, CAPEX/VAT approval via Finance
Gateway 6 Review – Practical Completion
Gateway 7 Review – Financial completion
At the beginning it is designed to encourage early submissions to a Review Group (Gateway 1) followed by thorough project appraisal via a Scrutiny Panel (Gateway 3). At completion projects and programmes are also reviewed to confirm effective closure and examine lessons learned (Gateway 6 and 7). Gateway was designed to be fully compatible with the Manchester Method and complementary to the external National Gateway process.
The review process was designed to improve the consistency of programme and project management across the organisation. With the introduction of the process there has been a tightening of the delivery stages of a project as well as initiation and closure stages being bolted on to either end to produce increased scrutiny and managed closure of a project producing a rigorous consistent approach for all service departments.
The new approach to project scrutiny and spending approval is jointly owned by the Deputy Chief Executives and the City Treasurer. Administration and support for the Gateway Process comes from the Capital Programme Group who have dedicated email boxes for
communications and collect and collate monthly Red-Amber-Green (RAG) Reports reporting on progress, cost and risk for every project. Quarterly Reports are also distributed to the Capital Programme Board highlighting the status of the projects in the Capital Programme.
Executive Members approved the new concept in December 2003 and in July 2004 the Strategic Management Team approved detail operation. The process was formally launched in August 2004 following consultation with Service Departments, Corporate Finance and Internal Audit with sign off from the Strategic Management Team. The objectives of the review process still remain to provide strategic, operational and financial scrutiny of the Capital Programme introducing location appraisal for the first time.
New documentation and pro-forma have been introduced for capital bids, spending approval and VAT sign off together with a simple checklist for each Gateway. The scrutiny process is intended to be flexible and can be refined further to include central government initiatives where appropriate. By way of example, it is proposed to introduce reference to the realisation and monitoring of 'cashable' and 'non-cashable' benefits in line with the Gershon Report.
Outcomes of Phase Two
The process is now fully operational and has been used successfully to appraise, scrutinise and monitor the capital programme for 2005/06. It has delivered on its objectives, promoting
innovation and joined up thinking, improving coordination as it focuses on programmes to achieve best value. It has enabled an effective strategic review and location appraisal for all projects as well as improving the allocation of corporate resources. The initial review processes have influenced decision-making being made in a joined up fashion, benefiting all involved and early appraisals avoid abortive work. The process has promoted a structured approach
improving the consistency of evaluation by adding more rigour and effective scrutiny. This scrutinising is not only of figures but also the set-up of the project, for example the project board and manager.
As a result of the Gateway Review process, summary information on capital projects and programmes is now entered into a bespoke GIS database. This database supports location appraisals with reference to primary and secondary service clusters and regeneration
masterplans, allowing new projects to locate relevant existing project. Templates have simplified and coordinated the reporting requirements at key stages such as bid submission, approval to spend and VAT sign-off. The process is recognised by senior managers who regard it as useful tool for rigorous evaluation and monitoring of projects.
The process has encouraged the development of programmes with projects sitting within them. This was a move away from a large number of individual projects that may have had similar objectives. The scrutiny process at Gateway 1, attended by senior officers, has promoted
communication before project submissions resulting in communication between related projects. Staff are approaching the process with a positive attitude as they understand and recognise the importance of the Gateway Review after observing its benefits over a very short period of time. It is now regarded as a standard approach with value.
The approach adopted by the Capital Programme Group and the Project Management Working Group throughout the initiative was to create a culture of:
“I want to adopt this approach because it adds value” rather than “I have to do this because the corporate centre have told me to”
It is now important to keep the ball rolling, provide support and most importantly demonstrate continued enthusiasm at all levels for the initiative. The next stage is to develop the feedback mechanism, lessons learned and benefits and realisation.
Overcoming Difficulties
An issue that soon became apparent when undertaking the initiative was maintaining any solution as generic. The team ran a risk of “scope creep” especially as the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) members of the Working Group were keen to use the documentation as a vehicle to promote best practice in ICT implementations.
It was vital to the success of the programme that the team maintained the generic look and feel of the local government specific project management method. If the users perceived that the method was weighted to one particular department they would think the approach was not relevant to them and not use it.
The potential conflict of interest was resolved by agreeing cross-references to ICT processes and the addition of ICT annexes that were applicable only to ICT based projects. This
maintained the generic approach but also satisfied the requirement for specific inclusion of ICT processes.
A plan for the delivery of the Project Management strategy was formulated for phase 1 by the team and approved through the Project Management Working Group. As mentioned previously it was obvious from the start and through visits to other local authorities that PRINCE2 in its purest form was not going to be an acceptable approach. The view taken by the Working Group however was potentially in conflict with Central Government guidelines.
The solution was to tailor the PRINCE2 method to address some of the concerns of the Working Group and give it a local authority flavour. Many of the approaches to Project Management, particularly in the private sector, focused on product delivery. The approach of the City Council’s team was to include service delivery elements, which would be more acceptable to some departments. The final resolution to the ‘PRINCE2 issue’ was to name the process the ‘Manchester Method’ to associate it with the Manchester City Council.
Overall the programme represented an enormous task for a very small team. Delivering to plan and timescale required dedication and team support. Each member of the team was required to lead on a particular element and it was important that every member of the team understood how each element was progressing at all times. Failure to actively communicate as a team and with stakeholders would mean almost certain failure of the project.
Outcomes
The objective of the Capital Programme Group’s approach was and still is to bring surety to Manchester City Council’s Capital Programme by improving project delivery.
Since their inception the Capital Programme Group and the Project Management Working Group have worked hard to create a common culture for project management within Manchester City Council.
Now that a large number of managers have used and observed the advantages of a standardised methodology in project management, scrutiny and approval, the next step is automation which will bring its own challenges. There are potentially very significant financial and operational advantages of a standard automated project management process linked to the
Manchester City Council Geographical Information System. This will be discussed in more detail in section 4.5.1.
So far the initiative has had a great impact on Project Management resources, the overall cost of project management has increased to meet the major changes occurring in local government. However, the training programme adopted by Manchester City Council has ensured that it is in the position to appoint internal staff to more complex projects and to reduce, in percentage terms expenditure on consultants. There are now internal officers managing corporate and departmental projects saving costs in consultancy fees.
Awards
In October 2005 the Capital Programme Group and their training partner have been awarded a National Training Award. The award is the UK’s number one accolade for those who have achieved lasting excellence and success through training and learning. The award
acknowledged that Manchester City Council has not only shown good people development but also the outstanding results gained by course attendees putting what has been learnt into practice.
The Capital Programme Group also made it through to the UK Finals for the Association of Project Management (APM) awards. These awards reflect the invaluable contribution that project management practice and project managers make in all sections of society. The CPG has been selected as a finalist in the Community Project of the Year category, this recognises the project that has best provided a major benefit to a local community, the environment or to society as a whole.
To reach both finals is a huge achievement for the group and recognition of Manchester City Council’s commitment to best practice.
Lessons Learned
Phase One Manchester Method
Some points worthy of note are that without ‘top level’ support the introduction of the standard project management methodology would not have been possible. It was also important gain the early involvement of Internal Audit as they are a key player within the organisation.
The group felt that the Board Members Overview training course needed to be re-worked to be fit for role. It was believed that the training had to be better than satisfactory if the process was going to be used and be successful.
Another factor that became apparent was that for RAG status reporting staff must be trained to achieve acceptable quality standards. This process has taken two years. It was highlighted that Risk Analysis was not just a ‘tick box’ exercise, the importance of risk management is vital for the success of a project.
Phase Two Gateway Review Process
The first versions of the Gateway templates included notes and were perceived to be too long and bureaucratic, feedback about the first versions were also revealed that they appeared to be asking to many questions. These issues impacted on the selling of the concept that took too long and too many resources.
To resolve the issues surrounding the templates, notes were separated from the text of the template to reduce their length and the focus shifted to the quality of information rather than the quantity. It would have been beneficial to adopt a cascade approach to improve the promotion of the process, selling the process to PRINCE2 trained project managers first.
The importance of specialised knowledge was recognised as Capital Programme Group staff found the VAT aspect of the review process difficult to understand. As a result it was understood
that required collaboration with experts was vital. This knowledge was very influential in the design and functionality.
Initially it proved difficult to engage regeneration programmes and projects into the process as they had additional reporting and scrutiny processes. This was taken on board and after consultations a way forward was agreed.
The value of the Gateway Process was observed early on, Gateway 1 in particular was seen to work well. This success was in large part the as result of the small well-focused group that reviewed the Gateway 1 submissions. When Gateway 1 became overloaded with submissions the value of this small group was seen again as was the importance of a timetable that was not to flexible.
Planned Developments and Improvements
The long-term strategy for the Project Management initiative was set out in the four-phase approach. Of these four phases the first two have been regarded as a success to date and will continue to run. The focus is now on continuing the strategy to make phases three and four as successful as those before them.
Phase Three Project Management Software
Now the ‘Manchester Method’ has been embedded within Manchester City Council, the next stage to apply technology to develop user capability, build capacity and enhance productivity is currently being undertaken. The objectives of Phase Three are that automation of a standard approach, which will reduce user-workload, improve consistency and guide new users in the use of best practice.
The Capital Programme Group has a contract with an external provider to automate the existing processes and promote collaborative project working within the organisation. The installation and roll out of project management software across all service departments will create a project management website enabling the automation of the ‘Manchester Method’ and Gateway Review Process providing access to a robust document management system, information exchange and progress reporting.
There will be on-line access to reference material, such as the Manchester City Council Project Management Handbook, templates and worked examples, as well as risk analysis tools and guidance on how to use them. The system will enable collaboration and the sharing of
information for decision-making, benefiting the learning from corporate experience by way of a database of “Lessons Learned” on completed and archived projects. An integrated cost-tracking sheet for individual projects will also be provided and automated Red-Amber-Green status reports will be produced.
The system will have links to the replacement finance system (SAP E-Fin) and is intended to support high-level portfolio management by senior managers. Anticipated benefits arising from the website are standardisation, accurate recording and reporting of data. Collaborative working will bring efficiency savings and further enhance initiatives to achieve best value.
For capital projects the Manchester City Council business case assessment is that,
“Using collaboration software, a reasonable estimate of savings that can be achieved on construction projects (for improved reporting, document management and drawings) is £37k per £1million contract price”
Phase Four Project Management “Centre of Excellence”
Manchester City Council is committed to building internal capacity in programme and project management, this is reflected in the final phase of the strategy involving the development of a “Centre of Excellence”. The aim is to have a number of qualified and experienced programme and project practitioners both centrally and at departmental level. Managers from this pool of
expertise could then be assigned to more complex programmes and projects. They would also be expected to provide support and mentoring to new or less experienced project managers.
This is an on-going phase of the overall strategy with the continued creation of a Project Management experience inline with central government and Civil Service initiatives. Once established, the Centre of Excellence will enable significant and easily measured savings on Manchester City Council’s current spend on consultants for project management services.
It is a long-term aim of Manchester City Council to reduce dependency on consultancy for programme and project management as the organisation. The organisation has recognised that there is a forecast shortage of project management resources in the North West over the next five years so it is seen as an important phase to develop capability.
Throughout the initiative Manchester City Council has decided to be proactive in tackling this problem as well as others that have faced the organisation.
