REPORT Office of Move Seattle – Portfolio Management Support Seattle Department of Transportation August 2017 Table of Contents Section 1 Executive Summary .......................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Findings and Recommendations Summary ................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Next Steps .................................................................................................................................................................... 1-6 Section 2 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Research Information ............................................................................................................................................. 2-1 2.2 Interviews .................................................................................................................................................................... 2-2 2.3 Report Structure ....................................................................................................................................................... 2-3 Section 3 Assessment of Current Organization ................................................................. 3-1 3.1 Baseline Research ..................................................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 Findings and Recommendations ........................................................................................................................ 3-2 3.2.1 Organizational Structure and Staffing................................................................................................ 3-2 3.2.2 Teamwork and Communication ........................................................................................................... 3-3 3.2.3 Compliance Monitoring ............................................................................................................................ 3-4 3.2.4 Issue Management and Decision-Making ......................................................................................... 3-6 3.2.5 Reporting and Outreach ........................................................................................................................... 3-7 Section 4 Potential Process Improvements ....................................................................... 4-1 4.1 Baseline Research ..................................................................................................................................................... 4-1 4.2 Findings and Recommendations ........................................................................................................................ 4-2 Section 5 Office of Move Seattle Structure ....................................................................... 5-1 5.1 Baseline Research ..................................................................................................................................................... 5-1 5.2 Findings and Recommendations ........................................................................................................................ 5-3 Section 6 Portfolio Program Management Tool ................................................................ 6-1 6.1 Baseline Research ..................................................................................................................................................... 6-1 6.2 Findings and Recommendations ........................................................................................................................ 6-2 List of Tables Table 2-1 Interview Schedule Log ............................................................................................................................ 2-3 Appendices Appendix A Interview Comments TOC-1 This page intentionally left blank. Section 1 Executive Summary As defined in the OMS Draft May 2017 Charter, the purpose of the Office of Move Seattle (OMS), a Program Management Office, is to collect and organize capital project delivery and financial data, develop Move Seattle Levy (Levy) portfolio management business processes and provide data analytics and reporting. Reports generated by OMS are expected to enable decision makers to leverage key portfolio, subprogram and project information to achieve Levy and other commitments. From the information reviewed and comments made by staff during interviews, coupled with the progress reported for the Levy to date, it is clear that a properly functioning OMS is critical to the success of the Levy. A consistent, flexible, programmatic approach, honed for the Levy will also benefit smaller, non-Levy program implementations and future, large programs initiated by the Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT). To assist OMS with recommendations on improvements to the current capital program and project delivery process, this report has identified numerous findings and recommendations for consideration. The findings and recommendations in Sections 3 through 6 have been numbered and are summarized in this Section 1. Several of the findings included in this report were outside of the original scope of services but were documented with recommendations, for SDOT consideration. Additional detail regarding each finding and recommendation, as well as implementation suggestions that include examples of other similar programs where appropriate, are provided in subsequent report Sections 3 through 6. Lastly, several of the recommendations have been acted upon by SDOT staff prior to initiation of this independent consultant assessment of OMS activities and are noted as such in Section 1. 1.1 Findings and Recommendations Summary The findings and recommendations developed in Sections 3 through 6 have been numbered in sequence. For reference, this sequence includes: ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ Section 3 – findings #1 through #14, Section 4 – findings #15 through #20, Section 5 - findings #21 through #24, and Section 6 - findings #25 through #28. For the purpose of this Executive Summary, these findings have been further prioritized to define which are ▪ ▪ ▪ Urgent – those needed immediately to re-focus the Levy’s structure and direction, Important – those needed within 6-months to develop the Levy’s momentum, Useful – those providing consistency and allowing improvement opportunities within 12months. 1-1 Section 1 • Executive Summary Urgent Findings and Recommendations Finding #1 - Responsibility for Project Delivery ▪ Recommendation #1: Clarify and communicate OMS roles and responsibilities to all SDOT Divisional staff and management. It is important for these presentations to explain OMS responsibilities in the context of Divisional implementation and project development responsibilities. Staff must understand the importance and use of the information they update every month. Note: This recommendation is currently being addressed by OMS. Finding #2 – Responsibility for the Move Seattle Levy ▪ Recommendation #2: Designate Mike Terrell, or another Deputy Director, as the owner of the Move Seattle Levy. With the size and importance of the Levy, elevating Levy decisions to the SDOT and Deputy Director levels will ensure organizational, political and stakeholder risks will be included in all change considerations. With this recommendation, OMS is operational support to Terrell (see Finding #21). This will also clarify OMS involvement in project decisions including such items as project acceleration, timing of construction bids, etc. Finding #3 – Division Staffing Levels ▪ Recommendation #3: For OMS, develop metrics that can identify when variances in project implementation are caused by staff performance or unavailability. Implementing Divisions should utilize this OMS data when predicting workloads. Finding #4 – Handoffs between Divisions ▪ Recommendation #4: For OMS, monitor project schedules to identify when all handoffs occur, whether they are on time, and what may have caused variances from baseline expectations. This causation would identify whether handoff variances may extend time due to re-work. Note: This recommendation is currently being addressed by OMS. Finding #6 – Morale and Trust ▪ Recommendation #6: Take team-building seriously and identify what must be done in the SDOT organization to build trust between project implementers and OMS. Finding #11 – Risk Management Approach ▪ Recommendation #11: OMS must complete implementation of its risk management approach which includes assigning estimates for dollars and days of impact to cost and schedule risks. It is important that, in addition to identifying risks, processes for anticipating these risks should be created for triggering mitigation options early (proactively) in the implementation cycle. Note: This recommendation is currently being addressed by OMS. Finding #13 – Levy Change Perspective beyond the Change Control Board (CCB) ▪ 1-2 Recommendation #13: Elevate CCB-approved changes with programmatic implications to a formatted decision process at the Deputy Director level. It is critical to get perceptions from these Deputies into the change process to address political and reputation risks in a Section 1 • Executive Summary manner that remains flexible and inclusive to Levy priorities and implementation dynamics. Note: This recommendation is currently being addressed by OMS. Finding #19 – Controlled Document Revision Process ▪ Recommendation #19: Designate OMS as the keeper of latest revisions of delivery procedures and reference documents (e.g. CPRS PM Roadmap). This role is primarily one of distribution and revision control – giving OMS immediate knowledge of process changes that may have a Levy impact and a responsibility to communicate programmatic exceptions. Finding #20 – Baseline Scope and Budget Validation ▪ Recommendation #20: Complete a comprehensive review of the current portfolio of projects and develop a baseline scope and budget document that provides the basis for tracking variances. Note: This recommendation is currently being addressed by OMS. Finding #21 - Authority of Office of Move Seattle to other Divisions ▪ Recommendation #21: Change the organizational structure to reflect a line authority for OMS (dotted-lines) to all Divisions instead of the existing OMS staff authority as an independent Division. Define how the Deputy Director who is given ownership of the Levy (see Finding #2) will assign delegated authority to OMS to request information, communicate concerns and offer recommendations to keep the Move Seattle Levy deliverables on time and within budget. Finding #22 – Office of Move Seattle Staffing ▪ Recommendation #22: Perform a staffing analysis to correlate newly-defined OMS roles and responsibilities to resource requirements. The primary variables needing attention will be the requests from Divisions for additional support for delivery process improvements, PPM implementation and ongoing administration, and the level of monitoring needed from OMS to make the use of programmatic metrics both effective and efficient. Finding #23 - Levy-Level Work Plan ▪ Recommendation #23: The Levy workplan, as outlined in the OMS Draft May 2017 Charter, should prioritize tracking 1) pace of spending (present underspending), 2) scope changes to match funds (budget-generated revisions), 3) Levy story of success and deliverable change reconciliation (tying scope achievements to expectations), and 4) realistic spending goals (anticipating leveraged funds). It is clear that slow spending is the immediate concern. However, Levy deliverables and schedule compliance will become the priorities for the workplan when costs are under control. Important Findings and Recommendations Finding #5 – Interim Communication Tool ▪ Recommendation #5: Continue efforts to get new data into PMaC to improve communication (e.g. consistent delivery of standard reports and key performance 1-3 Section 1 • Executive Summary indicators) with the goal of bringing cohesion to the implementation teams. Note: This recommendation is currently being addresses by OMS. Finding #7 – Quality Assurance Function ▪ Recommendation #7: Communicate Divisional process monitoring information to OMS for insight into programmatic implications and for background context if assistance is later requested from OMS for process streamlining. Finding #8 – Spending Plan Development ▪ Recommendation #8: Identify the metrics needed by OMS to assess cost-related variances for programmatic impacts. Once known, these metrics should be communicated to the implementing Divisions with explanations on the importance and intended use of the measured data. Finding #9 – Spending Plan Modification Support ▪ Recommendation #9: Finance’s edits to spending plans proposed by implementing Divisions should be accompanied by comments or suggestions from Finance to document the reasons for changes. With a need for OMS to analyze these changes for Levy impacts, the structure and data requirements for this documentation should have OMS feedback. Finding #10 – Project Scheduling ▪ Recommendation #10: Include interim milestones in project schedules to allow better measurement of deliverable progress. Input to project schedule formats should be coordinated with OMS to include the relevant milestones and activity duration metrics most applicable to Levy progress and programmatic health assessments. Note: This recommendation is currently being addressed by OMS. Finding #12 – Proactive Management of Variances ▪ Recommendation #12: For OMS, develop a process for identifying Levy deliverable issues from project information and managing the timely (proactive) resolution of these issues. OMS should be the programmatic owner of these issues and responsible for monitoring and reporting on status. The OMS issue assessment should identify the date where negative impacts would become too severe or established to be recovered. Develop a method to communicate issue management status to the SDOT Director and Deputy Directors as well as feedback to Division Directors as input for their project management efforts. Note: This recommendation is currently being addressed by OMS. Finding #15 – Schedule Performance Indicators ▪ 1-4 Recommendation #15: For OMS, complete development of a master schedule structure that takes project progress information and identifies constraints. Implementing staff must measure projects in the areas delineated by OMS-defined programmatic needs. Consider master schedule development and update procedures to ensure process consistency when new staff are added and to clarify, for implementing Division staff, the purpose of project schedule data requests. Note: This recommendation is currently being addressed by OMS. Section 1 • Executive Summary Finding #16 – Change Control Board Process Assessments ▪ Recommendation #16: Develop a documentation format for CCB change deliberations. Categories on a standard meeting minute form would identify data relevant to OMS analyses for Levy impacts. Communicate the need for this data and how this information will improve Levy management efforts to CCB presenters and minute-takers. Finding #18 – Risk Management Process Communication ▪ Recommendation #18: Communicate to implementation staff, how the risk management process is intended be used for the Levy and what risk information will be required from project implementation staff for defined metrics. This instruction must define how to recognize risk events, compare severity to expectations and identify new potential risks at the project level. Note: This recommendation is currently being addressed by OMS. Finding #24 - Predictive Analytics ▪ Recommendation #24: Expand the risk and issue management approaches to create metric and reporting formats to document trends and the implications from these trends to predict potential negative direction and future impact. Note: This recommendation is currently being addressed by OMS. Finding #25 - Immediate System and Information Needs ▪ Recommendation #25: For OMS, identify the critical functional requirements of PPM and compare to the existing capabilities of PMaC. Determine those improvements that are critical and focus efforts on upgrading PMaC to meet those needs as soon as possible. This will allow the project teams access to the information they need to address the Levy underspend, as well as other issues, between now and when the PPM is available in 2018 or 2019. Finding #28 - System Comparison Plan ▪ Recommendation #28: Develop the PPM implementation plan to 1) identify those processes (work flows) that will be managed by the system and ensure they will reflect how the work will be performed (Process before Tools), 2) compare selected system functionality to the solutions implemented for other agency programs as a ‘quick check’ for proven technology, and 3) assign responsibility for system delivery to staff within OMS and/or the delivery Divisions, while utilizing IT staff for support. Useful Findings and Recommendations Finding #14 – Quality Input to Support Outreach ▪ Recommendation #14: For OMS, coordinate with SDOT management to establish key performance indicators that are aligned with external stakeholder needs. While these indicators need to be assessed by OMS to ensure they accurately represent the status of the Levy status from a delivery perspective, they require an additional level of scrutiny from others in SDOT, outside of OMS, for overall public message consistency. 1-5 Section 1 • Executive Summary Finding #17 – Formal Lessons Learned Process ▪ Recommendation #17: Implement a formal lessons learned process for the Levy either annually or as part of the individual project closeout process. This important documentation should be distributed to all implementation staff for resolving similar problems or incorporating improvement opportunities into future project work plans. Finding #26 - System Adoption ▪ Recommendation #26: Develop a status report during the development of the PPM tool to explain decisions made and the results expected. Develop a question submittal mechanism to receive comments, suggestions and staff concerns regarding the functional expectations and desires for the tool during development, configuration and adoption. Finding #27 - System Flexibility ▪ Recommendation #27: Establish process work flows, configured in the PPM, to assist OMS by calculating program trends and using this information to formulate options for resolving programmatic scope variances before impacts become irreversible. 1.2 Next Steps It should be noted that many of the findings and interview comments deal with issues outside of the original scope of this assignment. Considering this and the number of issues identified specifically for OMS, it is strongly recommended that the general information of this report be expanded to describe any additional options that arise as well as an implementation plan (i.e. Who, What, When and How) for addressing the findings. This expansion will include SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and Timely) goals related to each of the recommendations agreed upon by SDOT, responsibility for each goal, implementation timeframes and procedural steps within the recommendations to clarify the many variables involved for OMS management. 1-6 Section 2 Introduction In early 2015, the Mayor developed a Move Seattle 10-Year Strategic Vision for Transportation that lays out the work that the City will do and how it will be accomplished as SDOT ‘moves towards the future’. Approved by voters in November 2015, the 9-year, $930 million Move Seattle Levy (Levy) provides funding to improve safety for all travelers as well as maintain city streets and bridges. The Levy aims to take care of these basics, while also investing in the future with improvements to move more people and goods in and around a growing Seattle. This Levy investment is in addition to SDOT’s ongoing programmatic spending as well as maintenance and operational developments. To implement these improvements, SDOT reorganized and added a new Division - the Office of Move Seattle (OMS). According to the OMS Draft May 2017 Charter, OMS functions ‘to collect and organize capital project delivery and financial data, develop Move Seattle Levy portfolio management business processes and provide data analytics and reporting for Division Directors, Deputies, and the SDOT Director to make informed decisions. OMS reports will enable decision makers to leverage key portfolio, subprogram and project information and metrics to make decisions to achieve Move Seattle Levy and other commitments. OMS shall also offer recommendations to the SDOT Director on improvements to the current Capital Project Delivery process’. SDOT has contracted with CDM Smith to assess how the existing organization is functioning now, whether there are any ‘gaps’ between the as-is conditions and those needed (or desired) for a more efficient implementation approach, and what options may be best to address these ‘gaps’. The Sections of this report introduce each specific contractual element; explaining background information and developing positions. 2.1 Research Information Since approving the Levy, considerable work has been done to define the OMS and relationships between OMS and other SDOT Divisions. Information provided for CDM Smith review, prior to staff interviews, includes the following: ▪ Office of Move Seattle Draft May 2017 Charter – This comprehensive document identifies the organizational structure, key positions (with related accountabilities and selective metrics), and stakeholders. The document describes individual program goals, projects, budgets, expected communications, data responsibilities and the general OMS analysis process for work plans and issue management. With the embedded SDOT organizational chart and Accountability to Deliver graphic, this document provided the primary basis for understanding the OMS and developing interview questions. ▪ CPRS PM Roadmap – This document graphically lists 1) requirements for defining projects, 2) inclusions for a Project Management Plan, 3) activities needed for achieving design milestones, and 4) monitoring aspects of construction and closeout delivery phases. 2-1 Section 2 • Introduction With a few change management process activities also listed, this document indicates the implementation expectations for PD and CPRS project staff achieving consistency and quality. Divisional acronyms used are defined in Table 2.1. ▪ Office of Move Seattle PowerPoint – This 8-slide presentation illustrates the OMS tools and information needs, graphically offering general options for spending plans, report formatting, risk register structure and interfacing accountabilities. ▪ OMS (N-Squared) Accountability Matrix – Expanding on the individual accountabilities presented in the OMS Draft May 2017 Charter, this matrix portrays deliverable development responsibilities by Division linked to the receivers of these deliverables. This document was revised during this research and provides the primary communication interfaces to be investigated during staff interviews. ▪ CPRS Project Reports – Three report examples generated from PMaC data include 1) Reference – project assignments, 2) Schedule – 1-year projection (by quarter) for project milestones, and 3) Status – project progress and red-yellow-green (RYG) assessment of scope, schedule, cost and funding. A separate PMaC file identifies the definitions for the RYG variables. ▪ Location Maps – Graphical representations of OMS projects awarded or to be awarded during 2017, 2018 and 2019. ▪ Move Seattle 2016 Accomplishments – Work completed, funds spent and re-allocations required to define achievements in 2016. This document reveals physical goals met but with significant underspending – offering some insight into the expectations for reporting during subsequent years for the OMS. ▪ City of Seattle 2017 - 2022 CIP – Work projections during the next 5-years for all SDOT Divisions. ▪ Council Bill - Documentation of the legislation for the Levy. ▪ Capital Project Dashboard and Transportation Project List – Examples of outreach information displaying specific project management assignments and a brief status of progress. This document identifies additional project roles that are not depicted on the general organization charts. 2.2 Interviews An excellent cross-section of SDOT staff interviews were scheduled to represent, not only the OMS but also management and the interfacing Divisions. On-site interviews were scheduled during the week starting June 12, 2017. Phone interviews were scheduled during the following 2weeks for those staff not initially available or when follow-up information was needed from participants. Answers to questions and comments were documented during the interviews and are referenced in the Appendix A of this report. The interview log (including positions identified in the delivery organization but not interviewed) are identified in Table 2.1. 2-2 Section 2 • Introduction Table 2.1 Interview Schedule Log Division Date and Time Attendee Project Development (PD) Director 6/13/17 8:00 AM Darby Watson Deputy Director 6/13/17 1:00 PM Mike Terrell Capital Development and Special Projects Manager 6/13/17 3:00 PM Kristen Simpson SDOT Director 6/13/17 4:30 PM Scott Kubly Maintenance & Operations (M&O) Director 6/14/17 8:30 AM Rodney Maxie Office of Move Seattle Program Manager 6/14/17 10:00 AM Brian Sperry Office of Move Seattle Deputy Manager 6/14/17 1:30 PM Jeff Lundstrom Deputy Director 6/15/17 9:00 AM Karen Melanson Chief of Staff 6/15/17 10:30 AM Genesee Adkins Capital Projects and Roadway Structures Staff 6/15/17 12:30 PM Dave Conway Levy Outreach & Accountability Manager 6/15/16 3:15 PM Elliot Heimbrecht Office of Move Seattle Staff 6/16/16 8:30 AM Ted Castro Capital Projects and Roadway Structures (CPRS) Director 6/16/17 10:00 AM Lorelei Williams Transportation Operations (TO) Director 6/16/17 2:00 PM Mark Bandy Transit and Mobility (T&M) Director 6/21/17 10:00 AM Andrew Glass Hastings Deputy Director 6/26/17 10:30 AM Benjamin de la Pena Finance Manager 6/28/17 8:00 AM Christian Diaz Process Improvement Staff Not Interviewed Carl Kaufman Asset Management Staff Not Interviewed Colleen Fegley Policy and Planning (P&P) Director Not Interviewed Tracy Krawczyk Street Use (SU) Director Not Interviewed Kevin O’Neill Public Information Manager Not Interviewed Mafara Hobson Council Liaison Not Interviewed Bill LaBorde 2.3 Report Structure This report is organized into an Executive Summary (Section 1) and five subsequent sections discussing issues and analyzing the resulting information. Sections 2 through 6 as well as Appendix A provide as-is conditions and comments received during interviews with staff. These Sections take identified gaps from this information and formulate the programmatic ‘needs’ for the OMS, the ‘gaps’ between existing capabilities and programmatic requirements, and the opinions offered for filling ‘gaps’. More specifically: ▪ Section 1 Executive Summary – provides a summary of findings and recommendations for an implementation approach for the OMS. These are discussed in more detail in Sections 3 through 6. ▪ Section 2 Introduction - introduces the OMS general scope, the information reviewed to determine OMS baseline expectations and the staff interview participants. ▪ Section 3 Assessment of Current Organization – discusses the SDOT organization as it is presently evolving with the development of the OMS, how communication is complicated with the many Divisional interfaces and what information access is needed from reports 2-3 Section 2 • Introduction and analytics. Considering the contractual request for recommendations regarding OMS progress to date, this section is used for summarizing progress-to-date concerns. ▪ Section 4 Potential Process Improvements – discusses the gaps in process information reviewed, relating staff comments on the use of these processes with ideas for needed improvements. ▪ Section 5 Office of Move Seattle Structure – discusses the comments received from interview participants for OMS mobilization, activities remaining and concerns regarding the future provision of OMS services as they relate to the broader SDOT organization. ▪ Section 6 Portfolio Project Management Tool – discusses the work that has been done to date on the PPM, staff perceptions of this tool’s future functionality, the interfaces with existing SDOT databases and perceived gaps regarding development and use of this tool. ▪ Appendix A – Provides the specific interview comments by topic as well as observations of the interviewers, added as notes to the comments in this Section’s text. 2-4 Section 3 Assessment of Current Organization The contractual request related to this Section includes: ‘Provide an opinion of how the organization is presently functioning, and recommend improvements to address how the organization should function during the program, in the areas of 1) organizational structure including general staffing requirements, 2) teamwork including suggestions on communication protocols, 3) following processes and the benefit of compliance monitoring, 4) follow through on direction from supervisors and the benefit of issue management, and 5) reporting and the interface with outreach activities.’ The following discusses the issues related to ‘how SDOT and OMS are presently functioning, as raised by interview participants for this approach assessment. This Section identifies findings and recommendations specifically focused on programmatic gaps and concerns related to the five (5) functional areas defined above in the contractual request. 3.1 Baseline Research CDM Smith relied upon two primary sources of information to assess how SDOT and the OMS are currently performing. One of those sources was a document entitled Move Seattle 2016 Accomplishments and the other was feedback from interviews with SDOT staff. Key highlights from the Move Seattle 2016 Accomplishments document that provide insight into the status and performance of the Move Seattle Levy include: ▪ SDOT Divisions met 33 of 35 goals – exceeding many of them. ▪ Accomplishments are noted for 1) Safe Routes, 2) Maintenance & Repair, and 3) Congestion Relief. ▪ While reporting achievement of almost 95% of the goals, each of the noted areas were reported to be underspent, 1) 65% of the Safe Routes budget (considering all funds) spent, 2) 51% of the Maintenance & Repair budget spent, and 3) 42% of the Congestion Relief budget spent. Cumulatively, 60% of the Levy budget was spent while 33% of the Leverage budget was spent and 50% of the Local budget was spent. ▪ It is noted that the above percentages were based on the revised Levy budget of $82M – not the $95M initially estimated as the projected yearly expenditure projected in 2015. If this figure was used in the calculation, the amount of Levy budget expended in 2016 would be reduced to approximately 52%. ▪ Overall 2016 spending came in around $50M. $17M was re-allocated due to delays and spending plan changes. For 2017, with a spending plan revised to $111M, the spending through May 2017 is reported to be only $20M. 3-1 Section 3 • Assessment of Current Organization The following sub-sections contain findings and recommendations related to the five (5) functional areas listed above - all sub-sets of the general topic of how the current organization (Office of Move Seattle and SDOT in general) is performing in regards to the Levy. 3.2 Findings and Recommendations 3.2.1 Organizational Structure and Staffing Finding #1 - Responsibility for Project Delivery: The responsibility for project delivery currently resides, and should remain with, the implementing Divisions. For instance, Project Delivery (PD) and Capital Project and Roadway Structures (CPRS) are responsible for project delivery while Finance has current ownership of all funding allocation responsibilities. While many implementing Division staff and OMS staff expressed agreement that with this position, there was also a lot of confusion among staff regarding what remained as the responsibility of OMS regarding Levy and possibly other small-program implementation. ▪ Recommendation #1: Clarify and communicate OMS roles and responsibilities to all SDOT Divisional staff and management. It is important for these presentations to explain OMS responsibilities in the context of Divisional implementation and project development responsibilities. Staff must understand the importance and use of the information they update every month. ▪ Implementation Suggestions: Documentation of OMS roles and responsibilities is necessary and is most easily accomplished through revisions to the OMS Draft May 2017 Charter. Incorporating the accepted recommendations from this Report into these revisions should be considered to allow for future auditing of the progress made towards implementation of the recommendations. Finding #2 – Responsibility for the Move Seattle Levy: The variety of projects, dispersed responsibility for portions of the Levy across SDOT and many small programs comprising the Levy makes designation of overall responsibility difficult. However, the lack of a singular Move Seattle Levy ownership creates more chances for siloed management and potential inconsistencies in direction when issues arise. The ownership of the Move Seattle Levy has not been delegated to OMS and they are not expected to have the same role and authority of other Divisions considering they have no project implementation responsibilities. ▪ Recommendation #2: Designate Mike Terrell, or another Deputy Director, as the owner of the Move Seattle Levy. With the size and importance of the Levy, elevating Levy decisions to the SDOT and Deputy Director levels will ensure organizational, political and stakeholder risks will be included in all change considerations. With this recommendation, OMS is operational support to Terrell (see Finding #21). This will also clarify OMS involvement in project decisions including such items as project acceleration, timing of construction bids, etc. Finding #3 – Division Staffing Levels: This assessment does not look at the staffing levels of implementing Divisions. However, interviews with staff identified several gaps that may hinder the development of staffing plans for these implementers. Items include; difficulty in setting 3-2 Section 3 • Assessment of Current Organization workloads based on staff capabilities and skills, impact of pending process changes (i.e. streamlining) and decisions related to matrix support from OMS to the implementing Divisions. ▪ Recommendation #3: For OMS, develop metrics that can identify when variances in project implementation are caused by staff performance or unavailability. Implementing Divisions should utilize this OMS data when predicting workloads. 3.2.2 Teamwork and Communication Finding #4 – Handoffs between Divisions: Project handoffs must improve between implementers (occurring efficiently and as-planned) in order for the Levy to remain on schedule. From the research and comments received, these include handoffs from 1) PD to CPRS, 2) T&M to PD, 3) PD to M&O, and 4) TO to PD. The most focus, in terms of overall impact to the Levy progress, is on the PD to CPRS handoff. Existing communication between the Divisions regarding the quality of the handoff deliverable includes informal conversations, typically by phone and undocumented. OMS does not currently have a role in monitoring the quality of specific handoffs. ▪ Recommendation #4: For OMS, monitor project schedules to identify when all handoffs occur, whether they are on time, and what may have caused variances from baseline expectations. This causation would identify whether handoff variances may extend time due to re-work. ▪ Implementation Suggestions: OMS should look at trends regarding these handoffs beyond just whether they are occurring on schedule. The trend analysis should include whether the receiving party was provided all required information and, if not, the reasons why. For example, if certain project types do not require investigative reports (e.g. geotechnical investigation, updated topographic survey) but are listed as a required in the CPRS PM Roadmap, the trend analysis would identify this and document cases where it is optional or not required at all. OMS should use the trend data to help the implementing Divisions improve handoff efficiency. Finding #5 – Interim Communication Tool: Good team communication relies on timely, accurate and accessible data. The current PMaC system does not support users “self-serve” access to data and reports meaning communication is not as robust or timely as needed. Section 6 contains further information about the development of a Project Portfolio Management (PPM) tool that will contain this functionality which will not be available until 2018 – at the earliest. In the meantime, there must be an interim tool. Effort should be given to getting new functionality and reporting capabilities into PMaC to immediately bring technical cohesion to the implementation team and comprehensive interpretations of variances from OMS. ▪ Recommendation #5: Continue efforts to get new data into PMaC to improve communication (e.g. consistent delivery of standard reports and key performance indicators) with the goal of bringing cohesion to the implementation teams. ▪ Implementation Suggestions: Agencies mobilizing new programs have identified the need for a centralized data system but also faced the need for an interim method of handling the immediate, ‘quick start’ activities. Examples are available from similar programs that utilized a document management software such as SharePoint or ProjectWise, along with 3-3 Section 3 • Assessment of Current Organization dedicated document control staff, on an interim basis until an integrated solution can be implemented. Examples are also available that included widespread use of spreadsheet alternatives along with data visualization software such as Qlik for short-term management solutions. Finding #6 – Morale and Trust: The creation of the Office of Move Seattle as well as the initiation of the Move Seattle Levy are major changes to the organization that impact staff in nearly every Division. This has resulted in moderate to significant disruptions to “business as usual”. This will increase in the future and take the form of impacts to staff job responsibilities, priorities, lines of communication and possibly changes to individual career goals and objectives. While SDOT morale and team trust is not within the scope of this assignment, SDOT should engage experienced resources to assist with addressing the personnel and team building aspects required as part of a formal organizational change management initiative. Attention to this issue is highly recommended. ▪ Recommendation #6: Take team-building seriously and identify what must be done in the SDOT organization to build trust between project implementers and OMS. ▪ Implementation Suggestions: Agencies facing this issue have quickly learned that trust, during a significant organizational change, does not happen by accident. It is recommended that discussions defining the resilience and flexibility needed to achieve staff understanding and integration should be facilitated by personnel with this experience on programs similar to the Levy. While CDM Smith employs these resources, we have also worked with specialty consultants in this field, independent experienced facilitators, training systems (6 Sigma as an example) and supporting associations (New York Water Environment Association as an example) to assist public sector agencies experiencing morale problems during organizational change. 3.2.3 Compliance Monitoring Finding #7 – Quality Assurance Function: Processes specific to implementers, like the CPRS PM Roadmap, were stated (during the interviews) as being monitored for compliance by management in the respective implementation Divisions. It was acknowledged during the interviews that process streamlining was being discussed. It would be helpful during the streamlining effort for the Division staff to create documentation that would also support any later analysis of programmatic impacts from process changes. The specifics of the quality assurance function within each Division is the beyond the scope of this assessment. ▪ Recommendation #7: Communicate Divisional process monitoring information to OMS for insight into programmatic implications and for background context if assistance is later requested from OMS for process streamlining. Finding #8 – Spending Plan Development: There are concerns regarding 1) optimistic Project Manager budget estimates and 2) excessively conservative additions of contingencies being included in project spending plans. These are not metrics reviewed by Finance – rather the implementing Divisions make these estimates and include varying contingencies. But there are programmatic implications if these factors are trending negative in a manner that will cause under-spending from expectations for the Levy. 3-4 Section 3 • Assessment of Current Organization ▪ Recommendation #8: Identify the metrics needed by OMS to assess cost-related variances for programmatic impacts. Once known, these metrics should be communicated to the implementing Divisions with explanations on the importance and intended use of the measured data. ▪ Implementation Suggestions: Examples of the metrics needed to track variances from budget and contingency expectations should start with an estimating approach. Programs experience reflects the use of estimating databases, like Timberline, and/or application of a standard cost breakdown structure for all projects can bring consistency and documentation to the variables being measured. Finding #9 – Spending Plan Modification Support: The accuracy of projections for spending and progress must improve. As noted above, project projections are made by the implementing Divisions. While these project projections are not OMS responsibilities, the ability to interpret these projections for reliable Levy progress predictions by OMS is within its scope and dependent on project information. Improving these projections will allow OMS to provide additional support to spending plan development on future projects. ▪ Recommendation #9: Finance’s edits to spending plans proposed by implementing Divisions should be accompanied by comments or suggestions from Finance to document the reasons for changes. With a need for OMS to analyze these changes for Levy impacts, the structure and data requirements for this documentation should have OMS feedback. Finding #10 – Project Scheduling: Scheduling for individual projects is improving in PD and CPRS with the assistance of OMS-dedicated staff. There is an ongoing effort using consultant resources to develop standard project schedule templates in Microsoft Project. The project schedule format typically addresses major milestones only. OMS does not initiate project schedules but will use this information in a master format for assessing the timing of Levy implementation. As with all data, OMS has the responsibility to reconcile project schedule review information for general inconsistencies as input to make its programmatic assessment of Levy schedule progress. This master schedule approach (a portfolio perspective including all projects, small programs and supporting implementation activities) has not yet been established. Project schedule development is not within the scope of this assignment. ▪ Recommendation #10: Include interim milestones in project schedules to allow better measurement of deliverable progress. Input to project schedule formats should be coordinated with OMS to include the relevant milestones and activity duration metrics most applicable to Levy progress and programmatic health assessments. Finding #11 – Risk Management Approach: One of the needs for the master schedule is as an input to the risk management approach that is a work-in-progress for OMS at the time this report was drafted. It is important, as planned by OMS, that both schedules and spending plans are riskbased - allowing options for risk mitigation. OMS should expand the existing risk register, listing perceived impacts to achieving the cost and scope goals of the Levy. ▪ Recommendation #11: OMS must complete implementation of its risk management approach which includes assigning estimates for dollars and days of impact to cost and 3-5 Section 3 • Assessment of Current Organization schedule risks. It is important that, in addition to identifying risks, processes for anticipating these risks should be created for triggering mitigation options early (proactively) in the implementation cycle. ▪ Implementation Suggestions: The roll-out of the risk management process must be effectively communicated to the users (see Finding # 18). It is essential for all to understand the purpose and the expected benefits of implementing this additional process for project delivery. 3.2.4 Issue Management and Decision-Making Finding #12 – Proactive Management of Variances: Acting on Levy deliverable variances must become more timely (proactive) and start at the project level. Anticipation, forecasting and accurate projections are the keys to Levy success and tie directly to the risk, schedule and metric approaches discussed previously in a number of findings. All these activities can be consolidated in an issue management process that requires comprehensive management decisions leading to prompt actions. ▪ Recommendation #12: For OMS, develop a process for identifying Levy deliverable issues from project information and managing the timely (proactive) resolution of these issues. OMS should be the programmatic owner of these issues and responsible for monitoring and reporting on status. The OMS issue assessment should identify the date where negative impacts would become too severe or established to be recovered. Develop a method to communicate issue management status to the SDOT Director and Deputy Directors as well as feedback to Division Directors as input for their project management efforts. Finding #13 – Levy Change Perspective beyond the Change Control Board: The CCB process for approving project changes is reported as working well by interview participants. However, there were no examples of these changes being analyzed for programmatic impacts, despite periodic attendance by OMS staff. There were also no examples of lessons learned from these changes being applied to other projects. In line with many management concerns during the interviews, there must be an awareness of Levy stakeholder concerns for variances at the project and small program levels. Consideration could then be given to impacts related to leveraged funds, regional contractor capacity and ROW acquisition. ▪ Recommendation #13: Elevate CCB-approved changes with programmatic implications to a formatted decision process at the Deputy Director level. It is critical to get perceptions from these Deputies into the change process to address political and reputation risks in a manner that remains flexible and inclusive to Levy priorities and implementation dynamics. 3.2.5 Reporting and Outreach Finding #14 – Quality Input to Support Outreach: OMS does not have direct responsibility for outreach. Indirectly, OMS is responsible for the accuracy of the Levy-related information it generates that may be reported both internally and to stakeholders. As with many of the issues identified in this Section, the accuracy of documented project information is directly related to the quality of reporting for external stakeholders. 3-6 Section 3 • Assessment of Current Organization ▪ Recommendation #14: For OMS, coordinate with SDOT management to establish key performance indicators that are aligned with external stakeholder needs. While these indicators need to be assessed by OMS to ensure they accurately represent the status of the Levy status from a delivery perspective, they require an additional level of scrutiny from others in SDOT, outside of OMS, for overall public message consistency. ▪ Implementation Suggestions: Based on information gathered during the interviews, review of information for external communication and outreach should include the Chief of Staff, Communication Director, Council Liaison and Levy Outreach Manager – at a minimum. 3-7 Section 3 0 Assessment of Current Organization This page intentionally left blank. 3-8 Section 4 Potential Process Improvements The contractual request related to this Section includes: ‘Recommend potential process improvements and the anticipated timeframe, effort, and benefits of implementing each improvement. These recommendations shall be based on information provided and interview responses compared to interviewer process experience and deliverable development on similar, successful programs.’ The following identifies the issues related to ‘potential process improvements’ raised by interview participants and questioned regarding the role of OMS in process implementation, monitoring and support. 4.1 Baseline Research Existing delivery processes have been documented in a number of areas. First, the CPRS PM Roadmap graphically lists 1) requirements for defining projects, 2) inclusions for a Project Management Plan, 3) activities needed for achieving design milestones, and 4) monitoring aspects of construction and closeout. ▪ These processes originated in a design manual and were previously converted to the present format with the goal of improving use by PD and CPRS. This conversion addresses the objective to ‘operationalize the portfolio management process across all Division levels’ – getting all Divisions working as a team. ▪ The graphic has live links to templates, checklists and supporting narratives. All steps and deliverables for project definition and the Project Management Plan are provided with helpful detail for PD and CPRS staff. ▪ A separate ‘box’ on this graphic that is not within the workflow is Change Management. The three activities listed are 1) monitor scope, schedule & budget, 2) attend CCB when triggered, and 3) document change/resolution. While these are PD and CPRS activities, the information developed and the CCB interfaces, when documented or observed, will be valuable for OMS analytics. A second process is contained in the OMS Draft May 2017 Charter and referred to as the OMS Analysis Process. This written process contains three activities: ▪ Develop realistic work plans for each program – the only activity with individual steps (9) directed at collection, organization, coordination, and opportunity identification. The implication is that the responsibility to perform these steps resides with the Project Manager – to be performed in a manner that can be monitored by OMS for trends in Levy baseline consistency – acknowledging that individual project work plan monitoring remains the responsibility of specific Division management. 4-1 Section 4 • Potential Process Improvements ▪ Identify issues that undermine spending or schedule delays – no information is provided in the OMS Draft May 2017 Charter as to ‘how’ to perform this activity or what resources may be available to assist. ▪ Prepare recommendations of program and project delivery, by year, for Executives again, no details but the reference to ‘Executives’ ties analyses results to a change control documentation process at a level above the CCB A third process related to delivery would include the development of presentations to the Change Control Board (CCB). While no written description of the review process has been provided, it is clear that all project decisions on variations from baseline scope, schedule, budget, and funding are made by the CCB – on recommendations from implementation staff. The OMS Draft May 2017 Charter addresses a general decision process to 1) consult with the Division Directors on issues, 2) prepare recommendations (for project sequencing) annually, and 3) submit to the SDOT Director. This could be interpreted to be a decision process beyond CCB where program impacts are coordinated at the Deputy Director level of the organization. Additional processes identified in the OMS Draft May 2017 Charter as potential management areas, and discussed further in other Sections of this report, include: ▪ Communication interfaces required for OMS to coordinate work and report periodically on progress ▪ Managing data needed and used by OMS for project and Levy implementation It is understood that most capital project implementation processes belong to the implementing Divisions – primarily PD and CPRS. Other Divisions that own smaller programs and use PD and CPRS for implementation have their own planning and coordination processes. Interview participants from these other Divisions made it clear they wanted to control their own processes. OMS involvement with these ‘other’ processes has been through assistance with streamlining improvements – based on requests from those Divisions rather than monitored observations by OMS. Staff interviewed from OMS agreed that they would not have responsibility for other Division processes – only the use of documented results from these processes for information leveraging and analysis. Based on research and interview comments, the ‘gaps’ and concerns regarding OMS-specific processes have been identified around the perceived OMS responsibility to organize all independent processes into a cohesive team approach, facilitating programmatic decisions for the benefit of the Levy, and identifying potential process problems in other Divisions from inconsistent data or negative variances from expectations. The following sub-section contains findings and recommendations related to potential process improvements. 4.2 Findings and Recommendations Finding #15 – Schedule Performance Indicators: Identification and communication of metrics by OMS to other Divisions is required to understand the strategic measurement and data needs for schedule management of the Levy. The analysis of relevant variances (project progress deviations from baseline expectations) and the underlying causes for these deviations is critical. 4-2 Section 4 • Potential Process Improvements Variables must be utilized to create trends for assessing Levy health, calculating broad Levy impacts and suggesting opportunities to accelerate Levy work. This is best facilitated by a master schedule approach process, consolidating all projects and associated smaller programs, reviewing activities, monitoring lag/lead development times, and revising options for the Levy into a single location. ▪ Recommendation #15: For OMS, complete development of a master schedule structure that takes project progress information and identifies constraints. Implementing staff must measure projects in the areas delineated by OMS-defined programmatic needs. Consider master schedule development and update procedures to ensure process consistency when new staff are added and to clarify, for implementing Division staff, the purpose of project schedule data requests. ▪ Implementation Suggestions: It is important for OMS to assess the impact to staff workload not only within OMS, who will be responsible to maintain and monitor the master schedule, but also within the implementing Division whose controls staff are responsible for project schedule updates and process compliance. As with many other findings, OMS must communicate schedule management purpose and benefits to implementing Division staff to ensure cooperation and assistance. Finding #16 – Change Control Board Process Assessments: Assessing the functionality of the present CCB process and decision-making protocols including 1) needed improvements to the presentations of project change justifications, 2) the impact of revised presentations on requesting party workloads, 3) ensuring presentations take a comprehensive view of impacts from all areas, and 4) timely action and management buy-in to project baseline expectation revisions, if necessary. Project changes are not within the scope of this assignment. Observations of the CCB presentation process are often informative for Levy assessments. It would be beneficial for this information to be documented in a structured manner - as opposed to having OMS staff attend all CCB meetings to observe and record impacts with possible broader implications. The format of this documentation could be set by checklist categories to ensure Levy-related assessments can be easily performed. ▪ Recommendation #16: Develop a documentation format for CCB change deliberations. Categories on a standard meeting minute form would identify data relevant to OMS analyses for Levy impacts. Communicate the need for this data and how this information will improve Levy management efforts to CCB presenters and minute-takers. ▪ Implementation Suggestions: An essential part of the communication for this improvement is the feedback on how the documentation was used to benefit the Levy and/or what additional information may be needed from future CCB presentations. Agencies implementing similar programs have used modified meeting minute forms to ensure critical categories of data will be captured during the presentations. Finding #17 – Formal Lessons Learned Process: Formalizing feedback protocols into a ‘lessons learned’ process related to programmatic actions and communication of improvements will benefit the Levy. This information should be incorporated into an annual program 4-3 Section 4 • Potential Process Improvements reconciliation presentation to status achievements and reasons for missed milestones. It should also become the documentation for Levy successes and outreach communication. ▪ Recommendation #17: Implement a formal lessons learned process for the Levy either annually or as part of the individual project closeout process. This important documentation should be distributed to all implementation staff for resolving similar problems or incorporating improvement opportunities into future project work plans. ▪ Implementation Suggestions: While an end-of-project or an annual lesson learned process update are most typical across program-implementing agencies due to ease of implementation, more aggressive lessons learned approaches have been noted. TxDOT has used a comprehensive SharePoint database to define real-time issue and decision management documentation for all implementation staff to utilize on their active projects. Finding #18 – Risk Management Process Communication: After finalizing the format for the risk management process (see Finding #11), and communicating how risk information will be used by OMS for its Levy monitoring and risk mitigation responsibility, it is necessary to instruct implementing staff on the use of the risk management process on projects. It is important to avoid having implementing staff think that a risk plan update is the only deliverable – with minimal effort given to minimizing what must be reported. ▪ Recommendation #18: Communicate to implementation staff, how the risk management process is intended be used for the Levy and what risk information will be required from project implementation staff for defined metrics. This instruction must define how to recognize risk events, compare severity to expectations and identify new potential risks at the project level. ▪ Implementation Suggestions: Risk management is most effective at the project level. But experience has shown that project staff see risk management as another added task that reduce time available from other duties. OMS has to understand the tendency by project staff to eliminate project risk only ‘on paper’ in an effort to minimize the effort needed to provide required updates. Addressing this requires training for project staff or additional OMS staff to assist project risk management efforts. Finding #19 – Controlled Document Revision Process: There are large number of existing project delivery procedures, documents and forms that are currently being used - not to mention those that are currently being examined for potential streamlining. These two facts warrant consideration for centralizing control over the documentation of these quality processes. Understanding that many Divisions own and change processes for improved efficiency, a control location outside of these Divisions, with no development authority but simply a role to maintain the controlled documents. It is this document access that will allow identification of any potential impact of proposed changes on broader Levy issues. ▪ 4-4 Recommendation #19: Designate OMS as the keeper of latest revisions of delivery procedures and reference documents (e.g. CPRS PM Roadmap). This role is primarily one of distribution and revision control – giving OMS immediate knowledge of process changes Section 4 • Potential Process Improvements that may have a Levy impact and a responsibility to communicate programmatic exceptions. ▪ Implementation Suggestions: This finding does not interfere with implementing Division responsibility for controlling delivery processes. It does acknowledge that these processes may have impacts on the Levy and that OMS has responsibility to anticipate these potential problems. It is expected that OMS will communicate back to Divisions when their changes generate process overlaps, conflicts or potential unintended consequences. Finding #20 – Baseline Scope and Budget Validation: Several comments were received from iterviewees that indicated the stated scope of the Move Seattle Levy is likely to be much larger than the authorized budget, even with optimistic projections of receiving leveraged funds. The establishment of a firm basis for the programmatic budget is a key element of any large capital implementation sucesss. While the conceptual cost estimates and scopes of the Move Seattle Levy projects were provided, a detailed review and assessment of the accuracy was not part of this assignment. There appears to be a need for a confirmation that the current Levy scope and budget are in aligment and that any deviations from this scope are documented by implementing Divisions. ▪ Recommendation #20: Complete a comprehensive review of the current portfolio of projects and develop a baseline scope and budget document that provides the basis for tracking variances. ▪ Implementation Suggestions: Numerous agencies use of a Program Reserve to assist with tracking credits (e.g. unused project contingencies) as well as debits (e.g. new projects and expanded scope of existing projects) to support management of expectations regarding what scope will be delivered as the individual project estimates become more refined. 4-5 Section 4 0 Potential Process Improvements This page intentionally left blank. Section 5 Office of Move Seattle Structure The contractual request related to this Section includes: ‘Recommend how to complete setting up the OMS. These recommendations shall be based on staffing information provided and interviewee comments on the functionality of the existing organization compared to organizations on similar programs.’ The following identifies the issues related to ‘OMS mobilization’ raised by interview participants when questioned regarding the OMS responsibility to support Levy project delivery. 5.1 Baseline Research OMS is a recent addition to the SDOT organization, having been established after the Levy approval in November 2015. The baseline documentation for OMS is the SDOT organization chart which shows OMS at a Division level. OMS has potential interfaces with every Division through the Deputy Directors. The reviewed chart was represented as a developing organizational structure with a number of vacancies – two new boxes were added to the chart during the research period of this assessment. Initial observations of this organization chart include: ▪ The span of control is acceptable for Deputy Directors. The SDOT Director has 7-direct reports (4-Deputy Directors, Chief of Staff, Public Information and the Maintenance & Operations Division) – the most for any management level at or above Division Director. ▪ The Deputy Director with OMS in his span of control (Terrell) also manages PD, CPRS and TO. ▪ The fact that there are 9-Division-level groups makes communications complicated for OMS when coordinating impacts from and to other areas. This is especially true for T&M and M&O, outside of the Terrell span of control but with smaller program ownership roles. ▪ The link between OMS and Finance is highlighted (in yellow) by the inclusion of the Finance Manager in the OMS umbrella. Finance responsibilities are represented as being considerably broader than the Move Seattle Levy. Objectives assigned to OMS are listed in the OMS Draft May 2017 Charter and include (with specific tasks highlighted for emphasis): ▪ Operationalize the portfolio management processes across all division levels – get all Divisions working as a single unit/team – to accomplish all Levy deliverables. (See Section 4 for the process discussion) ▪ Organizing sub program and project level delivery and financial data, provided by the Divisions and financial database (Summit), into a portfolio management tool. (See Section 6 for the PPM tool discussion) 5-1 Section 5 • Office of Move Seattle Structure ▪ Leveraging key sub program and project delivery and financial data to enable portfolio level decision making. (See Section 3 for decision process recommendations) ▪ Regular coordination with Divisions and reconciliation of inconsistent data to ensure all Divisions are working from the same data and that the data is accurate. (See Section 3) ▪ Identifying inconsistent application of capital project management and delivery processes and receiving recommendations proposed by Division Directors to address any inconsistencies. (Considered Division management responsibilities with the possibility for requested assistance from OMS) ▪ Validating that the CCB decisions made by Division Directors do not negatively impact the SDOT’s ability to achieve both planned deliverable and planned spending. (See Section 4 for an expanded OMS scope discussion) ▪ Identification of internal or external capital project delivery resource needs in advance of beginning new projects ▪ Evaluating new or non-typical capital project delivery design and contracting methods proposed by Divisions to accelerate delivery. (Considered Division management responsibilities with the possibility for requested assistance for delivery approach evaluations from OMS) ▪ Develop and train Project Development Division (PD) staff on the use of schedule and cost estimate / budget planning tools for establishing 0% design schedule and estimate baselines used for change management. (Presently requested and ongoing) ▪ Lead Project Definition Phase (0-10% design) delivery process improvements. (If requested, OMS process recommendations but Division implementation) ▪ Support Project Definition Leads with implementation of the Project Definition process. (OMS process recommendations but Division implementation) ▪ Provide process improvement and / or delivery approach recommendations for Capital Project Design and Construction Phases. (OMS process recommendations but Division implementation) The OMS Draft May 2017 Charter has identified the core OMS team with the critical success factors listed as 1) developing realistic OMS scope, schedule, budgets, spending plans, and risk analysis, 2) identifying staffing needs, at a portfolio level, 3) reducing risk factors, 4) setting up the Director’s Office to make the best decision, and 5) remaining flexible to dynamic change. Communication protocols are addressed by detailed accountabilities – both for individual key positions and for Division-generated deliverables including management and the receivers of these deliverables. Documents relative to accountabilities are key position tables (roles, expectations, actions, and metrics) in the OMS Draft May 2017 Charter and the OMS (NSquared) Accountability Matrix. It is noted that the Charter also contains the Accountability to Deliver graphic, depicting responsibility links. 5-2 Section 5 • Office of Move Seattle Structure Based on research and interview comments, the initiation of OMS was minimally announced and explained. While the OMS Draft May 2017 Charter lists ‘purpose and objectives’, interview participants stressed that they did not expect OMS to become involved with 1) project delivery resources, 2) design or construction contracting methods, or 3) delivery training. Many these issues have been raised in Section 3 as part of performance observations. The following subsection contains findings and recommendations regarding the set-up of the OMS have been identified for further analysis. 5.2 Findings and Recommendations Finding #21 - Authority of Office of Move Seattle to other Divisions: Access to programmatic implementation data is needed by OMS to anticipate deviations sufficiently in advance of problems being irreversible or change notifications being untimely. This has been envisioned as OMS scope but has not been completed. There is a concern that implementing Divisions will not readily take direction from the staff in the OMS partially due to their status as a somewhat independent Division. ▪ Recommendation #21: Change the organizational structure to reflect a line authority for OMS (dotted-lines) to all Divisions instead of the existing OMS staff authority as an independent Division. Define how the Deputy Director who is given ownership of the Levy (see Finding #2) will assign delegated authority to OMS to request information, communicate concerns and offer recommendations to keep the Move Seattle Levy deliverables on time and within budget. ▪ Implementation Suggestions: It will be extremely important to communicate the delegated decision-making authority of OMS to all implementing staff. From the line-authority perspective, program decisions should remain at the Deputy Director level – relying on information developed by OMS for these decisions. Keeping decisions at the Deputy Director level will eliminate previous issues with Division staff acceptance of directions. Finding #22 – Office of Move Seattle Staffing: Staffing for OMS is presently minimal at Terrell, Sperry, Lundstrom and Castro – with Castro focusing on controls and leveraging future data and expecting a couple additional technical staff. This doesn’t include the control staff, presently working with Castro in PD and CPRS, that will continue with project schedule and cost activities in the future for those Divisions. Staffing levels for OMS will be very dependent on the level of controls support and/or direct management of controls. OMS staffing cannot be set until the scope of OMS roles and responsibilities is clarified. The level of staffing will be inversely proportional to the quality of information available from implementing Divisions. Less documented information or excessive data inconsistencies will require more OMS staff to track issue causes. Any consideration to temporarily assign OMS staff to implementing Divisions for support or training will be another staffing consideration. This gap should be addressed with a role/responsibility matrix for OMS positions that translates to expected workload definitions. Thought must be given to the level of compliance monitoring to be performed by OMS as an assurance step, verifying work is consistent and accurate. 5-3 Section 5 • Office of Move Seattle Structure ▪ Recommendation #22: Perform a staffing analysis to correlate newly-defined OMS roles and responsibilities to resource requirements. The primary variables needing attention will be the requests from Divisions for additional support for delivery process improvements, PPM implementation and ongoing administration, and the level of monitoring needed from OMS to make the use of programmatic metrics both effective and efficient. ▪ Implementation Suggestions: At a minimum, following clarification of OMS roles and responsibilities in the OMS Draft May 2017 Charter, potential and recommended maximum workloads should be calculated. Many agencies differentiate workload limitations for senior, junior and entry-level staff – not only acknowledging important differences in capabilities, but building in succession planning aspects to staffing and the time needed for coaching and mentoring by senior staff. OMS staff planning works best when similar staffing efforts are performed by the implementing Divisions. Finding #23 - Levy-Level Work Plan: The OMS Draft May 2017 Charter defines the process for OMS to create a focused Move Seattle Levy workplan; identifying programmatic deliverables and utilizing project measurements received from other Divisions and interpreted by OMS for the Levy effort. With the responsibilities for project and task delivery in other SDOT Divisions, this Levy work plan requires extensive coordination with project delivery considerations. ▪ Recommendation #23: The Levy workplan, as outlined in the OMS Draft May 2017 Charter, should prioritize tracking 1) pace of spending (present underspending), 2) scope changes to match funds (budget-generated revisions), 3) Levy story of success and deliverable change reconciliation (tying scope achievements to expectations), and 4) realistic spending goals (anticipating leveraged funds). It is clear that slow spending is the immediate concern. However, Levy deliverables and schedule compliance will become the priorities for the workplan when costs are under control. ▪ Implementation Suggestions: Any recommendations for project acceleration, bundling and resolution of issues as a means for cost control should start with the implementing Divisions. However, OMS monitored information may also identify these needs from variance assessments. There should be a mechanism to communicate how data was analyzed and concerns formulated from OMS to the implementers. Finding #24 - Predictive Analytics: Change in any large capital improvement is inevitable requiring flexibility as priorities may be modified by progress, unexpected conditions or management direction over time. It is the ability to anticipate potential changes sufficiently in advance of problems occurring and react in an effective manner, that remains a gap for the scope of the OMS. While Finding #11 deals with the risk approach, this finding integrates that information to anticipate issues within the implementation process itself. ▪ 5-4 Recommendation #24: Expand the risk and issue management approaches to create metric and reporting formats to document trends and the implications from these trends to predict potential negative direction and future impact. Section 5 • Office of Move Seattle Structure ▪ Implementation Suggestions: Agencies have used trends in program progress to indicate when systemic problems may be developing across independent projects. These agencies look to identify the most critical of these trends (you can’t chase everything) and set metrics that look to common causes for variances. The variables worth measuring always start with designers, contractors, changes initiated and bidder interest. 5-5 Section 5 0 Office of Move Seattle Structure This page intentionally left blank. 5-6 Section 6 Portfolio Program Management Tool The contractual request related to this Section includes: ‘Recommend how to move forward with creating an interim Move Seattle PPM tool. These recommendations shall be based on system expectations and PPM status information provided compared to PMIS and central databases used by the interviewers on other programs.’ The following identifies the issues related to the PPM tool that were raised by interview participants when questioned regarding OMS expectations for the new portfolio management tool. 6.1 Baseline Research A number of databases presently exist in various Divisions with capital project implementation responsibilities. These have a relationship with the OMS objective of ‘organizing sub-program and project delivery and financial data into a portfolio management tool’. These include: ▪ PMaC – a centralized Access database, primarily used by PMs and controls staff to document project-related information including funding. It should be noted that SDOT has selected CA (formally known as Clarity) as the PPM software. ▪ MS Project – the scheduling software used by PMs with milestone dates coordinated with PMaC. ▪ Finance database (Summit PeopleSoft) – data maintained by the Finance Manager and selectively pulled into PMaC periodically. Some data kept in this database is not available to PMaC. ▪ Supporting financial systems include CPM (City budget system) and LBS (labor budget system). City templates formatted for data entry to another city financial system (no name provided). ▪ Project Data and Input Responsibility Matrix - Included in the OMS Draft May 2017 Charter, this matrix identifies data update responsibilities for numerous databases. ▪ dotMaps – location information maintained by Street Use. ▪ Hansen (Infor) version 8.3 - software for managing asset inventories, work management and inspections data. ▪ Tableau – graphics to supplement Summit software. ▪ BridgeWorks and Streetsaver – software used by the Street Use Division. 6-1 Section 6 • Portfolio Program Management Tool 6.2 Findings and Recommendations Based on research and interview comments, the following findings and recommendations have been identified for further analysis regarding the new tool: Finding #25 - Immediate System and Information Needs: There is an acknowledged need for a holistic portfolio analysis tool to ensure the success of the Levy and subsequent major, complex SDOT improvements in the future. However, based on information in the OMS Draft May 2017 Charter, it is expected that the new tool will not be ready until 2018 or 2019. An issue of concern originates with the underspending in 2016 and the continuation of this trend through the first 5months of 2017 – with no mechanisms to quantify the causes, accelerate the Rapid Ride Corridors, or modify the promised Move Seattle outcomes. ▪ Recommendation #25: For OMS, identify the critical functional requirements of PPM and compare to the existing capabilities of PMaC. Determine those improvements that are critical and focus efforts on upgrading PMaC to meet those needs as soon as possible. This will allow the project teams access to the information they need to address the Levy underspend, as well as other issues, between now and when the PPM is available in 2018 or 2019. ▪ Implementation Suggestions: The eventual implementation of the PPM cannot be the excuse, for the next couple of years, to not make changes to the PMaC that will assist with getting the Levy back on track financially. It is likely that not resolving the underspending issue before 2020 will lead to the inability to meet the larger, more complex Levy objectives that are most visible to stakeholders. It is acknowledged that the extra work needed to improve PMaC as an interim solution may be excessive when compared to spreadsheets or individual (i.e. not integrated) databases. Decisions related to whether improvement to PMaC or to perform critical data analysis and reporting using manual processes will need to be made on a case-by-case basis. Finding #26 - System Adoption: Having management understand the value of the new tool is only part of the implementation solution. It is imperative for implementing PMs to understand what they get from using the tool before they will be willing to provide the information requested for data entry. The implementers must know why the tool is important to both them and to SDOT management. This is especially true from the perspective that much of the data needs for OMS from the tool are to identify variances and deviations that must be corrected. The concern for this finding is communication of the system adoption progress - best measured against a roll-out plan developed for the complete PPM implementation. ▪ Recommendation #26: Develop a status report during the development of the PPM tool to explain decisions made and the results expected. Develop a question submittal mechanism to receive comments, suggestions and staff concerns regarding the functional expectations and desires for the tool during development, configuration and adoption. ▪ Implementation Suggestions: It would make sense to expand the suggested question mechanism to accept suggestions and concerns from implementing staff about PMaC and spreadsheet alternatives. It is predicted from experience, that these PMaC comments will also add insight to important PPM functionality. Any of these status reports should 6-2 Section 6 • Portfolio Program Management Tool specifically identify each new comment and response to previous comments – giving others access to see these dialogues and add other insights to an issue. Finding #27 - System Flexibility: One of the most critical functional requirements for the tool is adaptability - flexibility to add, change and delete project and Levy elements. The PPM data supports all decisions and documents the annual baseline reconciliation for management and stakeholders. ▪ Recommendation #27: Establish process work flows, configured in the PPM, to assist OMS by calculating program trends and using this information to formulate options for resolving programmatic scope variances before impacts become irreversible. ▪ Implementation Suggestions: Many agencies use work flows (procedural steps) configured in the database to assist project implementation staff with routine, reoccurring processes. The integrated database approach has brought consistency and accuracy to processes while relieving implementers of repetitive tasks – effort that can be applied to other technical implementation priorities. Finding #28 - System Comparison Plan: As recommended in Finding #26, every programmatic approach for the implementation of a software platform needs a plan. The plan being discussed here deals with the preparation for PPM delivery. There is a need to understand options, assign responsibilities and develop a reasonable scope. To have PPM implementation sequenced in a manner that will ‘run like a project’, it is imperative to conceptualize and plan before designing and building. ▪ Recommendation #28: Develop the PPM implementation plan to 1) identify those processes (work flows) that will be managed by the system and ensure they will reflect how the work will be performed (Process before Tools), 2) compare selected system functionality to the solutions implemented for other agency programs as a ‘quick check’ for proven technology, and 3) assign responsibility for system delivery to staff within OMS and/or the delivery Divisions, while utilizing IT staff for support. 6-3 Section 6 0 Portfolio Program Management Tool This page intentionally left blank. 6-4 Appendix A Interview Comments Interviews were held on-site at SDOT during the week of June 12th and by phone during the subsequent 2-weeks. Comments were documented and are presented without reference to the staff source (or multiple sources) of that comment. They are grouped into categories which were provided in the contract scope of work. Interpretations of these comments by the interviewers, where applicable, are annotated - following the appropriate comment. Organizational Structure ▪ PD was reported to have hit 70% of its spending plan to date – it was also suggested by others that before the Levy, the ‘hit-rate’ was 65%. - These separate references suggest no significant improvement. ▪ Comments suggested a problem with getting accurate and complete monthly project spending plans. The problems during 2016 were primarily linked by some participants with cost projections that significantly exceeded actual expenditures. ▪ PD is a recently added Division but questions remain (from some of the participants) as to the efficiency of the new structure. It was stated that this is the third iteration of organizational change and SDOT is still looking to find the ‘best’ structure. ▪ PD not only plans capital work from 0% to 10% (accounting for 60% of their workload) but supports smaller projects for crew implementation with 100% designs. PD is reported to have ownership of 6-small programs (originally owned by TO). - From the research, these small programs have considerable overlap to the Rapid Ride Corridors. ▪ PD uses an Excel spreadsheet to manage resources. It was suggested by numerous participants that there should be an effort to get staff skills aligned with assignments. There was also an expressed need for compatibility of skills for project manager positions in both PD and CPRS. ▪ PD staff’s perception is that consultants do not save time when performing the work (basically, they don’t know the SDOT system) but are helpful with tasks like template improvement. Preference from these same participants is for continued in-house services with on-call consultant contracts maintained for emergencies. ▪ CPRS is the primary interface with City Purchasing for construction contractor procurement. CPRS delivers capital projects from 10% through construction and expects a well-planned project from PD at ‘hand-off’. There was a concern expressed during the interviews, that while wanting to always provide a ‘platinum facility’, this approach cannot be afforded. A-1 Appendix A • Interview Comments ▪ M&O is the single Division answering directly to the SDOT Director. A participant suggested this shows that emphasis should be placed on the small successes in pothole filling, tree planting and pavement spot improvements. ▪ M&O described 50-projects that did not make budget cuts but could be added to the Levy’s project list if impacts to baseline work is realized. ▪ TO is involved during definition, design, construction and operation of signals and signs. Input to intelligent transportation systems was emphasized by participants. TO staff support delivery but do not have the same design milestones as other capital projects. - It is perceived these milestone differences arise because of the crew-approach used for most TO projects. ▪ T&M is the owner of Transit Spot Improvements (represented as $4M per year) and Rapid Ride Corridors. The Levy includes 7-corridors but the work, in the opinion of multiple participants, is under-resourced at $63M. ▪ P&P has the role of identifying baseline planning through modal plans and prioritization data that get interpreted for projects by others for Move Seattle. Primary interfaces for P&P are with PD – using P&P information for setting project baselines. ▪ P&P also has the responsibility for grants – both for grant writing and communicating grant requirements; both pre- and post-obligations. It was suggested by participants that 25% of projects need grants. Contacts are primarily maintained with Federal lobbyists and WSDOT. ▪ SU deals with permitting for ROW, lane closures, and utility work. Following restoration rules, there is a need to sequence Levy projects with private developments. ▪ Contracting/HR is responsible for hiring consultants and SDOT staff. It was reported that these functions are presently ‘swamped’. Participants estimated that it takes from 6 to 12months to fill a staff position. ▪ Finance, included in the group with other back office functions (asset management, procurement, and human resources) tracks expenditures (actuals not encumbrances), reports internally as well as to the Oversight Committees, and manages funding distribution. ▪ Fund tracking activities were represented as being very complicated for Finance with many sources and the need to document how source amounts have been reconciled. Referred to as the ‘color of money, local and leveraged sources were reported to be near 40 with the Move Seattle Levy being the newest one. - ▪ A-2 It often takes time – into the implementation – for an active project to be fully funded but the amount of time was not quantified. Many of the implementation staff expressed concern for needing a fallback plan for spending and guarding against ‘double-counting’ achievements in an effort to show positive results. Appendix A • Interview Comments - ▪ Presently, spending projections are for 2-years but it is perceived this needs to be much longer with increased accuracy. Centralized coordination of achievement results should resolve the ‘counting’ issue. A major concern, expressed by participants, is attaining leveraged funds – this as well as technical issues are expected to hold up implementation. - The fallback at this point, considering the uncertainty regarding predictions, may be to hold more money in reserve. ▪ OMS was represented as ‘a work in progress’, as staff learn how to keep pressure on all implementation staff and to coordinate interfaces to ensure successful delivery all Levy projects. ▪ Setting baselines and making smooth hand-offs are continuing implementation issues identified by participants. - ▪ It is suggested that there may be a future OMS role to help participants and management understand the causes for ’hand-off’ issues although this is not presently perceived as OMS scope. Resource planning presently resides with PD and CPRS (and other implementing Divisions). - OMS can provide insight to these Divisions if trends indicate capacity and capability issues but this scope would have to first be clarified. ▪ There was an expressed problem with allowing PMs to compete for crew resources without some overall coordinating influence. ▪ There was a stated concern that OMS is not integrating easily into the project implementation structure. - OMS does not seem to have influence over other Divisions. While the relationships appear to be cordial, the implementing Divisions want autonomy in the way they develop projects. ▪ Interfacing Division staff see significant duplication in roles and responsibilities in the delivery staff. OMS is viewed by some participants as excessive management. ▪ Levy Outreach is part of the functional area that facilitates internal and governmental relations with the Council, Mayor’s Office, Oversight Committees, State Legislators and Congressional Delegation. - It does not appear that implementing staff are concentrating on understanding if high-level goals and promises will be achieved. Staff can act as trouble shooters and problem solvers but the focus of this effort does not seem well defined. A-3 Appendix A • Interview Comments Teamwork and Communication ▪ ▪ Implementing staff do not like the thought of being monitored – some thought existing team dynamics could get worse while many participants thought that team dynamics presently ‘stink’. - There needs to be an effort in building trust on the ‘team’ considering the defensiveness that continues to exist. - Executives need to better understand the importance of all aspects of delivery –to make informed decisions. Participant staff outside of the implementing Divisions thought PMs need to work at delivering on promises made to Committees, the Council and stakeholders. - ▪ From the start, according to numerous participants, OMS was not announced with a clear purpose. All participants agreed that OMS will not deliver projects. - ▪ While this was seen as a support service, it is also thought that OMS may initiate a staffing discussion after assessing that variance causes in the Levy baseline could be staff-related. OMS is presently working to implement charter objectives, specifically formatting reports, supporting schedule development in PD, creating its analytic approach and developing templates for project management of large and small projects. - A-4 Some clarity of roles, beyond existing written documents, should be given by management to eliminate territorial attitudes. Staffing decisions were felt by participants to be the responsibility of the implementing Divisions. It was suggested that OMS may get involved with Divisional staffing decisions if requested. - ▪ It is suggested, based on other comments, that there should be a better method for project managers to learn how they are doing. From various comments related to OMS controls, it appears the information to be leveraged could include 1) cost data (budget, funding plans, spending plans), 2) risk data (metrics, mitigation), and 3) schedule data (milestones, forecasts). Appendix A • Interview Comments Compliance Monitoring ▪ Based on finance-related comments, the spending plan for 2017 was set at $111M. Through May 2017, it was estimated that only $20M has been spent. It was suggested that, without something changing, 2017 could be pointing to another $50M year. - ▪ It was hoped by participants that OMS would facilitate financial issues with delivery – clarifying accountabilities from a programmatic perspective. - ▪ This information must be considered relevant as the budget process for 2018 began in March and initial spending plans are again projecting expenditures to exceed $100M. It was noted that in the OMS Draft May 2017 Charter, OMS made suggested edits to the written accountabilities of staff from other areas (including finance) with some resistance from the Divisions that were having their responsibilities adjusted. This was taken as an indicator of relationships that needed attention. PD sees OMS as providing portfolio management tools and analyzing baseline variances for causes – acting as a controls group, not a quality management group. - It was suggested that OMS may actually add work to the PD PMs depending on the data and metrics requested - but this impact was not a certainty. ▪ CPRS stated the OMS should be the ‘watchdog’ that must think ‘long-term’ but doesn’t believe OMS needs to understand the details of the CPRS implementation process. ▪ A number of those interviewed saw the Risk Registry as an important tool for OMS to anticipate future changes and/or impacts to projects meeting baseline expectations. Most saw the need for accurate work plans and spending plans as well as OMS tracking deliverables, funding gaps and priority achievements. - ▪ It is believed by many participants that design progress is the most critical to monitor to improve the implementation process. - ▪ There was the impression that most implementing staff do not see risk as a project issue – as opposed to the programmatic concern that most implementers felt to be an OMS assignment. It is suggested that, supporting PD baseline development, OMS must understand during planning (not as lessons learned 6-years later), the options for meeting expenditure goals and when the need to accelerate certain projects would be effective. Management expressed concerns about 1) paying for the program work – especially with leveraged funding, 2) staff, consultant and contractor capacity – considering competing agency work, 3) Right-of-Way acquisition, and 4) achieving the flexibility needed to expand the scope or change direction of Levy projects if benefitting the SDOT objectives. A-5 Appendix A • Interview Comments - OMS was referred to as a ‘thermometer’ for identifying achievement of these expectations. Despite this central expectation, there are few responsibilities perceived for OMS that are more specific than ‘connecting all the pieces’. ▪ PD uses the CPRS PM Roadmap as its guide for providing a comprehensive definition of projects. Templates, checklists and narratives are presently being refined. The CPRS PM Roadmap was developed before PD was a Division in the organization. ▪ It is felt by many participants that the CPRS PM Roadmap is not applicable to smaller projects – taking too much administrative time for the many steps. PD staff think the activities in this process are too onerous. ▪ - While streamlining efforts are underway in the PD and CPRS, there is a concern that the process could become a crutch for reasonable thinking if too restrictive. - It appears that too many people are trying to make too many process changes independently with minimal coordination – especially at the programmatic level. It must be acknowledged that training has been provided previously and more should be expected after any future process revisions. - It was stated, with regard to T&M, that OMS staff seem to be reinventing the wheel on changing processes that have worked well in the past but this was inconsistent with other perceptions that changes only happen if requested by implementing Divisions. PD’s preferred communication on project definition was expressed as ‘pick up the phone’. - It will be important in the future to get feedback on the usefulness of project definitions. Communication is critical when disagreements arise on project definitions but so is documentation. - It is important to escalate these differences, even as high as Division Director, to keep decisions and actions timely. All planning and project definition issues should be resolved before hand-off to CPRS. ▪ Few PD and CPRS staff are reported to have been trained on MS Project and that typically schedules are poorly developed with baseline schedules primarily milestones only. A consultant is presently developing a schedule template for assisting with baseline schedule development (consistent with CPRS needs) and design schedule management for those small projects taken by PD to 100%. ▪ While quality is understood by participants to be important, there are no quality assurance processes. - A-6 It appears that the implementing Divisions rely on the experience of its Project Managers for managing quality into project spending plans. Appendix A • Interview Comments Issue Management and Decision-Making ▪ While the project types in the Levy are mixed, concern was expressed by participants from a number of separate Divisions about completing the large, Rapid Ride Corridors. It was suggested that the complexity of defining these comprehensive efforts and the long construction periods for each corridor may force up to one-third of the Levy expenditures to the very end of the 9-years – at best. - It is noted that this scenario is not reflected in the most recent cash flow which remains more positive than comments suggest. - Despite the potential for over-promising, management suggests that some of the project solutions are not presently comprehensive enough. ▪ It was explained that OMS supports CCB’s (twice per week) deliberations by tracking the issues being considered. This data comes from attendance as opposed to minutes or issues captured in a data base. It is understood from interview comments that Finance is also attending many of the CCB meetings for information and to support certain change presentations. ▪ Concern was expressed for project decisions with potential programmatic implications that are not vetted at the Deputy Director level. - ▪ It was interesting that solutions to perceived problems, which were discussed during interviews, had admittedly not been discussed at the Deputy and SDOT Director level. Many gave the opinion that Levy commitments were too big and not achievable. These same participants opined that the present decision process is inflexible and cannot adjust, even with management direction, quickly enough to be effective. Reporting and Outreach ▪ Participants noted that the Levy started with a carry-over of projects from previous capital improvements. It was suggested that this affected the accomplishments in 2016 (underspending) and should be a concern for the end of this Move Seattle Levy in 9-years. It was stated that the $95M expected spending for the first year was never properly programmed and was never realistic. If fact, the spending plans were re-baselined to $75M and, at the end of 2016, only $50M was spent. ▪ From a delivery standpoint, it was suggested that SDOT has to ‘do a good enough job and develop sufficient trust with ratepayers to be able to ask for more money in 9-years’. - ▪ The story must be told regarding achievements made and challenges overcome to make this future request feasible. This should be balanced with a reality check to avoid overly optimistic forecasting. Public image and accountability are important for SDOT. The Levy work must be sequenced with private developments. A-7 Appendix A • Interview Comments - ▪ SDOT should look into the possibilities of partnerships. OMS has offered numerous formats for reporting program progress in the documentation provided for this assessment. - It is not apparent that any specific format has been accepted or that metrics to support progress calculations have been identified. It appears the ongoing risk development was to be the solution to define progress reporting for management. Portfolio Program Management Tool ▪ PD participants claim to not have good access to needed cost information. Systems for financial information are reported to be inadequate – providing only actuals, not encumbrances and no means to show how budgets are assigned. - New software will hopefully allow forecasting. ▪ The value of PMaC is centralized data and consistent information. It was reported to not be readily scalable to smaller project applications. Participants thought it, as well as MS Project, take considerable time to work with and especially update. ▪ CA (formerly called Clarity) software, as the stated platform for the PPM, appears to be missing some graphic capabilities (to be supplemented by using Tableau) but does contain a workflow management system. Investigation does show that CA is not a finance system. - ▪ ▪ Participants indicated that PPM needs to replace and replicate PMaC as well as provide portfolio capabilities. IT has been involved by approving the start of PPM and identifying business processes with the CA vendor. - PPM will not be available until 2018 or 2019, making an interim PMaC with increased functionality, absolutely necessary. PMaC must remain available until PPM is tested and completely functional. A funding function in PMaC has been developed but not yet populated. - It would be helpful if there were good examples of existing, acceptable deliverables that could be used as templates in the future. - CA may handle documents that are coordinated now by staff emails. - The importance of system training, for not only the PPM but also for the enhanced PMaC, will be both critical and complicated. T&M claims to have no involvement with PMaC and questions the need for PPM. - A-8 Summit is expected to remain functional. This is with T&M being the owner of the Rapid Ride program for SDOT so there is a concern regarding programmatic efficiency without this tool. Appendix A • Interview Comments ▪ TO staff expressed hope that OMS ensure they are in the process although most processes are not easily scalable to the small size of TO work. - TO believes there could be assistance from OMS in monitoring the ever-changing asset inventory – looking to life cycle, not just asset on-boarding. They see OMS rolling-up the program information to assist with crew delivery layout for a full, 3year, look-ahead picture – although this needs to be addressed in future scope discussions. A-9 AppendixA 0 Interview Comments This page intentionally left blank.