Project Business Case Title s1
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
PM 4 Business Case (Small to Medium Projects) Template and Guide
Version 1.0, July 2008
This guide is intended to be read in conjunction with the following template for the development of a Business Case for a small project. As such the Guide should be removed from the front of the final document. Another template for the development of a business case for a larger, more complex project (PM 2 Business Case Template & Guide) has also been developed.
DISCLAIMER
This material has been prepared for use by SAFECOM and emergency services sector agencies. It follows that this material should not be relied upon by any other person. Users rely on the material at their own risk.
Reproduced with the kind permission of the Tasmanian Department of Premier and Cabinet. PM 4
Centre for Lesson Learnt Database Business Case
Version: <1.1> Date: 10 November 2008
Copy: uncontrolled
The version number starts at one and increases by one for each release. It shows the release number and a revision letter if in draft. The original draft is 0.A and subsequent drafts are 0.B, 0.C etc. The first accepted and issued document is 1.0. Subsequent changes in draft form are 1.0A, 1.0B etc. The accepted and issued second version is 1.1 or 2.0, depending on the magnitude of the change.
Refer to the Project Management Fact Sheet: Document Control, for more information at
Operational Improvement SA CFS Page 2 23/05/2018 PM 4 Acknowledgements
The contribution of the following individuals in preparing this document is gratefully acknowledged:
This document has been derived from a template prepared by the Department of Premier and Cabinet, Tasmania. The structure is based on the Tasmanian Government Project Management Guidelines and has been adapted for use within the emergency services sector.
For further details, refer to http://esointra.esau.sa.gov.au/Projects/
Document Acceptance and Release Notice
This document is Version No 1.1, Date 10 November 2008 of the Project Name Centre for Lessons Learnt Business Case.
The Business Case is a managed document. For identification of amendments each page contains a release number and a page number. Changes will only be issued as a complete replacement document. Recipients should remove superseded versions from circulation. This document is authorised for release once all signatures have been obtained
Business Case History
This document is Version 1.1 date: 10 November 2008 of the Centre for Lessons Learnt Business Plan.
The Business case is a managed document. For identification of amendments each page contains a release number and a page number.
Status Draft Approved by Issued Date 10 November 2008 Document Location
Distribution
This document has been distributed to:
Name Title Date of Issue Version
1 Executive Summary...... 9
2 Introduction/Background...... 9
3 Overview 9
3.1 Vision...... 9 3.2 Organisational Objective...... 9
4 The Business Case...... 10
4.1 Purpose of the Business Case...... 10 4.2 Business Case Sponsor...... 11
5 Situational Assessment and Problem Statement...... 12
6 Assumptions and Constraints...... 12
7 Identification and Analysis of Options...... 12
7.1 Identification of Options...... 12 7.1.1 Option 1 – Do Nothing...... 13 7.1.2 Option 2 - Rework Access data base...... 13 7.1.3 Option 3 - Develop new system...... 14 7.1.4 Option 4 – Use Excel Spreadsheet...... 15 7.2 Comparison of Options...... 16 7.3 Recommended Option...... 18
8 Implementation Strategy...... 18
8.1 Project Title...... 18 8.2 Target Outcomes...... 18 8.3 Outputs...... 18 8.4 Work Plan...... 19 8.5 Budget...... 19 8.6 Related Projects...... 19 8.7 Other Resources...... 20
9 Project Management Framework...... 20
9.1 Governance...... 20 9.2 Quality Management...... 20 9.3 Organisational Impact...... 20 9.4 Outcome Realisation...... 21 9.5 Post Project Review...... 21
Appendix A: Benefit Analysis...... 23
A.1 Option …<# - Description>...... 23 A.2 Summary of Options...... 24
Appendix B: Risk Analysis...... 25
The Country Fire Service is a learning organisation and has really cemented its foundation and those principles following the Wangary fire in January 2005. Following that fire, the many issues were managed through a project known as Project Phoenix. Prior to this, CFS had a Centre for Lessons Learnt where debrief issues were raised and progressed. The existing process within CFS is for different levels of the organisation to conduct debriefs as outlined in the Chief Officers Standing Orders and Operational Management Guidelines. The process to manage these issues have usebeen in many formats, even today they exist in wordWord, Eexcel and an Access data base. To ensure there is effective and efficient means of managing lessons learnt it is proposed to create a data base which is uniform across the organisation, can be access by all staff, analyses issues and assigns, treats and tracks progress of resolution of these issues.
One of the greatest risks of the organisations is our ability to prove the we have implemented lessons learnt from a range of sources such as debriefs and investigations. The proposed data base provides a thorough means of analysing issues, assigning responsibility and treatment options as well as providing reports and tracking progress. 2 Introduction/Background
Historically Brigades and Groups conduct debriefs and forward issues to the Regions who would then hold a Regional debrief and record, by either Excel spreadsheet, Access data base or Word document, issues raised and in some cases prescribe what actions could be taken to resolve the issues. In conjunction with this a number of other processes such as accident investigations, Chief Officers reports , Coronials and OH&S investigation would be conducted and make additional recommendations. There has been no means of capturing, and recording resolution and implementation of these issues. In looking back over the past years it appears that in some cases the issues are repeating themselves without any resolution. 3 Overview
3.1 Vision
To enhance CFS’s learning framework enabling an integrated systematic to manage lessons learnt.
3.2 Organisational Objective
To establish a system ofto support managing lessons learnt within the CFS by 30th September 2009
3.3.2 Sector Strategic Direction The SAFCOM Missions includes ‘ …delivery of appropriate, effective and efficient emergency services to the South Australian Community…’, which includes: Continuous Improvement Efficient Service Delivery This project is linked to Strategic Outcome of CFS activities reflect the principles of business excellence and continuous improvement and the 2008 annual plan of Centre for Lessons Learned issues progressed.
The CFS Strategic Plan states within its values that: Continuous Improvement because we are a learning organisation
4 The Business Case
4.1 Purpose of the Business Case
The project is to deliver a system of recording issues and recommendations at various levels, analysing them, prescribe responsibility, possible treatment options and track progress and resolution of the issue. The system would record and link documents from both internal and external means and linking any recommendation with management of the issue or recommendation. The system needs to be accessed by all staff and could incorporate the management of both risk management issues as well as OH&S matters.
The business plan is being proposed as currently there is
no uniformity in formats no ability to track progress and status no ability to analyse issue lack of integration with other reports or investigations cannot prescribe treatment options existence of multiple data bases or documents.
Benefits
Addresses these deficiencies Tailored to suit agency needs May be suitable to other ESO’s Visible to all staff Integrated approach where similar issues can be amalgamated or built upon to show trends. Avoids duplication and individualised management of issues Could integrate other issue management into the system
Risks
Lack of funding Data base looses support In house expertise required post development
Why is the Business Case being produced?
Generally it is to:
define the business need or problem in detail,
analyse options (where resources have already been allocated this may involve determining what can be delivered with those resources),
identify costs, benefits and risks, and
to put forward a proposal to senior management for approval to proceed with the project, or to the funding source for approval for funding for the project.
4.2 Business Case Sponsor
The Sponsor is the Manager Operational Improvement, Mark Thomason
4.3 Intended Audience Intended audience will include: Mark Thomason, Manager Operational Improvement and Project Sponsor Rob Sandford, Manager Operations Service, Assistant Chief Officer Andrew Lawson, Deputy Chief Officer Martin Barbary, SAFECOM IMS Manager Mick Ayre, Manager Strategic Services Joel Schirmer, CFS Business Manager
Currently there is a lack of coordination, analysis of and management of issues. An examination of debriefs and reports over the past several years has highlighted lack of progress and consolidation of issues. There are two databases (Access and Risk) and Excel spreadsheets currently being used; however this results in
no consolidated list of issues, duplication of effort at numerous levels, lack of integration of similar issues, and lack of learning is currently occurring.
Progression of issues are sometimes managed by Regions on an individual basis. T, that is, issues and lessons or recommendations are not shared within the CFS , nor are they necessarily incorporated into organisational doctrine. At a State level there has been no dedicated person responsible for the management of issues. Several staff members have been allocated the task however, multiple responsibilities and the work load and systems of work have restricted progression of issues. Many reports, investigations and issues have been collected, in but in the majority of cases no collation of issues or recommendation exist. The one clear example of consolidation of issues and clear demonstration and successful progression of lessons learnt has been Project Phoenix and , the Dr Bob Smith report and the Wangary Coronial.
6 Assumptions and Constraints
1. It is assumed that there will be sSufficient finance within 2008 or 2009 budget for development and implementation of a new system. Negotiation may need to occur regarding sharing of resources between projects.
2. Managers and persons assigned responsibility to resolve issues willdo not progress resolution due to work load. Issue management may not be seen as part of their annual business plan. This mayIt is intended that this be resolved through reporting mechanisms and presentation of issue management at forums such as Strategic Leadership Group, OH&S and Training meetings.
7 Identification and Analysis of Options
This is a high level analysis of the possible alternatives that could be employed to bridge the gap between the current situation and what is proposed, as outlined in Section 4.
7.1 Identification of Options
Option 1- Do nothing – maintain current situation
Option 2 – Rework Access data base
Option 3 – Develop new system
Option 4 – Use common Excel Spreadsheet
7.1.1 Option 1 – Do Nothing
Benefits
- No financial impact
Dis-benefits
No coordination
Lessons not learnt
Duplication of effort
Costs
-Low. No identified operating costs
-Increased costs from lack of coordination
-Significant if lessons are not learnt. Fines
Risks;
Risk to CFS from both internal and external sources
Not achieving Annual Plan and Strategic Plan requirements
Treatments have potential to be either duplicated, non aligned. May expose CFS for mis- management
Increased risk from other functional areas not seeing changes
Stakeholder impact
- High. Work efforts duplicated , loss of opportunities
Stakeholders: CFS Staff and volunteers, CFSVA, SAFECOM staff. Community
Costs should include the cost for producing all of the outputs (deliverables), project management costs, risk management costs and quality management costs. These include direct, indirect and recurrent costs to provide a full picture of the associated costs for each option.
7.1.2 Option 2 - Rework Access data base
Benefits
-Training in use of aAccess to an Administrator and users
- Access data base difficult to integrate across all sections of CFS
Dis-benefits
No coordination
Duplication of effort
No consolidation of issues management
- Access data base difficult to integrate across all sections of CFS, and availability to regions and brigades is an issue
Only single data entry at a time
Costs
-Development of Access data base
-Training
Risks;
Treatments have potential to be either duplicated , non aligned
Increased costs from lack of coordination
Increased risk from other functional areas not seeing changes
Extensions implied in the current scope are likely to push Access towards its useful limits
Stakeholder impact
Moderate. Training
Stakeholders: CFS Staff and volunteers, CFSVA, SAFECOM staff. Community
7.1.3 Option 3 - Develop new system
Benefits
-Integrated approach
-Opportunities to integrate other databases eg. Risk Register, OH&S
Opportunity to integrate with other CFS systems – Intranet etc
-Maximising opportunities
-Issue management traceable.
-Ability to consolidate issues
Dis-benefits
-Financial development and hardware purchase learnt
-Duplication of effort ???
-Training
Costs
-Mod Development costs
-Mod Training
-Replacement of Hardware over 5 years ???
Risks;
-Not achieving Annual Plan and Strategic Plan requirements
-Lack of finances
Stakeholders: CFS Staff and volunteers, CFSVA, SAFECOM staff. Community
7.1.4 Option 4 – Use Excel Spreadsheet
Benefits
-System across all users’ computers
Dis-benefits
-Intensive to manage
-Liable to corruption or abuse
Costs
-High Opportunities to resolve and implement recommendations
Risks;
-Not achieving Annual Plan and Strategic Plan requirements
-Abuse of spreadsheet
-No dedicated staff to manage or enter data
Stakeholder impact
High. Work efforts duplicated , loss of opportunities
Stakeholders: CFS Staff and volunteers, CFSVA, SAFECOM staff. Community
Costs should include the cost for producing all of the outputs (deliverables), project management costs, risk management costs and quality management costs. These include direct, indirect and recurrent costs to provide a full picture of the associated costs for each option.
7.2 Comparison of Options
Criteria Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Do nothing Rework Access New system Use common data base Excel Spreadsheet Benefits: Nil Partial analysis. Integrated system Easily distributed Stakeholder A Transparency around CFS Stakeholder B Reporting system Tracks documents Disbenefits: No progression of Re engineering Development costs Difficult to Stakeholder A learning data base format consolidate organisation Stakeholder B Only permits single Labour intensive No outcome for entry at a time Requires business plan dedicated Fire fighter safety employee to manage Fire fighter safety Costs: Indirect: Workers Development costs direct compensation Reduced time costs increase indirect managing system Operational costs Reduced Workers recurrent increase compensation Loss of learning costs opportunities Legal Risks: Significant Moderate Low to Mod Moderate initial minimisation/ mitigation costs resulting risk Stakeholder Impact: Significant High Low High Issues: No progression of Legacy system Time No progression issues Training Development costs of issues Duplication of Duplication of effort effort Implementation not Implementation consistent across not consistent CFS across CFS
Option 3 is recommended as it provides the greatest benefit for CFS in terms of collation and management of lessons learnt. It also provides opportunities to integrate other systems such as risk management into one system. Option 3 would enable transparency and reporting across the organisation to all levels of staff. Implementing a new system will also reduce the risk of CFS from not progressing issues raised during debriefs.
8 Implementation Strategy
Based on the information outlined in Section 6 for the option that was recommended, begin to scope the project that will implement the recommended option and describe how the project will be managed. The information in the following sub-sections are important, as they will form the basis of a Project Business Plan if the project/initiative proceeds. It defines the scope of the project.
8.1 Project Title
Centre for Lessons Learnt Data Base.
8.2 Target Outcomes
Issues registered within 3 months of incident and analysed and assigned to a responsible person to develop lessons learnt into the CFS. Responsible persons -Regional Operations Planning Officers and Manager of Operations Improvement
Reports on outstanding issues are circulated to Mangers and discussed at Strategic Leadership meeting and Chief Officers Advisory Council Quarterly Responsible persons Manager Operational Improvement
Consolidated record and reference of reports, papers and investigations. From these links are established to issues and recommendations. The final outcome being evidence is provided that the CFS has addressed recommendations.
8.3 Outputs
Register of documents these include debriefs, external reports/investigations, internal investigations.
Consolidated list of issues registered against themes, human factors and hierarchy of controls.
Issues tagged to responsible officer and report delivered bi-monthly to respective managers.
Risk register incorporated into system which will permit cross referencing to Centre fo Lessons Learnt register
List the project outputs (deliverables). These are new or modified products, services, businesses, or management practices that need to be implemented to meet each identified outcome. Identify who (project customer) will utilise each output to generate the target outcomes.
8.4 Work Plan Endorsement by Manager Operations Services Communication with stakeholders Consultation with external systems developer Development of system Testing of system Approval by CFS System set up and commissioning Transfer of historical data Test of system Modify system if required to meet project outcomes Review system operations
8.5 Budget Type Amount 5 Year Costs Frequency Initial purchase price $0 Initial enhancement costs $0 #File server (currently using 2nd hand server, have 3 year $8500 $8500 3-5 years life) Development of database (budget) Unkn$100 $Unkn20000 00 #SQL Server $6500 $6500 #EDS Costs for the server $4800 $24000 #Back up support $1500 $600 Other integration (other databases) $5000* Training conducted in house $3000 Once off #IMS Support $4500 $5000 TOTAL $7500.00 $5000.00???? total *This is a provisional figure. There are few perceived problems in accessing other CFS databases to read data, # This application will put minimal load on a server in operational terms. The initial database should be sized at 100mb-500mb. The growth potential is in the area of data storage, with the number of connections and size of the application being insignificant.
8.6 Related Projects
Command, Leadership and Incident Management Group
IRIS (sharing hardware)
AIIRS
Record Management process
8.7 Other Resources
Training required for staff.
Server for IT
9 Project Management Framework
9.1 Governance
Project Sponsor; Manager Operations
Business Owner,
Project Manager. Mark Thomason
Project Team; Leanne Adams, Mick Ayre,
Reference Groups; Regional Staff
Working Groups; Regional Operations Planning Officers, Manager Strategic Services
Quality Consultants. External contractor systems development & SAFECOM ICT
9.2 Quality Management
Briefly describe the approach to quality management, which may include:
methodologies and standards;
change, issue, and problem management; and
review and acceptance procedures.
Nil impact during implementation.
9.4 Outcome Realisation
Outcome Realisation refers to the management of the utilisation of outputs to meet the target outcomes, and bring about longer term benefits. Outline how outputs will be managed once they are delivered, and who will be accountable. This may change throughout as the project evolves, and will be detailed in a standalone Outcome Realisation Plan (see template and guide at www.egovernment.tas.gov.au ).
This is a new initiative, therefore comparative analysis with a current situation is not possible.
It is intended that, by 30 th September 2009, all debrief items are captured in this system, that lessons learned have flowed from that, that the assigning of responsibility is in place and has been actioned.
The only true measure of success is changed behaviour; and it is the full time responsibility of the sponsor to see that happen.
9.5 Post Project Review
After Action review conducted throughout project at critical stages and after milestones achieved. Issues registered, discussed with key stakeholders. Any variances for project discussed with Project Team, and reviewed for approval or rejection. Issues register maintained by Project Manager. 10 Appendices
Debrief and After Action review discussion paper Content paper centre for lessons learnt data base
For each option assess how each key stakeholder group (or individual stakeholders) may be impacted by the project and how they may impact on the project. This may be positive or negative. Allocate a rating, High = 3, etc and total in the right column.
A.1 Option …<# - Description> Positive Impact Negative Impact Major High Medium Low Nil Low Medium High Rating Stakeholder (3) (2) (1) (0) (-1) (-2) (-3) Customer Impacted 3 1 By Project Impact 1 2 On Project Business Owner Impacted 3 4 By Project Impact 1 On Project Impacted By Project Impact On Project Impacted By Project Impact On Project Total 5
A.2 Summary of Options Stakeholder Option 1 Option 2 Option 3
CFS
For each option fill in the worksheet on the next page with the major risks.
Instructions:
1. For each risk work out what grade there is associated with it. This is only a quick estimate using the table below to produce an A to N grading. Ignore those risks with a grading of D and N. (see risk management fact sheet for more details)
2. For the A and B gradings, estimate what minimisation and mitigation strategies should be put in place, their cost and the resultant grading (i.e. the impact of the strategy).
3. For each grading allocate a numerical rating, eg A=5, B=4, C=3, D=2, N=1.
4. Add these together to get a total grading for each risk. The lower the total score, the lower the level of risk.
5. Add the scores for each risk to get a total for the option. This allows a comparison to be made between options as to the comparative level of risk of each option.
Grade : Combined effect of Likelihood/Seriousness Seriousness Low Medium High Extreme Likelihood Low N D C A Medium D C B A High C B A A
Option
Risk Rating Major Risks Initial Strategy Cost Resultant Rating Grading Grading New system instability causes C N/A C 3 increased resource requirements Not able to meet the major A Use a detailed acceptance 5000 C 3 user requirements testing plan and verify each phase There are no net C N/A C 3 improvements for the users Customers are B Use a newsletter to keep the 2000 D 2 inconvenienced by the customers informed system and thus there is bad publicity
Total $7000 11