On Enhanced Communication of Review Results

Posted on by .

Ortiz_ James226x170

One of the areas we have had significant discussions within IPAO (and a source of concern and frustration) has dealt with whether the agency’s leadership is getting the full benefit of the SRB’s assessment and analysis, performed during the lifecycle reviews, to understand the full readiness picture of the programs and projects to characterize their technical, cost, schedule, and risk posture going forward.

We have devoted many hours to improving our processes and analytical capabilities and have worked very hard to document what we do, resulting in stable operational procedures and standardized templates for our TORs and programmatic products.  We continue to work hard to improve the understating of requirements and expectations for the data and analyses needed to support the reviews by conducting proactive and inclusive discussions during dedicated planning sessions, with the programs and projects that resulted in improved readiness of products supporting the SRB activities.

Realizing the work described above in planning and performing the analyses sets a good foundation for the discussions that help inform agency approval decisions, it is important that we turn our attention to address the critical communication of lifecycle results for agency decision.  As a result, communication of the analyses, results and recommendations for agency decision is being addressed by OoE/IPAO working with the project management community and the leadership to help ensure the full benefit of the analyses performed during the lifecycle reviews by the programs/projects, the SRBs, and the Mission Directorates and the Centers come forward in a manner that enhances the deliberations to better inform approval decisions that set agency commitments.

Two important components of these efforts are the leading questions for programmatic analyses and the enhanced availability of the independent programmatic assessment. The leading questions are directed to help frame the discussions such that the “story” is discussed progressively by building on its logical components. These components are the basis for the cost and schedule plan that provides the foundation for all further discussion (what is the credibility of the plan); followed by the risk assessed against that plan (what could go wrong and what would be the impact), followed by the results of the probabilistic analyses (what resources would it take to achieve a given confidence for success), followed by a recommendation on where to set the agency’s commitments. The enhanced availability of the independent programmatic assessment addresses improved access to reports documenting the analyses performed by IPAO as part of the lifecycle reviews. The objective is to make that information available to members of the program management councils in a timely fashion to help them prepare to participate in the deliberations.

As we continue to work these improvements, you as a member of the IPAO will have a key role implementing these upgrades for the lifecycle reviews you are supporting. Please take advantage of the DSR discussions or subsequent staff meetings discussions to ensure you have a full understanding of these efforts. As it is often the case, you continue to be on the tip of the spear as the agency improves and evolves its project management practices.

Thank you for all you do in helping ensure the agency’s success of its programs and projects.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>