Guide to Using the Organizational Project Management Capacity Assessment Tool
6. Ensuring Readiness to Conduct the Assessment
6.1 Completing the OPMCA: Considerations and Best Practices
- Regularly Review and Revise Once Every Three Years
-
The Policy on the Management of Projects stipulates that a deputy head is responsible for ensuring that an organization-wide capacity assessment is conducted and updated in accordance with the Standard for Organizational Project Management Capacity. As stated in the Policy on the Management of Projects, project approval limits are to be regularly reviewed and revised at least once every three years, normally as part of the consideration of the organization's investment plan as set out in the Policy on Investment Planning - Assets and Acquired Services. Therefore, at a minimum, an organization will need to submit the results of the assessment to Treasury Board every three years together with its investment plan.
Organizations should recognize that the assessment is a dynamic exercise that will likely require regular updating as an organization's project management capacity, operational environment, and supporting and enabling activities change. An organization is also required to conduct an assessment when there has been a significant change in the organization such that the capacity to manage projects may be affected.
Organizations are encouraged to consider opportunities to integrate a regular review of the OPMCA with established business planning processes to ensure the accuracy of the OPMCA and leverage assessment information as a management and planning tool within the organization.
- Organization-Wide Internal Consultation
-
Departments and agencies are encouraged to consider a number of good practices when completing and updating an OPMCA. In particular, an assessment should ideally involve participants from across the organization, including all functional and program areas such as corporate services, finance, project management, human resources, program areas, and information and technology management. Accordingly, a more informed, accurate and balanced assessment of the organization's project management capacity is expected to result from this comprehensive viewpoint.
- Early Consultation With TBS
-
It is important to note that, initially, responses to assessment questions may be less than definitive because of incomplete or unsubstantiated information. Organizations are encouraged to first complete an OPMCA based on available information at a given point in time and begin a dialogue within the organization and with TBS. As information that supports different assessment criteria is identified and becomes available or changes, the OPMCA can be updated to reflect the most current and accurate indication of the organization's project management capacity. This practice reflects the policy requirement that the deputy head ensure that the organization maintains an accurate OPMCA in accordance with the Standard for Organizational Project Management Capacity and Risk. Note that TBS is expected to be notified if the capacity of an organization changes in any significant manner.
- Assessing the Capacity of Other Government Departments and External Providers
-
It may be the case that an organization supports its capacity based on functional assistance provided by other government departments. For example, Public Works and Government Services Canada is mandated to support real property functions and procurement functions.
Departments and agencies are directed to assess the other government departments' capacity in collaboration or consultation with the service provider. Similarly, when external providers are used to provide capacity, it must be assessed based on evidence and in collaboration or consultation with the external provider.
- Creating an Organization-Specific Guide and Glossary
To ensure consistency and common understanding, organizations may also wish to consider developing an organizational glossary that defines any terms in the OPMCA that may have a particular context or meaning within the organization.
6.2 Guidance on Methodology
The completion of an OPMCA is expected to conform to the established methodology for clearly documenting and making available supporting evidence for each individual assessment criterion. This approach seeks to ensure consistent and comparable results across organizations and to facilitate updates and audits of the assessment. In addition, all evidence is to be readily available; the TBS review of the OPMCA may include requests for some or all of the documented supporting evidence. Finally, a good practice is to establish business processes dedicated to the completion, review and approval of the OPMCA. These processes are expected to provide the necessary rigour and discipline needed to ensure that the OPMCA is completed in a timely and accurate manner and is supported by documented evidence and updated appropriately.
What follows is guidance on the expected key steps that should be applied by an organization when completing an OPMCA.
- Step 1: Resource Allocation Exercise
-
An organization must first complete a resource allocation exercise across the entire department or agency, in accordance with the Treasury Board Policy on Investment Planning - Assets and Acquired Services. The resource allocation exercise is, ideally, to be supported by relevant information, including identified requirements, risk and complexity, performance, project reviews, expected outcomes (value), strategic alignment, and resource availability. See the TBS Guide to Investment Planning – Assets and Acquired Services for more information on this exercise.
Resource allocation decisions should be based on planning decisions. An organization is to clearly describe its approach and arrive at an understanding of how it makes resource allocation and reallocation decisions. An organization's capacity to manage its planned investments is a key consideration, and the OPMCA provides this understanding. Along with a documented account of resource allocation and reallocation governance structures, the end result of the resource allocation exercise is an organization's list of all planned investments over the upcoming five-year period. These planned investments, including all planned projects as well as those underway, are to be reflected in the organization's investment plan, which confirms its affordability.
- Step 2: Portfolio of Planned Projects
-
The list of planned investments is an organization's initial starting point for compiling its portfolio of planned projects. Once an organization has identified all planned investments over a minimum five-year period, it should work in collaboration with TBS to ensure that all distinct planned projects have been appropriately identified.
An organization should describe its approach for identifying activities as planned, and for distinct projects, including any dollar-based thresholds or any other key determining factors that may be considered during this process. An organization is expected to include its supporting rationale for its decisions in its investment plan. An organization's approach must comply with Treasury Board policies. The portfolio of planned projects, along with additional project information, should also be reflected in the investment plan.
It may be the case that, following the identification of all planned investments, an organization will have remaining project-like activities or other investments that will not be individually highlighted in the investment plan. Within the investment plan, the organization is expected to clearly state the magnitude and volume of these clusters of activities to determine their overall significance and the potential resource implications and impacts on the organization's capacity to manage its entire portfolio of projects. This is a key consideration in completing the OPMCA.
- Step 3: Departmental Project Management Framework and Scalability
-
An organization will need a clear and factual working knowledge of its departmental project management framework or set of practices. Many assessment criteria require that an organization determine whether these practices are documented and that there is evidence of the extent to which these practices are applied across the organization. Note that evidence should demonstrate the organization's capacity to manage and deliver the planned portfolio of projects. However, in Questions 9 and 10, historical evidence based on projects within the last five years needs to be provided. These two questions are the only historical evidence-based assessment criteria. The OMPCA does not set or define expectations; it is up to the department or agency to implement suitable project management practices.
For a department or agency that has more than one project management framework or set of practices within an organization, the scoring of the assessment criteria is to be based on the number of projects in each of the respective portfolio of projects that are to be subject to each framework or practice over the planning horizon. In considering a response to an assessment criterion that reflects a percentage of projects, an organization is to first confirm that the criteria defined is in place, determine the extent to which the defined criteria is applicable, and compute the percentage of the planned portfolio of projects for which there is evidence.
- Step 4: Planned Approach and Methodology
-
Once all necessary information has been gathered and reviewed, a department or agency should begin to establish a standard approach and methodology in consultation with TBS for the completion of its OPMCA.
For instance, information and data could be collected and analyzed at the level at which a project management office is established. Such a structured approach should facilitate data collection and allow the organization to more readily identify project management strengths and opportunities to invest in capacity across the organization.
It is important to recognize that concrete methodology is crucial for large and sometimes disparate organizations. For a larger organization, the most effective approach can be to aggregate OPMCAs for each of the branches within that organization in order to establish one capacity class. This can be undertaken effectively once the planned portfolios of projects have been fully established for each branch. Through this approach, each branch would complete the assessment based on the evidence supporting each of the assessment criteria, resulting in individual OPMCAs. These assessments can then be aggregated, based on the number of planned projects to be managed by each branch, to represent the capacity of the enterprise as a whole.
- Example 1: An organization with two distinct branches (Branch A and Branch B)
-
Having completed an investment planning cycle and allocated all resources within reference levels to investments, including projects, 100 projects have been identified over the five-year planning horizon. Of the 100 projects, 60 will be managed in Branch A, and 40 will be managed in Branch B.
The department elects to have each branch complete its own OPMCA.
Question 44
To what extent is a project charter approved prior to undertaking detailed project planning?
- 0 = <10 per cent of projects
- 1 = 10-24 per cent of projects
- 2 = 25-49 per cent of projects
- 3 = 50-64 per cent of projects
- 4 = 65-90 per cent of projects
- 5 = >90 per cent of projects
In Branch A, project charters approved by the sponsor are required for all projects over $5 million. This requirement is supported by a deputy head-approved policy for Branch A. Over the planning horizon, Branch A has 30 projects estimated at over $5 million, or 50 per cent (30/60) of its projects.
Branch A
Answer: (3) 50 per cent
In Branch B, there is no documented requirement for project charters at any stage of the project life cycle, approved or otherwise.
Branch B
Answer: (0) 0 per cent
At the enterprise level when aggregating the two branches, based on the number of projects, not estimated costs, the following statement can be supported by evidence:
There is evidence that for 30 out of 100 projects, a project charter will be in place and approved prior to undertaking detailed project planning (30/100).
Department
Answer: (2) 30 per cent
- Example 2: A department with three distinct branches (Branch A, Branch B and Branch C)
-
Question 1
Do senior executive Performance Management Accords (PMAs) include project performance metrics?
- 0 = No
- 2 = Some PMAs
- 5 = All PMAs
Two of the three branches include project performance metrics in senior executive PMAs. The third branch does not include these metrics in any PMAs.
Branch A
Answer: (5) All PMAs
Branch B
Answer: (5) All PMAs
Branch C
Answer: (0) No
Department
Answer: (2) Some PMAs
In this case, a percentage cannot be taken because Branch C does not include project performance metrics in all PMAs. The department can claim to include these metrics in only some PMAs (and must be scored as 2).
If separate assessments are to be conducted across the organization, TBS should be consulted early in the process to ensure that the planned approach and methodology are consistent in order to effectively aggregate the results. For all organizations, the planned approach and methodology should be reviewed and discussed with TBS prior to starting the assessment. The final approach and methodology should be clearly documented in the opening section of the OPMCA.
- Step 5: Supporting Evidence
When completing an assessment, a department or agency is to consider:
- Evidence of a management practice, framework or the equivalent, i.e., the department is to identify its management practice, framework or equivalent that has been approved by the appropriate authority;
- The application of its management practice, framework or equivalent in order to accurately identify the percentage of planned projects to which it is applied; and
- Evidence that the management practice, framework or equivalent will actually be applied and followed. The department or agency is to clearly articulate how it can be certain that its management practice, framework or equivalent will be applied.
Each of the 92 assessment criteria is to be supported by documented evidence. If there is no documented evidence available, then the lowest score of 0 is appropriate. A lack of evidence and a score of 0 can and may be quite suitable for certain assessment criteria. It is important for a department or agency to support only management practices, frameworks or the equivalent within its organization that are appropriate given its planned investment portfolio and for which there is a business case. Striving for an elevated Organizational Project Management Capacity Class does not represent an acceptable rationale for supporting unwarranted management practices, frameworks or the equivalent.
It can be resource-intensive for a department or agency to acquire and maintain documented evidence in support of all projects that meet a defined assessment criterion over a minimum five-year horizon. For this reason, higher classes of capacity are viewed as a challenge to obtain and maintain and should be sought only if there is a strong justification for elevated management capacity.
The type of supporting evidence can and may vary by department or agency. However, all evidence is to be compelling and applicable, and be able to withstand the scrutiny of an audit.
- Date modified: