Audit of the project management: Environment and Climate Change Canada

Audit of project management
[PDF - 906 KB]

Executive summary

The objective of this internal audit was to assess the effectiveness of the Project Management Framework (PMF) and controls to support the delivery of projects, in compliance with the relevant Treasury Board (TB) policy instruments.

The Audit of project management was approved by the Deputy Minister upon the recommendation of the Departmental Audit Committee, as part of the two-year Risk-based Audit Plan 2019 to 2021. The audit covered the period from September 2018 to the end of October 2019.

Why is it important?

The management of projects is key to providing value for money and demonstrating sound stewardship in program delivery. Insufficient project management increases the risk of untimely delivery, excessive costs or project and program failure. Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) has important new initiatives that require robust project management. While the Corporate Services and Finance Branch has taken measures to improve ECCC’s project management practices, all branches may not have the governance structure and management controls in place to properly apply the PMF for all their planned and ongoing projects.

Furthermore, project management is considered a high-risk area across all of government. The Office of the Comptroller General included an audit of project management in its 2017-2021 Risk-Based Internal Audit Plan. The ECCC Internal Audit Division recently completed an Audit of infrastructure renewal at the Meteorological Service of Canada, which included a recommendation on project management.

What we found

Overall, the audit found that the ECCC PMF and related controls were adequately designed and implemented to support the effective delivery of projects, including well implemented communication, tools and training; and were generally in compliance with the relevant TB Policy instruments.  Some areas for improvement were identified under the following five themes:

Design of the ECCC Project Management Framework

The design of the ECCC PMF is adequately aligned with requirements of the TB Policy on the Planning and Management of Investments and the TB Directive on the Management of Projects and Programmes. The audit identified three areas that could benefit from more clarity: conducting independent reviews, requirements for enterprise or joint projects and outsourced real-property and infrastructure projects.

Identification and tracking of projects

A formally defined process to track projects is in place, allowing the Departmental Project Management Office (DPMO) to maintain and update the list of projects subject to the ECCC PMF. However, the audit found that there is a lack of common understanding across the Department regarding what constitutes a project.

Governance

Project governance and oversight have been established to provide projects with structure and direction. Roles and responsibilities for project management have been clearly defined, documented and were generally well understood. The audit identified some opportunities for improvement with respect to the operating effectiveness of project steering committees and the oversight of ECCC project portfolio. The audit also found some inconsistencies in the way that project sponsors carry out their roles and responsibilities and the understanding of stakeholders regarding the DPMO’s mandate.

Risk management

Overall, adequate processes have been developed and implemented to enable effective management and monitoring of risks throughout the project lifecycle. However, these processes are not always operating as intended. In particular, the audit found inconsistencies regarding the documentation of project risks.

Compliance with ECCC Project Management Framework documentation requirements

A review of project documentation for a sample of in-house and outsourced projects revealed that the majority of the projects managed in-house are generally compliant with the ECCC PMF documentation requirements. However, limited documentation was available for review for the outsourced real-property and infrastructure projects.

Communication, awareness and training

Overall, effective communication, training and awareness processes and activities have been designed and implemented to promote the ECCC PMF and project management concepts.

Recommendations

In response to these findings, the audit team has put forward four recommendations.

Recommendation 1

The Assistant Deputy Minister, Corporate Services and Finance Branch, should:

1.1  Update the ECCC Project Management Framework to reflect Treasury Board policy requirements and to support an integrated approach to project management by including the provisions for independent reviews of projects and programs and the governance requirements for joint and enterprise projects

1.2  Determine, in collaboration with ECCC Real-property group, the key project deliverables, governance and monitoring provisions relevant to outsourced ECCC real-property projects in line with TBS policy suite for real-property projects and ECCC Project Management Framework requirements

Recommendation 2

The Assistant Deputy Minister, Corporate Services and Finance Branch, should establish and communicate a common set of criteria to assess from the outset (at the Intake phase) whether a business opportunity or an initiative is a project and is subject to the ECCC Project Management Framework.

Recommendation 3

The Assistant Deputy Minister, Corporate Services and Finance Branch, should:

3.1  Include the mandate, scope and roles and responsibilities of the Departmental Project Management Office in the ECCC Project Management Framework

3.2  Remind senior management of their role as chair of the project steering committee for each of the projects they sponsor

3.3  Ensure that a horizontal overview of the ECCC projects portfolio is presented and discussed periodically at the senior management level

Recommendation 4

The Assistant Deputy Minister, Corporate Services and Finance Branch, should enhance the mandatory requirements in the ECCC Project Management Framework and the gating process with respect to the use of risk logs or other risk management tools at least as comprehensive as the risk logs, to ensure that risks are identified, managed, tracked, reassessed and monitored adequately at the individual project level throughout the project lifecycle.

1. Background

Within the Government of Canada, project management is about establishing clear accountabilities, defining objectives and outcomes and establishing the scope, planning, monitoring and reporting controls for project activities. Project management methodologies are generally used for focused, non-repetitive, time-limited activities with some degree of risk, as well as for activities beyond the usual scope of program (operational) activities.

New government-wide policy on project management

Until April 2019, project management was governed by the Treasury Board (TB) Policy on the Management of Projects (2009). As of April 11, 2019, it was replaced by the TB Policy on the Planning and Management of Investments and the Directive on the Management of Projects and Programmes. The objective of the new policy suite is to ensure that the Government of Canada makes informed investment decisions and implements them through well-managed projects and procurements, leading to better delivery of programs and services to Canadians.

Organizational Project Management Capacity Assessment and Project Complexity and Risk Assessment

According to the TB policy instruments, the appropriate approval authority for each project is established through the relationship between the departmental Organizational Project Management Capacity Assessment (OPMCA) and the Project Complexity and Risk Assessment (PCRA) of the project. The OPMCA tool assesses whether a department has appropriate processes and controls in place to effectively manage projects, deliver expected results and limit the risk to stakeholders. The Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS) reviews and confirms the departmental rating every three years. The PCRA tool assesses an individual project’s complexity and risk, to determine the appropriate level of project approval and expenditure authority.

On March 31, 2018, Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) was successful in renewing its OPMCA Class 2 rating. This rating allows ECCC to approve individual projects up to $5 million. ECCC is required to complete a PCRA for each project above the $5 million threshold. Projects with a PCRA score that is higher than the department’s OPMCA Class 2 rating require TBS oversight.

Project management at ECCC

Over the past four years, ECCC has formalized its approach towards project management by investing in the development of the Department’s project management capacity. In August 2016, ECCC established the Departmental Project Management Office (DPMO) within the Corporate Services and Finance Branch, under the direction of the Chief Information Officer.

The DPMO performs project oversight and provides project guidance and support to project teams within ECCC. The DPMO implemented a dashboard for the reporting process and produces the Project Portfolio Health reportthat is provided every two months to the Executive Management Committee members. It is also responsible for building project management capacity within ECCC by providing training and networking opportunities.

In May 2017, the DPMO developed the Department’s Project Management Framework (PMFFootnote 1 ), in consultation with subject-matter experts from all branches and by leveraging the industry standard Project Management Institute’s Project Management Body of Knowledge. In October 2019, the Executive Management Committee approved the revised ECCC PMF with new and improved processes, templates, tools and guidelines.

The Project Management Advisory Committee, established in August 2018, is responsible for project gating oversight and for improving project management processes and practices, as set out in the ECCC PMF. Gating oversight applies to both IM/IT and real-property and infrastructure projects. The Director of the DPMO chairs the Project Management Advisory Committee, which includes key ECCC project stakeholders from IM/IT, real-property projects, procurement, finance, IT security, human resources, communications and privacy . The Project Management Advisory Committee recommends project gating decisions to the Chief Information Officer for approval.

In its FY 2018 to 2019 to FY 2022 to 2023 Departmental Investment Plan, ECCC plans to invest $35.92 million in nine new projects and will continue work on 28 active projects, for an estimated overall investment of $550.43 million.

2. Objective, scope and methodology

Objective

The objective of the audit was to assess the effectiveness of the project management framework and controls to support the delivery of projects, in compliance with the relevant Treasury Board policy instruments.

Scope

The audit focused on:

The audit lines of enquiry and criteria are provided in Appendix A. These criteria were developed based on the results of a risk-assessment conducted during the planning phase of the audit.

The audit covered the period from the beginning of September 2018 to the end of October 2019. The audit examined 25 projects, which were selected on a judgmental sampling basis.

Methodology

The audit methodology included:

Details on the audit coverage are provided in Appendix C.

Internal audit opinion

In my professional judgment as the Chief Audit Executive, sufficient and appropriate procedures were performed and evidence gathered to support the accuracy of the audit conclusion. The audit findings and conclusion are based on a comparison of the conditions that existed as of the time of the audit, against established criteria that were agreed upon with management. The audit conforms to the International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing, as supported by the results of the quality assurance and improvement program.

Jocelyne Kharyati
Chief Audit Executive and Head of Evaluation

3. Findings, recommendations and management responses

3.1 Design of the ECCC Project Management Framework

Findings: The ECCC DPMO has established a project management framework to communicate project management expectations and support consistency across the department.

The ECCC PMF is adequately designed, in compliance with the TB policy instruments related to project management, and key requirements are well articulated within the ECCC PMF. Three areas could benefit from more clarity: conducting independent reviews, governance requirements for joint and enterprise projects and provisions for outsourced ECCC real-property and infrastructure projects.

What we examined

The audit compared the ECCC PMF, associated guidance and processes against the TB Policy on the Planning and Management of Investments and the TB Directive on the Management of Projects and Programmes, to determine whether the ECCC PMF aligned with the requirements of the TB policy instruments. The audit team also conducted interviews to assess whether the ECCC PMF takes into consideration all ECCC business lines and is well understood within the Department.

Why is this important?

A project management framework sets out project management processes and provides guidance to deliver projects in an effective manner. Formal project management instruments provide adequate guidance to meet TB obligations and support consistent project delivery across the Department.

What we found

In 2017, as required by the TB Policy on the Management of Projects, the DPMO has developed the ECCC PMF, along with associated guidance, procedures and templates, to enable a systematic approach to managing projects across the Department and to support project teams throughout the project lifecycle.

The ECCC PMF was reviewed and updated in October 2019 to align with the new TB Directive on the Management of Projects and Programmes. The oversight committees (the Information Management Steering Committee and the Assistant Deputy Minister Operations Committee) endorsed the ECCC PMF, which was then formally approved by the Executive Management Committee.

The ECCC PMF defines projects and programs and outlines the six phases of project lifecycle: Intake, Initiation, Planning, Execution, Close-out and Post-implementation. The ECCC PMF also defines approval authority limits and expectations with regard to project gating, project monitoring and project reporting. In addition, the ECCC PMF provides the list of project management deliverables required for each project gate, according to the level of complexity and risk for each project.

The audit performed a comparison of the ECCC PMF against the requirements of the TB Policy on the Planning and Management of Investmentsand the TB Directive on the Management of Projects and Programmes, to determine whether the ECCC PMF aligned with the requirements of the TB policy instruments.

The audit found that the ECCC PMF is adequately designed in compliance with the TB policy instruments and the PMF articulates well the key requirements. Three areas could benefit from more clarity: conducting independent reviews, governance requirements for joint and enterprise projects and provisions for outsourced real-property and infrastructure projects.

Independent reviews and governance requirements for joint and enterprise projects

As per the TB Directive on the Management of Projects and Programmes, the project sponsor is responsible for conducting independent reviews in accordance with the project gating plan. For projects conducted jointly with other government departments, the project sponsor is also responsible for establishing a common governance framework and mechanisms and for ensuring that project gating, project approval, benefits management and transition plan from project to operations reflect a joint or enterprise perspective through a collaboration with participating departments.

The ECCC PMF does not include any provisions or requirements related to independent third party reviews set out in the previous paragraph, commensurate with the complexity and level of risk of the projects and programs. Notwithstanding the TB compliance requirement, conducting independent third party reviews at predefined points during a project’s or program’s lifecycle is a best practice, intended to uncover issues that may not be evident or effectively managed at the project or program level or are not being advanced sufficiently by the project and its stakeholders.

A governance framework and mechanisms for ECCC projects or programs that involve multiple internal and external stakeholders (for example, multiple Government of Canada departments) is required to clarify accountabilities and facilitate the decision-making process throughout the project lifecycle.

Provisions for outsourced real-property and infrastructure projects

Implementing the ECCC PMF supports a consistent approach for managing all projects and programs across the Department. While the PMF acknowledges that real-property projects are subject to the National Project Management System, the PMF does not clearly identify requirements for integration with these frameworks used for real-property ECCC projects, such as the Public Services and Procurement Canada’s National Project Management System and the Federal approach to contaminated sites.

Specifically, given that the management of these projects is mostly outsourced to Public Services and Procurement Canada as the real-estate service provider, the ECCC PMF does not clearly indicate which of its requirements apply in terms of roles and responsibilities, governance, gating, project monitoring and mandatory project deliverables for the outsourced real-property and infrastructure projects. This may negatively affect the Department’s ability to provide sufficient and adequate oversight over its entire portfolio of projects.

Recommendation 1

The Assistant Deputy Minister, Corporate Services and Finance Branch, should:

1.1  Update the ECCC Project Management Framework to reflect Treasury Board policy requirements and to support an integrated approach to project management by including the provisions for independent reviews of projects and programs and the governance requirements for joint and enterprise projects

1.2   Determine, in collaboration with ECCC Real-property group, the key project deliverables, governance and monitoring provisions relevant to outsourced ECCC real-property projects, in line with the TBS policy suite for real-property projects and ECCC Project Management Framework requirements

Management response

Management agrees with the recommendation.

1.1  a) Independent reviews are identified in DPMO’s project reporting diagram showing the escalation flow but would benefit from being embedded in the ECCC Project Management Framework (PMF).

The ECCC PMF (last updated in October 2019) will be revised to include provisions for independent reviews of projects/programmes (a suite of related projects) to align with the February 2020 released TBS Guide on Independent Reviews.

The type of independent reviews - a workshop review, an abridged review, a full review, and a health check review – will be determined based on project requirements and the review timing will be built into the individual project gating plan as it evolves throughout the project life cycle.

1.1 b) Joint/enterprise projects represent a relatively small portion of the ECCC’s Project Portfolio. Provisions to articulate oversight mechanisms for joint/enterprise projects will be made to existing governance as the most effective way to support awareness and decision making for these types of projects.

1.2 The ECCC PMF currently states that ECCC’s real property projects must adhere to Public Services and Procurement Canada’s (PSPC) National Project Management System (NPMS). Although ECCC has a Real Property Management Framework in place, we are not recommending modifying it as this document is not intended to cover project management activities. On the other hand, we recommend updating the ECCC PMF to add a distinct section for real property projects.

3.2 Identification and tracking of projects

Findings: The DPMO has defined and implemented a process to track projects, allowing it to maintain and update the list of projects subject to the ECCC PMF. It is the responsibility of the project managers to update the information for their project every two months.

In addition, although the ECCC PMF uses the TBS definition of a project, the audit found that there is no common understanding across the Department regarding what constitutes a project. As such, some initiatives undertaken within the Department may not have been identified or reported as a project and not managed according to the ECCC PMF. Given that project managers may not be updating their information in a timely manner and that there is no common understanding of what constitutes a project, at the time of the audit, the list of ECCC projects was inaccurate and incomplete.

What we examined

The audit examined the processes in place to identify projects that are subject to the ECCC PMF. This included whether there is a clear and common understanding of what a project is across the Department. The audit also reviewed the list of projects in the DPMO’s database and the approach used to update this list, which is the basis for project tracking.

Why is this important?

A formally defined and consistent process to identify and track projects helps with the prioritization and integration of projects within the Department, and ensures that all activities identified as projects are delivered in accordance with departmental project management requirements.

What we found

List of ECCC projects subject to the ECCC PMF

At the time of the audit, the DPMO tracked ECCC projects for project reporting and oversight purposes by compiling information from various corporate documents and systems such as the Capital Plan, the Digital Plan, TB submissions, memorandums to Cabinet and the Branch Planning and Management Tool. The list of projects subject to the ECCC PMF is posted on the DPMO’s ECollab site (an internal website for ECCC employees). Project managers update the list upon request from the DPMO.

The DPMO team informed the auditors that despite their efforts, the list was incomplete because some initiatives undertaken within the Department may not have been identified or reported as projects. The various intake processes across the Department to identify business opportunities and investments as projects may also add to the challenge of compiling an accurate list of all ECCC projects.

Similarly, a review of the list in October 2019 revealed that the list was not accurate, and information was missing for some projects. For example, some projects on the list did not include information on project tier,Footnote 2  budget and starting date, or included incorrect information on project sponsor/manager names and project current phase. Others provided incorrect information about whether or not Real Property projects are managed by Public Services and Procurement Canada.

It should be noted that project managers are responsible for updating the information. Interviews with the DPMO and review of documentation determined that the DPMO makes continuous efforts to update the information by sending out call letters to project managers on a bi-monthly basis requesting information updates to their project.

Definition of project

The ECCC PMF has adopted the TBS definition of a project as follows:

Interviews with project sponsors and project managers revealed that there was no common understanding of what a project is across the Department. Some interviewees called projects some of their ongoing activities, other interviewees did not agree with their initiatives being called projects.

Specifically, three projects identified as projects by the DPMO at the beginning of the audit were subsequently classified by the project sponsors as ongoing activities. Following discussions with project teams and at the request of management, the DPMO removed them from the list of ECCC projects. As a result, these activities were no longer subject to project management requirements per the ECCC PMF.

Not having a standardized approach to identify all initiatives and activities subject to the ECCC PMF increases the risk that not all departmental initiatives and activities that should have been managed as projects, are managed with the rigor and proper oversight to ensure they are delivered on time, on budget and on scope.

Recommendation 2

The Assistant Deputy Minister, Corporate Services and Finance Branch, should establish and communicate a common set of criteria to assess from the outset (at the Intake phase) whether a business opportunity or an initiative is a project and is subject to the ECCC Project Management Framework.

Management response

Management agrees with the recommendation.

The project definition in the ECCC PMF will be maintained as it fully aligns with TBS project definition. The application of the ECCC PMF is reserved for focused, non-repetitive, time-limited activities which involve some degree of risk and are beyond the scope of normal operational activities.

The DPMO will collaborate with stakeholders involved in the Project Intake phase to make available from the outset a defined set of criteria to inform the determination process whether a business opportunity or initiative is a project.

The set of criteria will offer clarity as to what to consider as 1-project; 2-portfolio/program; 3‑operational activity; 4-maintenance activity; 5-other.

3.3 Governance

Findings: Project governance and oversight have been established to provide projects with structure and direction. The roles and responsibilities for project management have been clearly defined, documented and were generally well understood.

Some opportunities for improvement were identified with respect to the operating effectiveness of project steering committees and the oversight of the ECCC project portfolio. The audit also found some inconsistencies in the way that project sponsors carry out their roles and responsibilities and the understanding of stakeholders regarding the DPMO’s mandate.

What we examined

The audit assessed the governance structures in place to provide strategic direction and oversight to project management at the individual project level and for the overall ECCC portfolio of projects. For selected projects, the auditors examined the functioning of their project steering committee through agenda and meeting material. The auditors also reviewed the terms of reference of the oversight bodies and examined meeting agendas, meeting minutes and records of decisions for the period from September 2018 to October 2019, to determine whether the departmental committees had clear defined and documented roles and responsibilities pertaining to project management and carried out effective oversight.

Specifically, the audit assessed whether project management roles and responsibilities are clearly defined, documented, communicated and understood. This included an examination of the roles and responsibilities of project managers and project sponsors as described in the ECCC PMF, as well as the mandate of the DPMO. The audit team interviewed 10 project sponsors: one assistant deputy minister, seven directors general, two directors and 10 project managers. The interviews were designed to assess whether they were aware of their roles and responsibilities as set out in the ECCC PMF and how they carried out those roles and responsibilities. The audit also assessed the extent to which project team members and stakeholders fulfilled their roles and responsibilities and whether they understood the mandate of the DPMO.

Why is this important?

Sound governance and oversight of projects, as well as clear roles and responsibilities, enable collaboration of stakeholders, create opportunities to take corrective action proactively and ensure that projects meet performance expectations.

What we found

Governance of projects

The audit found that the ECCC PMF adequately enabled governance within individual projects by setting out specific governance requirements for each project, by project tier. As such, a project steering committee is to be formed, chaired by the project sponsor, at the following levels: Tier 1 - Director Level, Tier 2 - Director General Level and Tier 3 - Director General, Assistant Deputy Minister, Executive Management Committeeor TBS. A project steering committee is not required for Tier 0 projects.

Of the 30 projects selected for the audit, 17 projects were required to have a project steering committee, as per the ECCC PMF. A review of the 17 projects identified 13 projects that comply with this requirement. The audit found that the 13 projects had either a dedicated project steering committee or were managed through existing oversight committees within the branch. There was no evidence of a project steering committee for the four remaining projects.

A review of agendas and meeting materials for the 13 project steering committees showed that they functioned mostly on an ad hoc or informal basis. Meetings for 11 of the 13 project steering committees were not documented through minutes or records of decisions. The minutes and records of decisions available for two project steering committees documented discussions, decisions and follow-ups on budget, schedules and deliverables.

Oversight of individual projects

The Department established the Project Management Advisory Committee in 2018 to ensure independent project oversight and to provide a challenge function at each of the project gates. The desired outcome of each gating presentation to the Project Management Advisory Committee is a recommendation for the Chief Information Officer’s endorsement.

A review of Project Management Advisory Committee records of decisions during the period under scope showed that the Project Management Advisory Committee has been operating consistently since its implementation, in keeping with its mandate, roles and responsibilities set out in the Terms of reference. The audit team found that the Project Management Advisory Committee provided oversight through various gating presentations of projects underway every month since its implementation.

Four departmental committees also provided, in different capacities, oversight for the project management framework and for individual projects.

Departmental committees that oversee project management and their roles and responsibilities.

Executive Management Committee. Broad management and oversight role, committee’s roles and responsibilities pertaining to project management not formally defined.

Assistant Deputy Minister Corporate Operations Committee. Provides strategic direction on Digital Plan and Capital Plan

Information Management Steering Committee. Provides direction, guidance and feedback for IM/IT projects, in support of IM projects

Architecture Change Management Board. Conducts architectural reviews of IM/IT projects, in accordance with the ECCC Project Management Framework.

Oversight of the overall ECCC project portfolio

The review of meeting minutes and records of decision for the four departmental committees listed in Table 1 for the period within scope revealed discussions on IM/IT projects and the IM/IT prioritized project list. At the time of the audit, there was no evidence that the departmental oversight committees discussed real-property projects.

The audit found that the DPMO sends the ECCC Project Portfolio Health View to all these committees, on a bimonthly basis. The document outlines the status of the top 30 projects. The audit did not find any evidence, during the period under review, that the Executive Management Committee discussed this document or provided strategic oversight for the overall portfolio of projects.

Roles and responsibilities

The audit also examined the roles and responsibilities of the following actors involved in project management:

Project sponsors. The audit found that most of the project sponsors interviewed were aware of their roles, responsibilities and accountabilities in the general context of project management. They believed that it is their responsibility to ensure that projects were delivered on time, on budget and within scope.

However, not all project sponsors carried out their role of chairing the project steering committee on their project, as required by the ECCC PMF. A review of selected project steering committee materials showed that only three of the 13 project steering committee meetings were chaired by the project sponsors. Also, as mentioned before, four projects from the audit sample did not have a steering committee, as required by the ECCC PMF.

Project managers. From interviews and a review of documentation, the audit found that project managers assigned to in-house projects led by ECCC were generally well aware of the ECCC PMF, interacted with the DPMO and the Project Management Oversight Committee and applied project gating and monitoring requirements as appropriate.

For the real-property projects outsourced to Public Services and Procurement Canada, project managers played more of a liaison/coordinating role and had limited roles and responsibilities in terms of managing, monitoring and maintaining project documentation throughout all phases of the project lifecycle. This is consistent with the lack of clarity in the ECCC PMF as to the roles and responsibilities pertaining to outsourced real-property projects. A recommendation to clarify roles and responsibilities for real-property projects in the ECCC PMF is provided in section 3.1.

Departmental Project Management Office. ECCC established the DPMO in 2016, as a centre of expertise to support the Department with respect to the following key project management functions, including project oversight, reporting capabilities and capacity building. The DPMO is also responsible for developing and updating the PMF, along with providing guidance and tools for its effective implementation. Serving also as a resource centre, the DPMO offers project management training and networking opportunities to the ECCC project management practitioners.

The audit found that the DPMO’s mandate, roles and responsibilities were defined and disseminated through various communication channels, including its ECollab site and newsletters. However, they are not defined and included in the ECCC PMF.

Interviews with various project stakeholders indicated that the understanding of the DPMO’s mandate and role varied within the Department. Some project stakeholders saw the DPMO as a centre of expertise and as providing a challenge function. Others questioned the DPMO’s raison d’être, perceiving it as a form of unnecessary oversight or as creating an added administrative burden.

Without effective project governance and oversight mechanisms, there is an increased risk that challenge, approvals and decision making may not be exercised at the appropriate levels, which may in turn adversely impact project performance expectations.

Recommendation 3

The Assistant Deputy Minister, Corporate Services and Finance Branch, should:

3.1  Include the mandate, scope and roles and responsibilities of the Departmental Project Management Office in the ECCC Project Management Framework

3.2  Remind senior management of their role as chair of the project steering committee for each of the projects they sponsor

3.3  Ensure that a horizontal overview of the ECCC projects portfolio is presented and discussed periodically at the senior management level

Management response

Management agrees with the recommendation.

3.1  The DPMO’s mandate roles and responsibilities found on the DPMO’s intranet page, the DPMO’s newsletters and project training material will be embedded in the ECCC PMF. The ADM-CSFB will ensure that this information is communicated throughout the Department.

3.2  a) Following the evidence gathering period of the audit, over 40 ECCC executives have attended DPMO’s training sessions aiming to raise awareness of project sponsors’ obligations.

Enhanced communications on project sponsors’ roles and responsibilities will ensure that designated chairs of project steering committees remain engaged with their stakeholders. As such, a checklist of individual project governance expected practices will be shared at various stages during the roll-out of a project with the objective to ensure active project sponsorship, which can offer useful insights on early warning signs of project difficulties. b) In addition to internal resources promoting project sponsors’ responsibilities awareness, ECCC executives will be informed of an upcoming Canada School of Public Service (CSPS) Project Sponsor curriculum training.

3.3  ECCC project prioritization is already enabled by a portfolio-based approach where project teams benefit from strategic direction from senior management. Documentation providing a horizontal overview of the ECCC Project Portfolio is available for decision making. The ADM-CSFB will ensure that project portfolio oversight presentations, analysis and supporting material are tabled and discussed periodically before senior management committees.

3.4 Risk management

Findings: Risk management processes have been developed and implemented to support project teams in the management and monitoring of risks throughout their project’s lifecycle. Tools and templates were also made available on the DPMO’s internal website (ECollab site).

The DPMO has created a Departmental Project Risk Log intended to capture and monitor project‑related risks for all projects underway, including projects interdependencies. Key risks for highly visible and more complex projects were periodically reported to senior management.

However, processes are not always operating as intended. In particular, the audit found inconsistencies regarding the documentation of project risks.

What we examined

The audit sought to determine whether risks that may impede the successful delivery of projects are identified, documented, assessed, mitigated, monitored and reported throughout the project lifecycle. The auditors reviewed risk management processes and tools outlined in the ECCC PMF and associated guidance. They also interviewed project team members and examined risk logs and issue logs, to ensure that risks and issues are managed in compliance with the ECCC PMF and reported to senior management.

Why is this important?

Risk management is essential to project management practices. It predicts the uncertainties in the projects and minimizes the occurrence or impact of these uncertainties. Effective project risk management, as one of the key project management knowledge areas, enables the achievement of project objectives and an efficient use of resources.  

What we found

Processes

At the time of the audit, the DPMO had developed a risk and issue management process that applies throughout the project lifecycle, from the initiation phase to the close-out phase. The process includes the maintenance of comprehensive risk logs and mandatory reporting of projects risks through project dashboards and status reports. It requires an initial assessment of potential risks to be documented in the project charter and the project management plan. Starting at the Execution phase, project managers for Tier 2 and Tier 3 projects are required to monitor project risks and to complete a risk log and an issue log.

The audit also found various tools and templates to support project risk management activities, available on the DPMO’s ECollab site, such as risk log, issue log and the risk identification and documentation required at each gate.

Practices

The audit noted some inconsistencies regarding the documentation of project risks. Specifically, the audit looked at risk management documentation for the projects in scope that were at the execution phase and onwards. At the time of the audit, 11 in-house projects and 8 outsourced real-property projects out of the 30 sampled projects met this criterion. The audit found that three of the 11 sampled in-house projects and the eight sampled outsourced real‑property projects that were at the execution phase and onwards did not have comprehensive risk logs. Instead, they were tracking risks through project dashboards or project status reports. The key project risks presented in the dashboards were limited to scope, costs and timelines and to some extent, human resources.

The purpose of project dashboards and status reports is to report to senior management on the top three highest risks. As such, they do not support the thorough exercise of managing project risks and associated mitigations like the risk registers do. Rather, they should be used to supplement the risk registers. Therefore, it was unclear as to whether all project risks were identified, assessed, mitigated and escalated appropriately for the sampled projects.

Monitoring and follow-up on risks

The audit found that the DPMO created, maintained and monitored a Departmental Project Risk log to mitigate risks that are common across ECCC projects, such as the risk related to lack of identification of project interdependencies or the risk of not being able to deliver in a timely manner due to aggressive timelines. The audit team was informed that the DPMO is responsible for following up on the Risk Response Strategy developed by each risk owner. A review of Project Management Advisory Committee records of decisions showed that the first Departmental Project Risk Log has been discussed in October 2019.

Tier 2 and Tier 3 projects are highly visible and more complex projects. The audit found that risks and issues for all ECCC Tier 2 and Tier 3 projects were reported to the Executive Management Committee in the ECCC Project Portfolio Health View. As mentioned in section 3.3, this document is shared with the Executive Management Committee every two months. However, the audit team was unable to determine whether the information in the document was discussed at the committee or if the Executive Management Committee provided strategic direction on how these risks could be mitigated.

The lack of consistency in the management of project risks may undermine the Departmental risk response strategy and decrease the Department’s project management capacity.

Recommendation 4

The Assistant Deputy Minister, Corporate Services and Finance Branch, should enhance the mandatory requirements in the ECCC Project Management Framework and the gating process with respect to the use of risks logs or other risk management tools at least as comprehensive as the risk logs, to ensure that risks are identified, managed, tracked, reassessed and monitored adequately at the individual project level throughout the project lifecycle.

Management response

Management agrees with the recommendation.

Noting that information on project risks is already reported and tracked through project reports, project dashboards and project risk registries, we recognize that there are opportunities to consistently apply the use of comprehensive project risk logs.

The ECCC PMF will be updated to emphasize the importance of project risk management from project initiation to closeout. The update will incorporate a requisite on formal tabling of project risk logs as part of the gating process.

The DPMO recognizes the importance of project risk management as part of strong project management and will make available a compliance report on Project Risk Log availabilities to Branch Heads to facilitate monitoring of their respective projects.

3.5 Compliance with ECCC Project Management Framework documentation requirements

Findings: A review of project documentation for a sample of in-house and outsourced ECCC projects revealed that the Department made progress over time in documenting projects, as indicated in the ECCC PMF. In-house projects that started after the ECCC PMF came into effect were generally more compliant than in-flight in-house projects for each PMF phase completed within the period under scope.

However, limited documentation was available for review for the outsourced real-property and infrastructure projects.

What we examined

The audit selected 30 projects out of 108 active projects as of October 2019 on a judgmental sampling basis, to examine whether, as of October 2019, deliverables were completed as indicated in the ECCC PMF. Following an initial review, the audit sample was reduced to 25 projects (16 in-house projects and nine outsourced real-property projects).

The audit reviewed all project documents available and assessed project documents against the version of the ECCC PMF in effect when the PMF phase was completed. No assessment was done on those phases that were completed before the implementation of the gating process. As such, the number of total assessments by phase is lower than the total number of projects assessed.

The results of the compliance review make a distinction between the nine real-property projects outsourced and managed by Public Services and Procurement Canada and the 16 projects managed in-house within ECCC.

Why is this important?

If the mandatory project deliverables for each gate are not completed as indicated in the ECCC PMF, it is difficult to ensure the project’s readiness to proceed or not to the next gate. The Project Management Advisory Committee and the DPMO may also be limited in the effective exercise of their respective oversight and challenge roles.

What we found

Results of the compliance review for the 16 selected in-house projects

Upon review of the mandatory documentation for each of the selected in-house project, the audit team noted that the Department made progress over time. Documentation for in-house projects that started after the ECCC PMF came into effect was generally more complete than the documentation for in-flight in-house projects. Of the 16 sampled in-house projects, 12 were fully compliant with ECCC PMF in terms of the mandatory project documentation required for each project phase completed, including:

The remaining four projects had at least one missing artefact. Table 2 below provides a summary of the results.

Table 2: Results of the compliance review of selected in-house projects
Project phase # of projects assessed # of compliant projects Observations
Intake 8 8 All the project files reviewed contained an Intake form approved by appropriate authorities and a benefits realization plan.
Initiation 11 10 One project file reviewed did not include a project charter.
Planning 10 8 Two project files did not include a project management plan.
Execution 5 2 Three project files did not include evidence of risk and issue logs.
Close-out 4 3 One project file did not include all mandatory documentation, except for a draft close-out report.
Results of the compliance review for the nine ECCC real-property projects outsourced and managed by PSPC

A review of the nine real-property sample projects that are outsourced and managed by Public Services and Procurement Canada revealed a wide variation with respect to required ECCC PMF documentation to support gating decisions. Three projects did not contain any project documents and six projects included some evidence of compliance with ECCC PMF documentation requirements. Interviews with project stakeholders suggested that some did not consider the deliverables to be mandatory because they were following Public Services and Procurement Canada’s National Project Management System.

This is consistent with the lack of clarity in the ECCC PMF as to which project artefacts are required for ECCC outsourced real-property and infrastructure projects to provide sufficient and adequate oversight and enable effective decision-making. A recommendation to clarify documentation requirements for outsourced real-property projects in the ECCC PMF is provided in section 3.1.

3.6 Communication, tools and training

Findings: The DPMO has adequately designed and implemented a series of communication and awareness tools to promote the deployment and use of the ECCC PMF. In addition to providing branches with project management expertise and advice from experienced resources, the DPMO has also developed a portfolio of training materials.

What we examined

The audit sought to determine whether ECCC's employees are aware of the ECCC PMF and are provided with the training and supporting tools related to project management needed to discharge their responsibilities and achieve expected results. The auditors reviewed the ECCC PMF 2.0 communication plan, the various communication tools related to project management and the DPMO’s training materials to assess how they support the employees involved in project management and help them to understand and discharge their roles and responsibilities.

Why is this important?

Effective communication, awareness and training contribute to a better understanding of a new approach and facilitate the change management process.

What we found

Communication

The DPMO established the ECCC Project Management Community of Practice to develop, enhance and maintain project management expertise throughout the organization. This initiative had two components: training and outreach.

Outreach activities included establishing a project management network to discuss best practices and issues and provide peer support. At the time of the audit, the Project Management Community of Practice had about 400 members, including project managers and project sponsors. Members received periodic emails regarding updates on new tools, processes and procedures related to project management.

The DPMO used a variety of communication mechanisms including publications and articles on the ECCC Intranet, an ECollab site (an internal ECCC website), the DPMO newsletters, articles in ECCC News and presentations on the ECCC PMF at senior management committees such as the Information Management Steering Committee, the Assistant Deputy Minister Operations Committee and the Executive Management Committee.

The audit also found that following the release of the new TB policy suite related to project management and the update of the ECCC PMF to version 2.0, the DPMO developed and implemented a formal communication plan to raise awareness and inform ECCC employees, including members of the Project Management Community of Practice and senior management.

Tools

A review of the DPMO’s ECollab site found that the site was well-organized and contained relevant information on project management. Two sections were dedicated to project management tools.

The first section included links to the ECCC PMF, the TBS policy suite, the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK) guide and relevant lessons learned report related to project management. This section also describe project steps and project reporting processes.

Another section provided project teams with numerous project management templates for the each of the 6 phases of ECCC project lifecycle. The templates take into consideration the size of the project and can be customized.

Interviews and a review of documentation revealed that the DPMO provided branches with project management expertise and advice from experienced resources. For example, the DPMO hired consultants to help with high profile IM/IT projects.

Training

The second component of the ECCC Project Management Community of Practice initiative is to provide a training curriculum for project managers. The audit found that the DPMO has developed a portfolio of training materials that cover the fundamentals of project management. The portfolio is updated quarterly. The DPMO also developed and distributed a guide for Project Management Advisory Committee members, which sets out what is expected of them at committee meetings.

The audit team also found that at the time of the audit, the Department was contributing, in collaboration with the Government of Canada project management community, to TBS’s efforts in identifying a roadmap for improving project manager capabilities. The roadmap includes training and certification options, as well as guidance on project manager core competencies, to foster consistent use across all departments.

4. Conclusion

Overall, the audit found that the ECCC PMF and related controls were adequately designed and implemented to support the effective delivery of projects and were generally in compliance with the relevant TB policy instruments. Some areas for improvement were identified with respect to the design of the ECCC PMF, the identification and tracking of projects, governance, risk management and compliance with ECCC PMF documentation requirements.

Appendix A: lines of enquiry and criteria

The following criteria were developed to ensure an appropriate level of assurance in meeting the audit objectives.

Line of enquiry 1: ECCC has an effective and adequate Project Management Framework (PMF) in place to ensure that there is a systematic approach to managing its projects in compliance with the Treasury Board (TB) policy instruments on the management of projects.

1.1 ECCC’s project management framework and the associated guidance and processes are documented and communicated, comply with the TB policy instruments on the management of projects and reflect best practices.

1.2 Oversight bodies are in place to govern ECCC’s portfolio of projects.

1.3 Project management authorities, responsibilities and accountabilities are clearly defined, documented and communicated to stakeholders.

1.4 Processes are in place to identify, assess, mitigate and monitor project management risks.

1.5 ECCC’s employees are provided with the training on project management needed to discharge their responsibilities and achieve expected results.

Line of enquiry 2: ECCC projects are managed in compliance with the Departmental PMF and its related tools, and are monitored against established milestones and expected results.

2.1 Projects are identified, initiated and planned.

2.2 Project plans are executed in terms of authorized scope, time, and budget.

2.3 Projects are monitored and controlled, and change requests are managed.

2.4 Projects are closed out and lessons learned are captured.

Appendix B: ECCC project management lifecycle

Click on image to enlarge

Project Management Framework. Text description below.
Long description

ECCC Project Management Framework (PMF)

Gate 0: Intake

Phase Purpose

  • Identifies the business problem to be solved or the opportunity
  • Defines project high level outcomes
  • Engages stakeholders

Process and Deliverables

  • Project Intake Document (All Tiers)
  • Benefits Realization Plan (T2-T3)

Project Cost

  • Cost for this stage: Not tracked
  • Project estimate plus or minus 100%

Governance

  • Tier 1: Director Level Committees
  • Tier 2: DG Level Committees
  • Tier 3: DG Level Committees to Executive Management Committee to TBS

Gate 1: Initiation

Phase Purpose

  • To officially initiate the project, define roles and responsibilities and allocate resources (via the Project Charter)

Process and Deliverables

  • Project Brief (T1)
  • Business Case (T2 and T3)
  • PCRA (T2 and T3)
  • TBS Project Brief (T3)
  • TBS Sub Approval (T3)
  • Business requirements (All)
  • Project Charter (All)
  • Benefits Realization Plan (updating) (T2 and T3)

Project Cost

  • Cost for this stage: Not tracked
  • Project estimate plus or minus 50%

Governance

  • Tier 1
    • Project Sponsor = Director
    • Project Steering Committee to Director Level Committees
  • Tier 2
    • Project Sponsor = DG
    • Project Steering Committee to DG Level Committees (for example, IMSC, RP DG)
  • Tier 3
    • Project Sponsor = DG or ADM for PCRA 3 and EX04 or EX05 for PCRA 4
    • Project Steering Committee to DG Level Committees (for example, IMSC, RP DG) to Executive Management Committee to TBS

Gate 2: Planning

Phase Purpose

  • To plan the project scope, time and cost (via the Project Management Plan) and to obtain buy-in from the targeted user community

Process and Deliverables

  • Project Management Plan – Lite version (T1)
  • Project Management Plan (T2 and T3)
    • Scope Management
    • Work Breakdown Structure
    • Cost Management
    • Quality Management and Change Order Management
    • Human Resource Plan
    • Procurement Management
    • Risk Management
    • Communication Management
  • Schedule (All)
  • Dashboard and Project Executive Summary (T2 and T3)
  • Benefits Realization Plan (monitoring) (T2 and T3)
  • Meeting Minutes or Records of Decision (All)

Project Cost

  • Cost for this stage: Actuals
  • Project estimate plus or minus 10%

Governance

  • Tier 1
    • Project Sponsor = Director
    • Project Steering Committee to Director Level Committees
  • Tier 2
    • Project Sponsor = DG
    • Project Steering Committee to DG Level Committees (for example, IMSC, RP DG)
  • Tier 3
    • Project Sponsor = DG or ADM for PCRA 3 and EX04 or EX05 for PCRA 4
    • Project Steering Committee to DG Level Committees (for example, IMSC, RP DG) to Executive Management Committee to TBS

Gate 3: Execution

Phase Purpose

  • To execute the project management plan while monitoring and controlling scope, time and cost

Process and Deliverables

  • PCRA (updating) (T2 and T3)
  • Change Requests (All)
  • Change Order Log (All)
  • Issue Log (All)
  • Risk Log (All)
  • Schedule (All)
  • Dashboard and Project Executive Summary (T2 and T3)
  • Benefits Realization Plan (monitoring) (T2 and T3)
  • Meeting Minutes or Records of Decision (All)
  • Handover Document (all)
  • TBS Project Performance Data (T2 and T3)

Project Cost

  • Cost for this stage: Actuals

Governance

  • Tier 1
    • Project Sponsor = Director
    • Project Steering Committee to Director Level Committees
  • Tier 2
    • Project Sponsor = DG
    • Project Steering Committee to DG Level Committees (for example, IMSC, RP DG)
  • Tier 3
    • Project Sponsor = DG or ADM for PCRA 3 and EX04 or EX05 for PCRA 4
    • Project Steering Committee to DG Level Committees (for example, IMSC, RP DG) to Executive Management Committee to TBS

Gate 4: Close-Out

Phase Purpose

  • Provide an assessment of the project performance against its objectives and requirements and capture Lessons Learned

Process and Deliverables

  • Close-Out Report  - Lite version (T1)
  • Close-Out Report (T2 and T3)
    • Completion of all contract administration activities
    • Final evaluation of project teams including consultants and contractors
    • Outstanding issues
    • Lessons learned
    • Stored project documents
  • Dashboard and Project Executive Summary (T2 and T3)
  • Benefits Realization Plan (assessment) T2 and T3)
  • TBS Project Performance Data (T2 and T3)

Project Cost

  • Cost for this stage: Actuals

Governance

  • Tier 1
    • Project Sponsor = Director
    • Project Steering Committee to Director Level Committees
  • Tier 2
    • Project Sponsor = DG
    • Project Steering Committee to DG Level Committees (for example, IMSC, RP DG)
  • Tier 3
    • Project Sponsor = DG or ADM for PCRA 3 and EX04 or EX05 for PCRA 4
    • Project Steering Committee to DG Level Committees (for example, IMSC, RP DG) to Executive Management Committee to TBS

Gate 5: Post Implementation

Phase Purpose

  • Measures the project success
  • Runs the operations

Process and Deliverables

  • Benefits Realization Results Report (BRRR) and Presentation (T2 and T3)

Project Cost

  • Operating Budget

Governance

  • Tier 1: Director Level Committees
  • Tier 2: DG Level Committees
  • Tier 3: DG Level Committees to Executive Management Committee to TBS

Notes

  • For enquiries, please contact the DPMO team at EC.BureauGestionDeProjets-ProjectManagementOffice.EC@canada.ca
  • Tier 1 = project under $1 million; Tier 2 = project over $1 million, PCRA = 1 or 2; Tier 3 = project over $1 million, PCRA = 3 or 4
  • The PMF aligns with ECCC’s OPMCA scoring of 2 and TBS Policy on the Management of Projects
  • A PMF compliance monitoring will be completed annually
  • Governance is for sharing project information with Senior Management and Stakeholders for the input, feedback and decisions prior to crossing a Gate

Source: ECCC Project Management Framework 1.0, approved by the ECCC Executive Management Committee in May 2017

Click on image to enlarge

Project Management Framework 2.0
Long description

ECCC Project Management Framework (PMF) 2.0

(Pre-Project) – Gate 0: Intake

Phase Purpose

  • To identify the opportunity
  • To define project high level outcomes

Process and Deliverables

  • Tier 0: less than $1 million – Lite templates apply
    • Opportunity Proposal Document
    • Business Case
  • Tier 1: $1 million to $5 million – Lite templates apply
    • Same as Tier 0 plus, for IT projects only, Concept case
  • Tier 2: more than $5 million, PCRA = 1 or 2
    • Same as Tier 1
  • Tier 3: more than $5 million, PCRA = 3 or 4
    • Same as Tier 1

Project Cost

  • Cost for this stage: Not tracked
  • Project estimate plus or minus 100%

Governance

  • Tier 1: Director Level Committees
  • Tier 2: DG Level Committees
  • Tier 3: DG Level Committees to Executive Management Committee to TBS

Gate 1: Initiation

Phase Purpose

  • To define roles and responsibilities and allocate resources (via the Project Charter)

Process and Deliverables

  • Tier 0
    • Project Performance Record
    • Official Project Launch email (from Sponsor)
  • Tier 1: Same as Tier 0 plus
    • Benefits Realization Plan
    • Project Charter

When applicable:

  • Business Analysis and Requirements Document (BARD)
    • IT Security Documentation
    • Enterprise Architecture (EA) Assessment
    • Preliminary Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA)
  • Tier 2: Same as Tier 1 plus
    • PCRA
  • Tier 3: Same as Tier 2 plus
    • TB Project Brief

Project Cost

  • Cost for this stage: Not tracked
  • Project estimate plus or minus 50% at Gate 1

Governance

  • Tier 1
    • Project Sponsor = Director
    • Project Steering Committee to Director Level Committees
  • Tier 2
    • Project Sponsor = DG
    • Project Steering Committee to DG Level Committees (for example, IMSC)
  • Tier 3
    • Project Sponsor = DG or ADM for PCRA 3 and EX04 or EX05 for PCRA 4
    • Project Steering Committee to DG Level Committees (for example, IMSC) to Executive Management Committee to TBS

Gate 2: Planning

Phase Purpose

  • To plan and officially baseline the project scope, time and cost (via the Project Management Plan) and to obtain buy-in from the targeted user community

Process and Deliverables

  • Tier 0
    • Project Performance Record -- update
  • Tier 1: Same as Tier 0 plus
    • Benefits Realization Plan – update
    • Project Management Plan
    • Schedule
    • Meeting Minutes or RoD
    • Lessons Learned from Initiation

When applicable:

  • BARD – update
    • IT Security Documentation
  • Tier 2: Same as Tier 1 plus
    • Dashboard and Project Executive Summary
  • Tier 3: Same as Tier 2 plus
    • TB Sub Approval
    • Project Sponsor Letter

Project Cost

  • Cost for this stage: Actuals
  • Project estimate plus or minus 20% at Gate 2

Governance

  • Tier 1
    • Project Sponsor = Director
    • Project Steering Committee to Director Level Committees
  • Tier 2
    • Project Sponsor = DG
    • Project Steering Committee to DG Level Committees (for example, IMSC)
  • Tier 3
    • Project Sponsor = DG or ADM for PCRA 3 and EX04 or EX05 for PCRA 4
    • Project Steering Committee to DG Level Committees (for example, IMSC) to Executive Management Committee to TBS

Gate 3: Execution

Phase Purpose

  • To execute the project management plan while monitoring and controlling scope, time and cost against baselines

Process and Deliverables

  • Tier 0
    • Project Performance Record – update
  • Tier 1: Same as Tier 0 plus
    • Benefits Realization Plan (monitoring)
    • Transition Plan
    • Schedule
    • Meeting Minutes or RoD
    • Lessons Learned from Planning
    • Change Requests Log
    • Issue Log
    • Risk Log

When applicable:

  • BARD – update
    • IT Security Documentation
  • Tier 2: Same as Tier 1 plus
    • Dashboard and project Executive Summary
    • PCRA – update
  • Tier 3: Same as Tier 2 plus

Project Cost

  • Cost for this stage: Actuals

Governance

  • Tier 1
    • Project Sponsor = Director
    • Project Steering Committee to Director Level Committees
  • Tier 2
    • Project Sponsor = DG
    • Project Steering Committee to DG Level Committees (for example, IMSC)
  • Tier 3
    • Project Sponsor = DG or ADM for PCRA 3 and EX04 or EX05 for PCRA 4
    • Project Steering Committee to DG Level Committees (for example, IMSC) to Executive Management Committee to TBS

Gate 4: Close-Out

Phase Purpose

  • To provide an assessment of the project performance against its objectives, requirements and its baselines, and capture Lessons Learned

Process and Deliverables

  • Tier 0
    • Project Performance Record – update
    • Official Project Close-Out email (from Sponsor)
  • Tier 1: Same as Tier 0 plus
    • Benefits Realization Plan (assessment)
    • Close-Out Report and Lessons Learned
  • Tier 2: Same as Tier 1 plus
    • Dashboard and Project Executive Summary
  • Tier 3: Same as Tier 2

Project Cost

  • Cost for this stage: Actuals

Governance

  • Tier 1
    • Project Sponsor = Director
    • Project Steering Committee to Director Level Committees
  • Tier 2
    • Project Sponsor = DG
    • Project Steering Committee to DG Level Committees (for example, IMSC)
  • Tier 3
    • Project Sponsor = DG or ADM for PCRA 3 and EX04 or EX05 for PCRA 4
    • Project Steering Committee to DG Level Committees (for example, IMSC) to Executive Management Committee to TBS

(Post-Project) – Gate 5: Post Implementation

Phase Purpose

  • To measure the project success
  • To run the operations

Process and Deliverables

  • Tier 0
    • Project Performance Record – update
  • Tier 1: Same as Tier 0 plus
    • Benefits Realization Results Report (BRRR) and Presentation
  • Tier 2: Same as Tier 1 plus

For IT projects only

  • S-ATO Maintenance Log (SML)
  • Tier 3: Same as Tier 2

Project Cost

  • Operating Budget

Governance

  • Tier 1
    • Director Level Committees
  • Tier 2
    • DG Level Committees
  • Tier 3
    • DG Level Committees to ADM Corporate Operations Committee to Executive Management Committee to TBS

Notes

  • The PMF aligns with ECCC’s OPMCA scoring of 2 and TBS Policy on the Planning and Management of Investments and the Direction on the Management of Projects and Programmes
  • Project Performance Record is created and updated as required during the Lifecycle.
  • Governance is for sharing project information with Senior Management and Stakeholders for the input, feedback and decisions prior to crossing a Gate.
  • Projects in Tier 1 to 3 present to the Project management Advisory Committee (PMAV) at each gate for endorsement to proceed.
  • For enquiries, please contact the DPMO team at EC.BureauGestionDeProjets-ProjectManagementOffice.EC@canada.ca
  • For IT Security documents, contact It Security.
  • For PIA, contact Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP) Group.
  • For BARD documents, contact the Business Analysts Group.
  • For EA documents, contact Enterprise Architecture Group.
  • For Project Intake, contact the Portfolio Management Group.

Source: ECCC Project Management Framework 2.0, approved by the ECCC Executive Management Committee in October 2019

Appendix C: Sample of projects

Branch IM/IT Real property/
infrastructure (no IT)
Real property/
infrastructure (with IT)
Total sample projects Materiality of sampled projects % of audit coverage by branch ($)
Canadian Wildlife Service 1 - - 1 $20,000,000 72%
Corporate Services and Finance Branch 3 1 4 8 $179,149,000 79%
Enforcement Branch 1 - - 1 $736,000 24%
Environmental Protection Branch 4 - 1 5 $25,525,200 61%
Meteorological Service of Canada 2 - 2 4 $90,996,000 31%
Pan-Canadian Framework Implementation Branch 2 - - 2 $4,740,000 100%
Public and Indigenous Affairs and Ministerial Services Branch 1 - - 1 $702,000 11%
Science and Technology Branch 1 1 - 2 $10,110,000 60%
Strategic Policy Branch - 1 - 1 $138,915,000 100%
Total sample of projects 15 3 7 25 $470,873,200 80%
Total active projects identified by the DPMO as of October 2019 84 6 18 108 $585,938,847 -

Page details

Date modified: