SPRING 2024 // Canadian Government Executive / 25 PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT All projects should be assessed for both risk and value – that is a universally accepted project management best practice. But the tools and processes used should be simple and streamlined so that completing them will not be seen as a bureaucratic hurdle to be avoided whenever possible, or that not doing them for all projects is seen as a reward for departments seen as more competent in managing projects. The risk and value assessment tools and processes should be redesigned to be used initially in a workshop lasting at most two days attended by at most 10 empowered decision makers – once and done and consensus-based, not endless revisions and iterations. The workshop must be held at the point in the budget process where the results can be used to determine which projects to fund and which not to. The process can be repeated in the event of major budget changes or if government and/or departmental priorities change significantly during a fiscal year. These tools and processes can be designed in two flavors – light for smaller, less complex projects, and full-fledged for all others. Once the value and risk assessment processes are streamlined, the OPMCA process can then be eliminated. TBS should participate in the workshop(s) referred to above, especially for the larger, more complex projects. Eliminate the bouncing back and forth between the department and TBS – once and done and consensusbased. But the primary accountability for a department staying within its budget and delivering projects successfully must remain within the department. Also, the collective mindset towards accountability in government needs to change. The Lynch-Mitchell article states that “accountability is too opaque”. Two mind sets need to change: • First, the mentality that “we followed the process so we can’t be held accountable if things go awry”. • Second, the mentality that “if we get enough people involved in these decisions and get TBS approval, it will be impossible to determine who to hold accountable if things go awry” The group of decision makers participating in the PPfM workshop must be held accountable for their prioritization decisions, and the project manager, the business owner and the IT project lead, all of whom are appointed by the department, must be held accountable for delivering projects on time and on budget and for ensuring that the benefits used to justify the project are actually achieved. The whole concept of accountability in the federal government must also be re-visited, but that is a complex issue deserving of a full separate discussion. A Forbes article briefly summarizes the issue with accountability: “Accountability often gets a bad rap, especially in the workplace. When people are told they are accountable, a failure-phobic mindset can set in. Employees may believe that if the goals aren’t reached, they’ll be called out in front of colleagues or become a scapegoat. To shield themselves from the misperception of accountability, employees play the blame game, pointing fingers and ignoring the problem. It doesn’t have to be this way. In fact, it can’t be that way if a company truly wants to achieve its goals. Leaders must de-weaponize accountability and turn it into an opportuFigure 1: The PPfM process - step 1 Figure 2: The PPfM process - step 2
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NDI0Mzg=