Agenda and minutes

There were no apologies for absence or notification of substitute members.

In accordance with the local Code of Conduct, a councillor is required to disclose at the meeting any Disclosable Pecuniary Interest (DPI) that they may have in respect of any matter for consideration on this agenda.  Any councillor with a DPI must not participate in any discussion or vote regarding that matter and they must withdraw from the meeting immediately before consideration of the matter.

If that DPI has not been registered, the councillor must notify the Monitoring Officer of the details of the DPI within 28 days of the date of the meeting.

Councillors are further invited to disclose any non-pecuniary interest which may be relevant to any matter on this agenda, in the interests of transparency, and to confirm that it will not affect their objectivity in relation to that matter.

There were no declarations of disclosable pecuniary or non-pecuniary interests.

To confirm the minutes of the Executive Advisory Board meeting held on 7 September 2020.

The minutes of the meeting of the Executive Advisory Board held on 7 September 2020 were confirmed as a correct record and would be signed by the Chairman at the earliest opportunity.

To receive and discuss a presentation regarding the Council’s new Project Management arrangements.

The Interim Project Manager gave a presentation providing an update in respect of Project and Programme (PPM) Governance, which was itself the theme of a business change project, mainly examining the Council’s capital programme major project portfolio.  New project governance arrangements had stemmed from Phase A of the Future Guildford programme which had created a team to implement new governance and to support and deliver projects and ambitions without wasting time and resources.  The purpose of the presentation was to introduce the EAB to the evolving PPM process and to obtain its views thereon as a precursor to subsequent opportunities for early involvement in the development of project mandates.

The presentation explained progress to date and next steps; portfolio, programme and project governance; possible PPM governance issues; benefits of improved PPM governance; common project lifecycle and approval gates; the purpose of a mandate; principles of accountability / ownership; proposed approvals workflow; and implementation of the PPM Governance Project Plan Jan 2020 – Dec 2020.

Progress to date was as follows:

·             January and February - Review of major projects performance.

·             March and April - Governance issues agreed.

·             May and June - Consultation with key stakeholders.

·             July and August - Pilot of new governance tools.

·             September and October - Delivery of training and business change.

·             November and December - Handover and close.

The definitions of projects, programmes and portfolios, which were separate aspects of projects and related disciplines, were explained.  Project management was the management of budget, schedule and resources to deliver required capabilities.  Programme management was the grouping of projects into a programme that were necessary and sufficient to achieve desired business outcomes and create value.  Portfolio management was the objective comparison and selection of investments to optimise business value by proactive monitoring, management and adjustment of the portfolio of investments to maintain business alignment.  These sought to achieve the desired outcomes effectively and efficiently in the correct right way.

Possible PPM governance issues were the absence of mandates, unified lifecycles, robust business cases, audit trails for decision-making, standardised methodologies and clear transparent pipelines of work.  The impact of these could include: unclear problem definition, outcomes required, scope, strategic alignment or priority; lack of ability to direct and control the project; absence of a robust rationale for proceeding with no baseline to manage delivery, change or resources and inability to know longer term cost implications; misdirection and misunderstanding; stakeholder challenge, friction and delays; project manager frustration and low morale; and inability for enablers such as finance and procurement to engage sufficiently early in the project lifecycle.

The benefits of improved PPM governance included improved value for money; reduced financial losses by not investing in poorly scoped projects not resourced for delivery; avoidance of ambiguity, scope creep and increasing costs; improved engagement with councillors and key external stakeholders for strategic direction and coherent support; transparency of delivery plan and pipeline to improve alignment with key stakeholder views to prevent costly delays; ability to engage enablers in the Council’s Resource Directorate and other  ...  view the full minutes text for item PMI4

It was noted that the Cathedral Walk Mandate item had been delayed owing to the need to obtain further information.

To consider and approve the EAB’s draft work programme with reference to the Executive Forward Plan. 

The EAB’s Work Programme was noted without comment.