Audit of Project Delivery: Major Initiatives

October 2022
Project Number: 80590-130

Table of contents

• Executive summary
• Conformance with professional standards
• Introduction
  • Background
  • Audit objective
  • Scope
  • Approach and methodology
  • Authority
• Findings, recommendations and management response
  • Outcomes management
  • Interdependencies management
  • Change management
  • Governance and oversight
  • Continuous improvement.
• Appendices
  • Appendix A: Audit criteria
  • Appendix B: Acronyms
  • Appendix C: Supplemental information on change management
  • Appendix D: References

Executive summary

Statistics Canada launched its modernization agenda in 2017/2018, with the vision to enable the agency to deliver on its relentless commitment to increase relevance, build more efficient and effective operations, have a high performing workforce in a data-driven society and demonstrate sound stewardship of public resources. As part of its modernization efforts, the agency has implemented many large, complex initiatives aimed at transformation and innovation. Statistics Canada's investment plan lays out the agency's planned investments, which include an estimated $205.3 million in expenditures between 2022/2023 and 2026/2027 for 57 planned or in-flight projects. The successful delivery of these projects allows the agency to keep delivering high-quality data and fulfill its mandate and responsibility to ensure that Canadians have the information they need, while maintaining the high standard of trust that Canadians have come to expect.

Projects within the federal government are subject to the Treasury Board of Canada (TB) Policy on the Planning and Management of Investments and the Directive on the Management of Projects and Programmes. Within Statistics Canada, projects are guided by the Departmental Project Management Framework (DPMF), which provides standard project management processes, guidelines, templates and tools that are used to initiate, plan, execute, control and close out a project. It also provides a structured process for project governance, gating and approval.

The DPMF is owned by the Departmental Project Management Office (DPMO), within the Business Planning and Performance Division, Corporate Strategy and Management Field. The mandate of the DPMO is to provide leadership through strategic advice, training and support in the development and implementation of common project management processes, as well as the tools to be used in all projects. These tools and processes aim to ensure timely delivery within cost and scope, in accordance with quality standards.

As per TB policy requirements, deputy heads are responsible for ensuring that their organizations are accurately assessed to determine the level of project management capacity for the purposes of project approval and related expenditure authority. In 2022, Statistics Canada successfully sought renewal of its Organizational Project Management Capacity Assessment rating of 3 (Evolutionary), indicating that the agency has the capacity to successfully deliver projects with a Project Complexity and Risk Assessment level of 3 or lower without the need for TB approval.

Why is this important?

Many projects are characterized by internal interdependencies and will have fundamental impacts on Statistics Canada operations and products. Concerns were raised that the agency may be at risk of not achieving desired outcomes in some cases. Interviews and research conducted during audit planning led to the identification of five focused elements that can help ensure successful project delivery: outcomes management, interdependencies management, change management, governance and oversight, and continuous improvement. To provide insight into these areas, the audit team selected three major in-flight projects under the responsibility of different fields within the agency to review as case studies.

Project outcomes are measurable improvements resulting from a project that contribute to one or more organizational objectives. They differ from project outputs, which are deliverables that a project produces, e.g., a new, enhanced or upgraded system. Project outcomes can be direct quantitative (labour or other direct savings), indirect or qualitative. While actual project outcomes should be specific, examples of possible types of outcomes (i.e., benefits) include eliminated duplication of effort, decreased information retrieval time, decreased temporary contract help, decreased need for training fees and time, lower absenteeism, increased client satisfaction, faster response time to service requests, increased availability of management information, increased level of data integrity, and more effective decision making. Outcomes should also link to longer-term organizational objectives, including strategic objectives, which ultimately lead to improved services and other benefits for Canadians. These outcomes should be defined and understood at the early onset of a project to ensure clear understanding of overall goals and a means of measuring success.

Most major projects often depend on other projects or initiatives to deliver enabling capabilities that are essential to their successful implementation. Often, these same major projects also contribute enabling capabilities to other projects or initiatives. Understanding, monitoring and coordinating project interdependencies are imperative for ensuring organizational-level optimization, minimizing delays and preventing duplication of efforts.

The delivery and implementation of major projects frequently result in significant changes to systems and processes. For these changes to be successfully integrated and the benefits fully realized, employees must adapt. Change management is the practice of managing the humanistic aspects of change initiatives within organizations and is more than just communication. Employees need to be part of the change, rather than have the change be imposed on them. Implementing participative change management practices enables employees to contribute and feel involved, maximizes the benefits of future states, and feeds an organizational culture of belonging and trust.

A project steering committee is a governing body tasked with overseeing and supporting a project to ensure it stays on track to achieve its outcomes. Committee members represent various stakeholder groups impacted by the project and should have a vested interest in ensuring its success. To be effective, project steering committees require appropriate membership, clear responsibilities and an adequate line of sight into the overall project.

Continuous improvement involves regularly collecting and sharing lessons to avoid repeating mistakes and to replicate good practices. To improve the likelihood of successful project delivery, such information should be analyzed to find solutions to possible systemic issues or challenges beyond the scope of a single project.

Overall conclusion

Statistics Canada has processes and mechanisms in place to assist in the delivery of major projects and has successfully implemented many large, complex initiatives within its modernization agenda. Moving forward, the agency should explore opportunities to strengthen its management control framework for the delivery of major projects, specifically in the areas of identifying outcomes and interdependencies, change management, and governance and oversight. Doing so would help improve the likelihood of successful project delivery, including achieving desired outcomes, realizing anticipated benefits and measuring success.

Key findings

Outcomes management

Some opportunities to strengthen the project outcomes, key performance indicators and performance targets for the three major in-flight projects reviewed were observed. Opportunities also exist for project outcomes to be more actively monitored to ensure their continued relevance and attainability, and to consider outcomes as a means of assessing project health and measuring success.

Interdependencies management

While there are tools in place to help manage project interdependencies, some limitations were observed. The agency does not yet have a holistic organizational view of project interdependencies. Most of the identification, tracking and communication of project interdependencies for the three major in-flight projects reviewed was being done on an ad hoc basis and was reliant on the experience of certain individuals and their knowledge of the agency.

Change management

An organizational change management framework, offering a set of tools and techniques to provide a structured, disciplined and repeatable approach to change management, is not yet in place. Some change management activities were occurring within the three major in-flight projects reviewed, although the activities included low levels of engagement with internal stakeholders. These activities were also being planned, developed and implemented without following a structured approach.

Governance and oversight

The three steering committees responsible for overseeing and supporting the major in-flight projects reviewed—to ensure the projects stay on track to achieve their outcomes—had good representation from stakeholder groups across the agency and were meeting frequently. There also appeared to be active engagement and involvement by members in committee discussions. While responsible executives were receiving regular project updates through various means, it was not evident that the monthly project dashboards and the health indicators contained within (i.e., cost, schedule, scope, issues and risks) were being regularly discussed at steering committee meetings.

Continuous improvement

The DPMO maintains resources to support continuous improvement. Project teams are documenting lessons learned throughout project life cycles, not just at the end. Key takeaways from lessons learned are regularly shared with senior management. Information is being used to identify issues beyond the scope of any one project and to find solutions.

Conformance with professional standards

The audit was conducted in accordance with the Mandatory Procedures for Internal Auditing in the Government of Canada, which include the Institute of Internal Auditors' International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing.

Sufficient and appropriate audit procedures have been conducted, and evidence has been gathered to support the accuracy of the findings and conclusions in this report, and to provide an audit level of assurance. The findings and conclusions are based on a comparison of the conditions, as they existed at the time, against pre-established audit criteria. The findings and conclusions are applicable to the entity examined, and for the scope and period covered by the audit.

Steven McRoberts
Chief Audit and Evaluation Executive

Introduction

Background

Statistics Canada produces a vast array of products and services that are designed to meet the information needs of data users. These outputs are the result of hundreds of surveys and other programs, coupled with the significant efforts of its employees. Statistics Canada's planned investments will ensure that all the agency's products and services are of the highest possible value to Canadians. Statistics Canada launched its modernization agenda in 2017/2018, with the vision to enable the agency to deliver on its relentless commitment to increase relevance, build more efficient and effective operations, have a high performing workforce in a data-driven society and demonstrate sound stewardship of public resources. As part of its modernization efforts, the agency has implemented many large, complex initiatives aimed at transformation and innovation. Statistics Canada's investment plan lays out the agency's planned investments, which include an estimated $205.3 million in expenditures between 2022/2023 and 2026/2027 for 57 planned or in-flight projects. Of those funds, $128.4 million was planned for expenditure in 2022/2023. The successful delivery of these projects allows the agency to keep delivering high-quality data and fulfill its mandate and responsibility to ensure that Canadians have the information they need, while maintaining the high standard of trust that Canadians have come to expect.

The Treasury Board of Canada (TB) defines a project as an activity, or series of activities, that has a beginning and an end. A project is required to produce defined outputs and realize specific outcomes in support of a public policy objective, within a clear schedule and resource plan. A project is undertaken within specific parameters for time, cost and performance. Projects within the federal government are subject to the TB Policy on the Planning and Management of Investments and the Directive on the Management of Projects and Programmes. Within Statistics Canada, projects are guided by the Departmental Project Management Framework (DPMF), which provides standard project management processes, guidelines, templates and tools that are used to initiate, plan, execute, control and close out a project. It also provides a structured process for project governance, gating and approval.

The DPMF is owned by the Departmental Project Management Office (DPMO), within the Business Planning and Performance Division (BPPD), Corporate Strategy and Management Field. The mandate of the DPMO is to provide leadership through strategic advice, training and support in the development and implementation of common project management processes, as well as the tools to be used in all projects. These tools and processes aim to ensure timely delivery within cost and scope, in accordance with quality standards.

As per TB policy requirements, deputy heads are responsible for ensuring that their organizations are accurately assessed to determine the level of project management capacity for the purposes of project approval and related expenditure authority. A department's organizational project management capacity class is usually assessed every three years, normally in conjunction with its investment plan. In 2018, Statistics Canada received an Organizational Project Management Capacity Assessment rating of 3 (Evolutionary), indicating that the agency has the capacity to successfully deliver projects with a Project Complexity and Risk Assessment level of 3 or lower without the need for TB approval. In 2022, the agency successfully sought renewal of its delegated project authority (i.e., Class 3, Evolutionary).

Audit objective

The objective of this audit was to provide reasonable assurance on the adequacy and effectiveness of the processes and mechanisms in place for delivering major projects and ensuring integration and benefits realization.

Scope

The scope of the audit included an examination of selected components within the agency's management control framework for the delivery of major projects—outcomes management, interdependencies management, change management, governance and oversight, and continuous improvement.

Approach and methodology

Field work consisted of a review of applicable processes, activities and tools, and a selection of three major in-flight projects under the responsibility of different fields within the agency to review as case studies. The three projects were selected judgmentally from the agency's top 14 investments reported to the Departmental Audit Committee on June 14, 2022, with consideration given to size and complexity.

In addition to documentation review and analysis, interviews were conducted with various individuals, including project sponsors, project managers, field portfolio managers, key personnel within the BPPD, and members (at arm's length from the project teams) from three separate steering committees.

Authority

The audit was conducted under the authority of the approved Statistics Canada Integrated Risk-based Audit and Evaluation Plan 2022/2023 to 2026/2027.

Findings, recommendations and management response

Outcomes management

Project outcomes were not clearly defined prior to initial funding requests.

Project outcomes are measurable improvements resulting from a project that contribute to one or more organizational objectives. They differ from project outputs, which are tangible or intangible deliverables that a project produces, e.g., a new, enhanced or upgraded system. Project outcomes can be direct quantitative (labour or other direct savings), indirect or qualitative. While actual project outcomes should be specific, examples of possible types of outcomes (i.e., benefits) include eliminated duplication of effort, decreased information retrieval time, decreased temporary contract help, decreased need for training fees and time, lower absenteeism, increased client satisfaction, faster response time to service requests, increased availability of management information, increased level of data integrity, and more effective decision making. Outcomes should also link to longer-term organizational objectives, including strategic objectives, which ultimately lead to improved services and other benefits for Canadians. These outcomes should be defined early in a project's life cycle—before initial funding is requested via a business case or TB submission—to ensure clear understanding of overall goals and a means of measuring success.

Project outcomes management is an emerging approach that focuses on the alignment of project outcomes and business strategies to maximize the value resulting from organizational changes. This approach forms an important part of project management practices and provides the link between project delivery (outputs) and the achievement of change in the business environment. It involves having the same focus and discipline around aligning a project to achieving outcomes, as the domain of project management provides focus and discipline around delivering a capability or system in an on-time and on-budget manner. In fact, focusing on project management provides only the deliverables of the project, not the outcomes themselves, or the reason the initiative is being undertaken. In part, project outcomes management serves to ensure that project outcomes inform investment decision making, that the realization of forecasted project outcomes is maximized and that investments demonstrate business value.

In April 2019, the new TB Directive on the Management of Projects and Programmes came into effect, replacing the previous Policy on the Management of Projects. Under this directive, the agency must ensure that a project's expected benefits (outcomes) are clearly defined and measurable as an input into the business case. Even so, having clearly defined project outcomes is not a new idea. Indeed, the 2015 Audit of Project Management recommended that "managers, project sponsors and oversight committees review the expected business outcomes to ensure that they provide a comprehensive explanation of the benefits of the project and that they are measurable before the business case is approved."

The audit team examined the approved business cases (or equivalent) for the three projects reviewed and observed that two did not include any project outcomes—the appropriate section was left blank. For the third project, outcomes were included within the business case; however, these were simply high-level outcomes from the agency's logic model (e.g., "statistical information is available and accessed") and were not specific to the project itself.

Opportunities to strengthen project outcomes, performance measures and targets were observed.

The 2019 TB directive also introduced the requirement for projects to have an outcomes realization plan in place at the time of project approval, and for this plan to be monitored and updated throughout the project's life cycle. In response, the DPMO developed project outcomes management guidelines (two parts) along with a Project Outcomes Realization Plan (PORP) template and guide—all now part of the DPMF. Projects must define their outcomes within the PORP template during project assessment (stage 2), when the business case is developed. During project planning (stage 4), projects are required to add key performance indicators (KPIs) and performance targets for each project outcome within the PORP.

The DPMO began rolling out these changes for new and in-flight projects in 2020. Because of the timing of the new TB directive and its implementation within the agency, all three projects reviewed had developed a PORP with outcomes, though this was done retroactively. With assistance from the Evaluation Division, the audit team examined the PORPs for the three projects selected for review to assess the adequacy and measurability of the identified project outcomes and KPIs.

For one project reviewed, outcomes in an initial 2020 PORP were assessed as vague and not addressing the problems identified. In July 2022, the project team began working to update this initial 2020 PORP. The revised outcomes (still a draft) are considerably different and align to different, high-level agency outcomes. The revised PORP also identifies different drivers, problems or opportunities that triggered the need to invest in the project in the first place (i.e., the business need). A second project had developed its own logic model (a notable good practice), though there were no KPIs to measure the medium- and long-term outcomes identified in this logic model. For the third project, some key activities within the project's scope (e.g., implementation of a new framework) were not reflected in the outcomes. Further, some KPIs were not well defined, and the performance targets listed for most KPIs were "TBD" (to be determined).

Interviews revealed that defining project outcomes and KPIs can be challenging. As such, the Performance Measurement Team (PMT) in the Corporate Strategy and Management Field offers assistance to project teams in the development of their PORPs. While the PMT tries to support and guide project teams, there is no prioritization for major projects. Not all project teams necessarily reach out to the PMT for help, and while PORP guidelines state that PMT approval of the PORP is required, this is not enforced.

Outcomes were not being considered as a means of assessing project health or measuring success.

As per PORP guidelines, a project's intended outcomes should be regularly reviewed in response to changes in project scope, schedule, budget, etc. Further, "project outcomes health assessments" are to be conducted throughout project execution—quarterly (for major projects) and with every change request—to ensure that (1) project outcomes are still achievable and have not changed in scope or value, (2) project outcomes remain aligned to strategic priorities, and (3) senior management and stakeholders are informed of progress in achieving project outcomes. These health assessments are intended to enable project governance to make informed decisions on whether to continue the project, continue the project with conditions or stop the project. Interviews confirmed that no project outcomes health assessments have been completed by any project since PORP guidelines were published in 2020.

Tracking outcomes can allow for issues to be detected earlier—rather than waiting until the end to determine a project's success (or failure)—and provides information to adjust along the way, though project teams were not using their PORPs for this purpose. The PORP process was generally seen as cumbersome. Multiple interviewees did not see the value of articulating outcomes and identifying KPIs via the PORP. Project teams also expressed that PORPs are overly focused on corporate outcomes and are not helpful at measuring the operational success of a project, as they do not contain any operational outcomes or KPIs. Overall, the PORP process appears to be primarily a checkbox exercise.

Beginning in 2021, the PMT has been requesting annual results for the previous fiscal year to further the understanding of baseline performance information. Results are being captured by the PMT in the Performance Measurement Data Analysis Portal, though the data are not being used for decision making. The audit team also observed that all three projects reviewed are identified as commitments within their respective field mandate letters for 2021/2022, though the associated KPIs and performance targets do not align with the PORPs for two projects. The PMT noted having made some efforts to align PORPs with mandate letters, but this team is mostly not involved when mandate letter KPIs and performance targets are established, nor is it privy to the mandate letter results that are reported.

Without clearly defined project outcomes or the sufficient measuring and monitoring of such outcomes, project teams may focus disproportionately on delivering outputs and miss the mark with respect to realizing benefits. Projects may also continue even if they are at risk of not achieving their outcomes, or if the outcomes are no longer strategically important or achievable.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the Assistant Chief Statistician, Corporate Strategy and Management, in collaboration with all Assistant Chief Statisticians, ensure that

1. all future investment proposals, including Treasury Board submissions, are supported by a rigorous business case that clearly defines the intended investment-specific outcomes, and that these outcomes are presented to senior management for review and challenge when investment proposals are considered for approval.

Management response

Management agrees with the recommendation.

In the past, the business case template only contained a hyperlink to the PORP template. At times, this led to confusion about when the project outcomes should be identified. Therefore, the PORP has been integrated within the business case document to streamline the process and ensure that project outcomes are defined as part of Stage 2 of the DPMF. This reinforces that the outcomes are critical to the development of the business case. That is, project outcomes and the business case need to be undertaken in tandem. By making this change, project outcomes will be available for review at gate 2 (submission of business case). The business case template, including the identification of project outcomes, applies for all investment proposals, regardless of the source of funds.

An Investment Review Board will be formed—comprising executives from across Statistics Canada with knowledge and expertise in the agency's statistical programs, as well as its enabling infrastructure—to review, challenge and recommend proposals to the Strategic Management Committee as part of gate 2 approval. Specifically, the following elements of investment proposal business cases will be scrutinized:

• problem or opportunity statement
• project outcomes
• dependencies
• scope
• options
• risks for chosen option.

To advance to the Strategic Management Committee for approval, endorsement of the business case, including project outcomes, by the Investment Review Board will be required. Note: it is not expected that all investment proposals received by the Investment Review Board will obtain endorsement.

Once endorsed, Investment Review Board investment proposals will be presented to the Strategic Management Committee for approval. The following elements, at minimum, will be highlighted:

• problem or opportunity statement
• project outcomes
• chosen option and risks.

The Investment Review Board will also be leveraged to review budget proposals and TB submissions prior to submission to central agencies. In the case of TB submissions, this includes a review of outcomes.

Investment proposal sponsors will be responsible for providing a rigorous costed business case that includes clear outcomes to measure the success of the project. A sign-off by the sponsoring director general on the business case and project outcomes (i.e., the PORP) will be required. Sponsors will also be required to address feedback and recommendations provided by the Investment Review Board before their project can receive endorsement and proceed to Tier 1 (i.e., Strategic Management Committee for gate 2 approval).

Deliverables and timeline

The Director General, Finance, Planning and Procurement Branch, will

1. ensure that the PORP has been integrated in the business case document
2. draft and seek approval from the Strategic Management Committee on the terms of reference and membership for the Investment Review Board by January 16, 2023
3. implement mandatory training on the DPMF, including project outcomes and their role in effective project management, to all new project sponsor executives by July 31, 2023
4. update DPMF documentation and guidance to reflect the role of the Investment Review Board and the release of project funding being tied to the completion of gate 3 of the DPMF by March 31, 2023.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the Assistant Chief Statistician, Corporate Strategy and Management, ensure that

2. advice and guidance services delivered by the Performance Measurement Team are prioritized for major projects—for the development of project outcomes, key performance indicators and performance targets, and the regular assessment of project outcomes to ensure their continued relevance and attainability.

Management response

Management agrees with the recommendation.

There is also an acknowledgement that this recommendation, in concert with the other four recommendations, requires a shift in culture to truly effect the change needed for this newer concept. By understanding the value and purpose of project outcomes, and leveraging these outcomes to inform discussions and decisions, senior leaders across the agency can help shift how the project management community views outcomes management. This would also help in dispelling the narrative that identification of project outcomes is only a check-box exercise, and instead demonstrate to employees how this information can be used.

Currently, as part of the envisioning and seed money process, investment sponsors are advised of the services offered by the PMT, which include providing guidance and support with the development and review of project outcomes, identification and documentation of indicators, as well as the monitoring of results until targets are achieved. This service, including sign-off by the performance measurement advisor, will now be mandatory for all major projects (with the definition of major projects to be formalized in the DPMF).

Further DPMF improvements for the management of major projects will include

• attendance by the performance measurement advisor at the project governance committee when the PORP is presented for approval. The role of the performance measurement advisor will be to provide subject matter expertise and to advise on the quality of the outcome statements.
• PORP quality checks on major projects to be conducted by the PMT; should the necessary documentation not be completed by the agreed deadline, a report would be sent to the project-sponsoring director general with a recommendation that the project be stopped, and funding could be revoked. In addition, major projects will be required to present their PORPs on an annual basis, at minimum, to their project governance committee to ensure continued project outcome relevance and attainability.

Deliverables and timeline

The Director General, Finance, Planning and Procurement Branch, will

1. update DPMF documentation and guidance to reflect updated processes and requirements by March 31, 2023, to allow for implementation as part of the 2023/2024 investment planning cycle
2. review and update the terms of reference template for project steering committees to ensure it reflects (1) the project governance role as related to project outcomes and the PORP, including annual discussions, at minimum, and (2) the role of the Performance Measurement Advisor, by March 31, 2023.

Interdependencies management

While there are tools in place to help manage interdependencies, limitations were observed. Most of the identification, tracking and communication of project interdependencies is done on an ad hoc basis.

A project interdependency exists when two or more projects are related to each other in one or several ways. Most major projects often depend on other projects or initiatives to deliver enabling capabilities that are essential to their successful implementation. Often, these same major projects also contribute enabling capabilities to other projects or initiatives. Interdependencies can also exist with ongoing day-to-day operations, including people, processes, strategies and priorities. Understanding, monitoring and coordinating project interdependencies are imperative for ensuring organizational-level optimization, minimizing delays and preventing duplication of efforts.

Running from 2010 to 2017, the Corporate Business Architecture (CBA) initiative was a comprehensive review of the way Statistics Canada conducted business, including the processes used, enabling computer systems, planning systems and organizational structure. Under the CBA banner, various internal projects were completed to boost efficiency in program delivery. During this time, a process was put in place to monitor and ensure a structured governance around the review of CBA project interdependencies. This process was documented within the DPMF and included involvement from various stakeholders, such as the CBA Management Committee (CBAMC), whose monthly meetings were to include a review of all project interdependencies and discuss yellow and red status for action and follow-up. The CBAMC was dissolved in 2017, and its responsibilities were placed under the Strategic Management Committee and the Operations Committee.

At some point between 2017 and 2019, the CBA interdependencies process was removed from the DPMF. The existing Executive Dashboard Capture Tool (EDCT) was updated to provide a mechanism for project managers to maintain their own project-specific registry of interdependencies. In turn, the EDCT feeds the "Interdependencies" tab within each project's monthly executive project dashboard. The information within the "Interdependencies" tab is intended to allow project managers and project governance to monitor the progress of activities or deliverables from other projects on which their project is dependent.

The audit team examined the contents of the "Interdependencies" tab within the monthly dashboards for the three projects reviewed and compared this with the dependencies of other internal projects identified in the project planning documents. Gaps were observed for all three projects. Through interviews, the audit team learned that most of the identification, tracking and communication of project interdependencies is done on an ad hoc basis or is heavily reliant on the experience of certain individuals and their knowledge of the agency. It was shared that the EDCT is not actually used to manage project dependencies, as the tool is not helpful in this regard, in its current state.

Interviews confirmed several limitations with the existing EDCT. First, dependencies in the EDCT can only be tagged to other internal projects that are currently listed within the tool itself, and this list appears to be out of date. As a result, it was indicated that some internal project dependencies have to be coded to "Other." The use of "Other" was observed for all three projects reviewed. Second, the EDCT and dashboards only capture one-way dependencies—project staff can only add entries to capture the projects they are dependent on, not the projects that depend on them. Lastly, there is no automation within the EDCT (or dashboard) with respect to interdependencies, and none of the entries are tied together across dependent projects.

In theory, if dependency entries were systematically and uniformly created in the EDCT for all projects, all the necessary data would be available to connect the various projects together. However, as noted, not all dependencies are being added in the EDCT, and project staff cannot easily see which other projects depend on them. Further, the EDCT data are not presently being used this way—no one within the agency is connecting the various projects together.

There is no holistic organizational view of project interdependencies, and minimal governance oversight, to ensure that interdependencies within the agency's portfolio of projects are identified and managed effectively.

All reviewed projects revealed interdependency management as one of the key challenges or risk areas, as well as for project delivery in general, and most interviewees stated that this is a challenge for the agency.

In light of the limitations noted above, the audit team observed that there is no holistic table or view of proposed and in-flight projects across all fields with interconnections (i.e., how they are related and any interdependencies that should or do exist), or a way of showing senior management and relevant stakeholders that a group of projects is connected. Such information would be an enabler for managing from a horizontal perspective, possibly prompting executives and other stakeholders to take note of potential impacts to other projects when making financial decisions, e.g., when there are financial planning exercises, if there are plans to defund aspects of a certain project, to regularly reassess opportunities and risks.

The audit also found that there is no structured governance surrounding the review of corporate project interdependencies. The steering committees for the three projects reviewed were not actively monitoring project interdependencies. Field portfolio managers interviewed were also not aware of their responsibility for "ensuring horizontal governance and review of interdependencies across all projects in the Field," as per the DPMF. Further, no Tier 1 committee appears to have actively taken on a similar role as the aforementioned CBAMC in regularly reviewing interdependencies between projects delivered under the agency's modernization agenda. While major projects are often requested to present periodic updates at the Modernization Management Committee, a review of the presentations to this committee and its records of decisions (RoDs) for the three projects did not demonstrate that interdependencies were a topic of discussion during such meetings.

Not having an effective enterprise solution and systematic processes for identifying, tracking and managing project interdependencies can lead to unexpected delays for top-priority major initiatives because of inadequate consultation and communication between dependent projects. There are finite resources for delivering major projects, and without an adequate line of sight on bidirectional dependencies across all projects, the agency is limited in its ability to make informed corporate-level prioritization and funding decisions. This may also cause possible duplication of efforts.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the Assistant Chief Statistician, Corporate Strategy and Management, in collaboration with all Assistant Chief Statisticians,

3. determine the purposes for which information on project interdependencies should be used at the project level and holistically across the agency, and ensure that such information is comprehensively documented, maintained and communicated to achieve these purposes.

Management response

Management agrees with the recommendation.

The BPPD will solicit input from across the agency, both from enabling functions, project sponsors and benefit owners to better understand the need for interdependency information both for project management purposes as well as for use across the agency. This would include insights regarding the granularity of information, opportunities for standardization, frequency of reporting and existing tools that could be leveraged.

Once the purposes have been identified, the BPPD will work with stakeholders from across the agency to formulate a work plan to ensure that interdependency information is comprehensively documented, maintained and communicated appropriately. This requirement could be accomplished by leveraging the business and information capability mapping process that has been developed by Digital Solutions Field as part of the envisioning process.

Deliverables and timeline

The Director General, Finance, Planning and Procurement Branch, will

1. engage with stakeholders to document the best strategy for documenting project interdependencies, to be tabled at Tier 2 governance, by February 28, 2023
2. formulate a work plan to document project interdependencies by May 31, 2023; the opportunity to leverage the business and information capability mapping from the Digital Services Field's envisioning process will be considered
3. formalize the Information Technology Strategic Oversight Architecture Review Committee role in identifying and managing project interdependencies in terms of enterprise architecture to ensure that proposed new project infrastructure is aligned prior to endorsement by the Investment Review Board by November 30, 2023
4. Implement the interdependency solution and update the DPMF by March 31, 2024.

Change management

Some activities, which could be considered change management activities, were being planned and implemented in a fragmented manner. Opportunities exist to adopt a change management culture within the agency.

Change management is the practice of managing the humanistic aspects of change initiatives within organizations. Organizations and, most importantly, their employees face many changes at any given time, but not all change is equal. Most organizational change is small, unplanned and gradual, yet employees still experience a considerable amount of change that is large, transformational and revolutionary. These latter changes often impact strategy, operations, systems and behaviours, and therefore necessitate adjustments to these (Burke, 2018). Changes, small and big, do not occur in silos. Very rarely will employees experience a single change at any given time, yet these employees are regularly expected to deal with many small and large changes. The compounding effect of the multitude of changes causes a total impact that is greater than the sum of the impacts made by individual changes (Cooper, 2004).

The audit team anticipated finding that project teams had established some elements of change management plans to guide the implementation, execution and adaptation of people-focused change management activities throughout the project's life cycle. Through interviews and documentation review, the audit team noted a few instances where some activities could be considered change management activities. For example, project planning documentation considered future communications and training activities to build an awareness of and ability for stakeholders to implement the change, though this was primarily for the project implementation phase. The audit team also observed signs of some efforts to define and document stakeholder analyses to understand the impacts and correlated complexities of future change. Further, some employee engagement and two-way communication was included in communications plans, which were primarily used to support information sharing with stakeholders.

None of the projects reviewed had structured and formalized change management strategies or plans, though the audit found that there is no requirement within the DPMF for change management plans at the project level. The audit team observed that an organizational change management framework, offering a set of tools and techniques to provide a structured, disciplined and repeatable approach to change management, is not yet in place. Change management support and training is not currently available to project teams who are expected to lead and deliver change management plans and activities.

Change requires employees to adapt—to stop doing some things, do some things differently, do different things, etc. To effectively navigate change, employees need support from their managers and leaders, including time to enable them to adapt. Employees need to be part of the change, rather than have the change be imposed on them. People have an innate, psychological need to contribute to the communities they belong to. This directly feeds people's desire to feel valued and to sense that they belong (Griffith & Maybell, 2020). Implementing participative change management practices enables employees to contribute and feel involved, maximizes the benefits of future states, and feeds an organizational culture of belonging and trust—a culture that is "agile, open to change, engaging, [and] responsive" (Goss Gilroy Inc, 2017).

Employees impacted by change are often best positioned to inform project requirements, opportunities for improvement and complexity of the change. The independent report Lessons Learned from the Transformation of Pay Administration Initiative concluded that "it was the underestimation of the initiative's complexity that led to its downfall" and that "very few people (other than compensation advisors) understood the degree of complexity associated with the day-to-day requirements" (Goss Gilroy Inc, 2017). Effective change management involves stakeholders in a participative way. Hence, they take part in defining the future solutions that will impact them, while also providing information on their needs (e.g., new processes, training) to effectively implement the change. If the Phoenix initiative had taken a participative change management approach throughout its project life cycle, compensation advisors would have been consulted at the onset to better define the initiative and its complexities. Similarly, participative change management at Statistics Canada would include early engagement with project stakeholders to understand the future change from their perspective.

The audit team observed that an envisioning process was in place for all new projects. This process was implemented with the 2021/2022 investment planning cycle and is led by a team within the Business Relationship Management Division, Digital Solutions Field. Envisioning aims to bring together corporate enablers from throughout the agency to foster collaboration between partners and enable greater alignment within the agency. This is done by allowing the agency to connect ideas with other investments and existing products before a business case is developed and approved. The envisioning process is an ideal opportunity to engage stakeholders from various levels within the agency to get a head start on participative change management practices, and to help inform the desired outcomes and interdependencies of a project early in its life cycle. However, interviews revealed that the envisioning process is not mandatory. The audit also found that there is no mention of the envisioning process within the DPMF.

An organization should take a people-focused and participative approach to maximize success in change implementation. All stakeholders^{Footnote 1} who will be impacted by the change should be consulted and engaged throughout the project life cycle, and not solely during implementation. This means consultations at the definition stage and throughout the development stage, and ongoing engagement throughout the implementation stage. Every project and change is different, and no two change plans can or should be the same. Nonetheless, change management generally includes the following steps: (1) analysis, (2) engagement, (3) planning, and (4) roll-out and adaptation. A sample change management approach is included in Appendix C.

All change within an organization is correlated to some degree because all components and activities of an organization form parts of the integrated whole (Burke, 2018). When considering a change initiative, organizations should consider the interrelationships underlying the changing parts to thoroughly grasp the magnitude of the detailed complexity (i.e., multidimensional change), as well as the dynamic complexity (i.e., the cause-and-effect ripples of the change) surrounding the change (Senge, 2006). Change should therefore be managed at multiple levels within the organization and governed at an enterprise level to ensure line of sight and anticipation of dynamic changes. As learned from the Phoenix report, "Change management and change leadership cannot be considered optional, an add-on, nor expendable when looking for ways to save time or money" (Goss Gilroy Inc, 2017).

A limited focus on the "people side" of change can lead to a misalignment of projects and people-focused activities, while limiting the consideration of compounding effects of change impacts on employees. This, in turn, can have negative impacts on the organization's culture, owing to change fatigue, disengagement and employee turnover. Further, poorly managed change can cause project blind spots, which can limit opportunities for innovation and lead to projects that are poorly defined and planned, and solutions that are poorly adopted or implemented.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the Assistant Chief Statistician, Corporate Strategy and Management, in collaboration with all Assistant Chief Statisticians, ensure that

4. consideration is given (e.g., cost-benefit analysis) to implementing an organizational change management framework, which would include a training program (or module) and possibly the establishment of an organizational change management office, to help shift toward a people-focused mindset and ensure a whole-of-agency lens on all change initiatives while supporting project teams in their change management efforts.

Management response

Management agrees with the recommendation.

The BPPD will solicit input from across the agency, including change management experts, to better understand the current need for a change management framework to support project success and to learn about best practices currently being used within the agency. The BPPD will research and conduct a cost-benefit analysis of the adoption of an organizational change management framework that includes a training program and possibly a change management office or secretariat to support a dedicated oversight committee.

The BPPD will table a paper that will summarize its findings and recommend a path forward for consideration and approval at a Tier 1 committee.

Deliverables and timeline

The Director General, Finance, Planning and Procurement Branch, will

1. gather insight from change management experts within the agency (such as the Census Management Office and Integrated Business Statistics Program management), enablers and benefit owners, to understand the role a change management framework should play within the agency, by September 29, 2023
2. engage with other departments and look externally for change management models that could be employed at Statistics Canada by September 29, 2023
3. table an analysis and recommendation document (could include a cost-benefit analysis), including recommendation, to a Tier 1 committee by November 30, 2023.

Governance and oversight

Project steering committees do not have an adequate line of sight into key project activities and the overall health of their projects to provide effective oversight and direction.

Governance is the combination of processes and structures implemented by management to inform, direct, manage and monitor the activities of an organization toward the achievement of its objectives. The current Statistics Canada governance structure includes various internal committees spanning three tiers. Tier 1 includes three distinct committees—the Strategic Management Committee, the Modernization Management Committee and the Operations Committee. These committees are composed of the agency's most senior positions, including the chief statistician (Strategic Management Committee only) and assistant chief statisticians (all Tier 1 committees). The three Tier 1 committees are supported by seven functionally specialized Tier 2 committees that help identify risks and emerging issues, inform compliance, and make decisions to relieve the governance burden on senior management. Tier 3 includes field planning boards and project steering committees. A project steering committee is a governing body tasked with overseeing and supporting a project to ensure it stays on track to achieve its outcomes. Committee members represent various stakeholder groups impacted by the project and should have a vested interest in ensuring the success of the project.

For large, horizontal initiatives, the DPMF recommends establishing a project steering committee. Core expected responsibilities for project steering committees include monitoring project interdependencies, changes, issues and risks on a regular basis; reviewing and monitoring project progress and budget at a high level; and reviewing and approving recommendations for any baseline changes to any of the triple constraints—scope, schedule and cost. Steering committees should also be involved in a regular review of a project's intended outcomes to confirm that they are still strategically important and achievable, and to validate the ongoing rationale for continued investment in the project. Thus, to be effective, project steering committees require an adequate line of sight into the overall project.

Monthly project reporting via executive project dashboards is to begin in planning and continue throughout the life of the project. As per the DPMF, these dashboards are "a business management tool used to visually represent the status (or health) of a project … by means of key project metrics." The dashboards are designed to report on core project metrics affecting the project's overall health and realization of outcomes, namely cost, schedule, scope, issues and risks.

The audit found that project steering committees have been established for each of the three projects reviewed. The three steering committees had good representation from stakeholder groups across the agency, and the project sponsor was a key member of the committee in most cases. The frequency of committee meetings was also deemed commensurate with the complexity and risk level of the projects. Project dashboards are updated monthly by project teams, as required, and are being shared with executives responsible for the projects (e.g., directors general and directors). The DPMO also sends monthly dashboard portfolio summaries to all assistant chief statisticians. These contain links to individual field placemats and a brief explanation for each project, reporting overall health of either yellow or red.

While responsible executives are receiving regular project updates through various means, the monthly project dashboards and the health indicators contained within (i.e., cost, schedule, scope, issues and risks) were not being discussed at steering committee meetings. Steering committees were also not actively monitoring project interdependencies, nor were they involved in any project outcomes health assessments. Further, the audit found that project steering committees were generally not seeing or approving all project change requests^{Footnote 2}. A review of RoDs and minutes demonstrated active engagement and involvement by members in committee discussions, though steering committees generally receive presentations on and discuss individual elements of a project (e.g., a specific module or release).

A review of the terms of reference (ToRs) for each of the three committees found that only two mention some of the core expected responsibilities for project steering committees (noted above). Further, none of the ToRs outline specific responsibilities for challenging project reporting or for evaluating the overall health of the project, including confirming the continued relevance and attainability of project outcomes, and the continued viability of the project. The audit found that the DPMF provided minimal guidance on expected committee responsibilities and the contents of ToRs.

One of the projects reviewed uses an existing Tier 2 committee as its steering committee, an approach that is explicitly allowed by the DPMF. The mandate of any Tier 2 committee covers a wide array of responsibilities and extends well beyond a single project. Presentations to such committees are typically limited to about 15 to 20 minutes, likely an insufficient amount of time for discussing important matters pertaining to a major project. Tier 2 committee membership is generally much broader than key project stakeholders and people with a vested interest in the project. These committees also review presentations from diverse groups across the agency and, consequently, members rarely have an in-depth understanding of the items presented to them. Accordingly, Tier 2 committees do not have the time or depth of knowledge to give the level of guidance or oversight that a project steering committee for a major project requires.

Without an adequate line of sight into key project activities and the overall health of their projects, steering committees are providing advice, guidance and, in some cases, approval without an overall view of project risks and status, or how the decisions may impact the achievement of project outcomes. Having a dedicated steering committee would ensure that adequate focus and responsibility exist for the successful implementation of the project, including monitoring and controlling, providing overall direction, as well as controlling costs and schedules.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the Assistant Chief Statistician, Corporate Strategy and Management, ensure that

5. all major projects have a dedicated steering committee with terms of reference that clearly assign responsibility for core oversight activities and include members with a vested interest in ensuring the success of the project.

Management response

Management agrees with the recommendation.

Recent changes to the DPMF have led to the DPMO's ability to further guide project leads and sponsors with proper project governance setup. A standard template for project steering committee terms of reference has been developed, and supporting documents outline roles and responsibilities. There is an opportunity to further underline the core activities of project steering committees and selection of appropriate membership.

The DPMO will partner with the PMT and the Governance, Risk and Compliance Division to identify appropriate courses and training based on roles and responsibilities (i.e., steering committee members and project leads), with the goal of improving the understanding of core oversight activities for those involved in project governance. The DPMO will also build on existing project governance guidance tools to support project leads in determining what types of opportunities, challenges, risks and issues should be brought to project governance committees.

Deliverables and timeline

The Director General, Finance, Planning and Procurement Branch, will

1. ensure that communication to newly approved investment proposals has been strengthened by proactively providing further guidance to project sponsors on next steps and the importance of setting up effective governance
2. revise the template for terms of reference for project steering committees to further underline the core oversight activities of the committee and selection of members with a vested interest in the success of the project by March 31, 2023
3. promote existing tools through the project management community and include them on the DPMO's Internal Communications Network page by May 31, 2023
4. organize and deliver information sessions to existing steering committees for major projects to educate on effective governance, leveraging recommended training and newly elaborated project governance guidance tools by October 31, 2023.

Continuous improvement

The agency has processes in place to regularly collect and communicate lessons learned.

Lessons learned are the knowledge gained during a project that shows how events were addressed or should be addressed in the future. They are used to improve the overall performance of projects by avoiding repeated mistakes and replicating good practices. Gathering lessons learned is both a requirement of the TB Directive on the Management of Projects and Programmes and a project management best practice. Gathering and sharing lessons learned throughout the life cycle of a project helps the team, key stakeholders and other project managers understand what worked and what improvements need to be made and why. Reflecting on lessons learned throughout a project improves the outcome of future projects and contributes to corporate knowledge.

The DPMO maintains resources to support continuous improvement, including guidelines and a Register. The Register includes (1) the Jira Lessons Learned Dashboard and (2) a Lessons Learned Compendium document. The DPMO has also hosted three virtual lessons learned events for the project management community between May 2021 and July 2022. Projects must identify lessons learned at each DPMF stage and anytime something notable happens, rather than only at the project close-out stage. Lessons learned are created in Jira. All three projects reviewed are complying with this requirement.

Project managers are to consult the Register prior to starting a new project and before moving to a new project stage, though it is not evident that this is happening or that the information is helpful. While the Jira dashboard is available for all project managers to peruse and includes a complete listing of all lessons learned, some interviewees noted that they found the Jira dashboard difficult to consult and overwhelming. There appeared to be limited awareness of the compendium.

The DPMO regularly analyzes the lessons learned within Jira and includes them in the Lessons Learned Compendium. Quarterly, the DPMO includes key takeaways from lessons learned in the monthly dashboard portfolio summaries that are being sent to all assistant chief statisticians. While there were no documented processes in place to ensure that such information is used to identify systemic issues or agency-level challenges (i.e., beyond the scope of any one project) and action solutions, the BPPD indicated that this was being done organically through ongoing analysis and discussions among the team and with management. Lessons learned and direct feedback ultimately guide the review and update of applicable tools and processes, as well as awareness activities for the project management community. For example, lessons learned about delays caused by procurement led to some targeted training. Also, lessons learned about the availability of Digital Solutions Field resources to support project delivery led to two new factors to help with assessing and formulating recommendations for 2022/2023 (and future) investment proposal approvals. The first is "t-shirt size", the overall effort required by the Digital Solutions Field to complete its portion of the planned project, and the second is "information technology readiness", the availability of Digital Solutions Field resources to commence the work and the technological maturity of the idea from a Digital Solutions Field perspective.

Adoption of agile methodologies may help to strengthen planning and management practices.

One area of possible consideration that may not have come through yet, via lessons learned or direct feedback, is whether the traditional project management approach is best suited to meet the agency's needs. The audit team observed that two of the three projects reviewed were following agile project management principles, whereas the DPMF imposes a traditional (waterfall) method for managing projects. Agile project management uses an iterative approach that includes frequent and continuous releases, with feedback incorporated throughout. The focus is on early involvement of the stakeholders, with constant improvement of the product and processes. The traditional method of project management defines distinct phases that must be carefully planned out and executed, with each phase being a prerequisite for the next. This method is often the best fit for small or less complex projects that typically follow a linear approach.

Under current DPMF guidelines, project teams must determine a budget and prepare planning documents that cover the entirety of a project from start to finish, regardless of its size, complexity or duration. While project outcomes should be defined and understood at the early onset of a project, it may not be feasible to know or plan for all circumstances. Consequently, certain planning documents (e.g., project charters, project plans) that are costly to prepare in terms of time and effort may ultimately be of little value to project teams and likely only serve a compliance purpose. Project steering committees do not review these planning documents, nor do Tier 1 committees, even though they approve the investments.

When planning is complete and execution (typically the longest phase) begins, per the DPMF, there are no more official gates or "go / no go" decisions. The audit team heard a shared anecdotal opinion that projects never stop once funding is received. Although project outcomes health assessments should be conducted throughout project execution, interviews confirmed that this concept is not widely known about or enforced, and none have been completed for any project.

It would likely be worthwhile for the DPMO to study this topic in greater detail in collaboration with the project management community, with the possibility of presenting options for consideration to senior management about adapting the DPMF to allow for flexibility in aligning with agile project management methodologies, where appropriate.

Appendices

Appendix A: Audit criteria

Audit objective	Audit criteria	Policy instruments and sources
Provide reasonable assurance on the adequacy and effectiveness of the processes and mechanisms in place for delivering major projects and ensuring integration and benefits realization.	Effective governance committees and oversight processes are in place to oversee the delivery of major initiatives. The agency has effective management processes in place to ensure a systematic approach for identifying and managing the interdependencies between projects. Relevant project outcomes have been formally established in line with agency priorities, and projects are assessed against expected results to ensure that benefits are realized. There are effective change management processes and practices established to facilitate the implementation of major initiatives. Practices exist to continually improve project delivery by documenting, communicating and applying lessons learned.	Treasury Board of Canada (TB) Policy on the Planning and Management of Investments TB Directive on the Management of Projects and Programmes Goss Gilroy Inc. "Lessons Learned from the Transformation of Pay Administration Initiative" Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat "Outcome Management: Lessons Learned and Best Practices" Statistics Canada Departmental Project Management Framework reference materials Terms of reference, meeting minutes, records of decisions and project reporting material for project steering committees Project documentation, including business cases, project charters, project plans, project outcome realization plans and close-out reports Other internal Statistics Canada documents, as applicable

Appendix B: Acronyms

BPPD

Business, Planning and Performance Division

CBA

Corporate Business Architecture

CBAMC

Corporate Business Architecture Management Committee

DPMF

Departmental Project Management Framework

DPMO

Departmental Project Management Office

EDCT

Executive Dashboard Capture Tool

KPI

Key performance indicator

PMT

Performance Measurement Team

PORP

Project Outcomes Realization Plan

RoD

Record of decisions

TB

Treasury Board of Canada

ToR

Terms of reference

Appendix C: Supplemental information on change management

Training program

Organizational change management training programs have shown success in shifting cultures and mindsets and enabling organizations to develop agile, open and responsive cultures to successfully navigate and implement change (Burke, 2018). To maximize its impact, such training should be broadly available but should initially be rolled out with leaders throughout the organization. Training should touch on the topics of open communication, building trust, participative management, providing and receiving feedback, etc.

Change management framework

Ideally, a change management office should lead the development of a change management framework to guide all future change management practices and processes in line with the preferred guiding principles. In addition to guiding principles, a framework should include governance structures and training recommendations (mandatory and recommended, internal and external), as well as defined practices, tools, templates and techniques to ensure a structured, disciplined and repeatable approach to horizontal change management. An organizational assessment should preface the development of such a framework to ensure the outcome considers the organization's progressive change readiness levels. These efforts should be communicated broadly so employees who feel any signs of change fatigue can start to appreciate efforts being made to improve the state of the organization.

Change efforts should be prioritized throughout the agency, especially by leaders, and change management should infiltrate existing organizational practices and procedures, e.g., throughout project management templates and practices, project teams are evaluated on change management activities associated with their projects. This infiltration should also promote collaboration with other related internal services, e.g., communications, training and development, and human resources, to ensure the agency maximizes its efforts and tackles initiatives and changes through a whole-of-system lens. As reported in "Lessons Learned from the Transformation of Pay Administration Initiative", "Change Management must surround and underpin the whole initiative and be treated as a fundamental component, being critical for buy-in from those affected by the change, and must support staff and managers to help them adapt to their changing roles" (Goss Gilroy Inc, 2017).

Sample change management approach

1. Analysis

   A good change management plan starts with a thorough analysis of the current state. Before any change-inducing project and change management activities are embarked on,

   • An organizational analysis must be done to determine the organization's change readiness, i.e., "assess the organizational culture to determine … [what] may help or hinder the achievement of expected benefits" (Goss Gilroy Inc, 2017). Findings will determine whether organizational readiness activities are required before embarking on change initiatives.
   • A stakeholder analysis must be completed to define, using assumptions, the level of impact the future change could have on the various stakeholder groups. Findings will inform which stakeholder groups to engage, when and how.
2. Engagement

   The next step is to engage with stakeholders based on the analysis outcomes. Engagement can take many forms—e.g., focus working groups, surveys, all-staff meetings—but should have one goal: to understand the future change from the lens of the stakeholders. These consultations should further inform the project's scope and definition while also informing and validating the stakeholder analysis and defining a detailed stakeholder map, including levels of impact and levels of influence for each stakeholder group. The project should aim to have multiple rounds of consultations to understand

   • what the future change means to the stakeholders
   • what the opportunities and risks are
   • what interdependencies are at play
   • what the needs are, e.g., process changes, training, to adapt to the change.

   If groups are too large, allow each group to identify their respective representatives and plan for communications loops, so everyone remains aware of progress, decisions, etc., throughout the project planning stage.

3. Planning

   From the completed analysis and initial rounds of consultations, the project team should plan activities to

   • keep stakeholders informed and engaged (e.g., two-way communication, information sharing, feedback mechanisms, consultations)
   • continue obtaining stakeholder input and feedback on the project (e.g., consultations, surveys), especially to inform any aspects of the project that impacts them (e.g., timelines, service interruptions, training needs).

   A basic change management plan must include the following:

   

   As reported in "Lessons Learned from the Transformation of Pay Administration Initiative", "Communicate [dynamically] in a relevant, timely, comprehensive manner as a key priority of the change process, integrating into and across every project, phase and activity, with the effectiveness of communication being the measure of success" (Goss Gilroy Inc, 2017).

   Follow-up communications with stakeholders should always be planned and implemented to reiterate their input and validate how their insight will be used for the project—this helps stakeholders feel more involved and ensures they reap the value of investing their time in the project's definition and development stages.

4. Roll-out and adaptation

   As the project progresses and stakeholders are engaged, change management activities and plans must be adapted to reflect evolving stakeholder and project needs. Ideally, change management plans should be developed for the entire project life cycle at a very high level, planned more strategically for a three- to six-month period, and adapted and implemented month to month to ensure activities and messaging remain up to date and relevant throughout the project life cycle.

Appendix D: References

Burke, W. W. (2018). Organizational Change: Theory & Practice (5th Ed). Sage Publications.

Cooper, K. G. (2004). Toward a unifying theory for compounding and cumulative impacts of project risks and changes. Paper presented at PMI® Research Conference: Innovations, London, England. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.

Goss Gilroy Inc. (2017). Lessons Learned from the Transformation of Pay Administration Initiative. Government of Canada.

Griffith, J., & Maybell, S.A. (2020). Adler's original contributions to psychology (Links to an external site.). Journal of Individual Psychology, 76(1), 21–30

Senge, P. (2006). The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of the Learning Organization. (2nd ed.). Crown Business.