Defence Estate Quality Management System (DEQMS)
|
|
|
Defence Estate Quality Management System (DEQMS) |
Budget Year (Year Zero) – Program Tracking (Program Status Report)
|
Outcome: |
||||
Monthly Reviews Regions are to review the status of their program of planned works on a monthly basis. This means that the Program Status Report is to be kept up to date on a monthly basis. The monthly review involves all personnel who spend Estate Maintenance funds, including CMS project managers, DS contract administrators and those responsible for expenditure of reactive maintenance. Monthly program management meetings are to be conducted to review the status and information recorded about each project and activity in the Estate Maintenance program. The Program Status Report is the primary tool for tracking the progress of the Estate Maintenance Program. The Program Status Report is fed from data imported directly from DEMS. This means that all project information on the Program Status Report reflects the data recorded on DEMS. There is therefore an ultimate reliance on the existence and accuracy of project status information in DEMS, for effective management of the Estate Maintenance program. |
||||
|
Transferring DEMS Data To The Program Status Report
|
||||
| Activity | Considerations | |||
|
1) Project Allocation. Any changes to the project allocation are to be updated on the DEMS Project record. |
Changes to the project allocation managed through the Project Variation process. |
|||
| 2) Projects Delayed Over The Financial Year Boundary This includes changes that result in the project being delayed and going into the next financial year. In this case the in-year allocation is to be reduced to reflect the forecast end of year amount and a new allocation line for the following year is to be added, containing the allocation required for the following year. |
See instructions for Managing Project Allocations Over Financial Year Boundaries. | |||
| 3) Release of Old Projects. Projects that are no longer required, are to be formally released from the program which is effectively undoing the Proposal Approval for the project. | The release of projects that are no longer required uses the Project Change Proposal template. | |||
| 4) Value of Work. The monthly review involves the validation of the actual value of work, updated from the forecast value of work on the DEMS project record. | CMS project managers and DS staff responsible for expenditure of Estate Maintenance funds MUST update the value of work and forecast value of work every month. | |||
| 5) End of Year Achievement. The monthly review also involves a review of the forecast value of work at the end of the FY (ie the June VOW figure), and hence the forecast OC into next year, for each project. | ||||
| 6) Completed Milestones. The status of each project is shown on the completion of milestones on the Phased checklist tab of the project record in DEMS. Forecast milestones can then be compared with completed milestones for a measure of project performance in accordance with Performance Indicator 3253 in the CMS contract. The Program Status Report determines the Latest Milestone as the most recent Completed Milestone date. It shows “Not Populated” if there are no completed milestone dates. |
This information should be provided on the CMS monthly report and in the milestone achievement area of the DEMS project record (Phased Checklist tab). The program management emphasis is on the project development and procurement stages of the project and as a result are a choice of:
See instructions for DEMS Project Milestones. |
|||
7) Project Health. The health of the project with respect to achievement of the forecast end of year achievement is to be updated. This is not the health of the project with respect to delivery risks. It relates to the confidence in achieving the forecast EOY expenditure. Choices are Good, At Risk or Poor and are recorded on the traffic light field on the Project Details tab of the DEMS project record. The Program Status Report uses this traffic light field from DEMS in showing the Project Health. On the PSR, the “Project Financially Complete” milestone results in a Project Health rating of “Completed”. Comments are to be made for projects showing At Risk or Poor. |
As the end of year approaches and updates are being made to the forecast EOY achievement the incidence of At Risk and Poor ratings should reduce. | |||
| 8) Mitigation Strategies for At Risk and Poor Projects. DS and CMS staff are to determine and agree mitigation strategies for treatment of the At Risk and Poor projects. | This may include giving consideration to:
|
|||
| 9) Management Comments. Comments on project health and other tracking related matters are to be provided on the Management Comments field on the Justification tab of DEMS. These comments will automatically appear on the Program Status Report. | The most recent comments should be recorded at the top of the Management Comments field in DEMS to ensure they are included in the Program Status Report. | |||
| 10) Additional Projects. Details of new projects approved for inclusion into the program such as DSG non-planned (devolved) works are to be added to the Program List tab on the Program Status Report spreadsheet. Corresponding budget updates are to be coordinated with finance staff in EFPO. | See “Adding New Projects” section of Program Status Report Explained. | |||
| 11) Accrual or WPNI Projects As the DEMS extract includes all projects where the Estate Maintenance Program checkbox is set on and that have a financial allocation line in the year specified, WPNI projects from the previous year will be included. These projects should be annotated with an “A” on the Program List. |
||||
12) Graphs They also contain stacked graphs that compare the schedule status of Risk Managed Works and Work Planning Fees projects against budget and the risk status of Risk Managed Works projects. |
This information is useful in providing a graphical representation of the status of the program. These graphs are also used in preparing the Quarterly Review report. |
|||
13) Analysis of Program Data They are based on Excel pivot tables that must be refreshed to update the figures on these tabs. DS and CMS staff should analyse the information available from these reports to develop a deep understanding of the status of the program. Cost Analysis: The Cost Analysis report shows the financial position of the program, by comparing the proposed budget (proposed new Budget AVC), DEC program, regional program, VOW and planned end of year achievement figures broken down by the key elements of the program, including fees and the operating and capital components of the Risk Managed Works program. Schedule Analysis: The Schedule Analysis report breaks up the projects by funding source and shows the value of work total for completed projects and forecast end of year achievement totals for the incomplete projects. Risk Analysis: The Risk Analysis report shows VOW and forecast EOY achievement totals for each of the Project Health categories {Complete, Good, At Risk or Poor}. As the year progresses the totals for the At Risk and Poor health projects are considered to represent a risk to achievement of the end of year budget. Phasings Analysis: The Phasings Analysis report provides a comparison between the value of work information in DEMS and ROMAN and the forecast value of work phasings in BORIS. |
The categories used for the schedule analysis report are based on the latest milestone as follows: Complete = Project Practically Complete |
|||
Quarterly Reviews Quarterly reviews are conducted in conjunction with EFPO and should be considered as simply an additional level of review every 3rd month. Three of the reviews will include a site visit from EFPO and one will be by self assessment. The 3rd quarter review (Feb/Mar) will be typically include a site visit from EFPO staff. |
||||
1) ADEP formally advises Regions of the Quarterly Review dates for the coming financial year. This will include details of Regions that will conduct their own (self review). Regions are required to inform ADEP that Quarterly Review dates are agreed. |
Any rescheduling of Quarter 1 Regional Review dates needs to occur within two working weeks after the receipt of the Quarterly Review timetable to provide ADEP with the necessary time to reschedule and determine alternative dates. | |||
| 2) Quarterly Review Information Pack The reports as listed are to be run and the data compiled from the templates prior to the review activity. |
Data integrity is vital to the success of the review activity, all parties concerned are to ensure that DEMS is updated as required to ensure each report is as accurate as possible. This activity should be completed by no later than the 21st of each month. | |||
| 3) Two weeks prior to the review, EFPO will ask for the region to supply the up to date monthly Program Status Report to enable analysis for the Program AVA and Budget AVA updates discussed at the quarterly review meeting. | Regions are to keep the Estate Maintenance Program Status Report up to date on a weekly/monthly basis. The quarterly review is a check point to confirm the status of the program. | |||
| Specific Requirements For Each Review Quarter 1 Review Quarter 2 Review Quarter 3 Review Quarter 4 Review Quarterly Review By Self Assessment |
||||