Core Processes ‘Learning lessons from the last CSR’ Draft Blueprint Design v0.4 18 May 2009 Project Manager: Richard Hughes Project Champion: Mike Dunne.

Core Processes‘Learning lessons from the last CSR’

Draft Blueprint Design v0.4

18 May 2009

Project Manager: Richard HughesProject Champion: Mike Dunne

1. STFC ability to make decisions• Corporate decisions involving Senior Management, other committees and strategy & advisory boards

2. Confidence in the evidence• Ensure that the evidence used in the decision making process is robust• Learn lessons from the CSR process

3. Confidence in Delivery• Ensure that when a decision is made, we can deliver, and have the appropriate processes in place

4. Gaps in Gathering funding • Bridge gaps between ‘proof of concept’and commercial funding• R&D/prototyping gap between the Design and Construction phases for major projects

5. Stakeholder Management• Work with central Communications team to identify robust processes for the identification and

management of the stakeholders in our core processes

Scope

Objectives• Develop and implement a ‘to be’ Blueprint for Core Processes, based on Corporate

Vision/Strategy, best practice and engagement with Stakeholders

Benefits of these are:• ‘Lean’ – minimise bureaucracy / complexity

• Process improvement : efficiency and effectiveness

• ‘Value for money’ service orientation

For You• Understand how decisions are made and who makes them

• Understand what you need to do to get things done

• Empowerment

Objectives and benefits

• Agile and Effective delivery• Use of best practices• Visibility of our processes• Lean processes and management• Empower and motivate• Continuous improvement• Stakeholder engagement

Principles

How do I?

Transparent process

Flag up obstacles

Suggest improvements

Plan forthe future

Overview

Description of elements

Decision making

Confidence in Delivery

Confidence in Evidence

Stakeholder management

Ref Core Process

A Corporate Governance

B Strategic and Operational Planning

C Information Technology and Systems

D Communications

E Advisory Structure

F Facility Development and Operations

G Programme / Project Management

H Major Partnerships / Collaborations

I Grants & Awards

J Knowledge Exchange / Economic Impact / Campus

K Finance

L HR

M Safety, Health & Environment

N Estates & Infrastructure

What will core processes be doing?Ref Core Process Areas Blueprint Core processes work.

A Corporate Governance Assurance reporting structures; Delegations process and framework; Corporate risk management

John Sullivan is taking these forward

B Strategic and Operational Planning Decision making process;Integrated strategic planning (e.g. aligning funding with priorities);Integrated operational planning (through the organisation)

Highest priority of Blueprint Core ProcessesHow do we make decisions?Demonstrate confidence in the evidence.Demonstrate confidence in the delivery.Effective stakeholder management

C Information Technology and Systems Integrating our corporate systems CSD Administration Project Team working on the STFC Enterprise Content Management system.Patrick Ffinch looking at the STFC intranets sites.

D Communications Stakeholder management Terry O'Connor is taking this forward. Blueprint Core processes will provide input into this.

E Advisory Structure Roles, responsibilities and accountabilities; Interface with the STFC executive processes;Prioritising disparate areas

The project is working with Victoria Wright and others in SPO on this.

F Facility Development and Operations Through-life funding Blueprint Core processes will be looking at the through life funding issues.

G Programme / Project Management Integrating our systems (where appropriate);Corporate oversight and assurance

Tony Medland and Steve Quinton will be taking this forward, and working closely with the Blueprint project.There will be an interface with the Blueprint Change Capability

H Major Partnerships / Collaborations Maximising STFC’s combined impact;Authority to negotiate and commit STFC to future ventures;Maintaining long-term stability during periods of change;Improving the effectiveness of our existing partnerships.

Peter Fletcher and Terry Mawby will be looking at this.

I Grants & Awards Integrating ex-PPARC and CCLRC approachesNational technical capability development

SSC - Business analysts in the CSD Administration Projects Team are helping to define the retained grants processes post-SSC, and how we interact with the JGP (Joint Grants Processing).Andrew le Masurier is the STFC contact.

J Knowledge Exchange / Economic Impact / Campus

This project will be looking at the "Commercialisation Gap".

K Finance SSC - Business analysts in the CSD Administration Projects Team are helping to define the retained Finance processes post-SSC.This Blueprint project will have an interface to the work Finance are doing on the Financial model. Mark Affonso is the Blueprint project manager on this.

L HR SSC - Business analysts in the CSD Administration Projects Team are helping to define the retained HR processes post-SSC.

M Safety, Health & Environment No in scope activities for Blueprint.Graeme Finlan is the contact for this.

N Estates & Infrastructure Interface to the Support Infrastructure Blueprint project.This project will be defining the Governance structures, which will interface to the Core Processes Corporate Governance stream.

Document Decision making process

Gather ideas for process improvement

Implement improvements

Bridge Funding Gaps

Today CSR

Prioritise

Transition

Ideas for improvement learnt from the last CSR

The diagram below summarises the comments received during the Carousel sessions at the Senior Staff Forum, as to where we need to improve our Core Processes, based upon lessons learned from the last CSR round.

Ideas for improvement learnt from the last CSR

Stakeholder management

Decision Making

Visibility of Processes

Through life funding

Delivery Staff

Establish better engagement/ influence with DIUS, so they understand our organisation betterInvolve our other stakeholders, such as the other (RCs, HEIs, other collaborators) early on in the process.Better scenario planningProcess for filtering staff opinion upwards

Effective interactive planning with other councilsConsideration of the impact of decisionsPlan for the bad scenariosPeer review process too lengthyPlanning to take account of all sources of funding

Need visibility of Management structureWhere decisions are madeFlow of moneyDIUS guidance

Fund for whole life-cycle of a projectHave funding in place before bidding for constructions costsEfficient use of resources and maximise output – commercial outcomes

Demonstrate delivery, faster decision makingFor joint bids, with other RCs – make sure we deliver

Empower staff to support decision processConsult or staff – they know how the external communities thinkDon’t assume all intelligence and ability resides with Executive Committee – consult wiselyUse our skilled staff more in Peer Review

Sample feedback from Carousel Sessions

Core ProcessesPast

What we hadPresent

What we haveFuture‘To be’

• Separate processes inherited from CCLRC & PPARC

• Lack of clarity in our decision making processes

• Lack of confidence in our evidence in decision making

• Lack of confidence in our delivery

• Stakeholder (External and Internal) Dissatisfaction

• Separate Governance arrangements

• Harmonised processes

• Visibility of our decision making process to all stakeholders

• Robust evidence

• Effective delivery

• Satisfied and engaged stakeholders

• Visible and coherent Governance Framework

TO

DA

Y

Advisory Structure in place

Documented and agreed processes

Senior Staff forum

feedback

5 Key decision scenarios agreed

Stakeholder communication

plan and processes

Governance Manual

Consultation

Pilot of the approach and deliverables

underway

Published and visible processes

Overarching STFC Mgt Statement &

Fin. memorandum

• Key activity

• Core Processes project will work closely with the Communications Team

• Establish Processes to effectively ‘Consult’ and ‘Inform’ throughout the decision making process.’

Stakeholder Communication

Initial Draft @ 07 April 2009 – to be updated following agreement of a proposed organisation structure

STFC high level structureIllustrative

Science Board

PPANParticle Physics

Astronomy & Nuclear Physics

PALSPhysical & Life

Sciences

PPRP Projects Peer Review Panel

TABTechnology

Advisory Board

ASTAB Accelerator Science &

Technology

Council

Report

FAPsFacilities Access

PanelsFacilities Boards

PATTPanel for

allocation of Telescope time

FRDPFacility Research & Development

STFC Top level structure

Oversight Committees/

Project Boards

CEO

Science Programmes

Office

Facilities

Telescope Boards

EIABEconomic Impact Advisory Board

Knowledge Exchange

Technology

Science

Corporate Services

Programme Managers

JAC

ING

Space Science & Technology

Particle Physics

Nuclear Physics

UK ATC

Photon Science

ISIS

Accelerator Science

Technology Centre

Computational Science and engineering

E-Science

CLIK

Finance

Corporate and Commercial Affairs

Technology Unit

Science Advisory panels

Strategic Advisory Bodies

Advises/Scopes

Advice/ delegation

Advice /priorities

Programme information/Advice

Advice

Project Peer Review

Audit Commitee

COO

Executive Board

Operation Board

Programme Management

Project Oversight / Assurance

Report

Report /Advice

DL Estates & Operations

HR

SHE

CICT

Swindon Operations

RAL Operations

RAL Building projects

Primary scenarios and key questions to be addressed

Ref. Scenario Key questions to be addressed by this scenario1. How do we ensure adequate consultation with the stakeholders?

2. How do we align the debate & decision between the executive and the advisory bodies?3. How do we assess the risk of negative reaction, and balance this with the potential benefits?4. How do we ensure that the decision is long standing (e.g. 5years+)?1. How do we assess and balance the different departments' impact & risks in a coherent way on a common programme?2. How do we demonstrate we can deliver (i.e. to provide confidence that a decision to go ahead is practicable)?3. What is the generic process that should be followed to lead to approval of a £M scale programme / project?

C1. How does the CSR bidding process interface with internal business and financial planning.2. What is the planning and prioritisation process?3. How do we understand and manage the community impact (and that of other stakeholders, including other RCs)?1. What is an appropriate timescale for consultation, review and decision?2. How do we understand and manage the community impact (and that of other stakeholders, including other RCs)?

3. What is the process for appeal and review?4. What are the key metrics to inform such a decision?1. How do we quantify the through-life issues (cost, outcomes, …)?

2. How do we assess the impact on other areas (i.e. the opportunity cost)? For example, if we move into X, do we have to get out of Y or Z?3. How and when to involve other agencies (e.g. other RCs) who may be affected (both in terms of cost and impact)?4. What is an appropriate timescale for consultation, review and decision?5. What are the key metrics to inform such a decision?1. How do we quantify the fixed-costs, and how do we deal with the gearing that results from high fixed costs? (that is, an X% increase/reduction in days does not correspond to an X% increase/reduction in cost)2. How do we quantify the benefit / loss? 3. How do we balance facility development with operation?

D1

Deciding whether to pull out of an area of science / facility

Deciding on potential involvement in contentious areas of research ( e.g. military, animal)

A

B

Initiating and approving a cross-departmental £1m project.

Securing funds from DIUS e.g. as part of the CSR bidding process.

How do we allocate the budget to a facility.

E

Opening up a new area of science / major organisational focus

D2

*work in progress as @ 07 April

How are we going to address them?

RACI analysis• Responsible - The "Doer". Those who do the work to achieve the task. There is typically one role of R, although this can also be

delegated to others to carry out the work required.

• Accountable - "The buck stops here". Those who are ultimately accountable for the correct and thorough completion of the deliverable or task, and the one to whom R is accountable. In other words, an A must sign off (Approve) on work that R provides. There must be only one A specified for each task or deliverable.

• Consulted - "In the loop". Those whose opinions are sought. Two-way communication.

• Informed - " Keep in the picture". Those who are kept up-to-date on progress, often only on completion of the task or deliverable. One-way communication.

NotesVery often the resource in the "accountable" role may also be "responsible" for completing the task or deliverable (indicated on the matrix by having an A but no R).

Steps•Identify all the processes involved (left hand side of spreadsheet)•Identify all the roles involved (across the top of the spreadsheet•Complete the matrix as above•Resolve the gaps and the overlaps

Key lessons•The owner of the project/issue owns RACI•There can only be one person accountable (A) for the task/activity•Authority must accompany accountability (A) - empowered people to act•Someone must be responsible (R) to do the work •Place accountability (A) and responsibility (R) at the lowest possible level•Minimise the number of people consulted (C) and informed (I)

Role

Activity

DIUS PI

(Scientist/Engineer)

Science

Community

Council Science

Board

Chief

Executive Officer

Executive

Board

Initiated as an idea (inside STFC or Outside in University. Complete SOI

(Outline proposal in Je-S, Outline Business Case in RAL/New Opportunity form. Strategic fit or relevance, risks & benefits, resource implication.

R

Make recommendation Peer Review (For internal & external). E.g. OGC0 C CDecide on whether to fund Invite FBC) or not (e.g. OGC1) IDevelop the full business case R/A CPeer review (including risk and resources) the full business case C CDecide on whether to fund (e.g.OGC3) I I I I? I I

RACI analysis

Draft RACI Example for Scenario B – Initiating and approving a project

How are we going to address them?

• Decision making process – key Priority

• Document process, understand the interfaces and inter-relationships

• Strategy – Strategy document and consultation

• CSR lifecycle – Prepare Bids, review outcome, plan for the consequences, consultation, decisions, delivery plan

• Programmatic Review – Consultation, prioritisation

• Operational Planning – Annual operating plans and reports

• Financial Model – Dependency on Blueprint Financial Model Workstream

• Initial deliverable - Model summarising the artefacts in the process, the dependencies between them and the timelines

Key Core Process – Strategic and Operational

Planning

• Governance key topics• Assurance Reporting

• Delegations Process and Framework

• Corporate Risk Management

• Key outputs• Governance Manual incorporating the governance key topics and

information on core processes

• Visible on-line

• Inform our staff and external stakeholders

Key Core Process – Governance

Blueprint Organisation Structure• This in the key dependency• The decision making process will flow through the proposed structure

Blueprint Financial Model• Output from the Financial Model will be used as input into the decision making

process, to enhance our confidence in the evidence

Blueprint Change Capability• Blueprint Core processes is part of the STFC Change Agenda• The project management aspects of the Change Process will be linked to the

STFC Project Management Framework being developed as part of the Core Processes project

Blueprint Support Infrastructure• There are specific issues within the Support Infrastructure project that are

common throughout STFC, such as having a clear process for making decisions, governance and the delegation framework

Blueprint Culture• The ‘Veto power’ issue identified by the Culture workstream also need to be

addressed by Core Processes, to ensure we have an effective process for consulting and informing, and ensuring confidence in our delivery once we have made a decision.

What are the key Interfaces?

Core project team/ Project Board members• Mike Dunne ( Project Champion)• Richard Hughes (Project Manager) /Nicola Canale ( Business Analyst)• Peter Allan (SSTD & Project Manager for Organisation Structure)• Uschi Steigenberger (Facilities - ISIS)• Tony Medland/ Colin Vincent (SPO)

Key Subject Matter Experts• Input into governance manual, strategy and planning outputs and advisory

structures• John Sullivan (Governance), Sharon Cosgrove & Graham Brooks (Strategy &

Planning), Victoria Wright ( Advisory Structure)

Communications • Publishing output and communicating to stakeholders (External and Internal)• Jim Gallagher/ Terry O’Connor

Individual departments and staff• Consultation on project deliverables• Internal Stakeholders – should have visibility of the project outputs • Embed Core Processes principles ( e.g. RACI)

Implementation