Fitsilis, P., Kirytopoulos, K. and Leopoulos, V. (2011). Assuring the managerial capability of public organisations implementing projects: The Greek case.

Fitsilis, P., Kirytopoulos, K. and Leopoulos, V. (2011).  Assuring the managerial capability of public organisations implementing projects: The Greek case.  International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 4(2), 1 - 33.  Retrieved on February 2, 2011 from http://www.emeraldinsight.com.ezproxy.usq.edu.au/journals.htm?issn=1753-8378&volume=4&issue=2&articleid=1905904

Introduction

Organisational success depends heavily on its strategy for performance.  Without an initial core strategy, tacit knowledge cannot be made tangible.  It is understood that while individual strengths are acknowledged and required, it is necessary to explore living knowledge and its relation to transactive memory.

Delivery of information, or the manner in which direction or knowledge is imparted is in general initiated through management.  Managerial skills have been categorised as falling into two separate areas: managing mature projects and managing projects with maturity.  Terminology is standardised according to governing bodies so international continuity is assured.

Unsurprisingly, the larger the scale of operations the more complex the solution becomes.  Challenges facing leaders is to improvise methods that work and form the template for operations that can be carried forward as international standards to bind a global workforce.  Clarifying group objective determines the types of organisations that adapt and align to culture and mission.

This paper describes the management capability and skill required to organise public interest projects.  Standardising Greek public administration bodies developed the managerial maturity of EU funded projects.  An overview of the assessment needed to understand the scope of managerial function reviews current and relevant models that have had international success.

Managing projects of public interest in Greece

EU funded projects not only provide economic support, but provide a means to generate greater social cohesion.  Statistics reveal that from 2000 to 2006 17,000 projects were funded at an average cost of 1.8M Euros per project, and implemented by 2748 beneficiaries.

In 2005, cumulative knowledge revealed that 22% of beneficiaries were incapable of managing projects and between 30 - 65% were using outmoded technology.  This problem is global.  Main reasons cited for immaturity in project management are:

• that tacit knowledge has not been made clear to novices, or methods/systems in place are incomplete or unsuitable;
• the lack of internal auditing and review procedures;
• loose project control;
• informal communication through meetings or minutes;
• project organisation and project teams not formally appointed or unavailable and project manager authority not well established;
• lack of modern project management systems;
• the unavailability of legal support in a rather complex legal and contractual context;
• the inability to apply an effective and efficient change management system both at operational and contractual level;
• difficult, complex and time consuming project initiation processes requiring involvement of many heterogeneous stakeholders;
• the large number of involved public services, project stakeholders, and lack of a project champion.

Cumulative knowledge identified and categorised methods to propose structural changes to national programs drafted into projects that run from 2007 - 2013.  Specifically, Greece prioritised:

1. improving national transport that converges with the trans-European network;
2. adopting EU standards on sustainable development and terminology;
3. raising levels of national ICT competence to integrate the EU;
4. increasing national entrepreneurial skills to match international trade;
5. using HRD to bind a unified civic consciousness; and
6. raising human capital potential through lifelong learning and education for sustainable development.

In order to focus on sustaining the objective, the European Commission funds a variety of regional programmes to:

1. improve and harness the characteristics and attributes of entrepreneurship;
2. extend and upgrade intraregional and trans-regional infrastructures;
3. improve human capital;
4. prioritise education for sustainable development;
5. foster economic growth;
6. adopt tourism and culture as a means of generating national and international progress;
7. promote and support technology based communication for entrepreneurs.

As the budget for 2007 - 2013 was capped at 31M Euros and addresses close to 10,000 projects, beneficiaries were deemed responsible for:

• maximising the benefits gained as a result of supportive frameworks;
• improving quality of service; and
• raising the standard of managerial maturity levels.

ELOT1429: 2008 was developed to set national standards in public project initiation.  Increased support in managerial capability was provided for beneficiaries who complied with the standard, while simultaneously offering focus and mature logic.  Although EU members provide several working models in project management and implementation, the Hellenic Organisation for Standardisation developed their own model based on the following arguments:

1. choosing from the variety of international models would have caused endless debate resulting in pockets of disgruntled society as time limitations constrain full developing analysis;
2. existing Greek legislation prevents adopting standards that have not been transcribed with the relevant terminology;
3. identified problems were inherently cultural and localised knowledge was more in tune with environmental needs; and
4. it was more appropriate to create a country-specific standard that took into account national characteristics and relevant international standards.

Managerial capability models

Savvy communities recognise the efficiency of project management and use mature models from which innovative entrepreneurship enhances competitive capacity.  Understanding of success as it occurs and identifying solutions has been described as maturity.  Ergo, Project Maturity indicates the level of conditioning a community has had in dealing with projects, revealing mental agility commensurate with information, delivery and activity.  Mature logic defines the perspective that strategy and planning is sourced from.

A mature model provides the structure, or template, that has assessed methods and levels of capability and provides the framework for future levels of performance which in turn sets development targets.  Most models identify five levels of developing project maturity:

1. level 1 - the implementation of strategy and plan using feedback loops to diagnose and rectify or amend direction;
2. level 2 - repeated execution (i.e. single loop learning);
3. level 3 - methods are defined and are adopted as a community standard;
4. level 4 - situation monitoring to ensure standards are maintained; and
5. level 5 - group direction clarified and secured with maximum potential for development and growth (i.e. double loop learning).

Successful models retain the ability to stay agile by increasingly depending on internal insight to evaluate possibilities for growth (e.g. Hawthorne effect).  Standards to assess a community's level of maturity have been designed after investigation linked maturity with improved performance.  Standards are designed for upgrades and in general provide a service for a learning community.

The Project Management Institute propose OPM3 as an example of a mature model indicating that a detailed community portfolio integrates programme and project management that identifies and categorises an achievable work schedule.

Alternative terminology list the five levels as categories of:

1. common language;
2. common process;
3. singular methodology;
4. benchmarking; and
5. continuous improvement.

Literature reviews identify more than thirty models that have had success in different industries, but tellingly reveal the maturity of a community that has been conditioned over time.

The proposed system for assessing the managerial capability of organisations with respect to project management

ELOT 1429 standards' family

ELOT is the Greek acronym for the national governing body of internal standards (i.e. the Greek Standardisation Organisation) which is part of the International Organisation for Standardisation (i.e. ISO).  To ensure egalitarianism, stakeholders represent both Private and Public sectors.  In addition, ELOT is audited by the National Accreditation System and the Italian Accreditation Board.  The ELOT family form:

• ELOT 1429: lists the managerial capacity requirements for initiating public interest projects;
• ELOT 1431-1: guide for implementing ELOT 1429 in public interest projects;
• ELOT 1431-2: guide for implementing ELOT 1429 in public service and supply projects;
• ELOT 1431-3: guide for implementing projects of a special nature; and
• ELOT 1432: requirements for auditing communities that implement public interest projects.

ELOT 1429: 2008 overview

The ELOT was constructed from observations and practice of co-funded projects between Europe and Greece and serves the purpose of assessing managerial capability.  As with all standards, it categorises the minimum requirements needed to execute public interest projects.

As these standards are expected to support the project through to completion, the ELOT holds knowledge or data concerning the functions and processes of:

1. the group holistically (e.g. from management to legislature and operations);
2. human capital, economics and group structure (i.e. includes lifelong training and safety);
3. implementing, planning, building and control; and
4. internal audit systems that nurture group function (e.g. best practice policies, feedback loops).

Compatibility with ISO 9001: 2008 and PMBOK - OPM3

The ELOT 1429: 2008 grew as a result of Greek Quality Management Systems upgrading and integrating their standards taken from ISO 9001 to enhance ISO 9001: 2008.  Practice was re-written as it was introduced.  This decision reduced the intensity of training needed to develop and maintain the ELOT 1429:2008.  As the Greek Quality Management Systems is the brainchild of several organisations, continuity and integration of internal networks is assured.  Capitalising on existing frameworks has notable success as human capital is conditioned or primed to change with the environment.

The processes of the ELOT 1429: 2008 and the ISO 9001: 2008 differ in clause 7 substantially.  The ISO 9001: 2008 refers to Product Realisation with the following detail:

1. planning of product realisation;
2. customer related processes;
3. design and development;
4. purchasing;
5. production and service provision; and
6. control of monitoring and measuring equipment.

The ELOT 1429: 2008 categorise an altogether different perspective and refer to Project Implementation as:

1. project initiation;
2. project planning;
3. project execution;
4. project monitoring and control; and
5. project closing.

Maturity levels

Maturity models contain the ephemeral quality of experience.  Each experience marks an opportunity to gather more insight that drives development.  The ELOT 1429: 2008 identifies three levels:

1. level 1 - the minimum requirements of managerial capacity are recognising a project, understanding project needs, archiving best practice methods (e.g. includes terminology) and driving towards closure; one common practice within the group is yet to be determined;
2. level 2 - integrated systems where managerial capacity is known to be centrally operated, cumulative knowledge gained from past efforts is group ethos and a learning community has been established; and
3. level 3 - internal auditing systems are continuous and progress is chronic as checklists monitor incoming information; feedback serves multi-level activity as focus details both individual and group performance.

ELOT 1429: 2008 process groups description

Management and organisation

Centrally run management systems require dedication.  Top management provide committed environmental support that perpetuates the appropriate learning structures.  Archived standards are found embedded in activity.  Project management success depends on how hierarchy responds and adapts to feedback.  Traditional management schema prioritise the day to day activity that diminishes the reality of the project for group members.  Management prepares individuals to accept full responsibility to act as leaders, however this training is commensurate with experience.  Transforming communities integrate function with projections of expected activity.  Role designation match job responsibility.  Standards form the backbone of the group and integration of internal group function facilitates penetration of external environments (e.g. markets).  Knowing relevant legislative practice and procedure is embedded in the activity of annual learning cycles as improvement and strategic practice occurs from connections and relationships with knowledge based learning communities.

Human resources and technical infrastructure

From a HRD perspective human capital, support, performance and safety is linked to group environment.  Economic focus is maintained through the adaptation of external standards to fit the environment bi-directionally.  These developments create integrated management and workflow subsystems that are archived.

Project initiation

The strategic planning of a project incorporates the short term, medium term and long term goals of the group.  Forecasts for economic outlay add to the potential of realising the project.  Value is ascertained from gathering tangible evidence of the benefits, the costs and the feasibility of the project as project finance may depend on licensing.  Once the context of project initiation is finalised, project content assumes focus as objectives, schedules, deliverables and risks are identified and integrated with proposed activity.

Project planning

The ELOT 1429: 2008 define core subjects of a Project Management Plan:

• the project charter;
• the scope of the project that includes a detailed breakdown and structure of finance, human capital (e.g. work hours) and delivery;
• role identification, task and responsibility, and training needs;
• quality management systems with focus on role models;
• embedded short, medium and long term goals (e.g. scheduling, achievements, timetables);
• archived progress reports;
• active archived strategy reports (e.g. artefacts that list analysis, response and consequence);
• financing;
• delivery of plan; and
• change management plan.

Project execution

Some parts of a project may be out-sourced.  The ELOT 1429: 2008 places emphasis on securing data that directs a solid plan based on task activity, environmental support, managerial capacity, economics and industry related legislation.

Individually financed projects by necessity require more attention to environmental capacity and delivery.  Public organisations in Greece outsource project execution to contractors, so the ELOT 1429: 2008 highlights the focus needed for a system of procurement and are categorised as:

1. issuing tenders;
2. evaluating tenders;
3. claim management; and
4. contractual agreement.

Project monitoring and control

Active integration of project standards that chronically monitor and control prevent project deviation.  Active use of archives reduces the risk of losing knowledge.  As such, in-depth knowledge of the system produces measures that holistically create a dedicated path to the objective.  The ELOT includes planning for delivery of quality, viable channels, communication and archiving, change management and financial control (i.e. inclusive of industry regulation).

Project closing

The ELOT defines closing a project as the completion of all managerial effort (e.g.  finance is secured and exchanged) leaving only the physical manifestation of work.  Closing a project equates to having met all obligations that are required for deliverables to be executed.

Systems results review, analysis and evaluation

Internal auditing systems are vital for continuous improvement and feedback loops that link internal and external function evaluate performance.  Individual projects require standards that specify an evaluation of project objectives, stakeholder satisfaction, allowances for deviation and efficiency.

Discussion

Introducing new standards is a complex procedure, requires time-intensive process structuring and is specifically crucial when the public sector is involved and tied to a national project management system.

Expectations are that the ELOT 1429: 2008 defines managerial capacity required for project initiation in public interest projects to ensure improved delivery of objectives.

The ELOT 1429: 2008 is the strategy to bind Greece to a maturity model so standards are comprehensive archives of managerial capability and compliance is a prerequisite of EU funding.

Implementing the ELOT 1429: 2008 has caused an era of project management science as the entire Greek community address new stipulations for a more effective market.  Inevitable certifications arise over time as the community become more proficient.  Effective and efficient use of resources promise more projects with successful completion, as the performance index of Greece depends upon successful uptake.