Agenda item

Click here to view a recording of this item on You Tube

The Manager, Programme Management Office provided an overview of the role of the Programme Management Office (PMO) which currently supported the Place Directorate only (copy attached to the agenda).

The Chair thanked the Manager, PMO for the overview and invited questions and comments, a summary of which is set out below.

In response to questions from Councillor Moriarty as to why some projects had not been included, the Manager, PMO explained that projects categorised as Tier 1 were under the auspices of the MMPB. It was noted that projects categorised as Tier 2 were projects on the horizon or active but not agreed as a ‘Major Project’ by Cabinet.  The Manager, PMO gave an example of Baxter’s Plain feasibility work Projects categorised as Tier 2 and Tier 3 (ideas at early stages) were not considered by MMPB.  It was further explained that the Manager, PMO rigorously challenged the highlight reports in order that correct and meaningful information was being presented to MMPB and as the reports progressed through there was an opportunity for senior officers to challenge that the information was valid, consistent and valuable.

The Assistant Director, Property and Projects reminded Members that the MMPB was a sub-committee of Cabinet and explained the role of the Board was to oversee and monitor projects and highlighted that the projects on the MMPB list were those that had been determined as a major project by Cabinet.

Councillor Blunt asked if there was a document which defined for a Tier 2 and 3 projects and who determined the category of each project.  In response, the Manager, PMO explained that there was no document the process was evolving and that Tier 1 projects were those which Cabinet had determined as a major projects and MMPB oversaw and monitored. 

The Chief Executive added that there was a structure of Officer Major Project (OMPB) Board and MMPB and it was explained that projects in in early stages of development would go through the process and highlighted that for a project to be defined as a major project to be forwarded to MMPB, was a Cabinet decision. The PMO was a central repository to collect all information at the early stages because ultimately projects could develop and then be presented to MMPB.

Councillor Blunt commented that the categories presented confusion and that the Board needed to see a definition of a Tier 2 and Tier 3 project and would those projects be considered by MMPB.  In response, The Manager, PMO explained that Tier 2 projects were active but were not overseen by the MMPB and would go through Portfolio and Panel meetings.  An example was given of a Tier 3 project – originally a Town Deal  project, a Town Centre Repurposing project which had been the decision of Cabinet not to proceed and was agreed that as and when funding came along the business case would be relooked at (so now Tier 3).

It was highlighted that only Tier 1 projects would be overseen and monitored by the MMPB.

The Chair, Councillor Beales commented that it would be useful to have formal clarification for Tier 2 and Tier 3 projects and added that lack of resources ran throughout the reports.   He added that Tier 2 projects would remain with the Portfolio Holders but would not be invisible and would go through the process to the Regeneration and Development Panel and if there was a project of great interest or political sensitivity despite being a modest size it would go forward to MMPB.

Councillor Blunt commented that he understood the comments made by the Chair.  The Chair, Councillor Beales confirmed that any questions relating to Tier 2 and Tier 3 projects could be asked at Full Council.

The Chief Executive clarified the role of the PMO.

Councillor Morley commented that some form of definition was required for strategic areas to the future plan of the Council and gave an example of energy and environment section where climate change was the focus.  Councillor Morley added that his recollection was that there had previously been a major project relating to energy, etc.  Councillor Morley referred to following projects  Refit involving Ameresco, Electric Vehicles, etc and that type of package required higher visibility because they were not things that may had a wider roll out for some and years and the Council needed to see that they were proving satisfactory in the authority’s building environment.  He also commented that he felt the 3G Pitch should go ‘down’ to become a Tier 2 project.

Councillor Kemp added that a review of the projects was required to take climate change into account.

Under Standing Order 34, Councillor Ryves asked if the reports were living documents and could be accessed by Members.  In response, the Manager, PMO explained that the highlight reports were living documents which were updated on a regular basis.  MMPB would be informed of any updates, if any, on projects following publication of the Agenda.

The Monitoring Officer advised that Tier 3 projects were operational and that information on them would be expected to remain with Portfolio Holders but that Member Access Requests would be considered and would be mindful of any exemptions which would apply in development stage and such requests would be considered on a case by case basis.  Tier 2 projects were described as active not meeting the definition of a major project and whether there would be a compiled list this was not a process the Council had in terms of publishing but in terms of Member access to information it was not secret information and if a Councillor needed to know it would be considered under Member access rights.

The Assistant Director, Property and Projects explained that MMPB was a public meeting and agendas and minutes were published both on Mod Gov and the Council’s website and therefore accessible to all Councillors.  It was highlighted that some projects contained confidential information and could not be published in the public domain whilst projects were in the developmental stage. 

The Assistant Director, Property and Projects reminded the Board of its role in relation to major projects.

Councillor Ryves commented that it would be useful if the documents could be available on line as a resource to enable Councillors to view the information as opposed to obtaining information via an officer.  The Chair, Councillor Beales added that the points had been well made, it was acknowledged the wish of the Administration for transparency and openness and the need for confidentiality as described.

The Assistant Director, Property and Projects explained that if there were any further updates to report from Project Managers following the publication of the agenda, a verbal update would be given at MMPB.

Councillor Ryves highlighted the importance of Councillors having access to the MMPB information and updates.

The Chair, Councillor Beales explained that additional resources would be considered for the PMO.  The Manager, PMO explained that there were plans in place to recruit additional posts to the PMO.

The Assistant Director, Property and Projects added that it was recognised with the scale of the programme of projects additional resource was required and options were being looked at.

Councillor Dickinson expressed concern that sight was possibly being lost of why the MMPB was set up in the first place and the fact that the Council had resourcing issues added weight to the argument that the Council should stick to why the MMPB was set up and what those parameters were for projects being included in the report. Councillor Dickinson highlighted the importance of the Board that it being seen to be trying to ensure as far as possible that those set of circumstances were not repeated as to why the MMPB was created.

The Chair, Councillor Beales commented that this was a point well made on why the MMPB was formed and was aware of why the circumstances emerged.

Councillor Morley added that the Council would be looking at a priority based approach to anything in terms of filling resources and there was no doubt the Chief Executive had recognised this and appointed the Executive Director, Place to put leadership in this direction and the Interim Technical Adviser previously in post, had recommended that a Project Management Office be set up.  In conclusion, Councillor Morley explained that once the programme of projects/work requirements/volume was received the PMO would be resourced accordingly in order that the projects would not be delayed.

Councillor Dickinson agreed with the comments made by Councillor Morley and added that the definition MMPB started out with captured everything and that in her opinion was an excellent starting point because nothing would then fall through any of the gaps between the tiers and it could then be determined which projects did not need to be submitted to the Board.

In response to the comments made above, the Chair, Councillor Beales explained that some refining was required and priorities identified.