1 / 19

Set-up of a corporate selection process for RDI projects Cécile Cavalade

Set-up of a corporate selection process for RDI projects Cécile Cavalade Project Management Office & KPI cecile.cavalade@tudor.lu EARTO Working Group Quality - 20.06.2011. Henri Owen Tudor (1858 – 1928). Origin of the process. A decision process of a young institution

denton-rush
Télécharger la présentation

Set-up of a corporate selection process for RDI projects Cécile Cavalade

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Set-up of a corporate selection process for RDI projects Cécile Cavalade Project Management Office & KPI cecile.cavalade@tudor.lu EARTO Working Group Quality - 20.06.2011 Henri Owen Tudor (1858 – 1928)

  2. Origin of the process • A decision process of a young institution • Acceptation of projects by the board of advisor • Annual budget / Performance contract with pluri-annual budget • Acceptation of projects by the executive board • Volume of projects • Neutralisation of the reviews • Ex-post « acceptation » of competitive projects • Acceptation of projects by financial director and PMO manager • Conformity review / legitimity for strategic review • Bottle neck • Ex-post « acceptation » of competitive projects Presentation Tudor

  3. Origin of the process • Demand of the executive board • A corporate definition process • Efficient, transparent • Corporate dashboard • A formal selection stage called « screening » • Objectives of the screening • Strategic alignement • Enrichment of proposal draft • Multi-disciplinarity • Partnership • Right use of each funding tool Presentation Tudor

  4. Project Definition Process Draft Pre-Proposal Full Proposal Project Charter

  5. Project Definition Process Draft Pre-Proposal Full Proposal Project Charter Development Screening • Project idea • Collaborative improvement • Output: Powerpoint for the screening • Strategic Alignment • Value for Tudor • Input from Dpt Management and from BusDev

  6. Project Definition Process Draft Pre-Proposal Full Proposal Project Charter Development PMO/CGReview Submission • Collaborative elaboration of quality pre- proposal • Reviewers contributing scientific reviews • Formal Approval • PMO focuses on quality and coherence of proposal • CG focuses on financial aspects • Electronic submission and/or printed copies • Answer to the PI

  7. Project Definition Process Draft Pre-Proposal Full Proposal Project Charter Development PMO/CGReview Submission • Collaborative elaboration of quality fullproprosal • Reviewers contribution • Formal Approval • PMO focuses on quality and coherence of proposal • CG focuses on financial aspects • Electronic submission and/or printed copies • Answer to the PI

  8. Project Definition Process Draft Pre-Proposal Full Proposal Project Charter Development PMO/CGReview • Project charter is developped • Reviewers contribution • Formal Approval • PMO focuses on quality and coherence of proposal • CG focuses on financial aspects

  9. Screening meeting • « Greenhouse » a small Lotus Notes DB • Coporate overview on what’s « in the pipe » • Workflow • Corporate coordination of the process • 0,25 ETP secretary • About 100 proposals /year • Screening meetings • Busness Development director • Departement director • PMO manager • Concerned managers (Unit & Programme) Presentation Tudor

  10. Screening meeting • Screening template presentation (PI researcher 20’) • Research question • Project overview • Business case • Legitimacy of Tudor • Value for Tudor (KPI) • Risk asessment • Definition phase feasibility Presentation Tudor

  11. Feedback after 8 monthes of implementation • Screening output • Utility of screening inputs

  12. a - Recommendations

  13. b – Decisions

  14. Feedback after 8 monthes of implementation 1. Effectiveness of Screening output 2. Utility of screening (survey)

  15. a. Perception/Feeling about screening

  16. b.1 The added value of the screening: mgmt (1/2)

  17. b.1 The added value of the screening: PIs (1/2)

  18. c. Screening templates quality

  19. Improvement – next steps • Right size the process • Asynchrone acceptance for some category of project • Ad hoc screening for maturation projects • Ad hoc screening for PhDs and Post-docs • Adaptation of the Lotus Notes tool • Flexibility of the workflow • From a list view to a real dashboard • Performance improvement of the process • Time to Project Charter • Adaptation to our new organisation (portefolio/programme mgt) • Homogeneity among department Presentation Tudor

More Related