NDIA Accountability Project

This project is in DRAFT

Project management and quality tools

‹ PrevPage 1 of 4 · Source p. 18Next ›

FOI 24/25-1212 DOCUMENT 3

Project management and quality tools

The content of this document is OFFICIAL. Please note: The research and literature reviews collated by our TAB Research Team are not to be shared external to the Branch. These are for internal TAB use only and are intended to assist our advisors with their reasonable and necessary decision-making. Delegates have access to a wide variety of comprehensive guidance material. If Delegates require further information on access or planning matters, they are to call the TAPS line for advice. The Research Team are unable to ensure that the information listed below provides an accurate & up-to-date snapshot of these matters

Research question: Are there existing project management tools that integrate quality assurance tools or quality frameworks? What are the benefits or drawbacks of different project management and quality tools and in what contexts are they applicable? Date: 21/11/2023 Requestor: Fiona [[s47F- personal privacy](/foi-library/releases/759e22e37354-foi-24-25-0593-decision-document/release-materials/material-001__s47f-personal-privacy/)](/foi-library/releases/759e22e37354-foi-24-25-0593-decision-document/release-materials/material-001__s47f-personal-privacy/) Endorsed by: n/a Researcher: Aaron s47F- personal privacy Cleared by: Stephanie s47F- personal privacy

  1. Contents Project management and quality tools …………………………………………………………………………… 1
  2. Contents ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 1
  3. Summary ………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 2
  4. NDIA …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 2
  5. Australian Public Service …………………………………………………………………………………. 2
  6. Quality frameworks …………………………………………………………………………………………. 3
  7. References ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 3

Page 18 of 35

FOI 24/25-1212

  1. Summary NDIA and other Australian Public Services provide helpful quality tools as part of their project management processes. Many health and human services have developed quality frameworks which may be modified to apply in an NDIA context.
  2. NDIA NDIA’s Delivery and Change Office has provided quality tools in the context of their Project Delivery Framework Toolkit. The Project Status Report can assist in monitoring the progress of the project, keeping track of risks and benefits. A Benefits Score Card is integrated into the Project Management and Change Plan as well as the Project Delivery Framework Toolkit. This is a way of specifying how the benefits of a project will be measured and monitoring whether the benefits are being achieved according to the prespecified measures.
  3. Australian Public Service The Australian Public Service Commission (APSC, 2021a) recognises two approaches to project management: traditional and Agile. Both are aimed to maintain quality of output. To facilitate the traditional approach, APSC provides a workplan template and suggests use of tools such as Gannt charts. This can work well when the project requires a steady methodical approach: Traditional project management approaches can provide a greater degree of confidence in the final deliverable, as the entire project is planned upfront with limited scope for changing requirements; the downside is that later stages can’t begin until those preceding it are completed, which can make it difficult to rectify issues if they arise, or if the direction of the project needs to change (APSC, 2021b). To facilitate the Agile approach, APSC suggests use of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet’s Agile policy playbook. Agile projects can include use of generic tools such as Kanban boards, or frequent reflective processes (refer to Figure 1). This can work when the project make require multiple changes and revisions based on contextual or stakeholder changes: “Agile is an iterative project management approach which drives process by working on ideas and products early and testing and refining them to increase value and impact of the final product” (APSC, 2021b). APSC recommends evaluation tools to complete after the conclusion of a project to provide an opportunity for quality improvement. This can be similar to Figure 1. For example, considering

Page 19 of 35

FOI 24/25-1212

whether the project met the taskforce scope or objectives, you can ask “What went well?”, “What didn’t go well?”, “What are the lessons learned?” (APSC, 2021c). Figure 1 Sprint retrospective template (Source: Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, 2020)

  1. Quality frameworks • NDIA’s National Access and Review branch published their Quality Framework. • NDIA’s Complaints branch has published their Complaints Quality Framework and Checklist. • Victorian Government’s Health and Human Services Community services quality governance framework. • Queensland Government’s Department of Communities, Child Safety and Disability Services Human Services Quality Framework. They also include a number of tools and resources for implementation of the Framework. • Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Healthcare has published a report on developing the National Safety and Quality Framework for Australia.

  2. References

Page 20 of 35

FOI 24/25-1212

Australian Public Service Commission (2021a). Develop a workplan. Australian Government. https://www.apsc.gov.au/initiatives-and-programs/workforce-information/taskforce- toolkit/project-management/develop-workplan Australian Public Service Commission (2021b). Effective project management. Australian Government. https://www.apsc.gov.au/initiatives-and-programs/workforce- information/taskforce-toolkit/project-management/effective-project-management Australian Public Service Commission (2021c ). Closing down and lessons learned. Australian Government. https://www.apsc.gov.au/node/391 Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. (2020). Agile policy playbook. Australian Government. https://www.apsc.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021- 03/agile_policy_playbook.pptx

Page 21 of 35