Big-Bang P3O Launch at Meridian Utilities
Meridian Utilities approved a corporate P3O 14 months ago. The define phase produced a service catalogue, a RACI and a three-year roadmap. Delivery began with a big-bang launch: new templates, a mandatory stage-gate process and a PPM tool went live on the same day across 240 project managers. Six months later, 18% of projects use the new templates, 62% of status reports are late or missing, the tool has 41 active users, three programme directors have reverted to their own spreadsheets, and the P3O sponsor has attended one steering meeting. The P3O head wants to enforce compliance through audit findings. The CFO has asked for evidence of value before approving year-two funding. Two quick wins are available: a single portfolio dashboard for the top 30 projects and a resource-conflict report across the 11 programmes. The P3O has four analysts, one of whom is leaving.
1. Diagnose the failure using the P3O implementation lifecycle. Which activities were skipped or under-delivered, and what does the evidence suggest?
Read the worked answer
Identify phase - mandate and sponsorship were thin. The sponsor has attended one steering meeting. That means there was no active, visible sponsorship, no agreed definition of success and no consequences for non-compliance. A P3O without a sponsor who chairs, decides and escalates is a voluntary service, and voluntary services are bypassed.
Define phase - documents were produced, but the operating model was not defined. A service catalogue and RACI are artefacts. Define also requires customer segmentation, service levels, a readiness assessment, a transition plan, a communication and training plan, a pilot design and a benefits baseline. The launch treated define as document production and moved straight to enterprise-wide deployment.
Deliver phase - no pilot, no segmentation, no sequencing. Three changes (templates, gates, tool) went live simultaneously to 240 project managers. That exceeds absorptive capacity. There was no pilot to test usability, no segmentation of the willing from the resistant, no quick wins to build credibility and no feedback loop. Tool deployment before process and data maturity compounded the problem.
Close phase - no wave closure or lessons loop. Each rollout wave needs a closure review and transition to business-as-usual.
The evidence (18% template use, 41 tool users, three reverted directors) describes an adoption and usability failure. The P3O head's enforcement response treats it as a discipline failure. Audit findings may compel attention, but they will not create value; they will entrench the view that the P3O is a compliance overhead.
2. Recommend a 90-day recovery plan, with sequencing, stakeholder approach and success measures.
Read the worked answer
Days 0–14 - stop and re-contract. Pause the enforcement narrative. Re-contract with the sponsor: a written mandate, monthly chairing, decision rights and an agreed definition of success for year one. Interview the programme directors and the three who reverted to spreadsheets; their reasons are requirements, not resistance. Replace the full service catalogue with a minimum viable offer.
Days 15–45 - deliver two visible quick wins. Build the top-30 portfolio dashboard and the 11-programme resource-conflict report using existing data, co-designed with the programmes. Publish them, get feedback, improve them. These prove the P3O can produce decisions, not just templates, and give the sponsor something to champion.
Days 46–75 - segment and pilot. Apply standard reporting to the top 30 projects and 11 programmes only; make templates available to the remaining 210 without mandating them yet. Pilot the tool with about 40 users on real data after a data cleanse. Train just-in-time, role-based, with named champions in each division. Simplify gates to decision points rather than ceremonies.
Days 76–90 - measure, review and plan. Publish baseline and current metrics: reporting timeliness, data completeness, tool adoption, resource conflicts resolved, dashboard use. Hold a first-wave closure review. Take a funding gate to the CFO with evidence and a costed next wave.
Success measures: 80% on-time reporting for in-scope projects; 90% data completeness on the top 30; 40 active tool users at pilot exit; sponsor attendance at three consecutive steering meetings; customer satisfaction measured, not assumed.
3. What should the P3O present to the CFO to evidence value before year-two funding?
Read the worked answer
The CFO needs decision-relevant evidence, not activity statistics. Build a retrospective baseline now, since no benefits baseline was set: reporting cycle time and late-report rate, number of duplicate data requests, assurance coverage, resource conflicts identified and resolved, tool adoption, and time spent chasing status. Then report three layers:
- Leading indicators - adoption, data completeness, training completion, dashboard use. These show whether the service is being used, which is a precondition for benefit.
- Lagging indicators - faster decisions, avoided duplication, assurance days released, cost of delay avoided on the top 30 projects, resource redeployment.
- Counterfactual discipline - use projects in scope versus those not yet in scope to avoid claiming benefits that would have happened anyway.
Present cost in the CFO's language: P3O run cost per project and per £m of portfolio, FTE effort released, assurance reviews avoided. Be explicit that year one is investment and show the trajectory with a stop/go gate. Do not overclaim: a credible partial case with measured data is stronger than an optimistic full case that the CFO can disprove. Where benefits are projected, name the owner and the measurement method.