The PM 1.0 framework produced some very positive results and began to break down barriers within the organization. District departments learned more about each other’s respective business, and we started to see more collaboration between groups than we had in the past.
PM 1.0 featured single Department teams (e.g. Portfolio Services) at the presenting table and there was a singular focus on how each respective Division/Department was performing. We saw a range of presentation styles with some teams choosing to have significant impact from Directors, while others chose to have only the Chief of the Division present.
Length of Presentation & Core Elements
PM 1.0 required an intense amount of preparation from a presentation slide standpoint. Each team delivered a two hour presentation which included as many as 60 charts. A couple of the important elements included in the presentation were the organizational charts and identification of value added services. In some cases it was very eye opening to see how certain Divisions/Departments were structured and the utilization of resources. The value-added services brought the story together and gave teams a good sense whether their activities were aligned with the Superintendent’s strategic plan. Real-time action items are documented during the PM session to include action person accountable and timeline for completion.
Click to Enlarge
Budget Data & Metrics
As mentioned earlier, PM 1.0 was about learning more about our organization which included more insight to Division/Department budgets and metrics they track to measure success. The PM team learned that many teams present their respective budgets in many forms which our team felt highlighted a disconnect between how budgets are managed and what is preferred by the Chief Financial Officer. The budget data presented was unstructured and didn’t focus on specific programs, but was more consistent with the traditional incremental based budgeting methodology present in many Districts across the country.
PM 1.0 also gave the organization a lens into how Divisions/Departments measure themselves with respect to success. This primarily consisted of lagging indicators and many teams presented some of the same measurements at a high level (e.g., graduation rate, readiness data).