Evaluation of the Monyetla Work Readiness ... - Business Trust

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 5: Project Management EvaluationEvaluation of Project ManagementProject Scope• Was the project scope clearly outlined?• Were project deliverables, objectives and anysupporting detail clearly outlined?Scope Definition• Were major project deliverables clearly subdivided andoutlined to effect a favourable outcome of projectdelivery?Project Plan Development• Was the project plan consistent and coherent?• Were the Monyetla programme objectives consistentwith AsgiSA and NSDS objectives in terms of the SkillsDevelopment Act?• Is this information clearly stated in the original projectproposal and plan?• Were partnership roles clearly stated?Project Initiation• Was a feasibility study undertaken?• Was a project manager assigned to the project priorto execution and during planning stages?• Were project constraints, such as contractualprovisions and budgeting indentified?Resource Planning and cost control• Was adequate planning undertaken to determine whatresources (people, equipment, materials) and would berequired to perform project activities?• Were the costs allocated to the project sufficient forthe delivery of the project to completion?• Did the project office have enough resources tomanage all consortia, to attend to all their concerns ontime and to address those successfully within theagreed turnaround time?• What was this turn-around time?Comments• The scope statement was clearly communicated andfocused on talent development and placements oflearners. From this, clear project objectives were speltout.• Project deliveries stemming from objectives wereclearly outlined in terms of focus areas, outputs andactivities and captured in a “Scheme of Work”document. Although detailed timeframes wereprovided in the original project proposal, no suchevidence could be found in the “Scheme of Work”document. But again, records of meetings do indicatethe various timeframes that were scheduled forcompletion before the quarterly Adjudication Panelmeetings.• The project plan showed high consistency with overallgap analysis results, project objectives and backgroundinformation pertaining to the need for this kind ofintervention.• The objectives were linked to national priorities asidentified in AsgiSA, the requirements of existing andpotential investors, the McKinsey research and variousother research studies into the BPO&O sector inSouth Africa.• The project was designed to comply with relevantlegislation, such as the Skills Development Act, theEmployment Equity Act, among others.• Partnership roles between the dti, DoL, BusinessTrust, BPeSA and other partners were assigned andclearly spelt out.• Since this is a pilot project, no feasibility studies wereundertaken, but, current research studies in the SouthAfrican BPO&O sector were used extensively toinform the structure of the project.• A project manager and technical advisor were assignedto manage the implementation of the programme.• Project constraints tended to be dealt with as theyarose and this was mainly because of the pilot status ofthe project – the fact that the approach was beingtested; For example, consortia had to be flagged (usingcolour codes) in respect of their state of readiness todeliver the programme. Where consortia werestruggling to deliver, interventions had to be made.• Another constraint that delayed the commencement ofproject activities was the legalities surroundingcontractual arrangements and in-house bureaucracy. Insome instances legal opinion had to be sought to clarifycertain contractual issues.• Sufficient planning as reflected in the initial 2006project plan was undertaken to determine resourcesrequired to implement the project. Available meetingdocumentation also reflect a high degree of planningprior to programme initiation. The project officeemployed a manager and one high-level technicaladvisor. Feedback from consortia indicated that thetwo human resources personnel were sufficient anddealt with all project issues timeously and adequately.Feedback indicated that a smaller project office withno departments was more efficient for fast pacedprojects with limited time frames for delivery, such asMonyetla. This was in sharp contrast to thebureaucratic barriers encountered by all the consortiamembers interviewed in their dealings with SETAs.26
Organisational Planning and Team Development• Were roles, responsibilities and reporting relationshipsidentified, documented and assigned?• Were individuals and group skills developed toenhance project performance?Quality Planning, Assurance and Control• Were quality standards identified and ways toadminister them imposed?• Was project performance evaluated on a regular basisto provide confidence that the project would adhereto the relevant standards?• Were specific project results monitored to determineif they complied with relevant quality standards andways to eliminate causes of unsatisfactory performanceidentified?Risk Identification and Control• Were risks likely to affect the project identified andthe characteristics documented?• Did the project/project team respond well to changesin risk over the course of the project?Project Procurement Planning• Was proper planning undertaken in determiningprocurement needs?• Were service level requirements and potential sourcesdocumented and a bid evaluation criteria put in place?• Were proper sourcing procedures and regulationsfollowed (advertising, proposals, informationalsessions)?• Was the screening stage efficiently managed andcontracts awarded to deserving training providers?• Cost estimates were undertaken, and responses fromconsortia indicated that the budget was sufficientdespite instances of employers subsidising the stipendallocation for their learners. The success of 1,129learners indicates that this budget was sufficient.• The implementation project budget was maintainedthroughout, with no departures from the original.Controls were put in place to ensure consortiaadhered to the stipulated budget.• Project management roles, responsibilities andrelationships were clearly stated and subdividedbetween the project manager and the technical advisorwho formed the project management team for theBusiness Trust. Their roles were clearly documented.Where outsourcing of particular projects wasrequired, it was done through a bidding processensuring the optimal selection of outsourced projectteams.• Skills development at this level was not necessarybecause the core project management team memberswere highly skilled in their respective areas.• Quality planning was undertaken. Standards wereadequately identified and communicated to consortiamembers through a quality checklist. Project qualitywas ensured through monitoring visits at appropriatescheduled project intervals and through circularscirculated to consortia members. The circulars alsoinformed consortia of their legal obligations pertainingto the project, such health and safety standards.• Provision was made to adequately evaluateperformance on a consistent basis through regularmonitoring site evaluations by the project managementoffice.• Provision was made for external moderators and aportfolio of evidence was collected by consortia toensure quality learnership. The portfolio of evidencewas checked and verified by the project managersbefore the second tranche payment was made. Thisquality assurance approach ensured that causes ofunsatisfactory performance were identified timeously.• Project risks and constraints were clearly identifiedand outlined at every stage of the project.• The risk control approach was largely one ofnegotiated problem solving and putting in placemechanisms to deal with the risks as they arose. Theproject team, however, effectively managed to limitproject risk.• Procurement needs were well addressed anddocumented at project integration and planning stages.They stemmed from Project objectives and theidentification of the resources necessary to fulfil these.• A bid evaluation criterion was well formulated anddocumented enabling the screening of bids. Servicelevel requirements were communicated to bidders in acircular requesting proposals and also through briefingby the project manager.• Sourcing procedures and regulations were wellfollowed. Requests for proposals were advertised inthe public domain, briefings were held before theclosing date for information purposes.• The screening stage was efficiently managed ensuringthat only deserving applicants were awarded contracts.Screening criteria was developed and put in placebeforehand and proposals were scored against this. Areview meeting that included project stakeholders was27
Page 1 and 2: An evaluation of the Monyetla WorkR
Page 3 and 4: 4.3.10 Further Training 444.4 Train
Page 5 and 6: ACRONYMSList of AcronymsAsgiSABPO&O
Page 7 and 8: • 178 learners (13.6%) not succes
Page 9 and 10: Nature of Employment Contracts Ente
Page 11 and 12: The following is a brief outline of
Page 13 and 14: 2 THE MONYETLA WORK READINESSPROGRA
Page 15 and 16: The training of unemployed people t
Page 17 and 18: Table 1: Training CurriculaCoreID U
Page 19 and 20: 2.10 Evaluating the ModelThe approa
Page 21 and 22: It was also indicated that access t
Page 23 and 24: 3 APPROACH TO THE CASE STUDY3.1 Int
Page 25: 4 FINDINGSThis section presents the
Page 29 and 30: • Were relationships with trainin
Page 31 and 32: Table 6: Consortia MembersNo. Conso
Page 33 and 34: Lead members who also operated at t
Page 35 and 36: 4.2.3 Provincial SpreadThe Monyetla
Page 37 and 38: 4.3.4 Accreditation and Quality of
Page 39 and 40: Insert 3: The Matlejoane Staffing E
Page 41 and 42: Please refer to the following table
Page 43 and 44: Table 12: The “100% Club” Place
Page 45 and 46: 4.4 Training Provider Perceptions o
Page 47 and 48: the training provider had not paid
Page 49 and 50: 5 CONCLUSIONS5.1 Project Management
Page 51 and 52: and Outbound debt collection enviro
Page 53 and 54: 6.1 Consortia Interview Schedule:6
Page 55 and 56: 7 ANNEXURE 27.1 Consortia Discussio
Page 57: Training ProvidersStructure of Cons

Evaluation of the Monyetla Work Readiness ... - Business Trust

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?