Scribd
Upload
14 views

Epc Issues

Here are a few suggestions for a temporary solution to assess project practitioner (PP) competency levels until the new PP Tracker is fully developed: 1. Map the existing PM competency levels directly to PP levels, as you suggested - PM level 3 = PP level 1, PM level 4 = PP level 2, PM level 5 = PP level 3. This provides a simple one-to-one mapping. 2. Use a scaled-down version of the PM competency assessment criteria that focuses only on the most relevant questions for PPs. For example, questions around project management experience, qualifications, complexity handled, etc. Then map the scores to PP levels. 3. Have PPs do a self-assessment against

Uploaded by

Alexandre Rodrigues
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as XLSX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
14 views

Epc Issues

Here are a few suggestions for a temporary solution to assess project practitioner (PP) competency levels until the new PP Tracker is fully developed: 1. Map the existing PM competency levels directly to PP levels, as you suggested - PM level 3 = PP level 1, PM level 4 = PP level 2, PM level 5 = PP level 3. This provides a simple one-to-one mapping. 2. Use a scaled-down version of the PM competency assessment criteria that focuses only on the most relevant questions for PPs. For example, questions around project management experience, qualifications, complexity handled, etc. Then map the scores to PP levels. 3. Have PPs do a self-assessment against

Uploaded by

Alexandre Rodrigues
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as XLSX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 8

Issue

How are the PSA and PSC requirements on the Cover Page worksheet triggered? I
suspect that these would be triggered by the responses to Qs 17 & 21 but even
selecting the most severe answers didn't trigger this on a completed the Cover Page.

There seems to be a typo on the Complexity Distribution worksheet - "Recommended PM


Application Competency Level" column appears twice. Presumably the 2nd column
should be "Minimum ..."?
Is there a PP competency tracker template? (noting the PCM shows 3 PP levels
compared to 5 PM levels)
Do the LoC requirements arising from Inbuilt automatic triggers always supersede
whatever arises from the overall Complexity score? (e.g. is even a GBP 10k lump sum fee
always min. LoC 200?)
Is any form of Design Work automatically min. LoC200, irrespective of stage of design
(Q21)?
The Completeness Check error message seems to have errors. In the draft example
shared with me for review (Brookfield PCM (Q13 missing,Q10-14 error message).xlsb)
Q13 hasn't been completed, but the error message still refers to V5.0.7 and states Qs 10
& 14 have not been rated (2023-12-06 PCM V6 - incomplete Q responses message
(erroneous).JPG).
The green boxes in the Cover Page worksheet in the attached PCM (Brookfield PCM.xlsb/2023-
12-07 LoC-PM Competency discrepancy.JPG) suggests a Competency Level 2 PM can manage
LoC 200 projects, conflicting other advice.

Does a sub-consultant automatically require PM Competency 3+ (Q3)? A blanket requirement


seems onerous - would suggest coupling with other project complexity aspect(s) responses.

Q17 - based on the following definition "Work activity: There are activities which carry some risk but gener
Q18 - Are the conditions 'Or' or 'And'? If the former, then seems onerous to blanket require PM
Competency 3+ for all projects in CPI < 75.

Do I understand it correctly, then - any new SERA review & update after 24/11/2023 (the issue date of the
new Requirements) should be done using the new SRA (formerly SERA) template, Version 1.0?

Same for new PCM, Version 6.0 (the new Guidance on EPC was also issued on 24/11)?

What if, following a project audit after 24/11, nothing triggers a review & update of the PCM whereas
SERA needs to be updated as it is more than one-year-old?

My own view of the pre-population of the RCT from the PCM outputs was that it gave a list of
not-necessarily relevant aspects which didn't really help consider project-specific risks. However,
will be interesting to hear what the link between the PCM & RCT will be going forwards.
1. I like that there is transparency for the rules / criteria for what automatically triggers a LOC rating, but
I also feel this approach to ‘automatically trigger’ devalues the assessment in it’s entirety. If I answer one
question that is indicative of a LOC300, even if every other answer was LOC 100, it would still be LOC300.
Is that the intention because otherwise we may as well stop there in the assessment rather than spent
lots of time completing the whole form. Again considering what this tool is aiming to do is to get the
appropriate level of competency to manage the project. If it is deemed the current approach is
appropriate then we should just ignore any question where the max value is LOC200?

2. To do with column Z for the automatic update, there are some descriptors for dependent questions
which are inconsistent. See below (Q2, Q7, Q11, Q13)

@James Walton can you please also assist – Josh has a signed Framework agreement, as a result it is not a
signed contract with a fixed value – please advise what value he should include in the PCM? The
framework agreement is over a 5 year period and it is for a low risk project (water modelling and
monitoring).

Project Complexity Model – Consult the PSA box. Question 17 of the assessment tab, column G asks you
to ‘consult a PSA for advice and support’ so I think the ‘Consult a PSA’ box on the cover page is confusing.
I’m also unable to find the requirement to consult a PSA for advice and support on STEP. I believe it used
to be the case that a PSA had to be consulted with evidence kept of the discussion if no PSA/PSWR
needed? Grateful if you could advise. It would be good to have consistency here.
Reporter

Dominic Simpson

Dominic Simpson

Dominic Simpson

Dominic Simpson

Dominic Simpson

Dominic Simpson PCM v6 Brookfield PCM Incomplete Q responses

Dominic Simpson

Dominic Simpson

Dominic Simpson LoC PM Brookfield PCM

Dominic Simpson

Yavor Kehaiov

Dominic Simpson
Josh Foulkes

Josh Foulkes

Dee Classen/ Josh


Foulkes

Clare Nissen
Issue Reporter

Hi Angela Hibbert , could you please help with the


new PM Tracker? The competencies can still be
selected from 1 - 5 on the summary tab, but on the
Clare Atkinson
overall assessment it will not give an overall
competency score any higher than 3. Is this right or
is there any error?
Issue
The PP Tracker, being new and the assessment process will take a bit of time, what is the
suggested temporary solution to assess if the PP competency is aligned. Can we
temporarily convert PM level 3 to PP level 1 and so on until the PP assessment is
completed?
Reporter

Benyamin Tedjakusuma
Issue Reporter

You might also like