Opportunity, risk, and success recognizing, addressing, and balancing multiple factors crucial to the success of a project management system deployed to support multi-lateral decommissioning programs

This paper addresses the factors involved in effectively implementing a world-class program/project management information system funded by multiple nations. Along with many other benefits, investing in and utilizing such systems improves delivery and drive accountability for major expenditures. However, there are an equally large number of impediments to developing and using such systems. To be successful, the process requires a dynamic combining of elements and strategic sequencing of initiatives. While program/project-management systems involve information technologies, software and hardware, they represent only one element of the overall system.. Technology, process, people and knowledge must all be integrated and working in concert with one another to assure a fully capable system. Major system implementations occur infrequently, and frequently miss established targets in relatively small organizations (with the risk increasing with greater complexity). The European Bank of Reconstruction (EBRD) is midway through just such an implementation. The EBRD is using funds from numerous donor countries to sponsor development of an overarching program management system. The system will provide the Russian Federation with the tools to effectively manage prioritizing, planning, and physically decommissioning assetsin northwest Russia to mitigate risks associated the Soviet era nuclear submarine program. Project-management delivery using world-class techniques supported by aligned systems has been proven to increase the probability of delivering on-time and on-budget, assuring those funding such programs optimum value for money. However, systems deployed to manage multi-laterally funded projects must be developed with appropriate levels of consideration given to unique aspects such as: accommodation of existing project management methods, consideration for differences is management structures and organizational behaviors, incorporation of unique strengths, and subtle adjustment to compensate weaknesses. This paper addresses the architecture and sequencing of implementation. (authors)