Introduct ion.......................................................................................................................................... 1
1. Project Definition ......................................................................................................................... 1
2. Governance ................................................................................................................................. 4
3. Scope/ Deliverables ...................................................................................................................... 5
4. Implementat ion Sc hedule............................................................................................................. 5
5. Work B reak down St ructure (WB S) ............................................................................................... 6
6. Resources ................................................................................................................................... 7
7. Risk Management ........................................................................................................................ 9
8. Stakeholder Management .......................................................................................................... 10
9. Quality Assuranc e...................................................................................................................... 11
Implementat ion Plan Guidelines i
The purpos e of t his guide is t o s ummaris e the requirements for implement ation plans that are required
to be lodged with t he Cabinet Implement ation Unit.
We enc ourage agencies to refer to t hese guidelines in developing t heir implement ation plans.
Remember t hat a st ep by step approac h is not ess ential t o t he proc ess - planning is an iterative
proc ess, and multiple it erations of t he planning proc ess are necess ary. We enc ourage you to c onsult
wit h us while doc uments are still at dr aft st age.
You may als o find the B etter P ractice Guide on the Implementation of Programme and Policy Initiat ives
and t he mat erials supporting Gat eway reviews us eful.
The deliverables and milestones inc luded in t he implementation plans lodged with t he Unit form t he
bas eline information for ongoing monit oring of a meas ure‟s implement ation and for informing t he Prime
Minister and Cabinet about progress through t he Cabinet Implement ation Unit reports.
Implementat ion plans s hould be:
succinct, but not t o the point t hat import ant in formation is buried
jargon free – t hey should be capable of being underst ood by every one using t hem
bas ed on a sound programme logic, presenting a clear line of sight from t he original propos al and
the government ‟s ex pectations, to t he inputs and how t hey will cont ribut e t o the achievement of
thos e expect ations; t he outputs t o be delivered; why and how t hos e out puts are ex pected t o deliver
the outcomes s ought, and t he assumptions made about t hos e links; and how t his delivery c hain
and its s upporting assumpt ions will be evaluated
clear on timeframes and project phas es, es pecially where there are int erde pendencies wit h ot her
programmes or measures or c ritic al requirements suc h as the pass age of legislation or
negotiations wit h t he St at es and Territ ories
clear on the decis ion pat hways forward – oft en both t he objectives and the means t o achieving
thos e objectives are unc ertain. Implement ation plans need t o rec ognis e the unknowns as well as
the k nowns, and explain how and when t he unk nowns will be address ed.
1. Project Definition
This s ection of an implement ation plan should provide answers to t he following questions:
What is this project aiming t o achieve?
Why is it import ant t o achieve it ?
How will we k now if we have got t here?
Most of this information c an us ually be drawn directly from existing document ation developed during
the project init iation phase. Thi s se ction sets the framework for dealing with the “expecta tions”
part of the objecti ve “on time, on budget and to expectati ons”.
Implementat ion Plan Guidelines 1
1.1 Policy Obj ecti ve/ Ou tcom e
a) the approved policy objective;
b) the policy c ont ext or environment, inc luding the underlying need or problem, relat ed policies
current ly in plac e and any previous policies, c ross -jurisdictional or c ross-port folio iss ues, the
legislative and regulat ory environment, and key research and information t hat will influenc e t he
c) approvals t o dat e including enabling legislation, relevant decisions by government and work
already complet ed; and
d) the policy s olution, delivery model o r st rat egy for achieving the approved policy objective – t his
may be a brief st atement of how t he outputs will be delivered, how thes e out puts will ac hieve the
des ired outc ome (policy objective) and how t his outc ome aligns wit h t he Government ‟s strategic
policy agenda, the agency‟s B usiness Plan and out puts/outcomes framework.
Note For Cross P ortfolio Mea sure s: where multiple agenc ies are involved in implement ation of a
measure, this section should clearly s how whic h agencies are res pons ible for the various as pects of
the policy s olution.
1.2 Benefi ts S tatem ent
The purpos e of t his st ep is to describe measurable benefits expect ed t o flow from t he policy, enabling
agencies to demonst rate t hat int ended outc omes are being ac hieved. The B enefits St at ement s hould
provide a clear descript ion of the intended beneficiaries and ex pect ed benefits of t he policy meas ure.
Indirect benefits should only be inc luded if t hey are to be evaluated as part of t he policy object ive.
a) The intended beneficiaries for eac h policy objective as accurately as possible (noting any
assumpt ions, const raints or exclusions).
b) The benefits ex pected to be realis ed by s pecific project/policy deliverables:
– Direct benefits acc rue t o the intended beneficiaries of t he policy s uch as t he unemploy ed,
small t o medium siz e businesses, a partic ular environmental sect or etc. Indirect benefits (or
externalities) acc rue t o ot her beneficiaries suc h as the community and society more broadly.
– Some discretion is needed t o decide whether or not t o include t he indirect benefits of a policy
measure in the benefits stat ement. If the indirect benefits are an import ant part of t he policy
objective t hen t hey s hould be inc luded in t he stat ement of benefits.
Couc h objectives in SMARTA t erms:
Implementat ion Plan Guidelines 2
Performance meas ures s hould adopt the right FABRI C:
Foc used on y our department‟s/agency‟s aims and objectives, relevant t o what y ou are aiming t o
achieve and t he sc ale and complexity of t he part icular meas ure or pack age of measures;
Appropriat e and useful for t hose who will use t hese meas ures. Y our performanc e measures
should clearly link outcomes t o y our agency‟s work (est ablis hing int ermediat e outc omes if final
outc omes are s ubject t o too many fact ors th at are not directly in your agency‟s c ontrol);
Balanc ed in their reflection of priorities and t ot al effort;
Robust - dat a should be clearly defined and collected consist ently, meas ures s hould be easy to
underst and and us e, dat a should be c ollected freque ntly enough t o t rack progress, and quickly
enough for t he dat a to st ill be us eful, meas ures s hould be reliable, c omparable and verifiable;
Integrat ed in exist ing performanc e management proc ess es; and
Many agenc ies have diffic ulty s eparat in g out t he succ ess fact ors for the implement ation proc ess as
opposed t o succ ess in terms of a meas ure‟s outcomes or impacts. It oft en happens t hat an
implement ation proc ess is quit e s uccess ful – everything happened on time and on budget – but the
expect ations of the government or the community weren‟t met; in ot her words, „t he operation was
success ful, but t he patient died.‟ The implementation plan needs to artic ulat e a framework in whic h
the s uccess of t he implement ation process c an be monitored, but is l ink ed t o an evaluation of t he
1.3 Evaluati on Methodology
This s ection s hould answer the question – how will we k now if t he policy objective has been ac hieved?
What me thod will be used to meas ure t his ?
You are enc ouraged to c onsult t he rel evant policy area of PM& C in developing y our approac h to t his.
Be mindful that t he milestones track ed t hrough t he Cabinet Implement ation Unit Reports will foc us on
outc omes, s uch as the expect ed impacts or level of user tak e -up, as well as t he development of
products, s ervices and programmes and t heir roll -out.
The evaluation met hodology should be designed having regard t o the objectives and performanc e
measures in your benefits stat ement.
The evaluation st rategy should include a sc hedule s howing when monitoring and evaluation will occ ur
and who will be responsible for this. Where formal evaluations are undertak en, c are s hould be tak en
to avoid conflicts of int erest.
You may need t o consider t he import ance of mid-t erm evaluations, int erim progress reports or post -
implement ation reviews as a means of providing early feedback to government on progress towards
success, and as a means of meeting acc ount ability and t rans parency requirements. You may also
wis h to c onsider t he adoption of int ernal Gat eway process es as a way of ens uring c ontinuing
alignment between your project and t he government‟s expect ations.
The development of performanc e indic at ors t o measure progress, bot h quant itative and qual itative,
should be undertak en with c are. If t he skills t o develop performanc e indicat ors are not part of the skill
set of t he propos ed project t eam, then the project manager may wish t o include „indic ator development ‟
skills in t he „Res ource‟ s ection. Pe rformanc e indic at ors may be developed for bot h t he policy as a
whole, and for each phase or activity.
Implementat ion Plan Guidelines 3
Agencies s hould provide s upporting document ation for eac h indic at or identifying information needed,
collection c ost and met hod, frequency of reporting, validity, reliability etc.
This s ection is one of t he most import ant in t he plan, bec ause unc lear governanc e arrangements pos e
a major risk t o every ot her as pect of a meas ure‟s implement ation. This sect ion s hould never be „tick
and flick ed‟ in a s imple diagram – a picture cannot t ell a t hous and words about:
how ex ecutive s upport for and commit ment t o the implement ation will be maint ained and
support ed, the most c ritic al element in project s uccess
who is going t o manage the various implement ation proc esses;
who t hey are acc ount able t o and what t hey are res ponsible for;
whet her t here are bodies outside the relevant business line, or the agency concerned, who have a
formal decision making or advis ory role; how t his framework will operat e;
what rules and procedures for decision making will apply.
Governance arrangements should cover all internal agency reporting lines and lines of acc ount ability,
including relevant agency boards or exec utive committ ees.
External reporting lines and account ability mec hanisms s hould also be identified, including any
relevant minist erial councils, committ ees, cross -juris dictional or c ross -port folio bodies.
This s ection s hould als o identify t he reporting process es in plac e to ensure that t he S ponsor and any
other relevant Ex ec utives are kept informed at regular intervals of progress and any iss ues emerging.
a) the project „s pons or‟ – the s enior exec utive offic er wit hin t he agency responsible for ens uring
delivery of the policy. Names and positions s hould be supplied.
b) the project „leader‟ responsible for oversight ing management of implement ation.
c) the project „manager‟ responsible for managing operations and t he project team. This pers on
may be t he same as t he project „leader‟ in s ome cas es.
d) the k ey account abilities – for ex ample the „s pons or‟ may report directly t o t he agency head and
minister, as well as t o an int ernal agency ex ecut ive c ommittee, and t o ext ernal advisory or
steering groups; t he project manager may report t o the project „leader‟ or dir ectly to t he
„spons or‟ but may als o be accountable to an ad hoc working group or t ask force.
This may be illust rat ed in an organis ational chart or in a t able suc h as the following:
Gover nance Role Responsibility of: Accountable to:
Go vernment Minister fo r… COAG Working Ministerial Council
Sponsor Agency, Position Joint Steering Minister Agency CEO,
Committee Executi ve Board
Leader Agency, Position Inter-Departmental Sponsor Agency Risk and
Committee Audi t Committee
Manager Agency Position Project Steering Leader Sponsor
Implementat ion Plan Guidelines 4
Note for Cross Portfoli o Mea sure s: Ideally, a lead agency s hould be agreed with a mandat e for
identify ing a project sponsor wit h overall governanc e res pons ibility across agenc ies. At a minimum, t he
lines of acc ount ability bet ween agencies should be t rans parent, wit h t he roles and members hip of any
steering committ ees c learly laid out t oget her wit h the nat ure and frequency of reporting proc esses
bet ween agencies.
This s ection s hould list in t angible t erms all t he products and servic es to be delivered.
A deliverable is a meas urable, t angible, verifiable out put, result or it em t hat must be produc ed t o
complete a project or part of a project.
For eac h deliverable, y ou s hould list the milest ones t hat need t o be ac hieved in order t o achieve that
deliverable. (A milestone is an import ant c heck point along the way t hat tells you if y ou are on track t o
delivery. “Establishing a section” or “having a meeting wit h t he St at es and Territ ories” are generally
ins ufficient indic ators of progress as t hey say litt le about whet her t he completion of t hese activities
cont ributes t o the overall meas ure being implement ed).
E very deliverable has a cost. W here possible t he c ost for eac h deliverable and milest one s hould add
up t o form the project budget.
If t he project budget is a c ritic al indic ator of progress – for ex ample, in the c ase of a procurement
project – you should specify how t he work will be done within budget and how work will be report ed: for
example, perc entage complet e, actual vers us projected out lays and s o on.
Your plan should als o list t he res ourc es needed to ac hieve eac h deliverable.
The plan s hould explain what activities will be undert ak en t o deliver t he project, and what activit ies t he
project will not be doing as well as any relat ed activities. It defines the boundary of t he project
manager‟s res ponsibility and the activities that t he project manager has t o undert ake wit hin t hat
boundary, with ass ociated deliverables.
The plan needs to identify relat ed activit ies t hat are outside t he scope of t he project manager, and are
the responsibility of ot her parts of t he agency or of external agencies – this is an important opport unity
to est ablis h ex pectations on who is doing what from t he outs et of t he project.
A commonly used t emplate for mapping out scope is as follows:
IS in Scope IS NOT in Sc ope Responsible Ma nager /Age nc y
Acti vi ty Deliverables Acti vi ty Deliverables
4. Implementation Schedule
This s ection s hould clearly outline what t he project will be delivering and when. It sets t he framework
for dealing wit h t he “on t ime” part of t he objective “on t ime, on budget and t o expect ations ”.
The Implement ation Schedule determines and defines t he major phas es of work t hat will be
undert ak en t o achieve t he desired policy objective/s and t he ass ociated deliverables. It documents a
logical sequenc e of events over time t o progress t he policy from conc ept t o delivery. It provides a
Implementat ion Plan Guidelines 5
foundat ion for t he remainder of the implement ation plan, including t he work breakdown structure which
will det ail t he related activities and tasks, responsibilities and timeline.
For most policy initiat ives, major phases of work will overlap, run c oncurrently or sequentially and
explaining thes e interrelationship and int erdepende ncies is an import ant t ask for t he planners. For
example, development of performanc e measures and an evaluation st rategy s hould proc eed
conc urrently wit h ot her „set -up‟ work sinc e different skills and t herefore people are lik ely to be required.
On t he ot her hand, gett ing guidelines or eligibility c rit eria approved may depend on completion of an
extensive cons ult ation phas e.
Project phas ing is an import ant way of dealing with uncert aint ies. For example, it is a fact of public
sector life t hat syst ems development will often have to proceed in advanc e of all t he policy issues
being s ufficiently nailed down to allow det ailed business specific ations t o be developed. Similarly,
issues around tec hnology or funct ionality may be unres olved at the time t he plan is being developed.
These are issues that need to be artic ulat ed here and in t he risks s ection, partic ularly in identifying
issues t hat are unres olved at t he time - the plan needs to identify how t hos e iss ues will be resolved,
when and by whom.
The Implement ation Schedule s hould provide t he following information in a clear, easy t o read format:
Project Phas es
Deliverables ass ociated wit h eac h phase
Major Activities for each deliverable
Key milest ones
Who is responsible for delivery of eac h major activity, an d
You should ensure the Implementat ion Sc hedule has been check ed by port folio business and
programme delivery managers t o ens ure t hat t argets are achievable and appropriat e.
Note for Cross Portfoli o Mea sure s: A global Implement ation Schedule whic h int egrat es the k ey
activities of all the participating agencies and their s equenc e, t oget her wit h any int erdependencies, is a
minimum requirement of cross port folio Implement ation Plans. Typic ally this is the doc ument against
which progress will be monit ored and assess ed for report ing t hrough t he Cabinet Implementat ion Unit.
5. Work Breakdown Structure (W BS)
The work breakdown structure follows on from the Implementation Sc hedule and provides t he detail
behind eac h key activity s howing tasks, deliverables and alloc at ed resources including st aff. WBSs
vary depending on t he complexity and ty pe of project undert ak en. There is no single format that must
be adopt ed, as long as there is a c lear line of sight bet ween the Implementat ion Sc hedule, scope and
WBS. For c omplex projects, a WBS will ext end over many pages.
Key phases of work usually form t he first -level element in t he WB S, followed by t he c omponent
elements of activities and task s at the s econd and third levels. A furt her breakdown is possible wit h
lower level t asks being regarded as phas es or projects in t heir own right. P roject resources s uch as
staffing, IT and funding c an be allocat ed at t he act ivity / t ask level of t he WB S.
The level of detail on t hes e lower level act ivities should be no more than is required to assign
res pons ibilities, timeframes and resources. The WBS s hould als o identify dependenc ies where one
piece of work depends on t he complet ion of another.
Implementat ion Plan Guidelines 6
A WBS may be provided in tabular format. This form lends its elf t o more det ailed project management
software. Alt ernatively, a high -level WBS may be provided as a t ree diagram. A gencies are free t o
choos e a format that s uits their need.
The budget s ection involves the allocat ion of administ ered and de partment al funds against k ey project
deliverables. This section sets t he framework for dealing wit h t he “on budget ” part of t he objective “on
time, on budget and t o ex pectations”.
The principle underly ing t his sect ion is c ost cont rol. This section will e nable agencies to effect ively
track ex penditure over time and provide early warning of likely overs pend / unders pend or possible
savings. In some c as es, ex pendit ure will be a critical indic at or of progress.
It is c ritic al t hat t he budget reflects whole of li fe costings for t he meas ure c onc erned and clearly
distinguis h depart ment al and administered items as well as distinguis hing capit al and operat ing
expenses. B udgets s hould indicat e:
Department al it ems/ex pens es alloc at ed t o project deliverables, s uc h as:
– staff res ourc es (AS L – average staffing level),
– legal advic e,
– other corporate s ervic es suc h as c ost of updating internal financial management syst ems,
– IT development if this is part of c ore business,
– cost of c onvening advisory/ referenc e groups or steering c ommittees, and
– costs of managing any t ender process.
– pay ments against cont ract milestones, bas ed on ex pendit ure forec asts,
– cost of running pilot projects or prototy pe programmes,
– cost of c ollecting baseline data eg consultancy c osts,
– cost of mark et testi ng or c ons ult ative process es if administered funds have been bid for and
allocat ed for t his purpos e, and
– costs of c onvening t ender panels, advis ory/ referenc e groups or steering c ommitt ees.
Administ ered expenses s uch as grants, as t hese may be an important indicat or of progress
6.2 Non-Financi al Resources
a) Review t he scope and work breakdown st ructure and identify t he resources t hat are critical to t he
success ful implement ation of the measure. Critical res ourc es are thos e whic h are vit al t o the
success of the m easure, and may include staff wit h t he s pecial skills, c onsult ants, a c o -loc at ed
office venue, ICT equipment, t rans port ation, d ata / information syst ems etc.
b) Determine whet her t he res ourc e is available internally, and if s o outline a st rategy t o manage or
acquire it for t he required duration.
c) If a crit ical resourc e is unavailable int ernally, det ermine whet her it is available t hrough ot her
Australian Government agencies and if so outline a st rat egy to manage or ac quire it for the
Implementat ion Plan Guidelines 7
d) If it is necess ary t o purc has e a res ourc e ext ernally, this s hould be identified in t he cont racting
and proc urement sect ion desc ribed below. A business c ase may need t o be prepared to justify
the proc urement st rat egy;
e) Scope t he act ual res ourc e requirement including an initial c ost estimate and link to deliverable(s )
and risk management plan.
f) Summaris e the informat ion in a res ourc e management st rat egy, linking t o high level policy
out puts (s ee ex ample at Figure 4 below). A vailability and quality of crit ical res ourc es should be
identified and assess ed in t he risk management and quality ass urance s ections.
g) Where appropriat e, ens ure resource issues are reflect ed in relevant sect ions of t he Plan suc h as
risk management, c ontracting and procurement, quality ass uranc e, work break down, and
Figure 4 : Example of a res ource mana gement strate gy
Critica l Critica l to: Strategy to ma nage or Duration Est. cost
resource (Activity/Phase acquire cr itical resource (da ys or dates)
6.3 Procurement Plan
This s ection of t he implement ation plan will only be necess ary for projects where t here is s ubst antial
buy in of ex pertise or capit al it ems. P rojects that do not involve a high level of proc urement
expenditure should simply indicat e t hat t his requirement is not applic able.
The P roc urement Plan should doc ument:
a) Policy deliverables to be procured by propos ed agreement or c ont ract etc.
b) Strategies for negotiating and managing agreements/c ont racts.
c) If t here is need for staged delivery and desirability of t esting the deliverables.
d) Whet her a purc has e-provider arrangement is being considered and if so:
timings for releas e of doc ument ation to t he public, t ender and c ontract finalis ation, c ont ract
the proc urement met hod (s pecific purpos e payments , ex pressions of int erest, request for
price/ quot e, request for tender);
the funding model (ie milestone payments);
supplier select ion proc esses s uch as tender evaluation and cont ract negotiation, and t ender
evaluation c rit eria; and
arrangements for ongoing c ont ract management including review and evaluation.
e) Probity issues should be c overed in t he Quality Ass urance s ection.
f) Where appropriat e, link als o with risk management, res ourc es, quality assuranc e and
stakeholder engagement sections.
Implementat ion Plan Guidelines 8
7. Risk Management
The risk management s ection is one of t he most import ant parts of an implement ation plan. By
underst anding t he potential risks which may affect the implementat ion of a policy measure, agenc ies
can reduc e the lik elihood or cons equenc e of unpleas ant s urpris es t hat may jeopardise t he
achievement of policy objectives. Risks may aris e as a c ons equence of:
changing circ umst anc es and new developments,
furt her refinement of project planning,
changes t o t he sc ope of the project, and
discuss ions/ negotiat ions wit h the client/stak eholder.
The design and implementation of t he risk management plan will be influenc ed by t he objectives of t he
policy and the governance arrangements wit hin eac h agency. Alt hough most agencies undertak e risk
management ex ercises assoc iat ed with policy implement ation, t here are differing levels of rigour wit h
which agencies undert ak e, oversight and doc ument risk ass essment and ass ociated s trat egies t o
To be effective, risk management needs t o be an ongoing and meaningful element in t he management
of the plan. The plan needs to do more t han a „tick and flick‟ ex ercis e at t he c ommenc ement of t he
project; it needs to identify who is res pons ible for reviewing risks on a regular bas is, and how t his will
Agencies s hould ens ure t hat risks t o achieving the desired policy outcome as well as risks t o the
success ful implement ation of the project are identified s eparat ely. This links back to t he two elements
of succ ess to be evaluated in the plan, viz t he succ ess of t he implementati on proc ess and t he succ ess
of the overall measure in terms of t he outcomes or impacts aimed for.
Most agencies have t heir own risk management framework in plac e wit h ass ociated t emplates. W here
this is t he c as e, these t emplat es should be used for t his s ect ion of the Plan. For those agencies
wit hout an existing framework further information and sample t emplat es can be found in the Guide t o
Preparing Implement ation P lans on t he CIU pages of the PM&C website.
Regul arly revi ew ri sk assessm ent
It is important t o ens ure risk management plans remains current and becomes a regular aspect of the
performanc e reporting and review of a project, wit h res ponsibility for partic ular risk mitigation activities
assigned to individuals who are acc ount able to t he programme or project owner.
Throughout t he c ours e of implement ation, risk identific ation s hould c ont inue to occ ur t o tak e account of
changing circ umst anc es s o the risk plan s hould identify who is res ponsible for its maint enance and at
what points it will be reviewed. F or ex ample, risks should be reviewed prior t o t he releas e of tender
doc umentat ion, prior t o formal approval t o proc eed t o implementat ion, and in conjunction wit h periodic
Note for Cross Portfoli o Mea sure s: The partic ular risks assoc iat ed with multiple agency involvement
should be reflected in the risk management st rategy.
Implementat ion Plan Guidelines 9
8. Stakeholder Management
The St akeholder E ngagement St rategy address es t he often vit al role of engaging, informing and
managing stak eholders in t he ac hievement of public policy. It seeks t o ens ure t hat k ey stak eholders
and t heir int erests are ident ified and st rategies are developed to engage t hem.
Where a st akeholder st rat egy includes a major c ommunic ations c ampaign t his s hould be reflect ed in
the sc ope and work break down st ruct ure of t he implement ation plan.
Stakeholders who must be cons ulted in order t o ens ure t he effective implementat ion and delivery of
the policy measure include, among others, thos e with prime c arriage of implementat ion and delivery
such as the delivery arms of port folio agencies or privat e s ector organisat ions where purchaser -
provider arrangements are planned.
There are t wo key st eps in developing a St ak eholder E ngagement Plan.
Step 1 – Identi fy key stakehol ders and their views
Identify t he people and organisat ions t hat may be able to s ignific antly influenc e the policy objective or
success of any of the phas es of t he meas ure.
Analyse t he positions (including values and ex pectations) of k ey stak eholders. Y ou may wish t o use
the diagram below to plot stak eholders by t heir level of influenc e and support for t he meas ure.
High influenc e
Step 2 – develop strategi es for engagi ng stak ehol ders
The next st ep is t o develop strat egies for engaging, informing and managing k ey stak eholders.
Consider the purpos e of communic ating with each st ak eholder. Is it t o:
Implementat ion Plan Guidelines 10
ask for feedback / input,
provide them wit h informat ion,
underst and t heir perspective, and
a) What c ommitment / input do y ou want from st akeholders and what mess ages do you need to
impart to t hem?
b) What nature and level of c ont act is nec ess ary ? Consider indirect and direct cont act, and if the
latt er, at what bureauc ratic level is contact most appropriat e? W ould the measure benefit f rom a
communic ations c ampaign? What t ools and/ or communicat ions activities (ie, news lett er,
websit e, public forums, briefings to t he Minist er) s hould be us ed?
The strat egy s hould mak e clear t he int ent and logic of c ons ult ation with k ey stak eholders. Thes e
should, of course, s upport t he ac hievement of policy objectives as st ated in t he sc ope st atement and
be adequat ely c osted in t he work break down st ruct ure.
Most agencies have t heir own st akeholder management and c ommunic ations framework in place wit h
associat ed t emplat es. Where t his is t he c as e, thes e templat es should be used for t his s ection of t he
Plan. For those agencies wit hout an existing framework, y ou may wish t o use s ome variant of t he plan
at Figure 5.
Figure 5 : Example of a stake holder ma nageme nt s trategy
Stakeholders The ir views in respect of Your stre ngths in Your vulnerabilities w ith
the polic y managing these views reference to these views
9. Quality Assurance
Quality ass urance means ass uring t he int egrity and probity of all proc esses undertak en to implement
the policy on t ime and on budget. It als o involves monit oring progress against milest ones and wit hin
a) List deliverables involving s ignific ant quality assuranc e proc esses s uch as management of
cont racts, stat utory report ing requirements, regulatory / legal / professional st andards,
Implementat ion Plan Guidelines 11
performanc e / ac hievement indic ator development, s urvey design, res earc h met hodology and
technic al s pecificat ions.
b) Where appropriat e link t o agency -bas ed audit, probity and risk management res ourc es, Chief
Execut ive Instructions, relevant legislation and mandated standards eg t he FMA Act.
c) Where appropriat e identify ext ernal QA process es t hat may assist or whic h are mandatory, s uch
as internal or external Gateway review pr oc esses.
d) This s ection s hould als o include a descript ion of who will be res ponsible for ensuring t he quality
of partic ular deliverables, inc luding management of risk.
e) Also ens ure links wit h other sect ions of the Plan, where appropriat e, suc h as resources,
cont racting and proc urement, sc ope (governanc e) and funding.
Implementat ion Plan Guidelines 12