2.3. Conclusions and suggestions

Analysis of goal-setting and project management principles in the Russian Federation in comparison with international experiences suggests the following conclusions and recommendations.

а) Strategic goals and priorities definition, role of project principle in strategic planning

One of the main problems of the Russian strategic planning system is a great deal of documents that determine priorities, but these sets of priorities often appears to be ill-coordinated or even inconsistent with each other. In this vein, New Zealand’s experience is a very useful example to follow. It might be useful to set a framework of agreement which would guide the subsequent budget process and proof it against late runs. Each Ministry should be involved in the process of main priorities setting. The main purpose of elaborating a strategy should not be writing hundreds of pages of priority lists and detailed plans. As New Zealand experience says ‘The idea was that strategizing occurs through a stream of decisions by a range of players over a period of time as the future unfolds’. And this is of high importance. Strategies should be flexible; decisions on changes in priorities should be implemented immediately. And priority projects is a great mechanism to follow this stream of innovations, political decisions, and other external shocks.

Every involved actor should be aware of the same strategic priorities, government policy should be coherent, the strategic conversation among ministers and administrators should be conducted in compliance with adopted strategy, otherwise the link between strategy and implementation will be lost.

b) Priority projects initiation, projects analysis and selection, portfolio formation

In current Russian practice the mechanisms of priority projects pre-initiation analysis, their selection and analysis are poorly developed. Established system lacks something like Project Validation Review (PRV) in the UK, which enters the scene at an early stage and prior to entry onto the Government’s Major Project Portfolio (GMPP). This stage helps to distinguish major projects from ordinary one, evaluate risks and resource requirements before project implementation.

Project Validation Review works with Departments to identify major new initiatives which could benefit from a PVR review, helps departments identify delivery issues, advices how to launch the new idea further in operational decision-making and how to deal with stakeholders in some concrete spheres; identify risks much earlier in the policy development process before transition to a project or programme, and so help prevent the common causes of project failure.

c) Projects implementation, analysis and assessment of project and strategy implementation

Norway experience gives another good idea of two gateways: first stage focuses on the rationale of the project. It covers the early choice of concept and strategy, and the decision to initiate project pre-planning, using a compulsory dossier of four documents, and looking at many alternatives. The second stage considers the decision to finance the project, looking at one alternative only, and controlling the Project Management Plan, with several sub-documents and a focus on cost.

The UK’s experience demonstrates the great role given to the National Audit Office (NAO) in projects further evaluation. The key thing is that NAO not only defines key problems and achievement, but also makes suggestions about how to make it better. It regularly reports to the parliament. In fact, the Accounts Chamber of the Russian Federation has similar functions, but its recommendations are not put into practice. This mechanism should be developed and strengthened.

d) administrative support of strategic planning

Canadian experience demonstrates a tool of strategic review. Strategic reviews asked fundamental questions about the programs: Are they efficient and effective? Are they still required? Do they align with government priorities? To assist ministers in assessing the impact of the cuts, independent experts were required to analyze and comment on review proposals. If answers are negative, budget of the program should be cut. Such kind of evaluation will help to maintain the declared purposes and achieve them. Above all, if project is inefficient because of the public-project managers, punishments should follow.

The practice of Canada in determining Key performance indicators by which each department’s performance in the areas (good management, including public service values, governance and strategic direction, people, citizen-focused service, learning, innovation and change management, and risk management) is assessed annually, looks very attractive. It is good tool to follow progress and failures. Probably in this case some ratings of ministries, ministers, best project managers and other mechanisms could be implemented in order to maintain motivation of civil servants to do their best.

Besides, in order to make interdepartmental work more harmonized, coherent and consistent it is worth publishing something like the Green book in the UK.