## vitara003ea

## Source details

**Canonical URL:** [vitara003ea](https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/publications/manuals-and-guides/2024/english/vitara003ea.pdf)

## Other formats

- [Markdown version](/-/media/files/publications/manuals-and-guides/2024/english/vitara003ea.pdf.md)
- [Structured JSON version](/-/media/files/publications/manuals-and-guides/2024/english/vitara003ea.pdf.json)

---

### Program and Project Planning
- Use proven processes, methods, and tools; RPMU acts as guardian of approved processes, methodologies, and tools.
- Choice of planning tool determined by cost, project complexity, and existing software; third parties may have preferred tools.
- Gantt chart features:
  - Activities to be completed (usually as shaded bars)
  - Milestones (as colored markers)
  - Dependencies between tasks (usually as lines linking task bars)
  - Identifies the critical path — the longest sequence of activities that must be completed on time; slippage on the critical path cannot be recovered and requires close monitoring.
- Definitions preserved:
  - A reform project: time-bound work activity delivering a specific product or service; defined start and finish date; documented scope; managed by a dedicated project manager; governed through the reform program.
  - A reform program: set of multiple related reform projects to be completed within a three-to-five-year time frame to achieve a tax administration’s strategic/reform goals; governed by a reform steering committee and managed by a reform program head supported by a reform program management unit.
  - Reform program head: member of the executive leadership team with authority and accountability to ensure smooth running and realization of the reform program.
  - Reform program management unit (RPMU): supports the reform program head with governance and management of the entire reform program to ensure adherence to goals, objectives, scope, timelines, priorities, sequencing, budgets, and quality standards.
- PID (Project Initiation Document) sets out project objectives, scope, deliverables, benefits, budget, change control process, risks, approach, quality assurance requirements, stakeholder engagement, dependencies, and human resources; level of detail varies by project size.

### Monitoring and Reporting Progress
- Monitoring and reporting occur at both project level and program level; they are key governance elements.
- Project-level expectations:
  - Project managers must review project reports from team leaders on a weekly basis.
  - Monthly reports must be submitted to the RPMU.
  - Escalate significant issues to the reform program head immediately rather than waiting for the monthly report.
  - Predetermined deadlines for submitting reports to the RPMU should be established.
  - Project managers responsible for delivering objectives within approved time, budget, quality, and scope constraints.
- Program-level expectations:
  - Reform program head reviews project reports on at least a monthly basis.
  - RPMU collates reports into an overall monthly executive dashboard and prepares agenda and papers for steering committee meetings.
  - Reform steering committee meets at least monthly, reviews executive dashboard, makes decisions as requested, provides guidance, is accountable for overall reform progress, resolves issues requiring agency-wide or ministerial impact, and updates Minister as needed.
- Executive dashboard features:
  - Records status of each project using color coding and a concise summary (two or three sentences) of issues or highlights.
  - Ideally prepared by “cutting and pasting” relevant sections from the standard project report submitted to the RPMU.
  - Example status legend entries:
    - "Project is behind schedule with major variances and has issues that require immediate goverance attention"
    - "Project is on schedule and has some issues that are under management, but if unresolved could impact delivery of the action by due date"
    - "Project is on schedule to achieve the outcome by the delivery date"
    - "Project not started—comment section would indicate planned start date"
    - "Project completed"

### Managing Program and Project Risks
- Reform project risk: an event that, if it occurs, will prevent a project’s objectives (and therefore the reform program’s objectives) from being met.
- Risk management steps (Figure 1.5): STEP 1 Identify; STEP 2 Record; STEP 3 Assess; STEP 4 Assign; STEP 5 Mitigate; STEP 6 Monitor.
- Step details:
  - Step 1. Identify the risks: begins during planning and continues throughout the reform program; program risks identified by RPMU and reform program head; project risks identified by project manager.
  - Step 2. Record the risks: maintain a Risk Register for each reform project and reform-wide risks by the RPMU.
  - Step 3. Assess the risks: assess consequence and likelihood using the risk matrix; red/amber/green ratings meaning:
    - G: Indicates that this risk is well managed and/or is at a generally acceptable level or that it must be accepted (e.g., the cost of further treatment would be too high)
    - A: Indicates a serious, unacceptable level of risk that requires immediate attention and escalation to the reform steering committee
    - R: Indicates that further action is required to manage the risk to an acceptable level
    - Likelihood axis labels: Almost Certain, Likely, Possible, Unlikely, Rare
    - Impact axis labels: Minimal, Minor, Moderate, Significant, Severe
  - Step 4. Assign ownership of the risks:
    - Green → Project Manager
    - Amber → Reform Program Head
    - Red → Reform Steering Committee
    - Amber- and red-rated project risks must be escalated to the reform program head; reform program head takes red-rated risks to the reform steering committee; tax administration head is kept informed of all serious risks.
  - Step 5. Mitigate the risks: Risk Owner decides mitigation actions and records them in the Risk Register, including description and accountability.
  - Step 6. Monitor mitigation actions: Risk Owners monitor mitigating actions to ensure risks are properly dealt with.

### Managing Changes to Approved Plans (Change Control)
- All material changes to a project’s approved scope, budget, timeline, or quality standards must be approved by the reform program head or reform steering committee through a disciplined change control process.
- Change Control Process steps (Figure 1.7): STEP 1 Identify changes; STEP 2 Record; STEP 3 Assess; STEP 4 Prioritize; STEP 5 Authorize.
- Step details:
  - Step 1. Identify possible changes: project staff must bring possible changes to the attention of the project manager at the earliest opportunity.
  - Step 2. Record changes: document all proposed changes in a Change Control Register.
  - Step 3. Assess changes: project manager assesses impact on project time, cost, human resources, quality, scope, and expected benefits; RPMU assesses impact on overall reform program and advises reform program head and steering committee of program-wide impacts.
  - Step 4. Prioritize changes: project manager rates proposed changes as:
    - Essential — “must have” because the end product will not be achieved without it
    - Important — without the change, implementation will be suboptimal; implementation could proceed with a workaround
    - Discretionary — “nice to have” and not essential
  - Step 5. Authorize changes: changes impacting project constraints as approved in the PID must be referred to the reform program head; changes with material effect on the business case underpinning the approved reform program must be escalated to the steering committee.
  - Where approval is given, record decision in the Change Control Register and amend reform and project plans.

### Resolving Issues and Issue Management Process
- “Issues” defined as unanticipated events or conditions that have already happened and are currently having a negative impact on project objectives.
- Examples of issues:
  - Differences of opinion about product design and implementation strategies
  - Unexpected changes in the environment
  - Unintended consequences arising from incorrect planning assumptions
  - Problems with suppliers due to differences in interpretation of requirements specified in supplier contracts
- Six-step Issue Management Process:
  - STEP 1: Identify issue
  - STEP 2: Record in Issues Register
  - STEP 3: Assess
  - STEP 4: Prioritize and assign
  - STEP 5: Escalate
  - STEP 6: Resolve
- Key operational expectations:
  - Identify and bring issues to the attention of the project manager, reform program head, and steering committee early.
  - Escalate to the appropriate decision maker without delay.
  - Resolve quickly.
- Issues Register: required records and purpose
  - Purpose: provide an audit trail from identification through to resolution.
  - Typical information recorded:
    - Issue type—including technical, business process design, and resources
    - Date identified, and by whom
    - Description—details of what has happened, its potential impact, and options to resolve it
    - Priority—including ratings of High, Medium, Low
      - High (where impact has potential to stop the project)
      - Medium (where impact is noticeable but will not stop the project)
      - Low (where the impact does not affect activities on the critical path)
    - Responsibility—person responsible for getting the issue resolved
    - Target resolution date
    - Status—stage in the resolution process (e.g., identified, assessed, escalated, and resolved)
    - Final decision—what was decided to resolve the issue
  - Creation methods: manually via spreadsheet, purchased software, or free templates.

### Resourcing the Reform Program — Overview and Budget Management
- High-level cost estimation:
  - A high-level cost estimate is prepared during reform program development.
  - Detailed costing for each project is reviewed during PID development as part of formal project approval steps.
- Types of Reform Program Costs (Figure 2.2):
  - Direct project costs: Salaries for project managers and staff; Hardware and software; External contractor costs; Costs for program monitoring and reporting (reform program management unit)
  - Indirect project costs: Accommodation and equipment; Travel; Program assurance and reviews
  - Contingency:
    - Projects rarely go to plan so make an allowance to cover change, risk, or uncertainty in cost estimation
    - Generally, a percentage (5–10%) of total direct and indirect costs
- Typical funding sources:
  - A specific government allocation from central reserves based on the business case submitted by the revenue agency
  - A donor agency loan or grant to the government following negotiations between the government and the donor agency
  - An investment decision by the tax administration to allocate funding to the reform program
- Accountability: prudent management and accountability to government—and, where applicable, donors—are critical.

### Detailed Costing Scenarios and Contingency Guidance
- After detailed costing, three scenarios (Figure 2.3):
  - Detailed costing is less than estimates:
    - The program can proceed.
    - If allocated funds are materially above the estimates, then adjusting the budget should be considered.
  - Detailed costing equals estimates:
    - The program can proceed.
  - Detailed costing is greater than the estimates:
    - Action is required before the program can proceed.
    - Review scope and identify projects or elements to reduce or cancel without impacting reform goals and business case.
    - If not possible, seek additional funding from the same or different source.
- Roles:
  - RPMU establishes the applicable scenario and informs the reform program head and reform steering committee.
- Contingency notes:
  - The estimate amount is the estimate before the contingency allowance.
  - The original contingency provision can be used to offset a need to seek further allocated funds.
  - A contingency should still be maintained throughout the life of the reform program.
  - The level of the contingency (expressed as a percentage of total cost) may be reduced as more detailed costing reduces some risk or uncertainty.

### Planned vs Actual Costs, Burn Rate, and Knock-on Effects
- Definitions (Figure 2.4):
  - Planned Program Expenditure: The final approved expenditure authorized for the reform program, broken down by time period and project.
  - Actual Program Expenditure: Actual expenditure reported to the reform program management unit.
- Burn rate monitoring:
  - If burn rate is less than expected: indicates underspending (either cost overestimated or insufficient resources engaged) which could impact delivery.
  - If burn rate is greater than expected: indicates overspending (either cost underestimated or more resources engaged) which could impact overall program/project cost.
  - Monitoring the burn rate is critical to governance and management; failure to monitor can result in a shortfall of funds to finish the project and program schedule.
- Knock-on effect example:
  - Reform program comprises 8 key projects.
  - Project 1 overspends and is behind schedule; detected too late.
  - Projects 4 and 7 depend on Project 1; delays cause additional costs for Projects 4 and 7.
  - Project 6 depends on Project 4; delays cascade to Project 6.
  - Figure 2.5: Cost Overrun Scenario elements:
    - Project 1: Cost impact calculated as $A1.
    - Projects 4 and 7: Cost impact calculated as $B4 + $B7.
    - Project 6: Cost impact calculated as $C6.
    - Result: Additional cost to the reform program is the sum of ($A1 + $B4 + $B7 + $C6), not just $A1.

### Resourcing Tensions and Managing Skill Shortages
- Competing demands:
  - Deliver current revenue goals and service standards (today’s business).
  - Build the future tax administration (tomorrow’s tax administration).
  - Demonstrate short-term, incremental improvements while medium- to longer-term developments proceed.
- Operational vs reform governance:
  - Operational activities: managed through “business as usual” arrangements.
  - Reform activities: led by the reform program head with a new organizational structure for the reform timeframe.
- Practices to manage skill shortages:
  - Maintain a resource register of key individuals and their skill sets within the RPMU.
  - Understand timing of projects’ demand for key skills to identify conflicts.
  - Move key staff between projects with clearly indicated “roll in” and “roll out” dates.
  - Be flexible; allow release of key staff from reform to operational areas when needed.
  - Agree at the executive level how to defuse tensions before they develop.
  - Leverage RPMU data (priorities, progress reporting, interdependencies) to manage demand.
  - Develop or identify additional people with in-demand skills or acquire external short-term staff to bridge gaps; coach other staff identified by in-demand staff.

### Executive Leadership Team (ELT) Role and Governance Arrangements
- ELT key roles during implementation:
  - Routinely assure the reform program is on track to deliver agreed benefits and outcomes.
  - Keep the minister informed of reform program progress.
  - Engage staff and stakeholders in the ongoing reform agenda.
  - Resolve tensions and make hard decisions to balance reform and operational delivery.
- Management expectations:
  - Tax administration head must build a team understanding both operational priorities and the importance of reform.
  - Two streams (operations and reform) governed and managed separately under the tax administration head.
- Figure 2.8 structure:
  - Governing body / Reform Steering Committee
  - Reform stream: Reform program management unit; Reform program head; Reform project managers
  - Operational stream: Executive functional lead; Functional managers
  - Planning and monitoring unit / Executive Leadership Team / Tax Administration Head / Secretariat/reporting and monitoring / Key management layer
- Practical arrangements:
  - In some agencies the reform steering committee and ELT are the same group; in such cases ELT should meet separately with specific agendas for reform or operational leadership.
  - Ensure cross-divisional management irrespective of focus.

### Separating Reform Management from Operational Management and Integration Post-reform
- Risk: assigning reform responsibilities to managers also responsible for operations can push reform to the “back seat.”
- Guidance:
  - Establish clear roles and responsibilities between “running the business” and “changing the business.”
  - Maintain connection between the two streams to avoid becoming separate entities that lose sight of interconnections.
  - Note: once reforms are delivered, they become “business as usual.”
- Arrangements to cover operational roles while staff serve in reform roles:
  - Temporary or permanent filling of the position may be used; approach depends on length of time and human resource policy.
  - Upon return, staff will either return to their normal position (if this still exists) or be placed in an appropriate job; staff who developed new skills during reform may be placed in new roles.

### Change Management: Strategy and Delivery
- Change management definition:
  - Processes and actions to ensure staff, community, and key stakeholders are aware of, and prepared for, the changes delivered by reforms.
- Three key elements:
  - Leadership: Conveying and reinforcing the importance of the reforms.
  - Business Readiness: Preparing people in advance of the reform and helping guide them through the transition.
  - Communication and Consultation: Developing key messages and getting them delivered; listening and responding to staff and citizen reactions.
- Leadership expectations:
  - Visible advocacy, commitment, and determination by tax administration leaders are critical to sustain reform momentum.
- Business readiness activities:
  - Documenting new processes and procedures
  - Developing training material and conducting training programs
  - Providing “go live” support to staff and the community through help desk services
  - Monitor and evaluate readiness activities (through surveys and third-party assessments)
- Communication and consultation:
  - Provide information and explanations about why changes are being made.
  - Tailor reform rationale to different audiences.
  - Consult with participants to seek feedback on proposed changes.
  - Require a clear process for developing, approving, and releasing communications.
- Change management strategy:
  - Developed when reform program is being developed and approved; spans all stages of the reform program.
  - Use a roadmap summarizing goals, objectives, and timing to support stakeholder engagement.
  - Strategy dimensions include Stakeholder Management and Communication and Consultation Strategy.
- Delivery focus areas and example activities:
  - Organizational and structural issues (new units; job descriptions; accommodation and equipment)
  - Staff recruitment and allocation
  - Workforce plan and redeployment processes
  - Training (new curriculum, trials, delivery and logistics)
  - Operational changes (new work processes and supporting procedures)
  - Transitional management (phased or “big bang” approaches)
  - Test case scenarios for new systems and staff participation in testing
- Preparing participants:
  - Develop and repeatedly communicate the change story (what, why, when, how, who).
  - Early, repeated, and well-targeted communication is more effective than rational discussion at the point of emotional transition.
  - Actions: articulate need for change; manage doubts; provide training and “go live” support; involve people; dispel rumors; celebrate success.
- Key features and recommended practices:
  - Leadership, Planning, Governance, Information, Explanation, Certainty, Value, Opportunity, Settling-in period, Be prepared.
  - Provide clear, consistent, and regular information; explain why reform is necessary and benefits; tell staff what will happen to them; ensure time to become proficient; ensure capability to respond quickly to issues.

### Post-implementation Evaluation (CHAPTER 4)
- Purpose:
  - Evaluate whether reform objectives were met.
  - Determine how effectively the project (or program) was run.
  - Assess areas that worked well and could be improved to inform future delivery.
  - Ensure transparency and accountability for public funds.
- Timing:
  - Project evaluations: ideally as close to end of project as possible; two-phase approach recommended when immediate outcome assessment is premature:
    - First phase: at project conclusion; evaluates project management (time, scope, cost, quality) and documents lessons learned.
    - Second phase: assesses effectiveness in meeting reform goals after sufficient time has passed.
  - Program evaluations: undertaken at conclusion of the reform program; interim evaluation points may be beneficial.
- Focus areas and evaluation questions:
  - Project deliverables: scope, timeline, budget, risk management effectiveness, change management effectiveness.
  - Resources: correct allocation, sufficiency, accuracy of estimated costs.
  - Documentation: availability and usefulness of systems/process/procedure documents and the value of PID.
  - Usability: staff training and support, citizen access and e-service take-up, fitness of reporting systems.
  - Effectiveness and benefits realized: quality of deliverable, rework required, objectives achieved (generally evaluated on a scale of 1–5 with 1 being “not met” and 5 being “completely met”).
  - Lessons learned: what worked, what can be improved, what should be avoided.
- Participants and reporting:
  - Evaluation participants should represent delivery team, end users, program management support, operational executives, and reform program head; program evaluations should include ELT and tax administration head.
  - An evaluation group with a lead person and small team should be established; RPMU will provide documentation.
  - Reporting lines:
    - Project evaluation report submitted to the reform program head.
    - Program evaluation report submitted to the tax administration head via the reform program head; minister may also need to receive the report.
- Conduct and independence:
  - Evaluations should be constructive, objective, and often undertaken by an independent party (internal but not directly involved, another government agency, or an external consultancy).
  - Based on facts and documented material; avoid opinions, oppositional mindsets, or hearsay.

### Summary — Key Requirements and Recommendations
- Effective program management methods and tools:
  - Evaluate and select right processes, methods, and tools.
  - RPMU roles: consistent application of methodology; maintain view of program progress; manage risks; control changes to scope, budget, timelines, and quality; maintain an issue register.
  - Clarify RPMU versus project delivery staff roles.
- Resource management:
  - Focus on financial management; identify and act on variations between estimated and detailed costings and planned versus actual expenditure.
  - Identify and resolve resourcing tensions (balancing operational vs reform priorities; investment in nonreform change initiatives; competition for key resources).
  - Safeguard reform success through a separate dedicated management and governance framework.
- Change management:
  - Ensure staff, community, and stakeholders are prepared and supported.
  - Focus on Leadership, Business readiness, and Communication and consultation.
  - Develop a reform roadmap to prepare participants.
- Post-implementation evaluation:
  - Conduct evaluations at project and program level to assess benefits/outcomes and delivery effectiveness; use independent teams and document lessons learned.
- Final reminders:
  - Reform requires disciplined management, sustained support, commitment, and leadership by the head of the tax administration, ELT, and political masters.

*Source: CHAPTER 1. Program Management Methods and Tools; CHAPTER 4. Post-implementation Evaluation of the Reform Program, VIRTUAL TRAINING TO ADVANCE REVENUE ADMINISTRATION: Reference Guide — REFORM MANAGEMENT SPECIFIC TOPICS: MANAGING A REFORM PROGRAM.*

### CHAPTER 1.

### CHAPTER 1. Program Management Methods and Tools

### Program and Project Planning
- Use proven processes, methods, and tools; RPMU acts as guardian of approved processes, methodologies, and tools.
- Choice of planning tool is determined by cost, project complexity, and existing software; third parties may have preferred tools.
- Gantt chart: a bar-chart project schedule highlighting:
  - Activities to be completed (usually as shaded bars)
  - Milestones (as colored markers)
  - Dependencies between tasks (usually as lines linking task bars)
- Gantt charts identify the critical path — the longest sequence of activities that must be completed on time; slippage on the critical path cannot be recovered and requires close monitoring.
- Definitions preserved:
  - A reform project: time-bound work activity delivering a specific product or service; defined start and finish date; documented scope; managed by a dedicated project manager; governed through the reform program.
  - A reform program: set of multiple related reform projects to be completed within a three-to-five-year time frame to achieve a tax administration’s strategic/reform goals; governed by a reform steering committee and managed by a reform program head supported by a reform program management unit.
  - Reform program head: member of the executive leadership team with authority and accountability to ensure smooth running and realization of the reform program.
  - Reform program management unit (RPMU): supports the reform program head with governance and management of the entire reform program to ensure adherence to goals, objectives, scope, timelines, priorities, sequencing, budgets, and quality standards.

### Monitoring and Reporting Progress
- Monitoring and reporting occur at both project level and program level; they are key governance elements.
- Project level:
  - Project managers must review project reports from team leaders on a weekly basis.
  - Monthly reports must be submitted to the RPMU.
  - Escalate significant issues to the reform program head immediately rather than waiting for the monthly report.
  - Predetermined deadlines for submitting reports to the RPMU should be established.
  - Project managers responsible for delivering objectives within approved time, budget, quality, and scope constraints.
- Program level:
  - Reform program head reviews project reports on at least a monthly basis.
  - RPMU collates reports into an overall monthly executive dashboard and prepares agenda and papers for steering committee meetings.
  - Reform steering committee meets at least monthly, reviews executive dashboard, makes decisions as requested, provides guidance, and is accountable for overall reform progress; resolves issues requiring agency-wide or ministerial impact; updates Minister as needed.
- Executive dashboard features:
  - Records status of each project using color coding and a concise summary (two or three sentences) of issues or highlights.
  - Ideally prepared by “cutting and pasting” relevant sections from the standard project report submitted to the RPMU.
  - Example status legend entries preserved as source language:
    - "Project is behind schedule with major variances and has issues that require immediate goverance attention"
    - "Project is on schedule and has some issues that are under management, but if unresolved could impact delivery of the action by due date"
    - "Project is on schedule to achieve the outcome by the delivery date"
    - "Project not started—comment section would indicate planned start date"
    - "Project completed"

### Managing Program and Project Risks
- A reform project risk: an event that, if it occurs, will prevent a project’s objectives (and therefore the reform program’s objectives) from being met.
- Risk management steps (Figure 1.5): STEP 1 Identify; STEP 2 Record; STEP 3 Assess; STEP 4 Assign; STEP 5 Mitigate; STEP 6 Monitor.
- Step details:
  - Step 1. Identify the risks: begins during planning and continues throughout the reform program; program risks identified by RPMU and reform program head; project risks identified by project manager.
  - Step 2. Record the risks: maintain a Risk Register for each reform project and reform-wide risks by the RPMU. (Appendix 1 provides an example.)
  - Step 3. Assess the risks: assess consequence and likelihood using the risk matrix; red/amber/green ratings meaning:
    - G: Indicates that this risk is well managed and/or is at a generally acceptable level or that it must be accepted (e.g., the cost of further treatment would be too high)
    - A: Indicates a serious, unacceptable level of risk that requires immediate attention and escalation to the reform steering committee
    - R: Indicates that further action is required to manage the risk to an acceptable level
    - Likelihood axis preserved labels: Almost Certain, Likely, Possible, Unlikely, Rare
    - Impact axis preserved labels: Minimal, Minor, Moderate, Significant, Severe
  - Step 4. Assign ownership of the risks: appoint a Risk Owner based on traffic light rating:
    - Green → Project Manager
    - Amber → Reform Program Head
    - Red → Reform Steering Committee
    - Amber- and red-rated project risks must be escalated to the reform program head; reform program head takes red-rated risks to the reform steering committee; tax administration head is kept informed of all serious risks.
  - Step 5. Mitigate the risks: Risk Owner decides mitigation actions and records them in the Risk Register, including description and accountability.
  - Step 6. Monitor mitigation actions: Risk Owners monitor mitigating actions to ensure risks are properly dealt with.

### Managing Changes to Approved Plans
- All material changes to a project’s approved scope, budget, timeline, or quality standards must be approved by the reform program head or reform steering committee through a disciplined change control process.
- Change Control Process steps (Figure 1.7): STEP 1 Identify changes; STEP 2 Record; STEP 3 Assess; STEP 4 Prioritize; STEP 5 Authorize.
- Step details:
  - Step 1. Identify possible changes: project staff must bring possible changes to the attention of the project manager at the earliest opportunity.
  - Step 2. Record changes: document all proposed changes in a Change Control Register. (Appendix 2 provides a change control submission template and change control register.)
  - Step 3. Assess changes: project manager assesses impact on project time, cost, human resources, quality, scope, and expected benefits; RPMU assesses impact on overall reform program and advises reform program head and steering committee of program-wide impacts.
  - Step 4. Prioritize changes: project manager rates proposed changes as:
    - Essential — “must have” because the end product will not be achieved without it
    - Important — without the change, implementation will be suboptimal; implementation could proceed with a workaround
    - Discretionary — “nice to have” and not essential
  - Step 5. Authorize changes: changes impacting project constraints as approved in the Project Initiation Document (PID) must be referred to the reform program head; changes with material effect on the business case underpinning the approved reform program must be escalated to the steering committee.
  - Where approval is given, record decision in the Change Control Register and amend reform and project plans.
- PID defined: sets out project objectives, scope, deliverables, benefits, budget, change control process, risks, approach, quality assurance requirements, stakeholder engagement, dependencies, and human resources; level of detail varies by project size.

### Resolving Issues
- “Issues” defined as unanticipated events or conditions that have already happened and are currently having a negative impact on project objectives.
- Examples of issues:
  - Differences of opinion about product design and implementation strategies
  - Unexpected changes in the environment
  - Unintended consequences arising from incorrect planning assumptions
  - Problems with suppliers due to differences in interpretation of requirements specified in supplier contracts
- Issue management is a planned process for dealing with the unexpected and ensures that issues of a material nature are addressed by the project manager—and by the reform program head and steering committee where necessary—to prevent conflict, delays, costs, or failure to deliver expected products and outcomes.

*Source: CHAPTER 1. Program Management Methods and Tools, VITARA reference guide.*

### 1.   Identified and brought to the attention of the project manager, reform program head, and

### vitara003ea - 1.   Identified and brought to the attention of the project manager, reform program head, and

### Issue management process
- Six-step Issue Management Process:
  - STEP 1: Identify issue
  - STEP 2: Record in Issues Register
  - STEP 3: Assess
  - STEP 4: Prioritize and assign
  - STEP 5: Escalate
  - STEP 6: Resolve
- Key operational expectations:
  - Identify and bring issues to the attention of the project manager, reform program head, and steering committee early.
  - Escalate to the appropriate decision maker without delay.
  - Resolve quickly.

### Issues Register: required records and purpose
- Purpose: provide an audit trail from identification through to resolution.
- Typical information recorded:
  - Issue type—including technical, business process design, and resources
  - Date identified, and by whom
  - Description—details of what has happened, its potential impact, and options to resolve it
  - Priority—including ratings of:
    - High (where impact has potential to stop the project)
    - Medium (where impact is noticeable but will not stop the project)
    - Low (where the impact does not affect activities on the critical path)
  - Responsibility—person responsible for getting the issue resolved
  - Target resolution date
  - Status—stage in the resolution process (e.g., identified, assessed, escalated, and resolved)
  - Final decision—what was decided to resolve the issue
- Creation methods: manually via spreadsheet, purchased software, or free templates.
- Reference: An example template and issue register provided in Appendix 3.

### Resourcing the reform program — overview
- Chapter focus areas:
  - Reform budget management
  - Resourcing tensions
- High-level cost estimation:
  - A high-level cost estimate is prepared during reform program development.
  - Detailed costing for each project is reviewed during PID development as part of formal project approval steps.

### Reform budget management — key components and cost categories
- Differences examined:
  1. Differences between the high-level and more detailed program/project estimates (Figure 2.1)
  2. Differences between the planned and approved program/project costs and actual running costs (Figure 2.4)
- High-level costing: aggregated estimated costs associated with the program.
- Figure 2.2: Types of Reform Program Costs
  - Cost categories and examples:
    - Direct project costs: Salaries for project managers and staff; Hardware and software; External contractor costs; Costs for program monitoring and reporting (reform program management unit)
    - Indirect project costs: Accommodation and equipment; Travel; Program assurance and reviews
    - Contingency:
      - Projects rarely go to plan so make an allowance to cover change, risk, or uncertainty in cost estimation
      - Generally, a percentage (5–10%) of total direct and indirect costs
- Typical funding sources for approved reform program budget:
  - A specific government allocation from central reserves based on the business case submitted by the revenue agency
  - A donor agency loan or grant to the government following negotiations between the government and the donor agency
  - An investment decision by the tax administration to allocate funding to the reform program
- Accountability: prudent management and accountability to government—and, where applicable, donors—are critical.

### Detailed costing scenarios and contingency guidance
- After detailed costing, three scenarios (Figure 2.3):
  - Detailed costing is less than estimates:
    - The program can proceed.
    - If allocated funds are materially above the estimates, then adjusting the budget should be considered.
  - Detailed costing equals estimates:
    - The program can proceed.
  - Detailed costing is greater than the estimates:
    - Action is required before the program can proceed.
    - Review scope and identify projects or elements to reduce or cancel without impacting reform goals and business case.
    - If not possible, seek additional funding from the same or different source.
- Roles:
  - RPMU establishes the applicable scenario and informs the reform program head and reform steering committee.
- Contingency notes:
  - The estimate amount is the estimate before the contingency allowance.
  - The original contingency provision can be used to offset a need to seek further allocated funds.
  - A contingency should still be maintained throughout the life of the reform program.
  - The level of the contingency (expressed as a percentage of total cost) may be reduced as more detailed costing reduces some risk or uncertainty.

### Planned vs actual costs, burn rate, and knock-on effects
- Figure 2.4 definitions:
  - Planned Program Expenditure: The final approved expenditure authorized for the reform program, broken down by time period and project.
  - Actual Program Expenditure: Actual expenditure reported to the reform program management unit.
- Burn rate monitoring:
  - If burn rate is less than expected: indicates underspending (either cost overestimated or insufficient resources engaged) which could impact delivery.
  - If burn rate is greater than expected: indicates overspending (either cost underestimated or more resources engaged) which could impact overall program/project cost.
  - Monitoring the burn rate is critical to governance and management; failure to monitor can result in a shortfall of funds to finish the project and program schedule.
- Knock-on effect example:
  - Example: a reform program comprises 8 key projects.
  - Project 1 overspends and is behind schedule; detected too late.
  - Projects 4 and 7 depend on Project 1; delays cause additional costs for Projects 4 and 7.
  - Project 6 depends on Project 4; delays cascade to Project 6.
  - Figure 2.5: Cost Overrun Scenario elements:
    - Project 1: Cost impact calculated as $A1.
    - Projects 4 and 7: Cost impact calculated as $B4 + $B7.
    - Project 6: Cost impact calculated as $C6.
    - Result: Additional cost to the reform program is the sum of ($A1 + $B4 + $B7 + $C6), not just $A1.

### Resourcing tensions — balancing operations and reform
- Competing demands during reform:
  - Deliver current revenue goals and service standards (today’s business).
  - Build the future tax administration (tomorrow’s tax administration).
  - Demonstrate short-term, incremental improvements while medium- to longer-term developments proceed.
- Operational and reform governance:
  - Operational activities: managed through “business as usual” arrangements.
  - Reform activities: led by the reform program head with a new organizational structure for the reform timeframe.
- Critical continuities during reform implementation:
  - Operations must continue.
  - Services to taxpayers must not decline.
  - Revenues must be protected through enforcement and other responses.
  - Disruption to any of these risks political commitment and support for reform.

### Assessing nonreform (continuous improvement) system changes during reform
- Principle: Nonreform or continuous improvement changes should be excluded from the reform program, but exceptions exist when critical.
- ELT responsibilities: Be clear about cost, benefits, priority, and sequencing of nonreform initiatives.
- Figure 2.7: Assessment framework for nonreform system changes:
  - Initiative: Describe the IT system change or continuous improvement initiative proposed.
  - Priority ranking:
    - High—mandatory (e.g., legislative requirement)
    - Medium—critical for interim enhancements to progress modernization prior to reform delivery
    - Low—may be required but tax administration could survive using existing system until the reform program is delivered
  - Information technology or business unit capacity to deliver: Can initiative be delivered with existing resources and/or resource supplementation that can be funded?
  - Business value of implementation: Benefit in terms of revenue collection, increased compliance, improved taxpayer service, reduced manual effort, or strengthened management.
  - Risk to the reform program if implemented: Assess diversion of IT or business unit staff, or low impact if it does not divert staff from reform activities.

### Competing for key resources — practices to manage skill shortages
- Two manifestations:
  - Within the reform program: demand for a small number of subject matter experts during design, build, configuration, and test phases.
  - Across operations and reform: same key experts required for day-to-day operations and reform.
- Good practices:
  - Maintain a resource register of key individuals and their skill sets within the RPMU.
  - Understand timing of projects’ demand for key skills to identify conflicts.
  - Move key staff between projects with clearly indicated “roll in” and “roll out” dates.
  - Be flexible; allow release of key staff from reform to operational areas when needed.
  - Agree at the executive level how to defuse tensions before they develop.
  - Leverage RPMU data (priorities, progress reporting, interdependencies) to manage demand.
  - Develop or identify additional people with in-demand skills or acquire external short-term staff to bridge gaps; coach other staff identified by in-demand staff.

### Role of the Executive Leadership Team (ELT)
- Key roles during implementation:
  - Routinely assure the reform program is on track to deliver agreed benefits and outcomes.
  - Keep the minister informed of reform program progress.
  - Engage staff and stakeholders in the ongoing reform agenda.
  - Resolve tensions and make hard decisions to balance reform and operational delivery.
- Management expectations:
  - The tax administration head must build a team understanding both operational priorities and the importance of reform.
  - The two streams (operations and reform) will be governed and managed separately under the tax administration head.
- Figure 2.8: Management and governance arrangements:
  - Governing body / Reform Steering Committee
  - Reform stream:
    - Reform program management unit
    - Reform program head
    - Reform project managers
  - Operational stream:
    - Executive functional lead
    - Functional managers
  - Planning and monitoring unit / Executive Leadership Team / Tax Administration Head / Secretariat/reporting and monitoring / Key management layer
- Practical arrangements:
  - In some agencies the reform steering committee and ELT are the same group; in such cases ELT should meet separately with specific agendas for reform or operational leadership.
  - Ensure cross-divisional management irrespective of focus.

### Separating reform management from operational management
- Risk: assigning reform responsibilities to managers also responsible for operations can push reform to the “back seat.”
- Consequence: “here and now” pressures (collect revenue, process declarations, maintain service and enforcement) can crowd out reform work.
- Guidance:
  - Establish clear roles and responsibilities between “running the business” and “changing the business.”
  - Maintain connection between the two streams to avoid becoming separate entities that lose sight of interconnections.
  - Note: once reforms are delivered, they become “business as usual.”

### Integrating staff back into operational roles post-reform
- During the reform program:
  - Existing staff will be integrated into temporary reform roles; positions created for duration of the role.
- Resulting challenges (introduced but not completed in provided content):
  - The chapter indicates two further challenges related to integrating staff back into operational roles, to be addressed in subsequent text.

*Source: VIRTUAL TRAINING TO ADVANCE REVENUE ADMINISTRATION: Reference Guide — REFORM MANAGEMENT SPECIFIC TOPICS: MANAGING A REFORM PROGRAM — Resourcing the Reform Program*

### 1. Arrangements that are put in place to cover the staff member’s operational role: This

### vitara003ea - 1. Arrangements that are put in place to cover the staff member’s operational role: This

### Arrangements to cover operational roles
- Temporary or permanent filling of the position may be used; the approach depends on:
  - The length of time the staff member is needed for reform activities.
  - The tax administration human resource policy in this area.
- Placing staff back into day-to-day operational roles depends on human resource policy:
  - Staff will either return to their normal position (if this still exists) or be placed in an appropriate job within the tax administration.
  - Staff who have worked in delivery of the reforms may have developed new skills that should be utilized; placing these staff in new roles may be more appropriate than returning them to previous roles.

### What is change management?
- Change management refers to processes and actions to ensure staff, community, and key stakeholders are aware of, and prepared for, the changes delivered by reforms.
- Focus: help everyone impacted adapt to changes rather than risk alienation through unexplained shifts.
- Change management is about processes, activities, and sustained leadership commitment to prepare:
  - Staff (internal tax administration personnel)
  - Businesses/Citizens (taxpayers and businesses affected by new laws/systems)
  - Stakeholders (other government agencies, ministry, government bodies)

### Elements of change management
- Change management comprises three key elements:
  - Leadership: Conveying and reinforcing the importance of the reforms.
  - Business Readiness: Preparing people in advance of the reform and helping guide them through the transition.
  - Communication and Consultation: Developing key messages and getting them delivered; listening and responding to staff and citizen reactions.
- Effective change management must have all three elements to be successful.

### Leadership (role and expectations)
- Visible advocacy, commitment, and determination by tax administration leaders (head and executive leadership team) are critical to sustain reform momentum.
- Leadership that secured funding and approval must continue to sustain objectives through development and implementation.

### Business readiness (scope and activities)
- Business readiness ensures targeted participants:
  - Are prepared for changes before implementation.
  - Are supported during implementation.
  - Receive ongoing assistance following implementation.
- Managed through project management disciplines identical to other reform projects.
- Examples of business readiness activities:
  - Documenting new processes and procedures
  - Developing training material and conducting training programs
  - Providing “go live” support to staff and the community through help desk services
- Important to monitor and evaluate readiness activities (through surveys and third-party assessments).

### Communication and consultation (purpose and components)
- Objectives:
  - Provide information and explanations about why changes are being made.
  - Tailor reform rationale to different audiences within the tax system.
  - Consult with participants to seek feedback on proposed changes.
- Seeking and responding to feedback is vital for targeting and framing communications.
- Requires a clear process for developing, approving, and releasing communications.
- Communications must be targeted and consistent with overall reform program objectives.

### Change management strategy (overview)
- Strategy developed when reform program is being developed and approved; spans all stages of the reform program.
- Goals, objectives, and benefits in the business case and reform program should inform the strategy.
- A roadmap summarizing goals, objectives, and timing is valuable for stakeholder engagement and marketing the reform journey.
- Strategy dimensions include:
  - Stakeholder Management: identify stakeholders, assess interest and power, develop engagement plans.
  - Communication and Consultation Strategy: preferred channels, RPMU and communications group roles, authorization process, program vs project responsibilities, crisis management triggers, evaluation process.
- Testing new systems and interaction channels with staff and taxpayers during design aids implementation.

### Change management: delivery (focus areas and example activities)
- Change management is implemented through supporting (enabling) projects included in the reform program; each requires detailed project plans.
- Possible focus areas and example activities:
  - Organizational and structural issues:
    - Creation of new units and organizational structures
    - Determination of number, skill, and classification profile of staff
    - Development of new job descriptions and role statements
    - Securing accommodation and equipment (desks, chairs, computers)
  - Staff recruitment and allocation:
    - Assessment of changes to the recruitment process
    - Approvals and authority to recruit
    - Scheduling recruitment to align with new staff commencement
  - Workforce plan:
    - Development of the workforce plan to ensure workplace changes are implemented
    - Identification of changes to work location
    - Development of processes for redeployment of staff surplus to current requirements
  - Training:
    - Development of a new training curriculum
    - Understanding different training requirements for new versus existing staff
    - Development and trial of training course material
    - Delivery and logistics of the training
  - Operational changes:
    - Design of new work processes
    - Development of supporting work procedures
  - Transitional management:
    - Consideration of phased or “big bang” transition approaches
    - Assessment of how residual workloads in the old system will be finalized
  - Test case scenarios:
    - Development of test case scenarios for new systems based on system design
    - Arrangement for staff training in new processes and participation in testing

### Preparing key participants
- Staff, community, and stakeholders must be aware of changes well ahead of implementation; further support is required during transition.
- Develop and repeatedly communicate the change story (what, why, when, how, who).
- Early, repeated, and well-targeted communication is more effective than rational discussion at the point of emotional transition.
- Key actions to support participants include:
  - Articulate and communicate need for change.
  - Manage doubts and concerns.
  - Provide training and support; establish “go live” support processes.
  - Involve people in the process; dispel rumors; celebrate success.

### Key features of the change management process
- Core features: Leadership, Planning, Governance, Information, Explanation, Certainty, Value, Opportunity, Settling-in period, Be prepared.
- Recommended practices:
  - Provide a strong statement of direction with a persuasive argument for the reform.
  - Layer communication by audience (informative/instructional for management; aspirational for operative levels).
  - Identify likely impact groups and provide clear, tailored descriptions of timing and impact.
  - Describe how change is being managed to convey orderly progress and build confidence.
  - Provide clear, consistent, and regular information; actively counter rumors.
  - Explain why reform is necessary and why change benefits the tax administration and audiences.
  - Tell staff what will happen to them; build confidence through information and training.
  - Reinforce that base knowledge about taxpayers and the tax system will not be altered by reform.
  - Remind staff of their worth and raise awareness of opportunities (better jobs, careers, skills).
  - Ensure time for staff to become proficient with new processes, procedures, systems, and law.
  - Ensure capability to respond quickly to issues during development and implementation.
  - Recognize unresolved issues cause loss of confidence in the reform program.

*Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/publications/manuals-and-guides/2024/english/vitara003ea.pdf*

### CHAPTER 4.

### CHAPTER 4. Post-implementation Evaluation of the Reform Program

### Purpose and Importance of the Post-implementation Evaluation
- The post-implementation evaluation forms part of the overall reform program management process and is undertaken at both the individual project and the overall reform program level.
- Purpose of the post-implementation evaluation:
  - Evaluate whether the reform objectives were met.
  - Determine how effectively the project (or program) was run.
  - Assess the areas that worked well and that could be improved to inform future project or program delivery.
- Ensures transparency and accountability by the tax administration to the broader government and its citizens; assesses whether the individual project or overall program delivered what it set out to do and the effectiveness of the expenditure of public funds.
- During the three-to-five-year life of the reform program, post-implementation evaluations will be needed as each project is completed.
- The evaluation should be constructive and objective and is often undertaken by an independent party (internal but not directly involved, another government agency, or an external consultancy).
- Note: The post-implementation evaluation should be based on facts and documented material and should avoid opinions on the approach, mindsets that oppose reforms, or hearsay.

### What Should Be Evaluated? — Focus Areas and Questions
- Project deliverables:
  - Did the project deliver the agreed scope and objectives, within the approved timeline and within the approved budget?
  - How effective and useful was the risk management process—were all risks identified and did the mitigations prove effective?
  - How effective was the tax administration’s change management processes in getting stakeholders ready for the reforms (new products, services, and ways of working)?
- Resources:
  - Were the correct resources allocated to the project? Were there enough resources? Were the resource levels correct?
  - How accurate were the estimated costs?
- Level of documentation:
  - Have appropriate documents for systems, processes, and procedures been developed and made available?
  - Was there sufficient documented guidance for projects and other parties involved in the reform program?
  - Was all the documentation of value, particularly the Project Initiation Document (PID)?
- Usability of the new system and processes:
  - Have the staff of the tax administration been trained and supported in how to use the new system and execute the new business processes?
  - Can citizens easily access and use the new e-services and are the e-service take-up rates as expected (where delivered)?
  - Are the reporting systems fit for purpose?
- Effectiveness of the work done and benefits realized:
  - What was the quality of the deliverable? How much rework was required to deliver the project?
  - Were the objectives of the project achieved (generally evaluated on a scale of 1–5 with 1 being “not met” and 5 being “completely met”)?
- What lessons have been learned:
  - What worked well and should be done again?
  - What can be improved?
  - What should be avoided?

### Timing of the Post-implementation Evaluation
- Timing depends on whether the focus is a project or the overall reform program.

- Reform Projects:
  - Ideally conducted as close to the end of the project as possible, while still fresh in people’s minds.
  - Evaluation should be conducted over a short time frame—focused and not drawn out.
  - A two-phase approach is recommended when immediate outcome assessment is premature:
    - First phase:
      - Is conducted at the conclusion of the project
      - Evaluates the aspects of project management (time, scope, cost, and quality)
      - Documents the results along with lessons learned
    - Second phase:
      - Focuses on the effectiveness of the project in terms of meeting the reform goals and objectives related to the project; the timing for this should allow for sufficient time to have passed to objectively assess whether this was achieved
  - Example: For new information technology systems, initial use may begin quickly, but several weeks or months may be required before intended outcomes can be assessed.

- Reform Program:
  - The reform program cannot be evaluated fully until the conclusion of the program.
  - Interim evaluation points can be beneficial depending on the breakdown of reform objectives and timing of their delivery.
  - Program evaluations cover the same content as project evaluations but focus on the entire reform program; benefits realization and outcomes may not be realized for some years, yet a program evaluation at conclusion provides understanding of efficiency and effectiveness.

### Who Should Be Involved and Reporting Lines
- Participants should be representative of:
  - Delivery team
  - End users
  - Program management support
  - Operational executives
  - Reform program head
- For program evaluations, include the executive leadership team and tax administration head.
- Figure 4.2 participant groups (indicates participation for project vs program evaluation):
  - Tax administration head (Program Evaluation)
  - Executive leadership team (Program Evaluation)
  - Reform program head (Project Evaluation, Program Evaluation)
  - Reform program management unit (Project Evaluation, Program Evaluation)
  - Key operational executives (Project Evaluation, Program Evaluation)
  - Operational managers (Project Evaluation)
  - Project manager (Project Evaluation)
  - Key project members (Project Evaluation)
  - Tax administration end users (representatives) (Project Evaluation)
  - Citizen or taxpayer representative (Project Evaluation)
  - Evaluation team (Project Evaluation, Program Evaluation)
- An evaluation group should be established with a lead person and a small team; the reform program management unit will provide documentation from its records.
- Reporting:
  - For post-implementation evaluations of projects, the evaluation report will be submitted to the reform program head.
  - For the program evaluation, the report will be submitted to the tax administration head via the reform program head.
  - In addition to the tax administration head, the minister responsible for the tax administration may need to receive the evaluation report.

### Summary — Key Requirements and Recommendations
- Successful reform program implementation requires:
  - Effective program management methods and tools:
    - Evaluate and select the right process, method, and tools to support program and project management.
    - Ensure the RPMU undertakes key roles: consistent application of agreed project management methodology; maintain view of program progress; manage risks; control changes to scope, budget, timelines, and quality; maintain an issue register.
    - Clarify roles of the RPMU versus project delivery staff; RPMU is guardian of the reform program overall and custodian of approved methods and processes.
  - Resource management:
    - Focus on financial management; identify and action variations between estimated and detailed costings and planned versus actual expenditure.
    - Identify and resolve resourcing tensions, including:
      - Balancing operational and reform priorities
      - Resolving the level of investment in nonreform change initiatives during reform programs
      - Competition for key resources
    - Safeguard reform success through a separate dedicated management and governance framework for the reform program; avoid delivering reform programs through existing operational governance and management arrangements.
  - Change Management:
    - Ensure staff, community, and stakeholders are prepared for and supported during changes.
    - Focus on three elements of change management:
      - Leadership
      - Business readiness
      - Communication and consultation
    - Develop a reform roadmap to provide a high-level view of the reform program and help prepare key participants.
  - Post-implementation evaluation:
    - Conduct evaluations at both the project and program level to:
      - Evaluate whether the benefits and outcomes have been achieved
      - Assess how effectively benefits and outcomes were delivered
      - Identify lessons learned for future reform programs or projects
    - Ensure evaluations are objective and conducted by an independent team who assess outcomes against documented goals and objectives.
    - Complete an evaluation at the end of the project or reform program while it is fresh in participants’ minds; in some cases, a second phase is necessary.

- Additional reminders:
  - Reform is tricky and requires disciplined management; cannot cut corners or tackle reform without the elements set out in this reference guide.
  - Successful reforms require sustained support, commitment, and leadership by the head of the tax administration, executive leadership team, and political masters.

### Appendices (selected templates and registers)
- Appendix 1. Example of a Risk Register:
  - Fields include Risk Identification Number, Description of Risk (NA “newspaper headline” style statement), Impact on Project, Assessment of Likelihood, Assessment of Seriousness, Grade (Combined Likelihood and Seriousness), Mitigation Actions (Preventive or Contingency), Responsibility for Mitigation Action(s).
- Appendix 2. Change Control Submission Template and Change Control Register:
  - Change Control Submission fields: Change Control Submission<insert date>, Project manager<Insert name of project manager>, Project title/reference number<Insert project title and if available the project reference number>, Description of the request, Reason for the change, Impact analysis (Project, Reform Program).
  - Change Control Register fields: Date, Project Change Request, Priority (Essential/important/discretionary), Decision (Approved/not approved), Decision maker or decision body and date of decision.
- Appendix 3. Program/Project Plan Issue Resolution Template and Issue Register:
  - Issue resolution template: Issue, Options (no less than two and no more than four), Recommendation.
  - Issue Register fields: Issue Reference Number, Issue Type, Date Identified/by Whom, Issue Description, Priority (High/Medium/Low), Responsibility, Target Date to Resolve, Status (Identified/Assessed/Escalated/Finalized), Final Decision.

*Source: vitara003ea - CHAPTER 4.*

---


_Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/publications/manuals-and-guides/2024/english/vitara003ea.pdf_