by admin

Training Outcomes: Do you just want a certificate after your course or a deeper grasp of how to apply the knowledge gained?

With the growth of CBT and online courses, plus the entry of new players in the market driving the fees down, has PRINCE2 finally achieved ‘commodity’ status? You can register for an online training course, tick and flick your way through the materials, then take your voucher to APMG and sit the exam. If your CBT ATO offers exam ordering, you can even take your exam online now: a complete certification without leaving your home.

And at a bargain basement price. The “Stack them high and sell them low” mentality is taking over PRINCE2 and related products.

But at what cost to the “value” of the certification? Sure, over one million exams have been taken in PRINCE2 and we are still seeing exponential growth. But until recently, most of them were in face-to-face, classroom led, experienced practitioner/trainer supported and workshop assisted. Can you really understand Product-based planning by clicking through the CBT slides and taking some practice questions?

Whoa, back up there. Who said anything about “understanding?” I just need the certification!

It’s a challenge. I have just reviewed two CBT packages and frankly, they leave me cold. Sure, you can learn the principles, themes and processes by rote and take lots of practice exams so you get an online pass. But does that really prepare you to use the method in a real project?

For me, the problem is about “Value vs Cost”. Our vision statement is “Changing the world … one project manager at a time”. Sorry, a CBT pass without understanding is not a world-changing experience. How does it add value to the method with large numbers of people getting certified without a depth of understanding?

But if that’s what you want, we’re not going down to the beach with King Canute. You can’t stop the tide. In 2013, we will offer a two-stream approach.

You want a CBT, low cost, quickie course for instant certification? We’ll sell you one. No blame, no shame, it is what it is. We’ll give you a “click here” opportunity to become instantly certified to foundation level (just add water and stir).

But if you want Quality, well folks, that still comes at a Cost. We will take you through a facilitated journey of discovery and understanding. We will put you with a group of like-minded seekers of truth and provide rich interaction and extensive workshops to tease out a greater understanding of the method.

We’ll use humour, insights, experience, wisdom and knowledge. We’ll support you, encourage you and guide you. We’ll provide excellent trainers, facilities, materials, meals and a learning environment. That’s the Yellowhouse experience. But it will cost you more. Not that our fees are going up – they have been flat-lining for three years with downward pressure from CBT and new entrants to the market. Welcome to the real world.

With Yellowhouse, you get what you pay for. You choose. Select “Quality” and we’ll put you through to an Operator; select “Cost” and yes, we will provide a CBT service at a cheaper price.

We are not opposed to CBT and online learning – it is a growing field. It’s just that some things can only be learned by interactive learning. CBT is like watching a cooking show on TV – unless you can actually taste the food, you don’t really know how good it is.

 

PRINCE2®, MSP®, MoP®, P3O®, P3M3® and ITIL® are Registered Trade Marks of the Cabinet Office; The Swirl logo™ is a Trade Mark of the Cabinet Office; Yellowhouse is an APMG Accredited Training Organization and an Accredited Consulting Organization

Share
by admin

MSP® surprise #3: MSP shortcomings in transition management

The third surprise, embedded in the MSP 2007 Guide and not resolved in the MSP 2011 Guide (despite my earnest attempts to contribute to a change in this area as part of the MSP review process) is that MSP is largely silent or vague about the ‘how’ of transition management. Everyone talks about it, but most people have no idea how to do it.

In MSP 2011 there are about 42 references to transition plan and transition planning. But there is no Transition Plan. This was one of my recommended changes to the guidance. Why not have a transition plan as we reference the ‘document’ so many times, and assign some responsibility to developing, maintaining and actioning the plan. But it is all a bit vague. For example, we can find references to the transition plan or to planning transition throughout the Governance themes and the Transformational flow chapters.

In Appendix A, there are three Information Baseline grouping in MSP 2011 (Boundary, Governance and Programme) and there are 28 documents covered with 6 plans in the Programme section. But there is no Transition Plan in Appendix A. This needs to be addressed in the next version, along with clarification of the difference between the Business Change role and the Business Benefits Role. Let’s go deeper. There are similar bullet-pointed references to the transition activities in the Programme Plan and the Benefit Realization Plan. In essence, MSP has a ‘bob each way’ on where transition belongs, without defining that the BCM owns the transition plan.

The Programme Plan, produced and managed by the Programme Manager, contains a bullet point about transition planning under typical content:

  • Transition planning information and schedules[1]

The Benefits Realization Plan, produced and managed by the Business Change Manager, contains a bullet point about transition planning under typical content:

  • Details of transition schedules”[2]

In Managing the Tranches, we read about the Transition plans, but there is no reference to the Producer, Reviewer or Approver, as there is for the other 28 documents included in the information baseline documentation.

Transition plans prepared earlier in the tranche will be activated when the project outputs have been combined and tested, the capability is ready for transition and operations is ready to use them, changing their ways of working.[3]

OK, but how are they prepared, and by whom and where is an Appendix A reference?

In the Chapter 9, Planning and Control, in the first of two almost identical sections on transition (the other being Chapter 18, Managing the Benefits, there is a reference to the Programme Manager and the BCM working together around transition.

The programme manager and business change managers (BCMs) work closely together to manage all aspects of transition.[4]

While this is a good reference in terms of aligning the responsibilities for project delivery, transition management and benefits management, there is a lack of clarity around the specific responsibilities.

In Chapter 18, there is some more specific reference to the transition plan under the heading of “Initiate transition”.

As the projects approach completion, the relevant business operations need to be prepared for implementing the outputs from the projects. The transition plan is reviewed and updated to reflect the activities of transition. These activities need to be managed into the business environment, ensuring successful take-up of the new capability while maintaining the appropriate level of business as usual.[5]

While the BCM is responsible for “Initiate transition”, the transition plan still doesn’t exist as an MSP document. Yet it is clear from the intention of the chapter and the assignment of the RACI chart that the BCM is responsible. We have clients who use quite detailed transition plan templates they have created themselves or modified to support the baton change from the delivery of project outputs through to achievement of outcomes and benefit realization.

This is Blog 4 in a series including:

http://yellowhouse.net/Blog/three-msp-surprises-related-to-business-change-management-and-benefits-management/#.UNe50m8zrMo

http://yellowhouse.net/Blog/msp-surprise-1-project-managers-dont-manage-transition/#.UNe42m8zrMo

http://yellowhouse.net/Blog/msp-surprise-2-business-change-managers-and-managing-benefits/#.UNe4l28zrMo

http://yellowhouse.net/Blog/msp-surprise-3-msp-shortcomings-in-transition-management/#.UNe4yG8zrMo

 

http://www.yellowhouse.net

[1] MSP® Guide 2011, Appendix A.4.17 Programme Plan, page 244

[2] MSP® Guide 2011, Appendix A.4.4.Benefits Realization Plan, page 238

[3] MSP® Guide 2011, 16.12, page 205

[4] MSP® Guide 2011, 9.3.7, page 116

[5] MSP® Guide 2011, 18.3.1, page 222

Share
by admin

MSP® surprise #2: Business Change Managers and managing benefits

At the cutting edge with senior management groups who are setting up MSP (Managing Successful Programmes) for the first time in their company or agency, getting champion support for the model is the first problem.

When management finds it hard to recognise the major benefits of implementing MSP to run a program, with the associated changes and challenges posed for governance and decision-making, projects and delivery mode, business involvement and ownership, the Cranfield benefits model and how to engage key business stakeholders in the end-to-end process.

Further, when senior managers and department heads realize when implementing MSP that “the business” is accountable for realizing and managing the benefits, they are often quite surprised. Remember, most people don’t know how to quantify a benefit, how to plan for benefits, how to cost a benefit against the cost of delivering the blueprint or the relationship between benefits and the business case (to justify the blueprint), benefits and the blueprint (the future state model), benefits and the programme plan (to build the blueprint), benefits and the business strategies.

I worked with a Programme SRO and Programme Manager to help set up an ICT Realignment Programme using MSP in a government agency. I supported them through the elements of the Program Definition, culminating in a Blueprint and Programme Plan with a “very draft” benefits approach. There was senior management involvement, but the consultancy ended before the finalisation of the Programme documentation.

About a year later, I was asked by the SRO to come in and brief the Business Change Managers as it was about a month before a Tranche “go live”. There were six BCMs invited plus the Programme Manager and the SRO. So I prepared a two hour workshop based around the BCM role and responsibilities and the MSP “Realizing the Benefits” chapter. I knew we were in for some fun when I received an e-mail from the SRO’s assistant the day before the session stating that all was in readiness, but some people were asking “What does BCM stand for?”

What indeed?

The fun part was when they saw the RACI chart and saw that the BCM was Responsible for everything in Transition. So the response was:

“How are we supposed to do all that and who’s going to pay for it?”

These are good questions in Defining a Programme, but not so helpful if not addressed until Realizing the Benefits. It was a late and unfortunate stakeholder engagement process, but the program could only succeed if the business owned the change, and the benefits.

So we need to teach them. There are some training opportunities with MSP courses, governance workshops, benefits planning workshops, benefits mapping exercises, writing benefits management strategies and consolidating benefits plans and helping the BCM to develop and understand Benefit Profiles aligned to the related projects and programme tranches. But it is all new to them and there is a high risk of failure on the business side of the equation.

The second part of the surprise in MSP is that “the business” is accountable for the Business Change. We are still a long way from the embedded understanding that the business owns the balance between “run the business – change the business” and it is a business decision to invest in a programme using MSP to transform that part of the organization from the current state to the future state, to the target operating model defined in a blueprint and delivered by project outputs, business changes new capability, outcomes in the business and the associated benefits aligned to business strategies.

So we train the business to understand and lead on Change Management. Not the big picture Organizational change approach, but ‘transition management’, moving the business with the outcomes from the projects towards the realization of benefits through a transformational change process, managed and owned business side by a BCM.

This is Blog 3 in a series including:

http://yellowhouse.net/Blog/three-msp-surprises-related-to-business-change-management-and-benefits-management/#.UNe50m8zrMo

http://yellowhouse.net/Blog/msp-surprise-1-project-managers-dont-manage-transition/#.UNe42m8zrMo

http://yellowhouse.net/Blog/msp-surprise-2-business-change-managers-and-managing-benefits/#.UNe4l28zrMo

http://yellowhouse.net/Blog/msp-surprise-3-msp-shortcomings-in-transition-management/#.UNe4yG8zrMo

 

http://www.yellowhouse.net

Share
by admin

MSP® surprise #1: project managers don’t manage transition

As an project manager with 20 years experience running projects with a “change role” reporting to the project manager, one of the biggest surprises I had when learning and applying MSP was that the project manager was now not responsible for transitioning the change into the business. This still comes as a surprise to many project managers when they come to understand the BCM role and review the Delivering Capability and Realizing Benefits chapters in “Managing Successful Programmes with MSP (2011)”. For most of them, it’s part of what they do as a project manager. And maybe they don’t do it that well. And maybe that’s not their fault.

Many of the people I train and consult to have difficulties with this concept. Traditionally, the project manager is appointed to deliver the project including the changes associated with this. After spending several years with MSP, I have developed a strong (supportive) view that “it’s all about the business” and that change and transition management belong to the business.

I have always been intrigued by the official research and statistics talking about IT project success rates. We recently saw a statistic that nearly 70% of IT projects fail in some way.

In virtually every case of failure, management fails to anticipate serious problems. Even in cases where challenges are likely, IT failure is too often considered business-as-usual, with executives throwing their figurative hands in the air, in surrender to chance or bad luck.

IT failures happen when managers exercise insufficient judgment, possess too little experience, hire the wrong people, ignore warning signs and, crucially, fail to involve affected employees in a way that eases the path to success.[1]

But the statistic needs to be clarified – what does project success mean? Is it the successful delivery of a solution or the successful transition of that solution into the business? We have all seen successful delivery ruined by poor business take up in the transition and the project gets the blame.

Although tempting to blame project managers for failure, we must point attention to senior executives for allowing the conditions for failure to exist in the first place. The underlying reasons fall into three categories:

1                 Unrealistic and mismatched expectations

2                 Conflicts of interest among customers, vendors and integrators

3                 Corporate organization structure that conspires toward failure[2]

I recently participated in a discussion forum by suggesting that project success and failure needs to be clarified. Does success mean that the time/cost/quality/scope elements were achieved within tolerance? That is, is the deliverable fit for purpose and did it come in on time and budget? From the IT or infrastructure project manager’s perspective, that is what matters. But often you cannot determine the value offered by a project until 12 months or more after completion. Just because something met the rules of the triple constraint doesn’t mean that the business gained a benefit. And why did we the business spend all this money anyway?

The question about project success is one for the business. In MSP, it can be asked because the Business Change Manager is a business-side role and the success should be measured by the business against a pre-agreed measure of the expected benefit.

This is Blog 2 in a series including:

http://yellowhouse.net/Blog/three-msp-surprises-related-to-business-change-management-and-benefits-management/#.UNe50m8zrMo

http://yellowhouse.net/Blog/msp-surprise-1-project-managers-dont-manage-transition/#.UNe42m8zrMo

http://yellowhouse.net/Blog/msp-surprise-2-business-change-managers-and-managing-benefits/#.UNe4l28zrMo

http://yellowhouse.net/Blog/msp-surprise-3-msp-shortcomings-in-transition-management/#.UNe4yG8zrMo

http://www.yellowhouse.net

[1] Michael Krigsman, ZD Net, April 2012. “Who’s accountable for IT failure?” Krigsman is CEO of consulting and research firm Asuret, is an international authority on IT success, social business transformation, and related CIO issues.

[2] Michael Krigsman, ZD Net, April 2012.

Share
by admin

Three MSP® surprises related to Business Change Management and Benefits Management

Managing Successful Programmes with MSP® - I began working with MSP in 2003 and became an MSP Advanced Practitioner in 2006, an MSP Trainer in 2007, then an MSP Registered Consultant in 2009. I have copies of each of the versions of the MSP Guide. Since first exploring MSP, I have been fascinated by the separation of the role and tasks of transition management from the project manager’s domain to the change manager’s domain. I have been further challenged in implementing MSP into client organizations with the dual BCM roles of transition management and benefits management.

To be honest. Most people don’t get it the first time. Some don’t get it the second time either. I have become used to people trying to short-cut the vision, the blueprint, the program plan, ignore benefits mapping and the benefits profile for the sake of making their lives easier, or so they mistakenly think.

The three following Blogs investigate the broad topic of Business Change Management and Benefits Management, with a specific focus on my experience with the MSP Cranfield model focused on the relationship between delivering a project output through the business change elements of transition management and benefit realization.

It is my understanding that a correct application of the intent and best practice application of programme transition management will improve programme performance and add value to a programme. The alternative view will be explored as well – that is a poor application of transition management will result in reduced value being ascribed to a programme.

I spend a lot of time exploring the impact of effective programme Transition management in the context of the changing roles of the Business Change Manager and the recommended introduction of the Benefits Manager role to the MSP Organization. My observations from practice have prompted me to suggest that we can add more value to a programme by separating the linked activities of “transition management” and “benefits management” into two roles; specifically, the Transition Manager and the Benefits Manager.

From practice and observation, it is clear that there can be too much weight applied to one key person in the Business Change Manager role within a complex programme if the transition activities and benefits activities are combined into the one role.

It is my recommendation that in some “transformational change” programmes, the separation of the change and transition elements of the BCM role from the benefit realization elements will contribute to a better achievement of the end goal of a programme. Both elements are dependent on maintaining the focus on outputs (the projects), the change (pre-transition; transition; post-transition) and the benefits (benefit mapping, benefit plans, benefits profiles) and this has proven to be one of the biggest pain points in fostering effective application of the MSP framework.

There are three big surprises in the way MSP deals with transition and benefits management. The next 3 Blogs cover these:

http://yellowhouse.net/Blog/msp-surprise-1-project-managers-dont-manage-transition/#.UNe42m8zrMo

http://yellowhouse.net/Blog/msp-surprise-2-business-change-managers-and-managing-benefits/#.UNe4l28zrMo

http://yellowhouse.net/Blog/msp-surprise-3-msp-shortcomings-in-transition-management/#.UNe4yG8zrMo

Share
by admin

Getting Value for money in your training budget

We are all expected to deliver more with less and there is an increased focus on getting value for your training dollar.
Know the feeling?

Training is an easy target when budgets are cut, but management still wants to ensure their projects are run well and deliver the benefits. Fact is, a more mature project environment will consistently deliver more value in terms of project completion, cost and scope creep. This is why it is important to get real value for money with your training dollar.

This doesn’t mean going with the cheapest option. And be careful with e-learning if you are shopping on price. If only 30% of your staff complete the course (it happens), it is more expensive per person and you will get less value for money.

  • Training Outcomes: Do you just get a certificate after a course or a deeper grasp of how to apply the methods?
  • Trainer Credentials: Are they accredited and qualified to deliver with a level of expertise?
  • Course Structure: can you tailor the course with your own projects as case studies or are you restricted to a scenario that is not related to your environment?
  • Experience: Do they understand the market and have experience with similar organisations? Does the training contribute to organizational capability and maturity?

The Yellowhouse experience

We have been working with PRINCE2® since 2000. We have used every update of PRINCE2 and MSP® and are in the top three companies in MoP™ (Management of Portfolios), MSP® (Managing Successful Programmes), PRINCE2® (Projects in a Controlled Environment), P3O® (Portfolio, Programme and Project Offices), M_o_R® (Risk Management) and Change Management™. We also deliver Agile Scrum courses, ITIL® Foundation and a three day Practical project management course. Our directors have contributed to the current PRINCE2 and MSP official guidance. We are PMP certified and have Masters Degrees in PM and/or Teaching degrees.

 Course options

We offer in-house courses, workshops, executive briefings and coaching that is tailored to match your needs. The Yellowhouse experience ensures an understanding and application of best management practice models in your working environment.

You can also save a significant amount of money compared to public courses. Save between $10,000 and $20,000 per course! Call us on +61 7 3343 4256 or email courses@yellowhouse.net

 Maturity Assessments

We are an APMG Accredited Consulting Organization and run P3M3® assessments to help baseline your maturity and develop a capability improvement roadmap. Your training needs can then be aligned with the capability you need.

 

PRINCE2®, MSP®, P3O®, P3M3® and ITIL® are Registered Trade Marks of the Cabinet Office; MoP™ and The Swirl logo™ are Trade Marks of the Cabinet Office; Yellowhouse is an APMG Accredited Training Organization and an Accredited Consulting Organization

Share
by admin

Capability improvement with the P3M3® maturity model

Most organizations do not understand what their level of maturity is in the P3RM arena; nor do they understand that improved capability and maturity can add value in terms of efficiencies and cost savings such as:

  • Reduction in the number of projects started for the wrong reasons (rogue projects)
  • Reduction in overall resource costs
  • Improvement in number of projects completed on time and cost
  • Better achievement of benefits
  • “Single source of truth” reporting
  • Improved Line of sight across programs and the portfolio
  • Better portfolio balance
  • Alignment of strategy to project delivery
  • Better prioritization of investment spend

A mix of the UK Government methods and frameworks in the ‘best managment practice’ suite can assist, guided by an APMG Registered Consultant.

The strategic adoption of P3O®, MoP™, P3M3®, MSP® and M_o_R® can assist an organization to achieve targeted improvement.

But first they need a baseline and a recognition that it can take about two years of consistent improvement effort before being able to bed down an improved maturity. Fortunately, some benefits will be seen in the short-term. A new or re-energized PMO should pay for itself in the first year, and continue to add value.

Yellowhouse is an APMG Accredited Consulting Organization (ACO) with experienced consultants in Portfolio, Programme add Project Management.

Registered Consultants have been assessed on their knowledge and experience in Portfolio, Program and Project Management. They are accredited by APMG-Australasia and fully conform to our standards.

Yellowhouse is accredited for the following Cabinet Office products

  • PRINCE2® Consulting (Project Management); MSP® Consulting (Program Management); P3M3® Maturity Model Assessment; P3O® Consulting (set up and manage a PMO); MoP™ Consulting (Portfolio Management); MoR® Consulting (Risk Management) and PPM Consulting (Project, Program and Portfolio Management)

Before we are accused of setting up a template and model smorgasbord, let me state that they are models only ans should be tailored and customised to your requirements and your environment.

P3M3

The Portfolio, Programme, and Project Management Maturity Model has become a key standard amongst maturity models, providing a framework with which organisations can assess their current performance and put capability maturity improvement plans in place. P3M3 provides a baseline for the maturity of an organization, its project management models, its people and its governance. P3M3 consultants work across seven key attributes at each level – portfolio, program and projects.

Management control, Risk management, Benefits management, Financial management, Stakeholder management, Resource management and Organizational governance.

Typically, a review can be done in 2 – 3 weeks with two consultants providing a comprehensive assessment to give you a performance baseline and a set of capability improvement roadmaps to guide the appropriate development of PMO, portfolio, program, project and risk management.

http://www.yellowhouse.net/content/view/52/115/

Share
by admin

Portfolio, Program and Project Best Practice Models for Organizational Capability Improvement

We work with companies and agencies that seek to develop a structured approach to project, program and portfolio management as aligned with business change.

We recognise that organizations struggle with the need to go through change to improve their business performance while still maintaining levels of service in a “business as usual” environment. There is a need for a structured approach to managing change, but there are few integrated models available to help.

Typically, when implementing change, a project-based approach is developed first, but companies find that projects on their own are not solving their business change needs.

How can we be sure we are doing the right projects? Which ones will add the most value? How can we set up a process to ensure we get the balance right?

As we develop more projects we find we a need more complex models for integrated program management that provide a balance between outputs, outcomes, benefits and business strategy.

But how can be be sure we are doing the projects right to produce the benefits needed?

There is a need to resolve the disconnect between what we want (strategy) and how we get it (delivery). There is an emerging recognition that a balanced approach to governance, strategy, resources, stakeholders, leadership, benefits and risk will go a long way to helping to address strategic change requirements while balancing the budget in difficult times.

There is a growing interest in Portfolio management from a project perspective. How do we get more juice from the lemon? How do we even know it is the right lemon to squeeze?

We would love to see a more strategic approach to integrating the best practice models. We recently completed three P3M3 Maturity assessments for government agencies. On the whole, after implementing PRINCE2 and MSP and building up capability in running PMOs and developing better methods and approaches, they were not bad.

The biggest issue was Program Management. And the biggest concern was understanding and managing benefits aligned to business change. A major concern was managing across projects and programs with a clear line of sight over critical resources. Recent government changes will make the task more difficult as everyone seems to be seeking to do more with less. Or the same with less as the case may be.

The problem is that building capability maturity across the frameworks takes time. And commitment. And an appreciation that adopting best practice models can add value as you develop maturity and improved capability.

http://www.yellowhouse.net/

 

Share
by admin

Risk taker or Risk manager? Apply MoR to your business and projects

There are risks everywhere you go. Driving to work? There’s a risk you will have an accident, so how do you protect yourself or your car? Transfer the risk to an insurance company. Sure, the insurance company will gain if you don’t have an accident, but its a small price to pay to have peace of mind.

Whenever I hire a car on business, I take the insurance. Small accident, $3,000 cost. For $25/day, I can reduce it to $300. Risk management. Whenever I book travel interstate or overseas, I use my Visa Gold card – built-in insurance protection. For any risk, you can analyse your options and decide whether you think you will be OK or not. You have a choice, so no complaints if the house burns down and you invested the insurance premium in other areas of your life.

I take out private health insurance. Sure, it costs more, but I get choices, and peace of mind. It comes down to whether in certain circumstances you are a risk-taker or a risk manager.

We teach Risk Management. We are helping businesses and government departments to define risk management policies and processes and adopt models to help assess risk (and opportunities) so they are able to survive and grow. MoR is a sound model aligned with ISO31000 and with international accreditation. We offer special rates here: http://www.yellowhouse.net/mor-offer.html

The official Management of Risk site: http://www.mor-officialsite.com/

Share
by admin

Setting up or refreshing your PMO?

In recent years we have seen a growth in the set up and development of the PMO, moving from a single project office providing some standards and support for project delivery, to complex integrated multi-disciplinary strategic portfolio or program offices.

At Yellowhouse, we have brought this together into a training and consulting model based on P3O® – Portfolio, Programme and Project Management Offices.

P3O is a decision enabling and delivery support structure for all change within an organization. This may be through a single permanent office eg, Portfolio Office, Centre of Excellence, Enterprise or Corporate Programme Office.

It may otherwise be provided through a linked set of permanent and temporary offices, providing a mix of services.

There has been no single source of information to provide guidance or advice on setting up or running an effective delivery support office.

P3O brings together in one place a set of principles, processes and techniques to facilitate effective portfolio, programme and project management through enablement, challenge and support structures.

Our courses are delivered in an entertaining and highly interactive manner with real life examples. There is a high degree of participation, examination preparation and practice. Our courses are intensive, but practically based. We have courses at the Hilton Hotel in Brisbane with a special offer here http://www.yellowhouse.net/p3o-offer.html

The official P3O site details are here http://www.p3o-officialsite.com/

Share