it management
TRANSCRIPT
The New IT Management Strategy:
FITS - Flexible Information Technology Tools and Strategies
Jennifer A. Potter
University College University of Denver
MOTM 4901: Capstone Project
August 13, 2006
____________________ Evans Meyhew
Capstone Advisor
____________________ Jason Wyrick
Academic Director, Masters of Technology Management
Upon the Recommendation of the Department
______________ James R. Davis
Dean
Potter-ii
Table of Contents
Abstract ___________________________________________________________________ 3
1. Introduction ______________________________________________________________ 4
2. Background – Literature Review_______________________________________________ 6 2.1 The 21st Century Information Technology Organization ______________________________________________________________ 6 2.2 IT Issues and Challenges _________________________________________________________________________________________ 8 2.3 Existing Solutions _______________________________________________________________________________________________ 9
3. The New Model – FITS _____________________________________________________ 12 3.1 Overview _____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 12 3.2 Deployment Scheme ____________________________________________________________________________________________ 16 3.3 Metrics Scheme________________________________________________________________________________________________ 21 3.4 Core Component – Flexible Prioritization __________________________________________________________________________ 25 3.5 Core Component – Agile Financial Management ____________________________________________________________________ 29 3.6 Core Component – Rapid Resource Deployment ____________________________________________________________________ 35 3.7 Core Component – Delivery Management __________________________________________________________________________ 39
5. Best Practice Tools ________________________________________________________ 44 5.0 Deployment Tools ______________________________________________________________________________________________ 45 5.1 Flexible Prioritization___________________________________________________________________________________________ 50 5.2 Rapid Resource Deployment _____________________________________________________________________________________ 56 5.3 Agile Financial Management_____________________________________________________________________________________ 60 5.4 Delivery Management __________________________________________________________________________________________ 65
Conclusion ________________________________________________________________ 69
Appendix 1 - Software Tool Vendors ____________________________________________ 70
Bibliography _______________________________________________________________ 74
Potter-3
Abstract
This capstone assesses the current hurdles faced by Chief Information Officers in meeting business
unit objectives and maximizing organizational efficiencies. A review of existing management structures
reveals operational gaps that are impacting CIOs’ ability to work efficiently and effectively. To resolve
shortcoming of existing models the Flexible Information Technology Tools and Strategies (FITS)
framework has been developed. FITS is a compilation of existing best practices and methods incorporated
into a unique rapid implementation framework. It is intended to provide IT organizations and their
executives with modular, simple, proven methods and tools for meeting their clients’ needs.
Potter-4
1. Introduction
The role of information technologies as a strategic component of most corporate and not-for-profit
entities is once again in a growth mode. US nominal IT spend between 2000 and 2001 dropped by 16% in
the aftermath of the internet collapse (Price & McKittrick, 2002). Yet the last 4 years have seen a
resurgence of IT investment with 16.7% growth of US IT budgets between 2002 and 2006, and some
industries increasing IT investment by more than 25%, see table 1.1 (Bartels, 2006).
Between 1977 and 2000 the application of information technologies in the US produced increased
productivity in 41 industries. An Economic Systems Research study published in 2003 determined that IT
capital input was the most important single factor impacting the US economic resurgence between 1995
and 2000 (Jorgenson, Ho and Stiroh, 2003).
Furthermore, it was a relatively large investment in
a concentrated few industries which drove that
economic growth. Those industries are the same
industries continuing to invest significant capital in
information technologies in the 21
st century.
Despite nearly three decades of financial
backing and focus on technology based solutions to meet organizational challenges, managing information
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Manufacturing $105 $94 $93 $100 $107 Retail & wholesale trade $38 $35 $36 $38 $41 Business services $162 $164 $171 $184 $200 Media, entertainment, & leisure $36 $32 $32 $34 $36 Utilities & telecommunications $31 $25 $27 $29 $30 Finance & insurance $108 $109 $116 $123 $135 Public sector $185 $184 $185 $192 $201 Total $665 $642 $660 $700 $749
TABLE 1.1 US Information Technology Spend in Billions
Potter-5
technologies continues to be a struggle for executive leaders. Based on a sampling in 2004, the annual
attrition rate for Chief Information Officers (CIOs) was 34%, making the average tenure of this executive
a mere 21 months, or less than 1/6 the average tenure of a CEO in that same year (Strassmann 2004, 1-
2). CIOs continue to miss corporate expectations on the management of information technology assets
and deliveries, resulting in higher than average executive turnover in this role.
Furthermore, there is little evidence that case-by-case business investment in IT has had a clear
correlation to increased corporate returns (Brynjolfsson and Hitt 2003, 3). CIOs are struggling to prove
and communicate their organizational effectiveness. In industries where information technology is
strategic to overall success, IT must be in lock step with the executive vision and strategy, and able to
demonstrate the value of the technology organization. Rapidly evolving industries require IT organizations
that are both agile and effective. Given the historic and recent investment trends in information
technologies, executives (particularly CIOs) must develop methods for quickly and effectively managing
their clients and their organizations. To meet this end, CIOs would benefit from having a simple and
flexible methodology for ensuring their organizations are aligned with business expectations and delivering
value.
There are a number of widely published information technology management strategies that are
currently available to chief information officers, yet few are packaged solutions flexible enough to be
Potter-6
leveraged by organizations of various sizes and complexities. IT organizations and their executive leaders
need a set of management strategies that is agile and modular by design allowing a particular
organization to easily customize the solution based on its current maturity. Additionally, an organization of
any size must be able to deploy the core components of the strategy within a 12 month period.
2. Background – Literature Review
2.1 The 21st Century Information Technology Organization
Within most companies the IT organization is evaluated on two levels to determine how effectively it
delivers. The first is the board of directors’ level, or the universal IT drivers. The IT Governance Institute
has summarized these principles into 4 key drivers that IT must meet to align with the business;
1. IT delivers the functionality and services inline with the organizations needs
2. IT and new technologies enable the organization to do new things not possible without the technologies
3. IT related services are delivered in the most economic manner
4. All risks related to IT are known and managed (IT Governance Institute 2004, 5).
Drilling down into the high level objectives reveals a subsequent set of key performance indicators (KPI),
or quantifiable, agreed critical factors that reflect the success of an organization (Reh, 2006). IT KPI’s
generally include budget, delivery quality, delivery timeframes and operational service levels.
Potter-7
In the last decade information technology organizations and their executives have changed the
delivery approach for meeting both the universal drivers and business KPIs. In the early 1990’s the five
key responsibilities of the CIO could be defined as capital planning and investment management,
information security, IT human capital, architecture and IT strategic planning (Koontz, 1998). Since that
time, information technology has evolved from an enabler of process efficiencies to an integral component
of most strategic business unit plans. As a result, the role of the CIO and the IT organization has rapidly
evolved. Today, Chief Information Officers regularly report to the CEO and sit on the top executive team,
possibly even the board. CIO responsibilities have expanded and often include business as well as
technology functions. A London Business School survey in 2000 of 90 CIOs from the world’s largest
corporations revealed a road map of what those executives believed the CIO role would be in 2005, see
table 2.1.1 (Tagliavini, Moro, Ravarini
and Guimaraes, 2004). While technical
functions remained a core component,
the surveyed CIOs primarily identified
traditional business functions as their
core future responsibilities. Specifically
CIOs predicted that business strategist
London Business School CIO Survey
1. Business strategist
2. Technology policy-maker
3. Change Master
4. Systems Strategist
5. Functional Leader
6. Coach and mentor
7. Technology Gatekeeper
8. General Manager
9. Service Deliverer
10. Contractor
11. Information Custodian
12. Product Developer
TABLE 2.1.1 What CIO’s Do
Potter-8
and corporate change master would be critical roles of the successful technology executive In order to
meet the growing demand for technology and a growing emphasis on the universal and KPIs drivers, IT
has adapted into increasingly business focused organizations.
2.2 IT Issues and Challenges
The evolution of IT and the CIO has also resulted in increasingly complex and varied technology and
organizational challenges. Clear trends emerge via a myriad of studies defining the top issues and
challenges faced by IT organizations since 2000. After an initial focus on security management and
disaster recovery following the September 11th terrorist attacks, CIOs and executives are now turning
their focus on how to manage their IT organizations as a businesses, to deliver clear value to their
corporate counter parts (Johnson, 2003).
Lack of Key Staff
Information and Skill Set
Retention
Inadequate Budgets and Prioritization
Volatile Market
Conditions
Percentage of Respondents
40% 37%
22%
FIGURE 2.2.1 Significant barriers to IT effectiveness
In a 2002 survey of 500 IT executives, 40% of
respondents believed that resource allocation issues
were the most significant barrier to IT effectiveness.
Prioritization and financial management were also
significant challenges for IT executives see figure
2.2.1 (CIO Magazine, 2002).A more recent 2006
version of this same CIO magazine study found that
Potter-9
executives are also now struggling with extensive backlogs of projects and are in need of more effective
ways to reduce that backlog and manage deliveries (CIO Magazine, 2006). On the other hand, CIOs do
not appear to be struggling with the technical aspects of their field. These same executive surveys indicate
that technology and operations are not critical or persistent issues for CIOs. So, over the last 5 years CIOs
main challenges are;
Proving the IT value add
Business alignment and governance
Funding availability and management
IT sourcing and allocation of internal
IT resources
Delivery effectiveness
Moreover, a 2004 survey of 335 CEO level executives revealed that 93% of the executives surveyed
were impacted by one of these top issues (Scott 2004, 16). Nearly all information technology
organizations are challenged by these pervasive issues. The ultimate result is that many CIOs are
underperforming and missing corporate expectations.
2.3 Existing Solutions
Like their executive counterparts in the business units, IT executives are attempting to address their
challenges through robust business management practices. This premise is the foundation of the IT
governance movement. IT governance is identification of key success factors and processes along with
Potter-10
assessment of process compliance (Carlino 2006, 6). The last 5 years has seen a broad movement
towards the use of IT governance, particularly in industries where information systems are strategic to the
corporate objectives. A 2006 survey by PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PWC) revealed that 64% of surveyed
executives had considered or have already implemented some form of IT governance in their organization
(IT Governance Institute 2006, 25-26). Yet despite the migration towards managing IT processes and
success factors, there continues to be dissatisfaction with overall IT performance. The ongoing trend to
align and measure IT against the business needs is not yet bridging the gap between IT performance and
corporate expectations.
There are hundreds of published methods on IT governance currently available today. Many provide
focused solutions for a single aspect of the IT challenge while others provide integrated, holistic
approaches. The following are a sampling of the diverse existing governance models currently available:
Issue Specific. When addressing challenges faced by a CIO, many models look at resolving a
single pointed problem. One such model, developed at the MIT Sloan School of Business, provides a
combined set of best practices for IT Portfolio Management (Jeffery and Leliveld, 2004). This set of
tools includes theories, practical steps and tools which can be leveraged by IT organizations to
address issues in business alignment. While this set of practices is relatively flexible and agile, its
Potter-11
area of focus is very narrow, as are most issue specific methods. As a result, companies
implementing a series of issues specific methodologies find there is no consistency in how they can
approach or implement these one-off solutions.
Holistic. Another set of methodologies include an integrated structure and working model for
all aspects of the IT organization. This is the approach of Mark Lutchen who outlines an
interdependent set of six drivers in the “IT Management Lens” including support, future, resiliency,
alignment, leverage, and operations in his book Managing IT as a Business (Lutchen, 2004).
Because of the tightly integrated approach, Lutchen’s model requires successful implementation of
all six components. Additionally these types of models are generally more theory based with few, if
any, hands on tools or examples for companies to rapidly implement.
Technology Driven – There are dozens of tools available on the market today that focus
specifically on automation. Commercially available software packages, including Mercury Interactive
and IBM provide governance automation for key business management components of IT
(Mercury.com, 2006) (IBM.com, 2006). While these solutions are derived from client requirements
and case studies, deployment of any tool still requires an organization to engineer their processes in
conjunction with a software deployment. Additionally, just like Lutchen’s holistic IT management
Potter-12
lens methodology, tools often require full use of all processes and functionality to work properly. It
is important to note that tools alone do not resolve IT management issues and that executive
support, along with agile process engineering and training is core to successful governance.
While these and other models clearly meet many CIO needs, existing governance models fall short
in the time and complexity of the implementation (IT Governance Institute 2006, 7). As a result there is
still an outstanding need for the next generation governance tool set that can be deployed quickly in
drastically different types of organizations.
3. The New Model – FITS
3.1 Overview
In an effort to meet the need for an agile and rapidly deployable set of IT organizational tools the
Flexible IT Tools and Strategies (FITS) methodology has been developed. FITS has been designed to
effectively meet the needs of the modern IT organization via a flexible set of best practices focused on the
5 key challenges of technology organizations today. While FITS is a comprehensive approach like many
holistic models, what differentiates the FITS methodology is the modular design. A company can
Potter-13
Information Driven
implement 1 or all of the modules depending on their unique set of market and organizational
circumstances. The FITS model is based on the following tenets:
Rapid Standardized Deployment
Roll-outs leverage standard methodology and
implementation plans. Baseline module deployments and
tools are rolled-out in 60-90 day cycles.
Implementations, processes and module roll-outs are
based on internal diagnostic survey results. Metrics provide
close loop reporting on methodology success.
Flexible & Simple Executive Sponsored
Methodology provides the minimum necessary process and Key stakeholders from all impacted organizations, business
Potter-14
:
The FITS framework is composed of 4 management components and 2 technical components. The 2
technical components are Operational Effectiveness and Technology Innovation and are subject to the
metrics and deployment schemes but are not directly managed by the business practices as they are
technical in nature and subsequently, are not discussed in depth in this paper. Each FITS component can
be implemented independently depending on the specific needs and requirements of the organization.
However, integral to the successful roll-out of any FITS component is the Metrics Scheme and the
Deployment Scheme, see figure 3.1.1. Both schemes provide organizations with a means for ensuring
consistent deployments and ongoing methodology success.
data to meet corporate needs. Plug and play modules and
out-of-the-box best practices offer simple solutions.
units and IT, identified early with ongoing participation at
regular intervals.
Potter-15
FlexiblePrioritization
Rapid Resource
Deployment
Agile Financial
Management
Delivery Management
Operational Effectiveness
Metrics Scheme
Deployment Scheme
Technology Innovation
FITS Core Components
Flexible Prioritization –
Processes and tools to ensure
continuous business alignment.
Rapid Resource Deployment –
Organizational structure and tools
to support placement of correct
resource quick on approved
initiatives.
Agile Financial Management –
Tool and processes to ensure
budget is available for new high
priority initiatives.
Delivery Management –
Standard core components of
successful organizational project
management.
FITS Schemes
Deployment Scheme –
Standard tools, processes and
plan for simplified
implementation of any FITS
core component.
Metrics Scheme – Process and
tools for development of key
metrics and reporting which is
a central to all FITS
implementations.
Technical Components
Operational Effectiveness &
Technology Innovation –
Core components requiring
technology based solutions, not
covered under the FITS model.
Technology components would
benefit from leveraging the
Metrics and Deployment
Schemes.
FIGURE 3.1.1 Flexible IT Tools and Strategies (FITS)
Potter-16
.
3.2 Deployment Scheme
In order to minimize risk and organizational impact while maximizing opportunity for success during
a FITS implementation, the framework provides a standard roll-out methodology, the FITS Deployment
Scheme. The deployment scheme takes an IT organization step by step through the key processes of
implementing any of the FITS core components. The Deployment Scheme, shown in figure 3.2.1, is a
modified version of a best practice process developed by students at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, Sloan School of
Business (Jeffery and Leliveld,
2004, 48). While the original
MIT developed process included
5 steps, the FITS model has
been modified to include a 6
FIGURE 3.2.1 FITS Deployment Scheme
60-90 Day Cycle
Design Diagnosis Process Tools Opportunities
th
deployment phase. Additionally
the FITS scheme advocates
• Balance • Risk • Returns
• Objectives • Alignment • Scope • Categories • Metrics • Hypotheses
• Quick Hits • Emergencies • Adjustment
• Metrics • Formulas • Models • Templates
• Weekly • Monthly • Quarterly • Annually
Deploy
• Operational Readiness
• Training • Communication • Implementation
Develop a clear game plan and secure buy-in from business executives
Facts and insights for effective decision making
Findings translated into specific opportunities for action
Recurring reviews, input into decision making
Installed capabilities for recurring review
Preparation for effective operational roll-out
Potter-17
consistent 60-90 day roll-out timeframes to reduce organizational impacts. A baseline project plan for a
FITS component implementation is provided in Section 5.0 Deployment Tools.
Step 1 - Design. Key planning activities to confirm the necessary stakeholder support, program
structure and FITS implementation deployment roadmap. The key tasks associated with this phase are:
1. Identification of the FITS director-level sponsor and program manager
2. Development of the FITS implementation high-level priorities and roadmap including objectives
3. Identification and confirmed commitment of the executive sponsor
4. Identification and confirmed commitment of the core team – includes stakeholders from all impacted
organizations.
5. Development and deployment of a centralized communication mechanism
The design phase does focus in-part on developing the foundation for a FITS implementation program.
Therefore if a program is already established, this phase would be used primarily to focus the core team
on the specific core component implementation.
Step 2 - Diagnosis. This involves the collection of internal data, both from the business and IT, to
validate priority assumptions documented during the design phase and focus on specific issues. The FITS
framework provides a diagnostic survey, see appendix 1, which can be used as a starting point to facilitate
Potter-18
data collection activities. After collection, the core team must compile, clarify and validate the data. The
data collection activities in the Diagnosis phase ensure that the FITS implementations are data driven and
that program stakeholders can make effective informed decisions.
Step 3 - Opportunities. Once diagnostic data has been compiled, the team should categorize finding
and group issues into 3 main categories based on complexity of the issues and potential resolutions:
1. Quick Hits - gaps or issues that can be resolved quickly with minimal effort and impact to
processes, tools and the organization.
2. Core Adjustments – gaps or issues that impact multiple organizations and require significant
process re-engineering and training.
3. Strategic Improvements – gaps or issues that impact multiple organizations and require
significant process re-engineering implementation and tool modifications/implementations.
Once gaps have been categorized, the core team should jointly select a group of key issues to address
within the FITS deployment, keeping the 60-90 day timeframe in mind. A detailed deployment plan
including owners and delivery dates should be developed and maintained by the FITS program manager.
Finally the priorities and project plan should be validated by the director-level owner and the executive
sponsor.
Potter-19
Step 4 - Process. The FITS model is intended to be agile, and even agile methodologies benefit from a
limited amount of documentation to ensure clear communication across an organization. To this end,
documenting the phase 1 and 2 process flows for an FITS module is a standard step in the deployment
scheme. To simplify this effort, high level process flows are included in each core component specific
section of this paper. Iterative process engineering work is very effective and the entire core team must
review and sign-off on the final flows at the end of this step.
Step 5 - Tools. This phase includes the development or modification of existing tools that support the
new processes. Tools can include both automated software or manual tools, such as forms and
spreadsheets that help organizations manage their work. Tool deployments should be phased to minimize
impact to the users and all stakeholders should be involved in the selection and roll-out. Section 5 is a
compiled set of best practice manual tools currently used in corporate settings that align with the FITS
core components. Appendix 1 provides an overview of off-the-shelf software that also aligns to the FITS
methodology.
Step 6 - Deploy. The deployment phase includes operational readiness, training and organizational
communications. Validation by the core team and other stakeholders that the developed solutions, tools
Potter-20
and processes work together seamlessly minimizes production risks. It is also critical that impacted users
be well informed and thoroughly trained prior to the full production deployment.
Potter-21
3.3 Metrics Scheme
Metrics are a key method for IT executives and upper management to communicate successes and
identify areas for improvement in their organizations. Most IT organizations focus on the collection of
metrics from operational, technical and transactional components. However, a study of 26 companies in
the late 1990’s found that 58% of CIO’s were measured on project performance, 50% for infrastructure
availability and 50% for staying within budget (Lutchen, 2004). CIO’s and their organizations are not
reporting on the data that matters most to the business. IT metrics often have no alignment with
business metrics. Identifying and aligning of performance reporting is crucial in demonstrating the IT
organization’s contribution to business value (Roberts, 2004). Simple and ongoing key metric reporting
also provides CIOs with a valuable mechanism for managing relationships with business partners. To meet
this end, the Metrics Scheme of the FITS framework includes steps to develop key reporting for each
implemented component.
Metric Development Steps. Identifying the right metrics for organizational reporting can be time
consuming and involved. Many organizations waste valuable budget and resource availability on
developing metrics that do not clearly communicate their core direction and drivers. The following six step
Potter-22
process has been successfully used by the US military in assessing community outreach metrics (Adcock,
2005):
1. Document the business process including standard operating procedures and/or flows (see
step 4 of the FITS Deployment Scheme)
2. Identify and define possible quantitative measures listing all key points in the process or
existing gaps.
3. Apply M-E-T-R-I-C criteria to evaluate potential metrics using +/0/- only (see Metrics
Attributes below)
4. Rank the potential metrics for effectiveness (See table 3.3.1)
5. Identify data source, collection and analysis processes
6. Create reporting system – focus on simple and visual representation of data
Once the metrics report has been built reporting intervals should be identified. All metrics reports
should be assessed on a 90-day cycle to determine if they are still critical to the organization.
Metric Attributes. As organizations are implementing FITS components and identifying the
associated metrics, they need a way to determine the quality of those metrics. The M-E-T-R-I-C attributes
Potter-23
provide an easy method for assessing the quality of potential reporting metrics. A team should consider
the following attributes as they review performance metrics (Adcock, 2005):
• Measurable and specific – quantifiable and uses well-defined start and end points
• Easy – easy to develop, change, understand and apply
• Timely – leverages current data to drive proactive efforts.
• Repeatable – data collection and analysis should be consistent and accurate
• Insightful – provide data not evident during process or activity
• Credible – reflect what is actually achievable by working harder or smarter
Additionally metrics should be flexible so that process changes can be easily supported by standard data
collection and analysis. An organization should also
ensure that their metrics are relevant and
applicable to the target audience. Executive level
metrics should be limited to a handful of key
reports that can be used to help drive behavior or
summarize the success of strategic initiatives.
Working level metrics, targeted towards
management or team members, would be
presented in greater detail and would provide data that can drive individual or team level behaviors.
Metric A Metric B Metric C
Measurable + + 0
Easy + + -
Timely 0 + +
Repeatable - + 0
Insightful + 0 -
Credible 0 - +
Score 2 3 1
Rank 2 1 3
FIGURE 3.3.1 Metric Effectiveness Ranking
Potter-24
Key metrics by FITS component. Table 3.3.2 is a compiled list of best practice metrics
implemented in high performance IT organizations (Corporate Executive Board, 2002) (O’Connell, 2003).
Delivery Management
• Actual schedule versus estimated schedule including milestones
• Actual costs versus estimated costs
• Actual scope versus target scope including number of requirements and number of changes.
Financial Management
• Number of projects funded at each gate
• Total budget versus total costs by budget category
• Number/dollar value of projects combined, cancelled or delayed annually
Agile Prioritization
• Percentage of in-progress projects tracked in portfolio
• Annual project output for each project category
• Percentage of projects at each stage of project “life cycle”
• Portfolio mix – percentage of portfolio dedicated to principled project categories versus target allocations
Resource Management
• Time to staff projects with internal or external staff
• Annual project output versus total IT staff
• Percentage of projects staffed internally versus externally
• Percentage of total staff that is pooled
Technology Innovation
• Immerging technologies in discovery
• Immerging technologies in product over previous 6 months.
Operational Effectiveness
• Application availability/outages in hours and percentage
• Cost in dollars of application outages
• Time to resolution for application outages
TABLE 3.3.2 Best practice metrics by FITS component
Potter-25
3.4 Core Component – Flexible Prioritization
CIOs continue to be scrutinized for their ability to align technologies with business strategies and to
effectively manage their budgets. Businesses concur that it is not possible to deliver sustained business
value without the alignment and tight linkage of IT and business strategies (Symons, June 2006).
Furthermore a conservative estimate within the IT industry is that between 15 and 25 percent of IT
investment is wasted on efforts not in alignment with top business priorities (Aberdeen Group, 2004). To
resolve these issues the FITS methodology includes a two-fold Flexible Prioritization model. The first
component is a standard governance model for identifying and prioritizing IT work. By standardizing the
way a business reviews and prioritizes IT work efforts, it helps ensure that the highest priorities across the
business can be addressed by IT first. The second component is an organizational structure that aligns an
IT liaison with each business unit. Together these two components provide the mechanism for any IT
organization to develop and maintain alignment with the business units it supports.
Standard Governance. Current CIO issues with prioritization include rapidly shifting business
priorities, politicized decision making and inaccurate or incomplete project information (Leto, Haas and
Williams 2005). Informed and consistent decision making are primary goals of standard governance. To
Potter-26
achieve these ends an IT organization must structure their governance processes using the following
guidelines:
1. Stakeholders owned - all key stakeholder must own and participate in the governance process
2. Non-politicized decision criteria - standard and thorough means for assessing projects
3. Cyclical Prioritization - rapid cycle reprioritization to meet changing business needs
Some organizations will develop several governance structures to manage the prioritization and approvals
for different types and complexities of IT initiatives. To this end there may be separate governance
processes for small, strategic and mandate projects. It is important to note that the above three criteria
apply to all governance models. Figure 3.4.1 is a summary flow of the FITS standard governance model.
FIGURE 3.4.1 Flexible Prioritization model
Business Case
Standardized Project Data
Data validation by independent team
1-N List Project Ranking
Prioritized List of IT work
Stakeholder review and validation of priority
Potter-27
Stakeholder Owned – Confirming the authority and commitment of the stakeholders to prioritize IT
work across the company is a critical step in developing any new governance board. Key stakeholders for
strategic critical path work are usually executives from each of the corporate business units in addition to
a finance executive and CIO representation. Stakeholders for mid-priority initiatives may be director level
business unit leadership and mandate stakeholders are likely to include regulatory compliance and legal.
This group of individuals will be asked to meet on a regular basis, monthly or quarterly, to review new
work requests, approve or reject them and validate their priority. The governance board will jointly have
ultimate authority in determining what work is done by the IT organization.
Non-Politicized Decision Making – Programs should be evaluated against other initiatives within the
same asset class and a standard method for ranking should be established at the onset of governance
process creation. Governance boards should have consistent quantitative and qualitative data to review
and approved potential programs. Today many companies use financial data, return on investment,
discounted payback and net present value to prioritize new initiative. Standardized business case
templates, such as the one in section 5.3, are excellent sources of summarized critical decision making
data that can be used by decision making boards.
Potter-28
Furthermore companies such as Bell Canada have staffed a business unit independent group to
validate project benefit and risk information prior review by their governance board (Bell Canada
Interview, 2005). This group has the authority to reject or modify projected benefits of a business unit’s
estimates. They are also responsible for tracking ongoing estimate versus actual benefits for each
business unit. This type of business unit agnostic organization has helped ensure project data is grounded
in reality. .
Cyclical prioritization – Projects prioritization that is valid during a budget cycle may not be valid 3
months later due to competition in the mark place or introduction of new business strategies. For this
reason, governance boards should plan to meet on a regular basis to review and confirm the IT priorities.
It is recommended that prioritization take place monthly or quarterly as more frequent reviews can result
in an overly fluid list of IT initiatives. Furthermore, de-prioritization of initiatives should not always result
in project cancellations. It is important for a board to review the current status and phase of the initiative
to determine if a project should indeed be cancelled, put on hold or completed.
Potter-29
Business Unit Liaison. In rapidly changing business environments an effective method of ensuring
that IT is in constant alignment with the business is to have dedicated interface engaging and working
directly with the business unit. Account managers can help align IT with the particular business unit by:
Translating business strategy
technology initiatives.
Assisting in development of high-
level business requirements.
Partnering to create business cases.
Identifying and initiating projects to
improve existing business processes.
Reporting specific operational efficiency,
project status, and budget/resource
allocation metrics to the business unit.
By aligning IT liaisons with internal business units, a CIO puts increased organizational focus
on customer service. Since liaison resources are the first and primary touch point by the business
unit into IT, they are generally senior-level and report directly to the CIO. Depending on the size of
the organization and the responsibilities; this function can be accomplished by a single resource or
small team dedicated to each business unit.
3.5 Core Component – Agile Financial Management
There are a few standard methods used by corporations to fund IT work; centralized versus
decentralized, top-down versus bottoms-up. During the corporate budgeting cycle, businesses can spend
Potter-30
weeks, even months determining the proper method for identifying the IT budget. What is rarely
considered is the timing of that funding at the initiative level (Marks, 2006). What is clear in most
industries is that the business unit approach for meeting corporate strategy can change over the fiscal
year. As a result, business units seldom have a static roadmap for IT work taking place in a 12 month
period. Agile financial management is the process of rapidly allocating budget to initiatives over the entire
corporate fiscal year and requires near constant budget availability. Projects can loose valuable time
waiting for funding to be reallocated from cancelled or lower priority initiatives. In order to accomplish
agile financial management a corporation must:
• Budget targets by asset category and by phase
• Phase-gate initiative funding, with allocations made only when the program reaches a
particular phase
• Near real-time visibility to accurate budget and project level spend data
Potter-31
Budget targets. There are two views of the IT budget that are required to support agile financial
management, asset category and program phase. The combination of these two views provides upper
management and executives with the budget information required to determine if funding is available and
should be allocated for to programs. IT spend will generally fall into one of four categories; innovation,
business opportunity, mandates and infrastructure. As part of the budget process, corporate executives
should determine the target
spend percentage for each of
these four asset categories.
The Asset Allocation Pyramid
used by Schlumberger
Limited in figure 3.5.1 is a
visual example of a budget
allocated in this manner.
(Corporate Executive Board,
2002) Corporations should
use the individual forecast
Infrastructure40%
Mandates10%
Innovation 20%
Business Opportunity
30%
Business Opportunity Costs for initiatives with
measurable benefits
Mandates Legal or
Regulatory Initiatives
Infrastructure Costs for
production support
Innovation Costs for initiatives to increase competitive
advantage
FIGURE 3.5.1 Asset Allocation Pyramid
Potter-32
and historic data to determine the appropriate allocation percentages.
The second view should include a breakdown of the budget by phase, specifically for the project
based budget; mandates, business opportunity and innovation. Spending targets at the phase level help
organizations confirm that they have a balanced IT pipeline. If a portfolio and spending are heavily
weighted towards projects in concept or planning, it will be unlikely that the organization can support the
funding and resources to develop all of these initiatives. Figure 3.5.2 is a modified high-level phase
approach with an incorporated budget component.
Phase 1 Concept
Development
5% of Total Project Cost
$500,000 Budget
Allocation*
Phase 2 Product Planning
10% of Total Project Cost
$1,000,000 Budget
Allocation*
Phase 3 Design And
Development
50% of Total Project Cost
$5,000,000 Budget
Allocation*
Phase 5 Deployment
10% of Total Project Cost
$1,000,000 Budget
Allocation*
Phase 4 Testing
25% of Total Project Cost
$2,500,000 Budget
Allocation*
Total project budget $10,000,000 Innovation $4,000,000 Business Opportunity $5,000,000 Mandates $1,000,000
*Budget allocations are based on a total project based budget of $10,000,000 and are targets equivalent to the overall costs of each phase at the project level. Percentages used in this example are illustrative and should be validated by companies leveraging this budgeting process.
FIGURE 3.5.2 Phase Gate Budget Allocation
Potter-33
After initial development of these two complimentary, but distinct budget views an organization
should track budget versus allocation for both views throughout the fiscal year.
Phase Gate Funding. A secondary effort to phase budgeting is phase gate funding where budget
allocations are made iteratively throughout the project lifecycle. Instead of allocating an entire project
budget after initial approval, the majority of funding is held and allocated as phases are completed and
the project team is prepared to spend the money. This practice limits the amount of funding tied up in
projects that may ultimately be cancelled or reprioritized. The flow illustrated in figure 3.5.3 represents a
standard phase gate process flow with incorporated funding steps. Additionally it provides checks to
Phase 1 Concept
Development
5% of Total Project Cost
Project Phase
Estimate $50,000
Phase 2 Product Planning
10% of Total Project Cost
Project Phase
Estimate $100,000
Phase 3 Design And
Development
50% of Total Project Cost
Project Phase
Estimate $500,000
Phase 5 Deployment
10% of Total Project Cost
Project Phase
Estimate $100,000
Phase 4 Testing
25% of Total Project Cost
Project Phase
Estimate $250,000
Gate 1 Provides funding for
Phase 1 & 2 work $150,000
Gate 2 Provides funding for
Phase 3 work $500,000
Gate 3 Provides funding for
Phase 4 & 5 work $100,000
FIGURE 3.5.3 Phase Gate Funding Steps
Potter-34
ensure that a project does not seriously over spend budget during any particular project phase.
The primary challenge with a phase gate funding approach is to keep the process light while still
providing financial rigor. All too often companies will incorporate labor intensive documentation and
deliverables into each approval gate. It is recommended that organizations be acutely aware of only
requesting data from project teams that is used in the decision making processes. Non-critical steps and
tools will only serve to slow down the project and delivery lifecycle. It is also recommended that
organizations consider implementing both a “standard” and “light” process to differentiate the process
rigor associated with smaller less expensive initiatives, possibly less than $50,000.
Real-time budget and spend data. Only with accurate project accounting can current spend
summaries reflect what portion of the budget is still available for allocation. Within any initiative the
project manager must have clear visibility at a detailed and aggregate level to track costs. Table 3.5.4 is
an example of a simplistic budget
tracking spreadsheet. Note that actuals
must include all spent monies including
third party goods or services received
but not yet paid.
Spend Category Budget Actual Variance
Internal Labor $20,000 $10,000 $10,000
External Labor $35,000 $30,000 $5,000
Software Licensing $12,000 $1,000 $11,000
Hardware $150,000 $0 $150,000
Training $2,000 $0 $2,000
TABLE 3.5.4 Project Budget Tracking Spreadsheet
Potter-35
3.6 Core Component – Rapid Resource Deployment
Given the fluid nature of corporate strategies and IT prioritization, IT must be able to staff initiative
and reallocate resources rapidly to maximize project and organizational effectiveness. CIO’s are
attempting to have just the right quantity of human IT resources, deployed precisely when and where
they are needed most (Ulfeder, 2004). The benefits of rapid resource allocation are clearly illustrated by
Harrah’s Entertainment Inc who saw a reduction in systems integration time of nearly 300% from 18
months to 4.5 months and a more than 100% increase in the total number of completed projects
Corporate Executive Board, 2002). The FITS rapid resource deployment model includes three best practice
methods used by highly effective IT organizations to provide flexible and rapid resource allocation.
Organizational Model – Create pooled staffing for transferable skills set resources
Skills Visibility – Know your resources full set of competencies
Allocation Visibility – Know what your resources are currently working on and their next 90
day forecast assignment
The combination of these three components provides flexibility and a roadmap to quickly staff IT
initiatives. In addition to these methodologies a truly flexible IT organization will also need to undertake
the long-term and critical effort of ongoing training and skill growth for IT resources.
Potter-36
Organizational model. To create a flexible staffing model CIOs are treating IT projects not as discrete
efforts but as components of a larger service delivery organization. There is a constant effort by IT
management to assess resource demand across both new projects and operations. The organizational skill
sets and availability are reviewed to create the right balance of needs and resources working on the right
efforts. This ongoing assessment requires two organizational components to be successful; a partial
pooled resource model and a resource management team dedicated to rapid resource allocation. Figure
3.6.1 represents an
organizational staffing model
that incorporates both of these
components.
CIO
Flexible Staffing Pool & Staffing Bench
Comprised of resources with
transferable skills – engineering, testing, project management,
systems analysis
New Application Development
Architects Account
Managers Software
Engineers with non-transferable skills or in high demand areas
IT Operations and Application
Support
Help Desk Data Centers Application
Maintenance Engineers
Resource Management Staff sourcing Skills availability tracking
and forecasting
FIGURE 3.6.1 FITS Organizational Staffing Model
Reporting hierarchy can also
have a significant impact on
rapid resource allocation. Many
highly effective organizations
have adopted professional
service models where
Potter-37
managers are responsible specifically for staffing and career development, but not day-to-day
management. Another significant factor in a successful staffing model is the right mix of internal versus
external staff. A trend among large IT organizations is off-shoring of application maintenance with the
intent of reducing costs and freeing up internal resources to work new development efforts. Companies
including NASD, National Association of Securities Dealers Inc have been successful in lowering application
support costs by 75% and making internal resources available for higher priority strategic work (Hoffman,
2004).
Skills view. Despite a CIO’s organizational staffing model, flexible staffing is not possible without
accurate and current data on resource skills. A 2003 study of 6 leaders in global staffing, including IBM
and Agilent Technologies, found that competency based staffing systems proved the most effective tool for
rapid resource deployment (Wiechmann, Ryan and Hemingway, 2003). Competency based systems do
constitute a significant data collection and management effort yet this model has proven effective in a
diverse set of organizations.
Professional service based organizations, such as consulting firms, leverage automated skill repositories
to capture resource data for staffing. Other organizations are able to gain similar skills visibility via manual
spreadsheet. The first step for either solution is to develop an exhaustive and standardized list of skills
Potter-38
and knowledge within the organization. This information in conjunction with a resource’s individual
personal details is the foundation for a competency based organizational view. An example of this
combined view is illustrated in Competency Repository tool in Section 5.
Allocation views. It is also critical to know on which projects resources are currently working and
their availability. Therefore in addition to resource competency data, agile resource management requires
accurate visibility to each resource’s current and forecast assignments. Since the FITS methodology
supports phase gate approvals, forecast assignments must be captured to reduce resource churn on
projects. Figure 3.6.2 illustrates a current and forecast resource assignment view. By capturing accurate
Resource Name Role Current Assignment January February March
FIGURE 3.6.2 Forecast Allocation View
Jane Doe Business Analyst Project A
01/10
Jim Smith Tester Project B
Current Assignment Forecast Assignment
02/10 03/04
01/13 02/20 03/20
Potter-39
assignment data an IT groups has the information necessary to forecast organizational capacity, demand
and skill set alignment.
3.7 Core Component – Delivery Management
Successful project delivery continues to be an elusive goal in many IT organizations. A 2004
PriceWaterhouseCoopers survey found that only 2.5% of global businesses achieve 100% project success.
This broad study included a wide range industry, large and small, in 30 different countries with a total
portfolio of 10,640 projects valuing $7.2 billion (Stanleigh, April 2006). Additionally a Standish Group
survey of the IT sector found that 71% of all project deliveries miss business unit expectations due to late
delivery, budget overrun, delivering less functionality than is required or are cancelled (Standish Group,
2003). Yet there are hundreds or even thousands of documented project management practices. In fact
the Project Management Institute (PMI) is an organization dedicated to the advancement of project
management standards and processes (PMI.org, 2006). The PMI regularly publishes the Project
Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK) which is widely regarded as the standard for project
management practices. IT organizations are failing at delivering successful projects despite an abundance
of available best practices.
Potter-40
The FITS Delivery Management component is based on the agile premise that every organization
faces different project management challenges and therefore requires implementation of a unique
minimum set of project management standards. The Delivery Management component provides a
methodology for organizations to identify and implement incremental project management best practices
and provides a minimum set of three core practices which are recommended for implementation across
any IT organization.
The Iterative Approach. A Forrester survey of 32 companies building project management based
organizations found that incremental, targeted implementations of project management best practices
were most effective in producing long-term results (Visitacion, June 2006). Instead of building a core set
project management practices by simply selecting standards out of the PMBOK and rolling them out to
project managers, an organization benefits from implementing a minimum set of tools and practices that
are specifically targeted at solving their unique challenges. Additionally, IT organizations adopt tools more
readily if they are implemented over time instead of in one large roll-out. The high level method for
implementing this type of targeted incremental roll-out of practices is illustrated in figure 3.7.1
Potter-41
• Identification - Initial identification of
potential areas for improvement. Gather
metrics and confirm gap/issue
• Solution Design – Identify current project
management best practices available to
meet the corporate need. Assess the
practice for completeness and modify if
necessary. Test the practice with 2-3
small project teams and modify again if
necessary.
• Deployment – Socialize with other project
managers, train and roll-out to broad IT
organization.
Key Practices. As previously mentioned, developing an iterative and effective approach to
standardizing project management practices requires information on where existing methods are falling
short. Data provides visibility to existing process gaps and issues. Within a project lifecycle there are
Core Adopted Practices
FIGURE 3.7.1 PM Method Deployment Model
Identification
Solution Design Deployment
Potter-42
three primary points for capturing metrics data; during initial estimation, in ongoing status and in post
deployment lessons learned sessions. The FITS methodology recommends implementing all three as
standard practices across an organization as they provide a consistent means for capturing critical project
data and are also effective tools for communication.
• Standard project estimation – Provides standard methods and templates for project teams and
managers to capture initial estimates prior to the start of a project. At a minimum, initial
estimates should include capturing target costs, timeframes and resources needs. It should be
noted that as an organization evolves, they may develop multiple standard estimating practices
relevant to different project types. In fact Forrester recommends that mature organizations
develop a portfolio of estimating practices including; analogy methods leveraging reuse; bottom-
up method – estimating each requirement; top-town method – estimating based on broad project
characteristics; expert provided estimates; and parametric estimates – the combination of all the
above. (Visitacion, February 2005) Each method provides an effective means for estimating a
different type of initiative. Section 5.4 includes a standard parametric estimating template.
• Status reports/dashboards – Ensures a consistent method and interval for providing project
status information to the organization. They also give CIOs a platform for reinforcing IT value
Potter-43
(Gliedman and Visitacion 2004). The dashboard should contain only key data that needs to be
communicated across the organization including current activities, risks and financials. It is
important that an organization create a simple and effective method for project managers to
capture status data so that valuable time is not wasted on repetitive status reporting or capturing
of irrelevant information. Section 5.4 includes a standard project status template.
• Lessons learned – Consists of a final project meeting including all project members that is run by
an independent facilitator. The session is intended to capture both the key strengths/practices
implemented on the project and key issues. It is also meant to serve as a forum for
brainstorming on how key issues could have been handled differently. Lessons learned sessions
should be thoroughly documented and published. This organizational body of knowledge is the
foundation for building a set of specific best practices within an IT organization. Therefore
resources should be assigned to periodically review cross organizational lessons learned
document for immerging trends, effective practices and ideas for improvement.
Potter-44
5. Best Practice Tools
In addition to information technology management strategies, CIO’s have expressed the need for
hands-on tools which will assist them in communicating with their business organizations and measure the
success of their own organizations. This section is a compilation of in-production, manual, best practice
tools coincide with the FITS model. There are key reports and tools for the deployment scheme and each
of the primary FITS components; governance, financial management, resource management and project
management.
It is critical to note that these tools, as they are presented here, should be considered boiler-plate.
Since every organization has a unique set of challenges and goals, these tools should be adapted to the
particular needs of the corporation.
Potter-45
5.0 Deployment Tools
Diagnostic Survey
Background
Chief Information Officers and IT upper
management require a tool which will help them
determine the priority of key IT competencies and
the level which their organization is currently
performing those functions. Diagnostic surveys
are used by high performing IT organizations
including Ericsson and Du Pont to continue
refining their practices and improve efficiency.
The FITS Diagnostic Survey is a modified version
of an existing CIO Executive Board survey which
has been adapted to align specifically with the
FITS component model (Chief Executive Board,
2005).
Tool Description
The Diagnostic Survey should be
administered to senior executives and upper
management on either a semi-annual or annual
basis. The survey could also be administered to
new business unit management or as executive
level changes occur.
The results of the survey provide CIOs with
key data to determine which areas of
organizational performance need improvement.
Data can also be used to benchmark an IT
organization against compiled key finding for
other Corporate Executive Board members.
Potter-46
Diagnostic Survey
Flexible Prioritization Agile Financial Management
Business Case Development We employ a standard business case template for all IT investments that captures project life-cycle costs, benefits and risks
Performance: 1 2 3 4 5 Importance: 1 2 3 4 5
Consistent Prioritization We help the business prioritize projects using a defined set of objective, weighted criteria
Performance: 1 2 3 4 5 Importance: 1 2 3 4 5
Asset Class Investment We allocate IT budget to asset classes based on the amount or percentage of investment we identify across the corporation.
Performance: 1 2 3 4 5 Importance: 1 2 3 4 5
Funding Availability IT works to ensure that reallocation of funds from cancelled or reprioritized is timely and that budget is available for new work.
Performance: 1 2 3 4 5 Importance: 1 2 3 4 5
Value Demonstration We track metrics that demonstrate IT’s contribution to the achievement of desired business outcomes.
Performance: 1 2 3 4 5 Importance: 1 2 3 4 5
Performance Reporting We track metrics that demonstrate IT’s contribution to the achievement of desired business outcomes.
Performance: 1 2 3 4 5 Importance: 1 2 3 4 5
Phase Gate Funding We allocate funds to projects as they are approved through phase gates to ensure available budget is maximized.
Performance: 1 2 3 4 5 Importance: 1 2 3 4 5
Budget Visibility We allocate to asset class budget categories and regularly review budget versus allocation reporting.
Performance: 1 2 3 4 5 Importance: 1 2 3 4 5
Operational Effectiveness Technology Innovation
Availability Management We ensure the availability of systems based on SLAs that consider business criticality.
Performance: 1 2 3 4 5 Importance: 1 2 3 4 5
Disaster Recovery We develop and regularly test enterprise plans to ensure continuous support of core business processes.
Performance: 1 2 3 4 5 Importance: 1 2 3 4 5
New Technology We proactively scan for and exploit opportunities to deploy new technologies in support of the business.
Performance: 1 2 3 4 5 Importance: 1 2 3 4 5
Process Digitization We employ a standard methodology to identify opportunities for business process automation and enhancement.
Performance: 1 2 3 4 5 Importance: 1 2 3 4 5
Potter-47
Diagnostic Survey Continued
Rapid Resource Deployment Delivery Management
Project Staffing
Scoring Scale
Performance 5 = We Are Excellent at This 4 = We Are Good at This 3 = We Are Average at This 2 = We Are Poor at This 1 = We Are Terrible at This
Importance 5 = Critical 4 = High Priority 3 = Moderate Priority 2 = Low Priority 1 = Not a Priority
Flexible StaffingProjects are staffed quickly once approved and project staffing is rarely an issue in IT deliveries.
Performance: 1 2 3 4 5 Importance: 1 2 3 4 5
Project ExecutionIT uses both external and internal pooled staffing to rapidly staff projects and manage costs.
Performance: 1 2 3 4 5 Importance: 1 2 3 4 5
Risk Management We manage projects using a standard methodology to meet budget, scope and schedule goals.
We have created a principled framework for assessing relative risk and sequence risk mitigation investments accordingly
Performance: 1 2 3 4 5 Performance: 1 2 3 4 5 Importance: 1 2 3 4 5 Importance: 1 2 3 4 5
The primary results assessment will come
from compiling results and comparing the
performance versus importance aggregate
scores. Questions with high importance
scores and low performance scores should be
addressed first.
Potter-48
FITS Component Implementation Project Plan
Background
The FITS framework includes a standard
implementation project plan that can be used as a
baseline by the program manager for the FITS
core component deliveries. As previously
mentioned a core tenet of the FITS model is
consistent 60-90 day implementation cycles.
These timeframes have been incorporated into
baseline project plan. IT organizations from Qwest
Communications International and British Telecom
have benefited from standardizing on 90 day
client delivery cycles. The standard cycles have
help the IT organization manage the scope of
deliveries and provide value add to the business
on a quarterly basis.
Tool Description
The FITS standard project plan is intended to be
used by the FITS program manager to develop a
detailed 90 core component implementation plan.
This plan has been built using Microsoft Project
and includes the key steps in completing each of
the 6 deployment scheme steps. The project plan
should be reviewed and modified during step 1
and then updated throughout the project lifecycle
on regular intervals, weekly is recommended.
Notes
A number of the project tasks particularly in
regard to data collection, process engineering or
tool development may require longer durations.
This baseline is intended to represent a simplified
deployment.
Potter-49
FITS Baseline Project Plan
ID Task Name Duration Timeline Resource Names
1 Design 8 days Day 1-82 Identification of director and program manager 1 day Day 1 CIO/Director3 Develop FITS priorities and roadmap 2 days Day 2-3 Director/PM4 Obtain Executive approval of roadmap 1 day Day 4 Director/PM5 Core team Staffed 3 days Day 5-8 PM6 Communication Plan/Mechnanism complete 3 days Day 5-8 PM7 Diagnosis 15 days Day 8-288 Modify standard FITS survey 2 days Day 8-9 Core Team9 Identify survey group and distribute 2 days Day 9-10 Core Team10 Collect and Compile Survey Data 2 days Day 18-21 Core Team11 Categorize Results 2 days Day 21-22 Core Team12 Develop Initial Resolution to top priorities 3 days Day 23-25 Core Team13 Update target project plan 1 day Day 26 PM14 Obtain approvals for detailed plan 1 day Day 28 Director/PM15 Process 12 days Day 29-4016 Confirm impacted resources/groups 2 days Day 29-30 Core Team17 Modify FITS level 1 process flows 3 days Day 31-33 Core Team18 Develop level 2 flows 4 days Day 34-37 Core Team19 Review draft processes with core team 1 day Day 38 PM20 Finalized process flows 2 days Day 39-40 Core Team21 Tools 16 days Day 41-5622 Identify critical path tools for implementation 3 days Day 41-43 Core Team23 Identify existing FITS or other Best Practice tools 2 days Day 44-45 Core Team24 Modify tools to meet organizational needs 5 days Day 46-50 Core Team25 Review modified tools with core team 1 day Day 51 PM26 Finalize tools for deployment 5 days Day 52-56 Core Team27 Deploy 10 days Day 57-6728 Ensure finalized processes & tools are in place 1 day Day 57 PM29 Complete Operational Readiness Review 1 day Day 58 Core Team30 Complete management and executive review 1 day Day 65 Director/PM31 Develop and distribute communication 4 days Day 59-62 Core Team32 Develop Training 4 days Day 59-62 Core Team33 Train users 3 days Day 63-66 Core Team34 Deploy 1 day Day 67 Team
CIO/DirectorDirector/PM
Director/PMPMPM
Core TeamCore Team
Core TeamCore Team
Co
M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T2, '06 Jul 9, '06 Jul 16, '06 Jul 23, '06 Jul 30, '06
Many project plan ta ssign the
“Core Team”. The intent is not to have all
ac jointly worked, but that there is
consensus among all team members in the
derived ta e.
sks are a ed to
tivities
sk outcom
engineering
to th
Multiple process iterations may be
required before the core team can agree e
entire flow. It is important that teams iterate
as needed.
Timelines for tools implementation is based on
manual tools. Software development and
deployment will likely require an entire 90 day
cycle and should be considered for
implementation as part of a stand-alone
initiative.
Operational Readiness Reviews may require
subsequent tool or process refinement. Again
it is important that teams iterate as needed
until the process, tools, roles and
responsibilities are all in alignment.
Potter-50
5.1 Flexible Prioritization
Balanced Scorecard
Background
The Balanced Scorecard approach to strategic
management was developed in the early 1990’s by
Dr. Robert Kaplan (Harvard Business School) and
Dr. David Norton (Kaplan and Norton, 2006) It was
developed as a management system, not just a
measure tool, so corporations could track and view
their current efforts to the strategic vision. The
original balanced scorecard was comprised of four
key areas:
• Customer Perspective
• Financial Perspective
• Learning and Growth Perspective
• Business Process Perspective
Tool Description
This balanced scorecard is either a monthly
or quarterly report intended for business unit
executive management. This version varies from
the original in that it is comprised of three types of
metrics that are specific to a balanced IT solution.
• Service Delivery – Indicators the quality of
services being provided by IT to the
corporation and/or a specific business unit.
Includes application operational metrics and
project delivery status and timelines.
• Strategic Alignment – Indicators of portfolio
program alignment to the corporate strategy.
Comprised of portfolio risk versus cost,
portfolio mix and
• Resource Allocation – Indicators of the level
of IT resources (human and capital) currently
and forecast for support of each corporate
business unit. Metrics include business unit
resource allocation, portfolio resource
allocation and customer resource snapshot.
Potter-51
Balanced Scorecard
Project Status Portfolio Timelines Tracks project and program performance versus initial cost, schedule and scope estimates, measured individually on a red/yellow/green scale
Provides an overview of program timelines, highlighting the programs that will be complete in the near future (more than 25% complete) to provide an advance window into staff availability
Portfolio Mix Business Unit Resource Allocation Displays the mix of program spending in based on the following categories Strategic, Business Unit Specific, Infrastructure and Lights-On
Details the time spent by IT resources on high, medium and low priority projects and programs, with priorities determined by the business unit head (data provided by business unit)
Portfolio Resource Allocation
Cost
Risk
Portfolio Risk versus Cost Documents the percentage of resource allocated by portfolio category (Strategic, Business Unit Specific, Infrastructure and Lights-On) across the entire portfolio
Provides a holistic view of the IT program and project portfolio to determine overall portfolio risk relative to investments. Risk can be assessed by discounted payback or other indicators.
Operational Service Level ReportDocuments system downtime, by application and severity level, includes high level SLA information.
Business Unit A Customer Resource Snapshot Documents current and forecast IT resources dedicated to each corporate function and can include project and program budget allocation, hardware and operational resources
Potter-52
Portfolio Level Business-Value Map
Background
Many quality and efficiency methodologies,
including Six Sigma, use the mapping of metrics
to projects and programs to drive the corporate
portfolio in alignment with strategic plans
(Sixsigma, 2004). The Portfolio Level Business-
Value Map specifically gives visibility program
goals as they relate to either a set of cross-
corporate key financial/performance business
metrics or to business unit specific metrics.
Tool Description
This business-value map would likely be a
monthly report and include active initiatives. The
target audience could include business unit and IT
upper management, and program/project
managers. The map includes:
• Benefits Description Linked to Key Business
Metrics – Explicitly articulating the value
contribution of the program in terms of
business metrics including, cost reduction,
productivity increase, revenue generation.
• Standard Metrics Definition – Each metric has
a standard definition, providing business
sponsors with consistent methods for
calculating the benefits of an IT investment.
• A Holistic Aggregate View of the Program
Portfolio – The map can include the entire IT
program portfolio.
Notes
• Key metrics should be agreed by all
stakeholders
• The business-value map should report at
the initiative level where the benefits will be
realized (project vs program).
Potter-53
Portfolio Level Business-Value Map
Program Type
Customer Facing Customer Care
Back Office Regulatory
Metric Description Pro
gram
A
Pro
gram
B
Pro
gram
C
Pro
gram
D
Pro
gram
E
Pro
gram
F
Pro
gram
G
Pro
gram
H
Pro
gram
I
Pro
gram
J
Pro
gram
K
Pro
gram
L
Pro
gram
M
Pro
gram
N
Pro
gram
O
Pro
gram
P
Pro
gram
Q
Days of Inventory $M/Day Balance Sheet Impact Order Process Time $M/Day Balance Sheet Impact Headcount Reduction Number of HC Reduction or Avoided x Avg
Burden Rate
Headcount Productivity 50% x ( # of HC Reduced or Avoided) x Avg Headcount Turnover $ per Turnover Avoided System End of Life Incremental $ Cost of Displaced System per
Each Actual Incident
Materials Discount Cost Avoidance From Supplier Neg Hardware/Software Avoidance
Cost Avoidance From Infrastructure Decisions
Risk Avoidance Internal Exposure x Probability of Occurrence Other Cost Avoidance Actual Cost Avoided from Unique Automation Unit Cost Avoidance Actual Cost Avoided from Process Automation Productivity Improvements $/hour of productivity improvements x total
hours
Time-to-Market $/Week Open New Markets Increased Volume x Appropriate ASP x
Appropriate Margin Rate
Opt Existing Market Incremental ASP x Appropriate Margin Rate Cross-Selling Cross-Selling Products of Multiple Divisions Customer Satisfaction Qualitative Customer Satisfaction Score
Working Capital Reductions
Expense Reductions
Cost of Sales
Profit Margin
Customer Satisfaction
OpeningMarkets
Efficiencies
CashCycle
Potter-54
Portfolio Alignment Pyramid (Modified)
Background
Separately business unit strategies and IT
project deliveries goals may be clear, however
businesses often have trouble connecting the
golden thread from unit strategy through
technology strategy and finally to IT deliverables.
The Portfolio Alignment Pyramid provides IT and
the business with a tool to visualize this
connection. Portfolio consulting firms, including
IBM use this “accountability pyramid” to define
links between each project and the corporate
strategic initiatives. (Latimore, 2004).
Tool Description
The Alignment Pyramid can provide either a
business unit or program representation of work
being delivered by IT. The target audience is
business unit and IT upper management, and
program/project managers. The tool is comprised
of a four-tier strategic alignment pyramid that
when compiled provides the related ends:
• Business Unit Strategy – The initial 2
questions of the diagnostic focus on helping
the business articulate it own strategy, both
long-term vision and specific business
strategies.
• Surfacing the Operational Implications –
The next set of questions is designed to
help with the translation of strategic into
specific business capabilities and provide
answers to funding and sponsorship issues.
• Information Technology Alignment– The
third set of questions is intended to provide
insight into the alignment of business
capabilities into IT infrastructure or
technical strategies.
• Program/Project Deliverables – The final set
of questions outlines the specific IT
deliverables and dates that implement the
needed business capabilities.
Potter-55
Portfolio Alignment Pyramid (Modified)
1. To what goal does the business aspire?
2. What specific strategies will enable the business to achieve vision
3. What specific business capabilities are required to achieve those strategies?
4. How will the work to create those business capabilities be funded and executed?
5. What solutions must IT provide to enable required business capabilities?
6. What is the strategic plan for delivering those solutions?
7. What are the specific releases/projects/programs the will deliver the capabilities needed by the business and the dates?
Business Unit
Strategy
Operationalizing the Strategy
Information Technology Alignment
Program/Project Deliverables
Potter-56
5.2 Rapid Resource Deployment Competency Repository
Background
Visibility to detailed skills and proficiencies
within an IT organization at the resource level is
needed for rapid cross organizational deployment
and targeted skill improvement/training. The
Competency Repository provides data which can
easily be manipulated and analyzed to provide
manager, resource managers and IT executives
with summary views of their resources.
Tool Description
The Competency Repository is a set of skills
based data, updated as skills or proficiency
change. By capturing skills data the repository can
provide the following competency views:
• Skill Set View – Supports training and skill
set shifting, by giving visibility to the
number of resources with a specific skill set.
• Proficiency View – Supports specific project
staffing, by providing visibility to skilled
resources with a specific proficiency level.
• Location View – Supports geographically
distributed organizations and teams, by
providing visibility into resources with certain
skills in a particular location.
Notes
• Ownership of the data capture and
maintenance should be clearly
communicated. The recommendation is that
managers be responsible for this effort.
Potter-57
Competency Repository
Tool selection should be
user friendly, flexible and
scalable to the specific
organization. Microsoft Excel
was used in this example.
Consistent terminology must
be used for the data to be
valuable. Clearly identify
and standardize skill sets
and proficiency definitions
across organization prior to
the initial data collection.
This repository has been
configured to hold 3
proficiencies per resource;
however this may not be
appropriate for all
organizations.
Potter-58
Forecast Capacity Maps
Background
Visibility into the resource supply coupled
with the holistic picture of demand provide the
information to make better decisions about
business priorities and where IT staff members
should spend their time (Symons, April 2006).
Capacity demand reports are used by highly
effective IT organizations including Qwest
Communications Inc and Teradyne Inc. to
continually assess the mix of resources in the
organization and the needs identified by future
projects.
Tool Description
There are multiple relevant views into IT
capacity and demand. Three such views are
provided in the Forecast Capacity Maps.
• Organizational Summary – Summary level
visibility into demand versus capacity
provides valuable data on determining if
there are additional needs for business
prioritization of pipeline work.
• Skills Summary – Supports specific project
staffing, by providing visibility to skilled
resources with a specific proficiency level.
• Application View – Application specific
demand versus capacity which provides IT
the ability increase staffing or work with the
business on prioritization when there is
greater demand than availability.
Notes
• Accurate and updated supply and demand
data is required to build forecast capacity
maps.
• Specific resource demand data must be
captured in the concept and design phases
to support full visibility and reporting of
demand data
Potter-59
Forecast Capacity Maps
Skill Set Summary
Provides a quarterly or monthly view of
demand versus capacity for specific
resource competencies for both in-
progress and targeted initiatives.
Capacity and demand are standardized
Application View
Provides a quarterly or monthly trend
view of target demand versus capacity
for key high-demand applications.
Capacity and demand are standardized
into hours available for key tasks
including development, testing, project
management, etc.
Forecast Capacity MapSkills Summary - XXX Month
0
50
100
150
200
250
C++ Dev
eloper
Java
Dev
eloper
Automate
d Tes
terBus
iness A
nalys
tProj
ect M
anage
rSmall
Talk.N
et Dev
elope
r
SQL
XML
Tester
Man
Day
s
CapacityDemand
Forecast Capacity MapApplication XXX View
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
January February March April May
Avai
labl
e H
ours
Capacity Demand
Organizational Summary
Provides a monthly or quarterly
trending view of total available
resources and total resource demand
based on in-progress and targeted
initiatives. Capacity and demand are
standardized into man-days.
1Q062Q06
3Q064Q06
Demand
Capacity
15001350
1325
11001400 1400
1200
1000
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
Man
Day
s
Forecast Capacity MapAnnual Organizational Summary
DemandCapacity
13251350
1500
Potter-60
5.3 Agile Financial Management
Asset Class Dashboard
Background
Only 22% of Forrester surveyed companies
use portfolio management processes to eliminate
projects during prioritization (Hughes, 2004). To
catalyze critical prioritization decisions within
stakeholder boards the Asset Class Dashboard
provides a summary view of the asset class based
budget and aggregate impact of previous
approvals on that budget.
Tool Description
This report is intended for business unit and
IT executives and should be generated on the
cycle of the stakeholder board meeting. The Asset
Class Dashboard provides a breakout of the total
annual IT budget by asset class along with:
• Allocations – budget associated with
approved programs for the specified asset
class.
• Remaining Allocation - Remaining asset
class budget available for allocation to
prospective programs.
• Actual Spend – total year-to-date costs of
approved programs within a asset class.
Notes
• Actual spend data is only available if project
managers are required to accurately track
project spend on over the lifecycle of the
initiative.
Potter-61
Asset Class Dashboard
Infrastructure – 40%Budget $5,000,000 Allocations $2,500,000 Remaining Allocation $2,500,000 Spend $1,000,000
Mandates - 10% Budget $1,000,000 Allocations $200,000 Spend $150,000 Remaining Allocations $800,000
Budget $2,000,000 Allocations $1,500,000 Remaining Allocation $500,000 Spend $750,000
Business Opportunity
30%
Innovation 20%
Budget $3,000,000 Allocations $1,500,000 Remaining Allocation $1,500,000 Spend $850,000
Potter-62
Business Case Template
Background
To facilitate equivalent comparison of
project value across business units, corporations
will benefit from use of a standard enterprise-
wide business case template (Corporate Executive
Board, 2002). The template provides project
sponsors and IT stakeholders a uniform method
for defining and interpreting project benefits and
risks. Financial benefits and costs are defined
across a three year horizon.
Tool Description
This report is intended for use by the
project sponsors, IT stakeholder boards and
project teams. A business case should be created
as part of the concept and design phases, but
should an updated version should be built at later
phases if benefit, cost or risk data changes. There
are two primary sections to this business case
template:
• Financial Assessment Scorecard – Combines
benefit and cost data to provide visibility to
total financial value add
• Risk Assessment Scorecard – Combines a
qualitative assessment of risks in 7 areas
with a risk factor index to provide an overall
project risk index score.
Notes
• A business case is only as good as the data
it includes. For successful implementation of
a business case template, it is critical that
data validation be performed by an internal
independent third party or by an
authoritative organization.
• Business case templates can include other
key financial or risk data. To remain agile,
an organization should include only relevant
key decision data in the template.
Potter-63
Business Case Template – Financial Assessment Scorecard
Date Project Sponsor: Project:
BENEFITS (in $1,000,000’s)
Revenue from New Customers 6.2
Revenue from Existing Customers 2.3
Revenue from Additional Asset Use 0.5
Cost Reductions 4.0
Additional Productivity 5.0
Total Benefits 18.0
COSTS Start-Up Operational
Evaluation 0.2 N/A
Hardware 0.3 0.3
Software 1.0 0.4
Development 0.5 0.2
Deployment 0.2 N/A
Management N/A 0.2
Support N/A 0.4
Communication N/A 0.1
Downtime N/A 0.3
Subtotal Costs 2.2 1.9
Grand Total Costs 4.1
Total Benefits – Total Costs = Value Added 18.0 – 4.1 = 13.9
Benefit data should be summarized in
the business case, but should be
supported by detailed and realistic
business unit data.
Operational costs are limited to post
implementation costs.
Benefits and costs are generally
provided over a 3 year period; however
innovation or strategic programs may
need to include 5-7 year financial data to
produce quantifiable results.
Potter-64
Business Case Template - Risk-Assessment Scorecard
Date Project Sponsor:
Project: Risk Score
Project Staffing • Resource availability • Skills availability • Availability of experienced staff
Low
Project Schedule • Realism of current schedule • Criticality of on-time delivery
Low
Project Scope • Size and complexity of project • Measurability of success • Ability to accommodate scope cut
without loss of critical functionality
Medium
Project Dependencies • Dependence on other projects • Dependence on externally developed
technologies
Low
Technological Risks • Newness of technology to company
and world • Scalability • Data security and privacy • Disaster recovery capabilities
High
Business Risk • Business impact of downtime • Business impact of lost or improperly
released data
Low
Political Risk • Senior management commitment • Funding jeopardy
Medium
Risk Area Risk Factor
Risk Score
Total
Staffing 3 1 (Low) 3 Schedule 5 1 (Low) 5
Scope 2 2 (Med) 4 Dependencies 1 1 (Low) 1 Technology 2 3 (High) 6 Business 3 1 (Low) 3 Political 2 2 (Med) 4
Aggregate project Risk Score Possible Score 18-54
25
The Risk Assessment Scorecard should
include mitigation plans for any area that
has medium or high risk.
Key risks for a corporation change over
time. So the final risk score is calculated
by combining the project risk scores with
a corporate agreed risk factor of 1-5 (1
low, 5 high) that is applied to each of the
7 risk categories.
Potter-65
5.4 Delivery Management
Project Status Dashboard
Background
Communication, tracking and rapid risk
mitigation are essential to successful projects. A
basic standardized project status dashboard
provides all project managers and stakeholders in
a company a consistent means for distributing
status information.
Tool Description
This report should be maintained by the
project manager or project lead and the intended
distribution includes anyone with interest or stake
in the initiative. A project status dashboard should
be updated on regularly agreed intervals, the
recommendation is every week. There are four
sections to the status report:
• Financials – Financial data including original
estimates and total spend-to-date.
• Tasks/Activities – Summarized key project
tasks completed during the current week and
scheduled for the following week.
• Resource – Summary resource information
including original staffing estimates and
current project staffing.
• Schedule – Includes original and projected
end dates for the current milestone and
target end dates for the entire project.
Notes
• Common definitions of red, yellow and green
status must be used across projects.
• It is important to select a tool or template
where key data from multiple status reports
can be exported and aggregated for upper
management or executive reporting. This
dashboard was built using Microsoft Excel.
Potter-66
Project Status Dashboard
Reporting Period
Project Name Project Manager
Activities Financial Resources Schedule
Completed This Week Project Budget:
Original FTE Estimate
15 Stage Schedule Target Date
Stage Schedule Predicted Date
YTD Spend Current FTE’s on Project
17
Original Project Target Date
Status Indicator
Status Indicator
Status Indicator
Status Indicator
Scheduled Activities Not Completed
Issue/Risk Issue/Risk Issue/Risk
Next Weeks Activities Mitigation Mitigation Mitigation
Should include all incurred project costs
Summary data generally in bulleted format
Should include both business and IT risks/mitigations
Potter-67
Level of Effort Template
Background
Without a standardized method for giving
and gathering project estimates, IT organizations
may have difficulty retracing assumptions, costs
or risks that were associated with the first
timelines and figures provided to the business
unit. A Level of Effort (LOE) template is designed
to provide all development teams with a standard
method for deriving their inputs for initial cost,
timeline and resource estimate for a project. It
also gives a project manager a decipherable
artifact that can be used to communicate to IT
upper management, the business and can also be
used to assess project performance at the end of
a deployment.
Tool Description
The LOE template should be compiled and
maintained by the project manager with direct
input from each impacted technical team;
development, testing, operations, etc. The
template should be filled out as input to the
business case template and should therefore
occur prior to phase gate approval. The summary
LOE view provides the following compiled data for
each impacted technical team
• Project Costs – Project costs calculated by
hourly IT labor rate x number of estimated
labor hours.
• Monthly Resources – Calculated FTE’s based
on the number of estimated labor
hours/hours in a month
• Start & End Months – Target start and end
dates for each technical team provide by
them directly.
Potter-68
Level of Effort Template
Program Name Sample Project A
Program ID A
Program Description Sample Project
Estimation Range(+/-) +/- 30%
TEAM SUMMARY Total Application Team A Application Team B
Total Program Labor Hours 10000 5000 5000
Concept Labor Hours 1250 500 750
Development Labor Hours 4750 2500 2250
Support Labor Hours 2250 1000 1250
Maintenance Labor Hours 1750 1000 750
Total Monthly FTE 30 15
(5000/160hr/2mos)
15
(5000/160hr/2mos)
Total Program Cost ($000) $500,000 $250,000 $250,000
Labor Costs ($000) $500,000 $250,000 $250,000
Non-Labor Costs ($000) 0 0 0
Start Month 02/06 02/06 03/06
End Month 05/06 04/06 05/06
Duration (Calendar Days) 90 60 60
Estimation range provides project team with a field to identify the quality of their estimate; +/-10%, +/-20%, etc.
Estimates provided for each phase should be total team hours and include; analysis, development, testing, etc.
All light gray cells are calculated based on standard labor rates x hours input from the technical team.
Start Month and End Month are target estimates by technical team based on resource availability and current pipeline work view.
Potter-69
Conclusion
CIOs are faced with significant pressure to cut costs and improve IT efficiency. In an effort to meet
these increased demands, CIOs have begun running their organizations like agile businesses using
governance methodologies. Yet despite the new IT governance movement business alignment, financial
management, resource deployment and project management continue to be significant challenges within
most IT organizations. The inability of IT executives to manage these areas has resulted in high turn-over
for this executive-level position.
CIOs need a more adaptable and flexible methodology to overcome these obstacles. Existing
solutions are far too complex and time consuming to deploy. The Flexible Information Technology Tools
and Strategies methodology was developed specifically as a response to the shortcomings of existing IT
management solutions. FITS provides a flexible component framework with incorporated standard metrics
and deployment steps. FITS includes a compilation of best practice tools and reporting to expedite and
simplify the roll-out of the core components. The FITS framework is designed to combine the best known
practices across the IT industry within a single toolkit. As a result, CIOs can quickly deploy the business
management aspects of their organization and advance the interaction with their business counterparts.
Potter-70
Appendix 1 - Software Tool Vendors
Along with the industry push to manage IT as a discreet entity and as a business has come the
proliferation of software available to automate and track the workings of the IT organization. While many
organizations still use standard spreadsheet or a combination of manual intensive tools to capture and
track data, there are a number of benefits including integration, automation, data accuracy and efficiency
which make package software appealing to companies.
This appendix comprises a partial list of vendors with products that support the four main functions
of the FITS model; governance, resource management, financial management and project management.
Where available this appendix provides independent review data along with core functionality and
architecture information (Visitacion, March 2006) (Corporate Executive Board, 2002). It should be noted
that this compilation of information is intended to serve as a starting point for any organization
considering the acquisition of software tools to manage their IT organization. It is recommended that a full
analysis of corporate needs and vendor product specifications be completed prior to purchase or
implementation.
Potter-71
*Forrester Portfolio and Project Management Score CO = Current Offering, NG = Next Generation Offering, MP = Market Place. The scores are based on a scale of 0 (weak) to 5 (strong).
Vendor and Product Contact Information Core Functionality Platform Architecture Forrester
PPM Score
Artemis International
Artemis 7
4041 MacArthur Blvd. Suite 401 Newport Beach, California 92660, USA Tel: 1-800.477.6648 Fax: 949.660.6501
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.aisc.com
CO = 3.37 • Analysis of investment scenarios • Web-Based versus funding and staffing
• Import/Export XML constraints at the enterprise or NG = 2.60 Schema Integration API’s unit level
• Oracle, SQL, or Solaris MP = 2.26 • Role based process support via dynamic process modeler.
• Dynamic configuration management
Business Engine
Business Engine Network TM (BENTM)
100 Bush Street, 22nd Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: 415.616.4000 Fax: 415.616.4008
www.businessengine.com
CO = 4.00 • Provides multi-dimensional • Web-based and available portfolio views, role-based access, as a hosted service NG = 3.83 scenario modeling and capacity
MP = 2.79 analysis for staff, skills and funding
Computer Associates International
Enterprise IT Management (EITMTM)
CA One CA Plaza Islandia, NY 11749, USA Phone: +1 631 342-6000 Fax: +1 631 342-6800
Website: www.ca.com
CO = 4.12 • Provides a full suite of modular • Open service oriented yet integrated IT management architecture which NG = 4.22 functions. supports most major
MP = 4.33 hardware and operating • Flexible form-driven project and system platforms
work management functions
• Supports linking of IT development, maintenance and support functions
Potter-72
Forrester PPM
Vendor and Product Contact Information Core Functionality Platform Architecture Score*
*Forrester Portfolio and Project Management Score CO = Current Offering, NG = Next Generation Offering, MP = Market Place. The scores are based on a scale of 0 (weak) to 5 (strong).
Compuware Compuware Corporation CO = 4.14 • Professional services automation • Integrates with MS One Campus Martius (PSA) software adapted for use by project and major NG = 3.26
corporate IT financial, HR and CRM Detroit, Michigan 48226 MP = 2.19 systems
Phone: 313 227 7300 • Provides a library of more than • Available as a hosted 100 standard and customizable Changepoint Website: relationship and request service
www.compuware.com management, resource management, project accounting and management and knowledge capture.
IBM www- CO = 3.95 • Configurable workflow engine to • Supports AIX,
rigorously manage and track WindowsXP/2000/2003, NG = 4.40 306.ibm.com/software/awdt project delivery process from Solaris, HP-UX, Redhat MP = 2.65 request to closing Linux, Suse Linux
ools/portfolio/ operating systems • Systematic phase-gating &
Rational Portfolio • Supports Oracle, IBM DB2 portfolio review processes, Manager complete with Save/Kill decision on AIX, Solaris, HP-UX,
points Windows 2000/2003 databases.
• Enterprise project portfolio data
North American Offices ITM Software CO = 3.14 • Fully integrated set of seven • 100% web-based, J2EE-161 East Evelyn Ave, functional modules based on a compliant application NG = 3.60 Mountain View, CA 94041 single data set. Includes financial architecture Main: 650-864-2500 MP = 1.79 resource management, human Fax: 650-864-2510 • XML interfaces for data capital management, project Email: info@itm- integration portfolio management, vendor software.com management, governance and • Integrates with Oracle, Website: www.itm- compliance management PeopleSoft, SAP and office ITM Business Suite software.com productivity tools
Potter-73
Forrester PPM
Vendor and Product Contact Information Core Functionality Platform Architecture Score
*Forrester Portfolio ment Score CO = Current Offering, NG = Next Generation Offering, MP = and Project ManageMarket Place. The scores are based on a scale of 0 (weak) to 5 (strong).
Mercury Interactive
Mercury IT Governance Center
379 North Whisman Road Mountain View, CA 94043 USA Tel: (650) 603-5200 Fax: (650) 603-5300
Website: www.mercury.com
CO = 3.85 • Flexible and powerful reporting, • Database options are with a variety of dashboards views limited to Oracle. NG = 3.70 configurable at the administrative
• JBoss is the only MP = 4.12 level. supported application
• Portfolio management with server. individual user views, supports
• 100% Web based comparison through scenario modeling.
• Financial Management via creation of multiple types of budgets.
CO = 4.24 PlanView PlanView, Inc. 8300 North Mopac #100 Austin, Texas 78759 Tel: 800.856-8600 or +1.512.346.8600 Fax: (512) 346-9180
• Supports Oracle and Microsoft SQL server Databases.
• Built in financial models to identify key performance indicators to evaluate initiatives
NG = 4.24
MP = 3.10 • Comprehensive Resource
Management module includes both allocation and demand/forecast functionality
Enterprise Portfolio
Management
• Workflow and processes are based
on Planview developed PRISM processes.
Website: www.planview.com
Primavera Primavera Systems, Inc. Corporate Headquarters Three Bala Plaza West, Suite 700 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 USA
Website: www.primavera.com
CO = 4.19 • Robust financial management • Supports Microsoft SQL including organizational, program, Server and Oracle for NG = 4.44 project or work activity budgets. database.
• Supports both resource and schedule calendars with a master calendar for modeling resource availability and usage
• 5 Operating systems
• Offers a web-based user interface.
MP = 3.14
Potter-74
Bibliography
Adcock, Jason. “Performance Metrics in Community Outreach.” Fort Bragg Technology Information (March,
2005).
Bartels, Andrew. “Global IT Investment Data: Q42005” Forrester Research (April 5, 2006).
Bell Canada Interview, Qwest Communications and Bell Canada. March 31, 2004.
Brynjolfsson, Erik and Hitt, Lorin M. "Computing Productivity: Firm-Level Evidence" MIT Sloan Working
Paper No. 4210-01 (2003). http://ssrn.com/abstract=290325 (accessed May 12, 2006).
Carlino, Bill. “Two Left Hands.” Accounting Today (February 2006): 6
“Chaos University 2003 – Keynotes and Discussions.” The Standish Group, (2003).
http://www.standishgroup.com/chaos/discussions.php accessed July 10, 2006.
Gliedman, Chip and Visitacion, Margo. “Use Project Status Reports to Reinforce IT Value.” Forrester
Research (July 19, 2004).
“Governance and Prioritization for Agile Organizations” Corporate Executive Board (2002).
Hoffman, James. “Staff Augmentation Case Studies” PriceWaterhouseCoopers (2004).
Potter-75
Hughes, Lauren. “Managing A Portfolio of IT Investments” Forrester Research (September 27, 2004).
“IT Governance Global Status Report” Illinois: IT Governance Institute (2004).
http://www.itgi.org/Template.cfm?Section=home&Template
=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=22877 (accessed on May 10, 2006).
“IT Governance Global Status Report - 2006” Illinois: IT Governance Institute (2006).
http://www.itgi.org/AMTemplate.cfm?Section=ITGI_
Research_Publications&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=24224
(accessed on May 8, 2006).
“IT Management Competency Diagnostic Tool.” Corporate Executive Board (2005).
Jeffrey, Mark and Leliveld, Ingmar. “Best Practices In IT Portfolio Management.” MIT Sloan Management
Review (Spring 2004): Vol. 45, No.3.
Johnson, Jim “Top 10 CIO Concerns Shift As Industry Is Under Fire” Software 500 (Summer 2003). Page
38-39.
Potter-76
Jorgenson, Dale W., Ho, Mun S. and Stiroh, Kevin J. “Growth of US Industries and Investments in
Information Technology and Higher Education.” Economic Systems Research (September 2003) Vol.
15, No.3.
Dr. Kaplan, Robert and Dr. Norton, David. “Balanced Scorecard Method.” Value Based Management.Net.
http://www.valuebasedmanagement.net/methods_balancedscorecard.html accessed July 27, 2006.
Koontz, Linda. “VA Assigned CIO Responsibilities” Government Veteran Affair Hearings (1998).
http://www.house.gov/va/hearings/schedule109/sep05/9-14-05/gao.pdf accessed on July 15, 2006.
Latimore, Daniel.”Reaching efficient frontiers in IT investment management: What financial services CIOs
can learn from portfolio theory.” IBM Institute for Business Value (2004). http://www-
03.ibm.com/industries/financialservices/doc/content/bin/fss_bae_IT_management.pdf accessed
July 5, 2006.
Leto, Robert, Haas, Ron, and Williams, Mark. “IT Effectiveness: Managing IT Like a Business.”
PriceWaterhouseCoopers (August 31, 2005).
Lutchen, Mark D. “A Survival Guide for CEOs – Managing IT as a Business.” New Jersey: John Wiley &
Sons (2004).
Potter-77
Marks, Eric. “Agile Funding for SOA.” MA Managing Automation: Technology Strategies for Progressive
Manufacturers (June, 29 2006) http://www.managingautomation.com/maonline/magazine
/read/Agile_Funding_for_SOA_10649609 (accessed on July 20, 2006).
Mercury IT Governance Center, Mercury Interactive. www.mercury.com (accessed on July 14, 2006),
“Introduction to the Project Management Institute.” Project Management Institute.
http://www.pmi.org/info/AP_IntroOverview.asp?nav=0201 (accessed July 24, 2006).
O’Connell, Laurie. “Management Metrics” Dr. Dobb’s Portal: The World of Software Development (March
28, 2003) http://www.ddj.com/dept/architect/184415948 (accessed on July 15, 2006).
Price, Lee & McKittrick, George. “The New Economy Endures: Despite Reduced IT Investment.” US
Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration (2002).
https://www.esa.doc.gov/reports/DE2002r1.pdf (accessed on July 21, 2006).
“IT Investment Portfolio Management” Price Waterhouse Coopers (August 2005): 7.
Rational Portfolio Manager, IBM. www-306.ibm.com/software/awdtools/portfolio/ (accessed June 16,
2006).
Potter-78
Reh, John F. “Key Performance Indicators (KPIs).” About Management General Management.
http://management.about.com/cs/ generalmanagement/a/key perfindic.htm (accessed May 12,
2006).
Roberts, J. “Link IT Performance Metrics to Business Value.” Gartner Research (November 5, 2004)
Scott, A. “Executives Real IT Concerns.” Internal Auditor 61, issue 6 (December 2004): 16.
Stanleigh, Michael. “From Crisis to Control: New Standards for Project Management” Ivey Business
Journal: Improving the Practice of Management (March/April 2006).
Strassmann , Paul A. “The Cost of Short-Term CIOs” Computerworld (2004).
http://www.strassmann.com/pubs/cw/short-term-cios.shtml (accessed on April 10, 2006).
“The Strategic Enterprise IT Budget Realities Benchmark Report.” Aberdeen Group (October 2004)
Symons, Craig. “How IT Must Shape And Manage Demand: Influencing The Behavior That Consumes IT
Resources.” Forrester Research (June, 15, 2006).
Symons, Craig. “Topic Overview: IT Governance” Forrester Research (April 3, 2006).
“The State of the CIO.” CIO Magazine (March 1, 2002)
Potter-79
“The Status of the CIO – Revisited.” CIO Magazine (March 31, 2006)
Tagliavini, M., Moro, J., Ravarini, A., Guimaraes, T. “Important CIO features for successfully managining
IS sub-functions.” Strategies for Managing IS/IT Personnel (2004).
Ulfeder, Steve. “ The Elastic IT Staff” ComputerWorld (September 20, 2004) Page 29-31.
“The Use of Six Sigma Methodology for Software Application Development” SixSigma (2004).
www.sixsigma.com (accessed on July 18, 2006).
Visitacion, Margo. “Establishing A Portfolio of Estimation Practices: Flexibility Means Better Accuracy.”
Forrester Research (February 9, 2005).
Visitacion, Margo. “The Forrester Wave: Project Portfolio Management, Q1 2006.” Forrester Research
(March 13, 2006).
Visitacion, Margo. “The Path to Becoming a Project-Based Organization.” Forrester Research (June 13,
2006).
Wiechmann, D., Ryan, A.M. and Hemingway, M. “Designing and Implementing Global Staffing Systems
Part II – Best Practices.” Human Resource Management (2003) Vol. 42 No.1.