Conference PaperPDF Available

Mapping between PMI and OGC Artefacts for Project Portfolio Management

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

This paper presents a mapping between the artefacts from the two recognized portfolio management standards: the 'Standard for Portfolio Management' from Project Management Institute (PMI) and the 'Management of Portfolios' (MoP) from Axelos developed by the Office Government Commerce (OGC). The purpose of this paper is to increase our understanding of "how to perform" project portfolio management as the project portfolio management in organizations is still not well structured. The overall mapping between PMI and OGC artefacts shows that PMI artefacts has more detailed by OGC artefacts. Only two artefacts from PMI and OGG have a similar correspondence, 'Portfolio' and the 'Portfolio Roadmap'. The OGC artefacts 'Portfolio's Business Case' and the 'Portfolio Skills Register', are not concepts explored in PMI artefacts. The paper shows the explanatory power of the portfolio artefacts for conducting the project portfolio management processes.
Content may be subject to copyright.
2018 International Conference on Intelligent Systems (IS)
978-1-5386-7097-2/18/$31.00 ©2018 IEEE
Mapping between PMI and OGC Artefacts for Project
Portfolio Management
Ana Lima
CCG/ZGDV Institute and ALGORITMI
Research Centre
Guimarães, Portugal
ana.lima@ccg.pt
Gabriela Fernandes
ALGORITMI Research Centre
Universidade do Minho
Guimarães, Portugal
g.fernandes@dps.uminho.pt
Ricardo J. Machado
ALGORITMI Research Centre and
CCG/ZGDV Institute
Universidade do Minho
Guimarães, Portugal
rmac@dsi.uminho.pt
Abstract This paper presents a mapping between the
artefacts from the two recognized portfolio management
standards: the ‘Standard for Portfolio Management’ from
Project Management Institute (PMI) and the ‘Management of
Portfolios’ (MoP) from Axelos developed by the Office
Government Commerce (OGC). The purpose of this paper is to
increase our understanding of “how to perform” project portfolio
management as the project portfolio management in
organizations is still not well structured. The overall mapping
between PMI and OGC artefacts shows that PMI artefacts has
more detailed by OGC artefacts. Only two artefacts from PMI
and OGG have a similar correspondence, ‘Portfolio’ and the
‘Portfolio Roadmap’. The OGC artefacts ‘Portfolio's Business
Case’ and the ‘Portfolio Skills Register’, are not concepts
explored in PMI artefacts. The paper shows the explanatory
power of the portfolio artefacts for conducting the project
portfolio management processes.
Keywords— portfolio management; artefact; PMI; OGC;
Axelos.
I. INTRODUCTION
Project portfolio management (PfM) processes provide the
linkage between the organization’s strategic objectives and
their programs and projects [1]. It is worthless to have the latest
technology and resources to develop projects, if there is no
organized processes and focus on strategic interests [2].
Therefore, PfM is crucial for organizations in general and in
particular to IT organizations.
Information Technology (IT) governance is defined as a set
of structures and processes in order to ensure IT support, to
adequately maximize the organization's business objectives and
strategies by adding value to the services provided, weighing
the risks and obtaining a return on IT investment [3]. In an IT
organization, the portfolio includes all operations and IT
projects already underway. For all these operations and projects
to be successful, PfM practices, processes or methods must be
used [4], [5].
Portfolio management is a dynamic decision process with
the objective of evaluating, selecting and prioritizing new and
existing projects [6]–[10], being vital to the performance and
success of the business [7].
In this context, adoption of methods, tools and techniques
that contribute to the execution of strategies and support the
achievement of the organization’s strategic objectives are
required. The top management of organizations commonly
support the application of formal PfM methods [11]–[13], as
well as, adoption of frameworks for project evaluation and
decision criteria [14].
Some portfolio management standards have been
developed, with the premise of providing practices enabling
managers to guide the process of selecting, prioritizing, and
monitoring projects [6], [7], [15]–[18]. One of the risks
identified for the successful implementation of PfM are errors
in implementation of PfM processes [19], [20], suggesting that
PfM practices should be appropriately customised to individual
situations, as different practices are required in different
contexts[21].
This paper presents a mapping between artefacts of two
recognized standards in PfM, PMI and OGC, whose objective
will be to present artefacts that best answer the process steps of
"how to manage" portfolios for area professionals.
In 2008, the first standard of PfM was published by the
Project Management Institute (PMI), named "Standard for
Portfolio Management"[1], then Office Government Commerce
(OGC), from UK, then in 2011, presented the standard
"Management of Portfolios (MoP)” [22].
Recently, October 2017, the PMI’s “Standard for Portfolio
Management” (in this paper is used as ‘PMI standard’) was
published the fourth edition; however this research work was
used the third edition (2013 edition). Since 2013, Axelos, a
UK-based joint venture, has purchased OGC's standards,
including the MoP standard. In this paper is used ‘OGC
Standard’ term to designate the “Management of Portfolios
(MoP)”, now, from Axelos.
The “Standard for Portfolio Management"[1] and the
Management of Portfolios (MoP) [22] provides a set of
processes and practices, which allows individuals and
organizations to successfully introduce PfM processes. The
PMI Standard and OGC Standard are the most used and
complete for PfM [23] in IT projects, PMI Standard being
considered the most complete [24], [25], and OGC Standard
being created first for IT projects [23].
The PMI Standard presents the knowledge of PfM through
a set of processes [1], and OGC Standard as a set of practices
[22]. These processes and practices have emerged as an
approach to support decision making in organizations. The
methods, techniques and tools contribute to the minimization of
uncertainties and systematization of the decision. Thus, PfM
ensures that the set of projects in the portfolio meets the
business objectives.
In 2012, the PMI through a benchmarking study with
companies, involving several countries, pointed out the
following conclusions: (1) only 39% of organizations have
projects aligned with the strategy, (2) 82% do not have
monitoring and control processes or practices in their
portfolios, (3) and only 21% present processes and practices for
project selection and prioritization [26].
In fact, there are still several challenges in implementing
PfM [27], for example: (1) remove the power struggle among
individuals with organizational power leave it for the
systematic decision making process of the organization, so that
decisions are made based on the PfM process criteria rather
than people’s influence; and, (2) difficulty to obtain the
necessary knowledge for effective decision making, since
uncertainty exists or information is implicit or improperly
stored to have namely a history of decisions made in the past.
Although we know about the importance of a PfM process
in organizations, the implementation of PfM in organizations is
still not well structured [28]. Killen et al. [29] argue that mix
studies, methods and approaches can be applied to investigate
PfM, making the PfM knowledge area more competitive and
with rewarding results. On the other hand, PfM frameworks
chosen by organizations tend to be interpreted, promulgated
and changed in the context of day-to-day management [21].
Whereas PMI Standard has a more well-defined structure of
PfM processes [30], the OGC Standard has a greater detail of
how to implement PfM processes with artefacts [31].
Therefore, for a better understanding and deepening of
processes and artefacts for PfM, this paper aims to map the
artefacts between the two standards, PMI and OGC.
In this paper, artefacts can be: approaches (e.g., SWOT
analysis), criteria (e.g., Net Present Value - NPV, Internal Rate
Of Return - IRR and payback), documents, legal requirements,
processes definition’s, practices, guidance and templates (e.g.,
business case preparation), tactical information (e.g., strategy,
portfolio delivery plan) and models. PfM was developed
through processes that use artefacts that receive inputs and
generate outputs. A process within the context of PfM is a set
of interrelated actions and activities undertaken to achieve a
strategic element, such as objective or action, resulting in
benefit to the organization within the terms of strategic
planning. Each process is characterized by the input artefacts,
tools and techniques that can be applied, and the resulting
output artefacts [1].
This paper is organized as follows. Section 2 presents the
standard for PfM from PMI with a description of the processes
and artefacts for PfM. Section 3 presents the standard for PfM
from Axelos with a description of the practices and artefacts for
PfM Section 4 describes the mapping between PMI PfM
artefacts and OGC PfM artefacts. Finally, we present
conclusions and some highlights for further research.
II. THE STANDARD FOR PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT FROM PMI
The PMI, a leading association of project management
professionals with more than half a million members accredited
in more than 185 countries, has published some globally
recognized standards [32], among them the Standard for
Portfolio Management [1].
PMI sets portfolio as a set of projects or programs and other
work that are grouped together to facilitate effective
management in order to achieve strategic goals [1]. This
standard [27] indicates that the management of programs and
projects are more focused on a set of management techniques
that aim to do a certain project in the right way, while PfM is
focused on management strategies to develop the right mix of
projects [1].
In 2008, PMI published the first standard in PfM, which
makes a division between the alignment process group (which
include programs and projects) and the group of monitoring
and control processes (where the portfolio).
The Portfolio Management standard is divided into
knowledge areas and process groups. The knowledge areas
defined by PMI are: Portfolio Strategic Management (PSM),
Portfolio Governance Management (PGM), Portfolio
Performance Management (PPM), Portfolio Communication
Management (PCM) and Portfolio Risk Management (PRM).
The process groups are: defining, aligning and authorizing and
controlling.
The Portfolio Management Standard from PMI [1] assumes
in its processes the existence of artefacts, such as strategy and
organizational objectives containing the mission and vision of
the organization aligned with the goals to be achieved.
The artefacts are categorized in the PMI Standard by the
following types: enterprise documents, portfolio documents,
and portfolio reports [33].
The distinction between input artefacts and output artefacts
for PfM processes allows organizations to know how to
execute the PfM processes in their daily tasks.
Table 1 shows the existence of twenty artefacts required
and or generated by PfM processes. The mapping between
processes and artefacts presented in the PMI Standard seems to
be limited, when globally viewed about all PMI PfM processes.
The relationships between processes and artefacts are
represented in the matrix of Table 1, where an "IN" means
input artefact (variant, "IN-A" corresponds to internal artefacts
of the portfolio processes and "IN-EA" corresponds to external
artefacts),"OUT-A" for output artefact, and "I/O-A" for input
and output artefact (variant, "I/O-A" corresponds to the internal
artefact of the portfolio and I/O-E-A processes, corresponds to
the external artefact of portfolio processes).
Artefacts of the "internal artefacts" type represent artefacts
generated in PfM processes; on the other hand, "external
artefacts" represent organizational artefacts created outside the
context of PfM processes.
Table 1 shows, for example, that: (1) PP4 DPMP ‘Develop
Portfolio Management Plan’ is the process with a strong
dependence on "Enterprise Documents" artefacts and, together
with PP5 DP ‘Define Portfolio’, are the most successful
processes for the category level "Portfolio Documents"; (2) The
alignment process group is characterized by a strong
dependence on "Enterprise Documents" [33].
Table 2 present definitions of all artefacts used in PMI PfM
processes. Whereas artefacts are documents, but also,
procedures, definitions of processes, among others.
TABLE 1. MAPPING BETWEEN ALL THE PORTFOLIO PROCESSES AND ARTEFACTS FROM PMI STANDARD [30]
Organizatio nal
Strategy a nd
Objective s
Organizatio nal
Communicati on
Strategy
Organizatio nal Risk
tolerance
Organizatio nal
Performance
Strategy
Enterprise
Environmental
Factors
Organizatio nal
Process Assets
Inventory of Work
Portfolio Process
Assets
Portfolio Strategic
Plan
Portfolio
Portfolio Roadmap
Portfolio charter
Portfolio risk
management pla n
Portfolio
management pla n
Resources
Risks and Issues
Value and Benefit s
Governance
Decisions
Performance
Financial
PSM
{PP 1}
DPSP
S,M,C,I
IN-E-A IN-E-A IN-E-A IN-E-A IN-E-A IN-E-A IN-A IN-A O UT-A OUT-A
PSM
{PP 2}
DPC
S,M,C,I
IN-E-A I/O-A I/O-A OUT-A
PSM
{PP 3}
DPR
S,M,C,I
IN-A IN-A OUT-A O UT-A
PGM
{PP 4}
DPMP
S,M,C,I
IN-E-A IN-E-A IN-E-A IN-E-A IN-E-A I/O-A I/O-A IN-A IN-A O UT-A
PGM
{PP 5}
DP
S,M,C,I
IN-A IN-A I/O -A I/O-A IN-A I/O -A
PPM
{PP 6}
DPPMP
S,M,C,I
IN-E-A IN-E-A I/O-A I/O-A
PCM
{PP 7}
DPCMP
M,C,I
IN-E-A I/O-A IN-A IN-A I/O-A IN-A IN-A IN-A
PRM
{PP 8}
DPRMP
S,M,C,I
IN-E-A I/O-E-A I/O-A OUT-A I/O-A
PSM
{PP 9}
MSC
M,C,I
I/O-A I/O-A OUT-A OUT-A
PGM
{PP 10}
OP
S,M,C,I
I/O-A IN-A I/O-A I/O-A IN-A I/O -A I/O-A I/O-A I/O-A I/O-A I/O-A
PPM
{PP 11}
MSD
S,M,C,I
I/O-A I/O-A OUT-A IN-A O UT-A OU T-A
PPM
{PP 12}
MPV
S,M,C,I
OUT-A IN-A OUT-A IN-A I/O- A IN-A IN-A OUT-A I/O-A
PCM
{PP 13}
MPI
M,C,I
I/O-A IN-A I/O -A IN-A I/O - A IN-A I/O - A IN-A IN-A
PRM
{PP 14}
MPR
M,C,I
IN-E-A IN-E-A OUT-A I/O-A IN-A O UT-A I/O-A IN-A OUT-A IN-A IN-A
PGM
{PP 15}
AP
S,M,C,I
OUT-A I/O-A I/O-A I/O-A OUT-A I/O-A
PGM
{PP 16}
PPO
S,M,C,I
I/O-A IN-A I/O-A IN-A IN-A I/O -A I/O-A I/O-A OUT-A I/O-A I/O -A
Portfolio Documents Artefacts Portfolio Reports Artefacts
Defining Process GroupAligning Proce ss Group
Authorizing and Controlling
Process Group
Portfolio Process / Artefacts
Enterprise Documents Artefacts
Professionals interested in increasing their performance in PfM
can make use of this systematic analyse results of the
dependencies between processes and artefacts of PMI Standard
[33].
III. MANAGEMENT OF PORTFOLIOS FROM OGC (AXELOS)
After several years of developing best practices in program
and project management, OGC published a series of principles
and practices for the quality of IT services and projects in PfM
[34], later purchased in 2013, by Axelos, a UK-based joint
venture.
Axelos recognizes that it is not enough to deliver programs
and projects well; it is also necessary to deliver the right
programs and projects to maximize benefits. In 2011, the
Management of Portfolios (MoP) standard was created taking
into account the successful development of methodologies in
program (Managing Successful Programmes – MSP™) and
project (PRINCE2™) management.
The OGC Standard defines portfolio as the total (or part) of
the investment in the changes needed to achieve its strategic
objectives [22], provides and introduces a set of to successfully
concepts and practices about PfM for individuals and
organizations. Specifically, OGC Standard provides general
TABLE 2. PMI ARTEFACTS DEFINITIONS
PMI Arte facts Artefacts De finitions
[4], [31]
PMI.A[1 ] Organizational Strateg y and Objective s An organizational document that contains the mission and vision statements as well as goals, objectives, and strategies intended to
achieve the vision.
PMI.A[2 ] Organizational Communication Strategy Organizational Communication Strategy focused on satisfying the most important information needs of stakeholders so that effective
portfolio decisions are made and organizational objectives are met.
PMI.A[3 ] Organizational Risk tolerance
Organizational Risk tolerance is the degree, volume or amount of risk that an organization can withstand. It indicates how sensitive
organizations, stakeholders, and people are towards risks. High tolerance often means that organizations welcome high risks while
tolerance tells otherwise.
PMI.A[4 ] Organizational Performance Strateg y Organizational Performance Strategy describes performance measures, reporting (on scope, cost, schedule, and resources),
resource optimization, and benefits realization for organization.
PMI.A[5 ] Enterprise Environmental Factors
Conditions, not under the immediate control of the team, that influence, constrain, or direct the project, program, or portfolio.
Organizational governance processes, culture, and detailed hierarchy structure; legal constraints; governmental or industry standards
(e.g., regulatory agency regulations, codes of conduct, product standards, quality standards, and workmanship stand-ards);
infrastructure (e.g., existing facilities and capital equipment); Existing a human resources (e. g., skills, disciplines, and knowledge, such
as design, development, law, contracting, and purchasing, personnel administration (e.g., hiring and firing guide-lines, employee
performance reviews, and training records), marketplace condition”.
PMI.A[6 ] Organizational Proces s Ass ets Plans, processes, policies, procedures, and knowledge bases specific to and used by the performing organization.
PMI.A[7 ] Inve ntory of Work A list of active work that may be potential portfolio components and a starting point to develop a portfolio.
PMI.A[8 ] Portfolio Proces s Ass ets
Portfolio plans, processes, policies, procedures, and knowledge bases. (1) Processes, guidelines, policies, and procedures; (2)
Specifications, work instructions, proposal evaluation criteria, and performance measurement criteria; (3) Templates (e.g., component
proposals, lessons learned, and performance and risk management); (4) Portfolio communication requirements; (5) Procedures for
portfolio component work authorizations; (6) Performance measurement databases used to collect and make available measurement
data on portfolio components and track cash flow, including actual resources used and forecast of resources required; (7) Portfolio
component files; and (8)Historical information and lessons learned knowledge bases”
PMI.A[9 ] Portfolio Strategic Plan
A formal, approved document that describes the portfolio vision, objectives, and goals to achieve organizational strategy and
objectives.
PMI.A[1 0] Portfolio
Projects, programs, subportfolios, and operations managed as a group to achieve strategic objectives. Portfolio is the updated list of
components resulting from developing a strategic plan and aligning identified work or components to the defined organizational
strategy and objectives
PMI.A[1 1] Portfolio Roadmap A document that provides the high-level strategic direction and portfolio information in a chronological fashion for portfolio
management and ensures dependencies within the portfolio are established and evaluated.
PMI.A[1 2] Portfolio charter The document issued by the portfolio sponsor that formally authorizes the existence of a portfolio and provides the portfolio manager
with the authority to apply portfolio resources to portfolio activities.
PMI.A[1 3] Portfolio risk management plan A subsidiary plan or component of the portfolio management plan that describes how risk management activities will be structured
and performed.
PMI.A[1 4] Portfolio management plan A formal, approved document that defines how the portfolio will be executed, monitored, and controlled to meet organizational
strategy and objectives.
PMI.A[1 5] Re sources Re port Reports that provide information on resources.
PMI.A[1 6] Ris ks and Iss ues Re port Reports that provide information on risks and issues.
PMI.A[1 7] Value and Be nefits R eport Reports that provide information on value and benefits (financial or non-financial).
PMI.A[1 8] Gove rnance De cisions Re port Portfolio governing body decisions based on portfolio performance, component proposals, and risks as well as capability and capacity
of resources, funding allocations, and future investment requirements.
PMI.A[1 9] Pe rformance Re port Reports that provide information on performance.
PMI.A[2 0] Financial Report Reports that provide information on financial.
descriptions of principles and practices, as well as artefacts and
examples for building approaches to PfM [22].
PfM is defined as a set of structured and coordinated
strategic processes and decisions that have allowed the
effective balance of organizational change and business as
usual [22].
The OGC Standard considers two cycles as the approach to
implement PfM and sustain its progress: Portfolio Definition
Cycle and Portfolio Delivery Cycle. OGC Standard considers
that there is not a starting point to implement PfM practices, or
middle or end, there is a cycle of practices.
For each practice, there is a considerable set of artefacts that
allow implementing the practice of PfM more efficiently. OGC
Standard implement efficiently PfM processes, through of the
many artefacts, i.e., “the value of artefacts "of how to do"
project PfM.
Table 3 present definitions of all artefacts used in OGC
PfM practices. Whereas artefacts are documents, procedures,
among others.
Artefacts De finitions
OGC.A[1.1] Mark et Stading desired share of the present and new markets
OGC.A[1.2] Innovation development of new goods and services, and of skills and methods required to supply them
OGC.A[1.3] H uman Resources selection and development of employees
OGC.A[1.4] F inancial
Resources identification of the sources of capital and their use
OGC.A[1.5] Physica l Resources equipment and facilities and their use
OGC.A[1.6] Productivity use of the resources relative to the output
OGC.A[1.7]
Social Responsability
awareness and responsiveness to the effects on the wider community of the stakeholders
OGC.A[1.8]
Profit Requirements achievement of the measurables financial well-being and growth
OGC.A[2.1]
SWOT analysis Acronym for strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. A technique to determine favourable and unfavourable factors in relation to business change or current state
OGC.A[2.2]
PESTLE
analysis
Acronym for political, economic, social, technological, legal and environmental. A techinique used generally in organizational change management to undertake an environmental
scan at a strategic level.
OGC.A[2.3]
Porter’s five forces
analysis
rivalry, threat of substitutes, buyer power, supplier power and barriers to entry
Improved engagement and communication between relevant stakeholders, including senior managers, in understanding and meeting organizational needs and expectations and in
communicating strategic objectives (and the means by which they will be achieved) to all those involved.
Risk management at a portfolio level encompasses the following main elements: Implementing standards which apply to all change initiatives within the portfolio and which align to
the organizational risk management policy. A risk management strategy should be agreed at portfolio level and should be included in the portfolio management
Encompasses the structures, accountabilities and policies, standards and processes for decision-making within an organization in order to answer the key strategic questions ‘Are
we doing the right things?’, ‘Are we doing them the right way?’ and ‘Are we realizing the benefits?’
Standard roles and processes for portfolio risk management should be incorporated into the portfolio management framework. These processes should be consistent with any
existing organizational risk management policy.
Investment criteria that are used to prioritize initiatives should be tailored to suit each portfolio category or segment. For example, financial metrics are often used for revenue
generation and cost-saving categories. In contrast, service/product enhancement categories may use criteria based on scale of enhancement per £/$/€ m invested. Many
organizations employ financial metrics to prioritize initiatives such as ‘net present value’ (NPV), ‘internal rate of return’ (IRR) or ‘payback’.
The totality of an organization's investment (or segment thereof) in the changes required to achieve its strategic objectives.
Collate all prioritization information and analyse
Ensure that the status of each of the top portfolio-level is incorporated into the portfolio dashboard and that actions are reviewed regularly and updated.
Collecting consistent data on the scope of the current portfolio is greatly aided where clear guidance exists about what constitutes a project or programme and what type of
initiatives are to be included in the portfolio.
Splitting a portfolio into organizationally appropriate categories or segments -for examples, by initiative type or investment objective. The organization's investment criteria can be
tailored to suit each category of investment
Encompasses the structures, accountabilities and policies, standards and processes for decision-making within an organization in order to answer the key strategic questions ‘Are
we doing the right things?’, ‘Are we doing them the right way?’ and ‘Are we realizing the benefits?’
A collection of top-level strategic information that provides total clarity to all stakeholders regarding the content and long-term objectives of the portfolio. The portfolio strategy is
and important communication tool.
Benefits forecast are realized in practice and value created is optimized from our accumulated investment in change
To summarize the benefits forecast to be realized in the year ahead and so provide a clear view of the planned returns from the organization’s accumulated investment in change.
Portfolio's Business cases should only include tangible financial benefits (commonly referred to as ‘hard benefits’), separated into three categories: (1) Incremental revenue – all
types of additional revenue, including where increased volumes and fee margins result in an increased revenue budget or forecast. (2) Cost saves – a ll types of cost savings,
resulting in a reduction in budgeted and forecast costs as part of the performance management process. (3) Other – all additional tangible financial benefits resulting in a positive
impact to the business’s profit and loss accounts, such as balance sheet improvement leading to a proven ‘profit and loss’ impact.
This will include the required capital and operating expenditure to complete the initiative and the consequent financial requirements post implementation – i.e. the financial impact on
BAU including depreciation and cost of capital charges where applicable.
Portfolio management should align with the organization’s performance management system: (1) Utilizing the expertise of the organization’s performance management function in
designing and implementing new portfolio performance metrics and driver-based models linking change initiatives, and their benefits, to the organization’s strategic objectives;
(2)Ensuring that the performance management function is engaged at an early point in the development of business case s and that it validates claimed impacts on organizational
performance in the context of the planned impact of the existing portfolio; (3) Incorporating the anticipated impact of the portfolio on strategic objectives in the organization’s
performance targets; (4) Making appropriate use of the existing management information system in designing the content and format of portfolio reporting; (5) Aligning performance
and portfolio reporting, in terms of both timing and content, to ensure consistent messages and effective decision-making.
Outline of the high-level benefits the portfolio is designed to achieve and the metrics to be used to assess their realization.Benefits eligibility guidance – the detailed rules on the
identification, classification, quantification, valuation and validation of benefits.
Statement of the objectives of portfolio stakeholder engagement and communications. Description of the key stakeholder groups analysed by interest and influence.
Media to be used for each group.
Profiled comparison of demand and supply for constrained resources throughout the planning period, highlighting periods of slack and under-capacity.
Understand the demand – this requires that consideration be given to the resource requirements including staff and skills (types and timing) of not only the current live programmes
and projects, but also those in the development pipeline. This in turn requires that initiatives forecast resource demands accurately and consistently. The portfolio office will
therefore need to develop standards for consistent resource forecasting and compile a portfolio resource schedule from the plans of individual initiatives.
Understand the supply – for example, complete a simple portfolio skills register recording key staff skills, experience and current availability.
Set portfolio-wide standards for resource forecasting: Consistent forecasting is essential, so define standards and templates to guide programme and project planners
A commitment to continuous improvement, including identifying improvements to the portfolio management practices via membership of appropriate professional groups, capturing
lessons learned from robust post-implementation reviews, submissions under the champion–challenger model and periodic portfolio effectiveness reviews
OGC.A[27.1 ]
Schedule
A collection of tactical regarding the planned delivery of the portfolio based on the overarching portfolio strategy. The portfolio delivery plan usually focuses on the forthcoming year
in detail in terms of schedule to be realized
OGC.A[27.2 ]
Resources
A collection of tactical regarding the planned delivery of the portfolio based on the overarching portfolio strategy. The portfolio delivery plan usually focuses on the forthcoming year
in detail in terms of resource plans to be realized
OGC.A[27.3 ]
Cost
A collection of tactical regarding the planned delivery of the portfolio based on the overarching portfolio strategy. The portfolio delivery plan usually focuses on the forthcoming year
in detail in terms of costs to be realized
OGC.A[27.4 ]
Risk
A collection of tactical regarding the planned delivery of the portfolio based on the overarching portfolio strategy. The portfolio delivery plan usually focuses on the forthcoming year
in detail in terms of risks and benefits to be realized
To summarize the financial commitments inherent in the approved portfolio for the year ahead as a basis for formal senior management budgetary approval.
To provide a baseline against which to track and compare actual spend.
OGC.A[18]
Financial Plan
OGC.A[19]
Portfolio's Performance
OGC.A[20]
Portfolio-level P erformance Me trics
OGC.A[21]
Portfolio Stakeholder Engage ment and
Communication Plan
OGC.A[22]
Portfolio Reso urce Schedule
OGC.A[23]
Res ource
Forecast
OGC.A[24]
Portfolio Skills Re gister
OGC.A[25]
Standards and Templates to guide programme
OGC.A[26]
Les sons Le arned
OGC.A[27]
Portfolio
Delive ry Plan
OGC.A[28]
Portfolio-leve l financial plan
OGC.A[17]
Portfolio's Bus iness Cas e
OGC.A[6]
Portfolio Risk M anagement Strategy
OGC.A[7]
Financial Metrics and Inves tment Criteria
OGC.A[8]
Portfolio
OGC.A[9]
Portfolio Maps
OGC.A[10]
Portfolio reports
OGC.A[11]
Portfolio Scope
OGC.A[12]
Portfolio's Catego rization
OGC.A[13]
Portfolio's Gove rnance
OGC.A[14]
Portfolio Strategy
OGC.A[15]
Bene fits Forecast
OGC.A[16]
Portfolio-leve l Benefits Realization Plan
OGC.A[5]
Governance Structures
OGC Artefacts
OGC.A[1]
Strategic
Objective s
OGC.A[2]
Organizational
Environmental
Analysis
OGC.A[3]
Individual Stakeholde r Engagement and
Communication Plans
OGC.A[4]
Organizational Manageme nt Strategy and Risk
TABLE 3. OGC ARTEFACTS DEFINITIONS
Table 4 shows the existence of forty-three artefacts, thus
demonstrating the wealth of artefacts for OGC PfM
implementation. The most used artefacts (created and
generated) is the ‘Portfolio’, followed by the ‘Strategic
Objectives Financial Resources’ and ‘Portfolio Delivery Plan
Risk’. On the other hand, the ‘Strategic Objectives’ artefact is
the most widely used "Enterprise Artefact". The ‘Portfolio
Maps’ and ‘Portfolio Strategy’ artefacts are the most up-to-date
artefacts, that is, they are the most input and output artefacts of
the various PfM practices [31].
TABLE 4. MAPPING OF ALL PFM ARTEFACTS AND PRACTICES FROM OGC STANDARD [27]
{PMCP 1}
PDFU
{PMCP 2}
PDFC
{PMCP 3}
PDFP
{PMCP 4}
PDFB
{PMCP 5}
PDFP
{PMCP 6}
PDLMC
{PMCP 7}
PDLBM
{PMCP 8}
PDLFM
{PMCP 9}
PDLRM
{PMCP 10}
PDLSE
{PMCP 11}
PDLOG
{PMCP 12}
PDLREM
Market Stading IN IN IN IN IN I/O I/O
Innovat ion IN IN IN IN IN I/O I/O
Human Resources IN IN I N IN IN I/O I/O I/O
Financial
Resources IN IN IN IN IN I/O IN I/O I/O
Physical
Resources IN IN IN IN IN I/O I/O I/O
Productivity IN IN IN IN IN I/O I/O
Social
Respons ability IN IN IN IN IN I /O I/O
Profit
Requirements IN IN IN IN IN I /O I/O
SWOT analysis IN
PESTLE
analysis IN
Porter’s five forces
analysis IN
IN
IN I/O
IN
OUT OUT
IN OUT OUT IN
OUT OUT I /O I/O I/O I/O I/O IN OUT OUT
OUT OUT OUT OUT OUT OUT OUT
OUT OUT OUT OUT
OUT OUT OUT IN
OUT OUT OUT
OUT OUT I/O I/O I/O OUT
OUT OUT I /O OUT I /O IN I/O OUT
OUT OUT OUT OUT OUT I/O
OUT OUT
I/O IN IN IN OUT I/O
IN
OUT OUT IN
OUT
OUT
OUT
OUT
OUT
OUT
OUT OUT
Sched ule OUT I/O I/O OUT OUT OUT
Resources OUT OUT OUT I/O I/O OUT OUT OUT
Cost OUT OUT OUT I/O I/O I/O OUT
Risk OUT I/O OUT I/O I/O OUT I/O OUT
OUT OUT
PMCP ARTEFACTS
Artefacts/
Portfolio Management
Cycles (practices)
Portfolio Definition Cycle Portfolio Delivery Cycle
Strategic
Objective s
Organizatio nal
Environmental
Analysis
Individual Stakeholder Eng agement
and Communicat ion Plans
Organizatio nal Management
Strategy a nd Risk
Governance Structures
Portfolio Risk Management
Strategy
Financial Metrics and Investment
Criteria
Portfolio
Portfolio Maps
Portfolio Stakeholder Enga gement
and Communicati on Plan
Portfolio reports
Portfolio Scope
Portfolio 's
Catego rization
Portfolio 's Governance
Portfolio Strategy
Benefits Foreca st
Portfolio -level Benefits Real ization
Plan
Portfolio' s Business Case
Financial Plan
Portfolio 's Performance
Portfolio -level Performance Metri cs
Portfolio -level financial pl an
Portfolio Resource Schedule
Resource Forec ast
Portfolio Skills Registe r
Standards a nd Templates to guid e
programme and project Planners
Lessons Learned
Portfolio
Delivery Plan
IV. MAPPING BETWEEN PMI ARTEFACTS AND OGC
ARTEFACTS
On the one hand, PMI Standard is considered to be the most
complete for PfM implementation, on the other hand, by the
analysis we have done, OGC Standard is a richer standard to
execute processes through numerous artefacts. Therefore, in
order to deepen our understanding on PfM implementation by
both standards, we have mapped PMI PfM artefacts and OGC
PfM artefacts. In our analysis, based on the existing extensive
experience in PfM, researchers labelled OGC PfM artefacts as
follows: a) does not represent, b) represent, c) partly represent
,and d) simply different from a PMI PfM artefact.
PfM practices are simply seen as those tools and techniques
that practitioners use to “execute a PfM process”, such as work
breakdown structure or a project charter. Tools and techniques
are closer to the day-to-day practice, closer to the things people
do, closer to their tacit knowledge [35].
The artefacts definitions in both standards [1], [22] were
carefully considered for the mapping between PMI PfM
artefacts and OGC PfM artefacts; as well as, it was used the
concepts of artefacts at Standard for Project Management, the
PMBoK [36].
Table 5, the ‘Organizational Strategy and Objectives’
artefact, identified with the prefix PMI.A[1] (all other PMI
artefacts always have a prefix PMI.A[n], where n is a
sequential number, from 1 to n).
The OGC.A[1.1] ‘Market Stading’ artefact (all other OGC
PfM artefacts always have a prefix OGC.A[n], where n is a
sequential number, from 1 to n, and may be [n.n], when it is a
subgroup of the artefact), OGC.A[1.2] ‘Innovation’,
OGC.A[1.3] ‘Human Resources’, OGC.A[1.4] ‘Financial
Resources’, OGC.A[1.5] ‘Physical Resources’, OGC.A[1.6]
‘Productivity’, OGC.A[1.7] ‘Social Responsibility’ and
OGC.A[1.8] ‘Profit Requirements’ not individually represent
the entire PMI.A[1] ‘Organizational Strategy and Objectives’
artefact, but we consider that all together have a very detailed
representation of the artefact PMI.A[1].
All these relations are represented in Table 5, where: (1) “-”
symbol means OGC PfM artefact does not represent the PMI
PfM artefact; (2) "+" means OGC PfM artefact partly represent
the PMI PfM artefact; (3) "≈", OGC PfM artefact represent the
PMI artefact; and, (4) "[blank]", OGC PfM artefact is simply
different from the PMI artefact. Each row represents an OGC
artefact under analysis and the columns represent a PMI
artefact.
To exemplify the mapping of the "+" type, this type
represents the OGC PfM artefacts partly represent the PMI
PfM artefact. The PMI.A [3] ‘Organizational Risk tolerance’,
where the OGC.A [4] ‘Organizational Management Strategy
and Risk’ represents more than PMI.A [3] ‘Organizational Risk
tolerance’, ‘Organizational Risk Tolerance’ is only a
component of the overall ‘Organizational Management
Strategy and Risk’ (see, table 5).
From the overall mapping between PMI and OGC artefacts,
only two artefacts: PMI.A [10] ‘Portfolio’ represent the OGC.A
[8] ‘Portfolio’ artefact, and PMI.A [11] ‘Portfolio Roadmap’
represent the OGC.A [9] ‘Portfolio Maps’ artefact. OGC.A
[17] ‘Portfolio Business Case’ and OGC.A [24] ‘Portfolio
Skills Register’ do not represent any PMI PfM artefact, where
is concluded both the artefacts, ‘Portfolio's Business Case’ and
the ‘Portfolio Skills Register’, are not concepts explored in
PMI PfM processes.
V. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK
This paper contributes to individuals and organizations
interested in increasing their performance in PfM, by
presenting the mapping between OGC PfM artefacts and PMI
PfM artefacts, from the two worldwide recognized PfM
standards from OGC (now Axelos) and from PMI.
From several studies [30], [31], [33], [37], it was observed
that the PMI Standard has more complete PfM processes with
greater detail for use by PfM professionals, however with very
generic or high-level artefacts that show how the professionals
must execute the processes. Nevertheless, OGC Standard has a
more complete collection of artefacts on how PfM processes
should be performed. Therefore, this research, based on the
researchers extensive professional experience in PfM, and a
deep analysis and discuss of the concepts and definitions of
each artefact from PMI and OGC Standards, established a
mapping between the artefacts of OGC PfM Standard and PMI
PfM Standard. Increasing our understanding of how to execute
PfM processes from artefacts, bringing mainly a contribution
for practice.
This mapping has always considered the expression "The
OGC PfM artefact [does not represent, represent, partly
represent, and simply different than] the PMI PfM artefact" in
order to represent all the necessary OGC PfM artefacts to
represent a given PMI PfM artefact.
The overall mapping between PMI and OGC artefacts
shows that PMI artefacts can be much more detailed by OGC
artefacts. Only two artefacts from PMI and OGG have a similar
correspondence, which are ‘Portfolio’ itself and the ‘Portfolio
Roadmap’. The OGC artefacts ‘Portfolio's Business Case’ and
the ‘Portfolio Skills Register’, are not concepts explored in
PMI artefacts. In order to strengthen these results, it would
have been important to carry out a focus group for the
discussion of this mapping proposal, but due to the limitation of
finding a group of experts who dominate both standards, whose
goal would be to achieve "valid and realistic results" we
decided not pursue this research path.
Based on this mapping between the artefacts of both PfM
standards, PMI and OGC, future work will be conducted in
order to develop and validate a framework for project PfM in
the specific context of organizations under research and
development (R&D) IT projects. Where PMI PfM standard was
created for generic usage in any PfM, and OGC standard was
created in an IT PfM context.
TABLE 5. MAPPING BETWEEN ALL THE OGC PFM ARTEFACTS WITH ALL PMI PFM ARTEFACTS
PMI.A[1]
Organizational
Strategy and
Objectives
PMI.A[2]
Organizational
Communication
Strategy
PMI.A[3]
Organizational
Risk tolerance
PMI.A[4]
Organizational
Performance
Strategy
PMI.A[5]
Enterprise Environmental
Factors
PMI.A[6]
Organizational
Process Assets
PMI.A[7]
Inventory of
Work
PMI.A[8]
Portfolio
Process Assets
PMI.A[9]
Portfolio
Strategic Plan
PMI.A[10]
Portfolio
PMI.A[11]
Portfolio
Roadmap
PMI.A[12]
Portfolio
charter
PMI.A[13]
Portfolio risk
management
plan
PMI.A[14]
Portfolio
management
plan
PMI.A[15]
Resources
PMI.A[16]
Risks and
Issues
PMI.A[17]
Value and
Benefits
PMI.A[18]
Governance
Decisions
PMI.A[19]
Performance
PMI.A[20]
Financial
OGC.A[1.1] Market
Stading
1
OGC.A[1.2]
Innovation
1
OGC.A[1.3] Huma n
Resources
1
OGC.A[1.4]
Financial Reso urces
1
OGC.A[1.5]
Physical Resources
1
OGC.A[1.6]
Productivity
1
OGC.A[1.7]
Social
Responsability
1
OGC.A[1.8]
Profit Requireme nts
1
OGC.A[2.1]
SWOT analysis
1
OGC.A[2.2]
PESTLE
analysis
1
OGC.A[2.3]
Porter’s five forces
analysis
1
– –
2
3
2
2
– –
2
1
1
– –
6
1
– –
2
– –
2
– –
2
1
1
0
1
1
1
2
2
2
0
1
1
OGC.A[27.1]
Schedule
– –
4
OGC.A[27.2]
Resources
2
OGC.A[27.3]
Cost
– –
2
OGC.A[27.4]
Risk
– –
2
1
8 2 1 1 4 3 1 14 2 1 1 1 2 1 4 2 3 2 3 5
Number of
relationshi ps
Portfolio Reports Artefacts
Number of relationshi ps
OGC.A[3]
Individual Stakeholder Engageme nt
and Communication Plans
OGC.A[4]
Organizational Management
Strategy and Risk
OGC.A[5]
Governance Structures
Enterprise Documents Artefacts Portfolio Documents Artefacts
OGC.A[17]
Portfolio's Busines s Case
OGC.A[6]
Portfolio Risk Management
Strategy
OGC.A[7]
Financial Metrics and Investment
Criteria
OGC.A[15]
Benefits
Forecast
OGC.A[16]
Portfolio-level Ben efits Reali zation
Plan
OGC.A[28]
Portfolio-level fina ncial plan
OGC.A[8]
Portfolio
OGC.A[9]
Portfolio Maps
OGC.A[10]
Portfolio reports
OGC.A[11]
Portfolio Scope
OGC.A[12]
Portfolio's
Categorization
PMI ARTEFACT'S
OGC ARTEFACT'S
Portfolio Skil ls Registe r
OGC.A[25]
Standards and Templates to guide
programme and project Planners
OGC.A[1]
Strategic
Objectives
OGC.A[2]
Organizational
Environmental
Analysis
OGC.A[26]
Lessons Learned
OGC.A[27]
Portfolio
Delivery Plan
OGC.A[18]
Financial Plan
OGC.A[19]
Portfolio's Performance
OGC.A[20]
Portfolio-level Performance Me trics
OGC.A[21]
Portfolio Stakehol der Engagement
and Communication Plan
OGC.A[22]
Portfolio Resource Sche dule
OGC.A[23]
Resource
Forecast
OGC.A[13]
Portfolio's Governance
OGC.A[14]
Portfolio
Strategy
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This work has been supported by COMPETE: POCI-01-
0145-FEDER-007043 and FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e
Tecnologia within the Project Scope: UID/CEC/00319/2013,
and project: AICEP-PIN- iFACTORY-P25.
REFERENCES
[1] Project Management Institute, The standard for portfolio management.
Newtown Square, Pa: Project Managment Institute, 2013.
[2] M. W. Dickinson, A. C. Thornton, and S. Graves, “Technology portfolio
management: optimizing interdependent projects over multiple time
periods,” IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, vol. 48, no. 4,
pp. 518–527, November 2001.
[3] K. Youssfi, J. Boutahar, and S. Elghazi, “A Tool Design of Cobit
Roadmap Implementation,” International Journal of Advanced Computer
Science and Applications vol. 5, 2014.
[4] F. Castillo, “IT Portfolio Management,” in Managing Information
Technology, Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2016, pp. 211–
227.
[5] J. Teller, A. Kock, and H. G. Gemünden, “Risk Management in Project
Portfolios Is More Than Managing Project Risks: A Contingency
Perspective on Risk Management,” Project Management Journal, vol.
45, no. 4, 2014, pp. 67–80.
[6] R. Cooper, S. Edgett, and E. Kleinschmidt, “Portfolio management in
new product development: Lessons from the leaders-II,” Research
Technology Management, vol. 40, no. 6, 1997, pp. 43–52.
[7] R. Cooper, S. Edgett, and E. Kleinschmidt, “New product portfolio
management: practices and performance,” Journal of Product Innovation
Management, vol. 16, no. 4, 1999, pp. 333–351.
[8] R. Cooper, S. Edgett, and E. Kleinschmidt, “Portfolio management for
new product development: Results of an industry practices study,”
Research and Development Management, vol. 31, no. 4, 2001, pp. 361–
380.
[9] R. Cooper, S. Edgett, and E. Kleinschmidt, “Portfolio management:
fundamental to new product success,” PDMA Toolbox New Product
Development, 2000, pp. 331–364.
[10] R. Cooper and S. Edgett, “Overcoming the crunch in resources for new
product development,” Research Management, vol. 46, no. 3, 2003, pp.
48–58.
[11] K. B. Kahn, G. Barczak, and R. Moss, “Perspective: establishing an
NPD best practices framework,” Journal of Product Innovation
Management, vol. 23, no. 2, 2006, pp. 106–116.
[12] J. Teller, B. N. Unger, A. Kock, and H. G. Gemünden, “Formalization of
project portfolio management: The moderating role of project portfolio
complexity,” International Journal Project Management, vol. 30, no. 5,
2012, pp. 596–607.
[13] D. Jugend, S. Silva, M. Salgado, and P. Cauchick, “Product portfolio
management and performance: Evidence from a survey of innovative
Brazilian companies,” Journal Business Research, vol. 69, no. 11, 2016,
pp. 5095–5100.
[14] M. Martinsuo and J. Poskela, “Use of Evaluation Criteria and Innovation
Performance in the Front End of Innovation,” Journal of Product
Innovation Management, vol. 28, no. 6, Nov. 2011, pp. 896–914.
[15] N. Archer and F. Ghasemzadeh, “An integrated framework for project
portfolio selection,” International Journal Project Management, vol. 17,
no. 4, 1999, pp. 207–216.
[16] J. H. Mikkola, “Portfolio management of R&D projects: implications for
innovation management,” Technovation, vol. 21, no. 7, 2001, pp. 423–
435.
[17] G. E. Blau, J. F. Pekny, V. A. Varma, and P. R. Bunch, “Managing a
portfolio of interdependent new product candidates in the pharmaceutical
industry,” Journal of Product Innovation Management, vol. 21, no. 4,
2004, pp. 227–245.
[18] W. R. Bitman and N. Sharif, “A conceptual framework for ranking R&D
projects,” IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, vol. 55, no.
2, 2008, pp. 267–278.
[19] F. Costantino, G. Di Gravio, and F. Nonino, “Project selection in project
portfolio management: An artificial neural network model based on
critical success factors,” International Journal Project Management, vol.
33, no. 8, 2015, pp. 1744–1754.
[20] E. Cagno, F. Caron, and M. Mancini, “A Multi-Dimensional Analysis of
Major Risks in Complex Projects,” Risk Management, vol. 9, no. 1,
2007, pp. 1–18.
[21] M. Martinsuo, “Project portfolio management in practice and in
context,” International Journal Project Management, vol. 31, no. 6, 2013,
pp. 794–803.
[22] Axelos, “MoPTM Management of Portfolios,” London, 2011.
[23] B. Williams, M. Young, R. Young, and J. Zapata, “Project, programme
and portfolio maturity: a case study of Australian Federal Government,”
International Journal Management Project Business, vol. 7, no. 2, 2014,
pp. 215–230.
[24] C. McDonald and H. Sarbazhosseini, “A state transition approach to
conceptualising research: the project portfolio management domain,” in
24th Australasian Conference on Information Systems (ACIS), 2013, pp.
1–10.
[25] M. Young and K. Conboy, “Contemporary project portfolio
management: Reflections on the development of an Australian
Competency Standard for Project Portfolio Management,” International
Journal Project Management, vol. 31, no. 8, 2013, pp. 1089–1100.
[26] Project Management Institute., “Estudo de Benchmarking em
Gerenciamento de Projetos,” 2012.
[27] J. T. Hackos, Information development: Managing your documentation
projects, portfolio, and people. John Wiley & Sons, 2007.
[28] R. G. Ruggeri, Gerenciamento de projetos no terceiro setor, 1st ed. Rio
de Janeiro, Brasil, 2011.
[29] C. P. Killen, K. Jugdev, N. Drouin, and Y. Petit, “Advancing project and
portfolio management research: Applying strategic management
theories,” International Journal Project Management, vol. 30, no. 5,
2012, pp. 525–538.
[30] A. Lima, P. Monteiro, G. Fernandes, and R. J. Machado, “Dependency
Analysis between PMI Portfolio Management Processes,” in
ICCSA’2016, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, 2016.
[31] A. Lima, R. J. Machado, and G. Fernandes, “Input and output artefacts in
portfolio practices from the OGC standard for Management of
Portfolios,” in Computational Science and Its Applications (ICCSA),
2017 17th International Conference on, 2017, pp. 1–8.
[32] Project Management Institute, “About us,” PMI, 2011. [Online].
Available: http://www.pmi.org/About- Us.aspx.
[33] A. Lima, P. Monteiro, G. Fernandes, and R. J. Machado, “Mapping
Between Artefacts and Portfolio Processes from the PMI Standard for
Portfolio Management,” in EuroSymposium on Systems Analysis and
Design, 2016, pp. 117–130.
[34] C. Alison, A. Hanna, C. Rudd, I. Macfarlane, J. Windebank, and S.
Rance, “An introductory overview of ITIL v3,” UK Chapter itSMF,
2007.
[35] C. Besner and B. Hobbs, “Discriminating contexts and project
management best practices on innovative and noninnovative projects,”
Project Management Journal, vol. 39, no. S1, 2008, pp. S123–S134.
[36] Project Management Institute, A guide to the project management body
of knowledge (PMBOK guide). Pennsylvania, USA: Project
Management Institute, Inc, 2013.
[37] A. Lima, G. Fernandes, and R. J. Machado, “Project and Program
Management Implications in the Portfolio Management of IT Projects in
Applied R&D Organizations,” in Quality of Information and
Communications Technology (QUATIC), 2016 10th International
Conference on the, 2016, pp. 224–229.
... For the development of a more detailed IT PfM framework was done a merge between the PMI and OGC PfM frameworks, more specifically between the processes defined by PMI and the defined artefacts from OGC, with the objective of helping professionals to execute the PfM processes more efficiently through a complete set of artefacts. This research's work, based on the researchers' extensive professional experience in PfM and in an in-depth analysis and discussion of the concepts and definitions of each artefact from PMI and OGC PfM frameworks, establishes a mapping between the artefacts from OGC PfM framework and PMI PfM framework Therefore, the tailored IT PfM framework proposed adopts the processes from the PMI PfM framework and, through the mapping of artefacts from the PMI PfM framework to OGC PfM framework, a complete artefact's structure from OGC PfM framework is used [20]. Table 1 presets the mapping between all the PMI portfolio processes and OGC PfM artefacts. ...
... Table 1 presets the mapping between all the PMI portfolio processes and OGC PfM artefacts. As an example, the researchers analyze the PMI process {PP1} DPSP 'Develop Portfolio Strategic Plan' [17], through their interaction with artefacts from the OGC PfM framework [20]. ...
... In [20]. The relationships between processes and artefacts are represented in the matrix of Table 1, where an "IN" means input artefact, "OUT" for output artefact, and "I/O" for input and output artefact. ...
Chapter
Full-text available
The strategy definition in organizations and its implementation by projects has been difficult to achieve. Project portfolio management processes provide the linkage between the organization’s strategic objectives and their programs and projects. It is worthless to have the latest technology and resources to develop projects, if there are no organized processes and focus on strategic interests. The organizations need to develop processes, tools, and techniques that support their business, to act at the required level, but keeping in mind that these processes and tools need to evolve over time. Therefore, for a better understanding of the processes and use of artefacts from ‘project portfolio management’, this paper aims to develop an information technology ‘project portfolio management’ framework based on ‘project portfolio management’ processes from PMI and artefacts from OGC (Axelos, until 2013). For a better understanding of the process, inputs and outputs artefacts, the framework is modelled using the BPMN-Business Process Modelling and is done a traceability map, of an example artefact, using UML State Machine Model.
Article
Full-text available
A study of portfolio management practices in industry reveals three goals: maximizing the value of the portfolio, achieving the right balance and mix of projects, and linking the portfolio to the business's strategy. This first of two articles provides examples of portfolio methods used to achieve the first two goals. Maximizing the portfolio's value is achieved by means of various financial models, including the Expected Commercial Value method and the Productivity Index, which are outlined and critiqued. Scoring models are also used to maximize the value of the portfolio. Achieving a balanced portfolio is quite a different issue, involving the use of bubble diagrams and other visual models.
Article
Full-text available
Over the last two decades, the role of information technology in organizations has changed from primarily a supportive and transactional function to being an essential prerequisite for strategic value generation. The organizations based their operational services through its Information Systems (IS) that need to be managed, controlled and monitored constantly. IT governance (ITG), i.e. the way organizations manage IT resources, has became a key factor for enterprise success due to the increasing enterprise dependency on IT solutions. There are several approaches available to deal with ITG. These methods are diverse, and in some cases, long and complicated to implement. One well-accepted ITG framework is COBIT, designed for a global approach. This paper describes a design of a tool for COBIT roadmap implementation. The model is being developed in the course of ongoing PhD research.
Article
Full-text available
Purpose – This paper aims to examine the notion of maturity assessment and maturity models more broadly and goes on to examine the findings from the assessments of project, programme and portfolio maturity undertaken across Australian Government agencies. Design/methodology/approach – A statistical analysis was performed to determine the level of maturity that best represents the Australian Federal Government agencies as a whole. The unit of analysis in this study is the agencies overall scores in each sub-model across the seven perspectives of the portfolio, programme and project management maturity model (P3M3) maturity model. Findings – This study has identified a number of interesting findings. First, the practices of project, programme and portfolio across the dataset practiced independently of each other. Second, benefits management and strategy alignment practices are generally poor across Australian Government agencies. Third, programme management practices are the most immature. Finally, the results showed a high sensitivity to the “generic attributes” of roles and responsibilities, experience, capability development, planning and estimating and scrutiny and review. Research limitations/implications – All data used in this analysis are secondary data collected from individual Australian Government agencies. The data were collected by accredited consultants following a common data collection method and using a standard template to ensure a consistent approach. Practical implications – The study poses some implications for practice, particularly given the context of Australian Federal Government agencies current plans and action to improve organisational maturity. The study suggests that benefits management processes at the project level and benefits management, governance and stakeholder management processes at the programme level should be an area of focus for improvement. Originality/value – This study is the first attempt to systematically review the data collected through such an assessment and in particular identify the findings and the implications at a whole of government level.
Chapter
Among the decisions that software development organizations need to take is to define which projects should developed, as these are, ultimately, the reason for their existence. This decision is part of a broader decision-making process than the strictly project management efforts of every day, involving aspects that go beyond the limits of a project itself, such as: strategic alignment, economic viability, risks that an organization is willing to assume, the capacity of available resources and the returns that will be achieved. These concerns are within the scope of project portfolio management. The Project Management Institute (PMI) has developed the ?Standard for Portfolio Management?, whose objective is to propose a strategy for project portfolio management throughout processes. This paper presents the dependencies between all portfolio management process and artefact?s from that PMI standard with Software Process Engineering Metamodel (SPEM).
Article
Portfolio management is gaining increasing attention from researchers and practitioners involved in innovation and product development. In this context, this study aims to analyze the product portfolio management practices that innovative firms in a developing country adopt. This investigation also aims to establish the relationship between these practices and product portfolio performance. The study carries out a quantitative survey on a sample of 71 Brazilian firms, and the results demonstrate that practices associated with formalization, systematization, and clarification in product portfolio decision making significantly influence the fulfillment of performance objectives. In addition, some companies face difficulty in fulfilling the balance of portfolio products, and this difficulty possibly relates to the concentration of incremental innovation efforts in new product development.
Article
While a growing body of literature focuses in detecting and analyzing the main reasons affecting project success, the use of these results in project portfolio management is still under investigation. Project critical success factors (CSFs) can serve as the fundamental criteria to prevent possible causes of failures with an effective project selection process, taking into account company strategic objectives, project manager's experience and the competitive environment.This research proposes an innovative methodology to help managers in assessing projects during the selection phase. The paper describes the design, development and testing stages of a decision support system to predict project performances. An artificial neural network (ANN), scalable to any set of CSFs, classifies the level of project's riskiness by extracting the experience of project managers from a set of past successful and unsuccessful projects. © 2015 Elsevier Ltd and Association for Project Management and the International Project Management Association.
Article
Project risk management aims at reducing the likelihood of project failure. To manage risk in project portfolios, research suggests adopting a perspective that is wider than the individual project risk. The results from a hierarchical multiple regression analysis on a sample of 177 project portfolios suggest that formal risk management at the project level and integration of risk information at the portfolio level are positively associated with overall project portfolio success. Simultaneous risk management at both levels increases this positive effect. Furthermore, risk management at the project level is more important for R&D-dominated project portfolios, whereas the integration of risk information is more important with high levels of turbulence and portfolio dynamics.