Ppm Solutions Functional Perspective

cg_2

2290

Project Portfolio Management Solutions

The Functional Perspective

cg_22290_Voorplat.indd 1 29-09-2009 09:06:09

| the way we see it

| the way we see it

Project Portfolio Management Solutions

The Functional Perspective

Authors:

Mark Stigter

([email protected])

Thomas van Schie

([email protected])

Erwin Dunnink

([email protected])

Capgemini Nederland B.V.

Utrecht, the Netherlands

Winter 2009

mailto:[email protected]



| the way we see it

ii

| the way we see it

iii

Foreword The future of organizations largely depends on successful projects. In times of

limited budgets and scarce talent, management needs tools to make the right

decisions and choices. Project-based management is nowadays the most applied

method of realizing and controlling complex objectives with constraints in time,

budget and resources. It has moved from an approach exceptionally used, to a

standard way of working. Choosing which projects to execute has become a

major part of managing a business. Organizations feel the need for an

automated support of these processes. This “automated support” has to improve

the overall governance by improving planning, monitoring and controlling

capabilities. So called Project Portfolio Management solutions offer this. We

define Project Portfolio Management (PPM) as the discipline focusing on the

strategic alignment, prioritization and governance of initiatives, projects and

programmes.

With pride we present the third independent study into functionality of Project

Portfolio Management (PPM) solutions offered by vendors in today‟s market. It

is a publication in Capgemini‟s Project Performance Improvement series that

sets out our point of view on project-based management and complements our

surveys in the market for PPM solutions of 2001 and 2005 and “PPM Solutions,

the user perspective” published in 2008. A global network of Project

Performance Improvement (PPI) departments within Capgemini offer skilled

support to organizations looking for ways to professionalize their PPM

processes.

This survey renews the insights in the available functionality within the PPM

tooling market and is based on requirements from user organizations. The

results are clustered into implementation approaches describing different

ambition levels to improve processes related to project-based management.

These implementation scopes are based on the Capgemini Process Reference

model for IT Governance.

We would like to thank the 33 vendors who participated in this survey and have

taken the time needed to complete the 450+ questionnaire: this was quite an

effort. The authors of this publication: Mark Stigter, Thomas van Schie and

Erwin Dunnink of Capgemini the Netherlands wishes to show their gratitude to

the following persons for contribution to this paper: Tjie-Jau Man, André

Scholte, George Veldman and Hendrik Zondag. Without their valuable

knowledge and input, this paper would not have been published.

We trust this publication stimulates thinking about functionality needed when

implementing a new, or extending the implementation of an existing PPM

solution to support project-based management in organizations.

Utrecht, winter 2009

Rudolf Laane

Vice President

| the way we see it

iv

| the way we see it

v

Contents

1 There is a choice 2

1.1 Participants 3

1.2 PPM Process Reference Model for IT Governance 3

2 Ambition is the driver 8

2.1 Scope 1: Project Delivery 8

2.1.1 Project Execution Management 9

2.1.1 Financial Project Management 10

2.1.2 Business Intelligence Management 10

2.1.3 Workflow & Knowledge Management 11

2.2 Scope 2: Project and Resource Management 12

2.2.1 Resource Allocation Management 13

2.3 Scope 3: Project Based Working 14

2.3.1 Time & Expense Management 15

2.4 Scope 4: Project and Programme Governance 16

2.4.1 Programme Delivery Management 16

2.5 Scope 5: Project Portfolio Management 17

2.5.1 Ideas & Portfolio Management 18

2.6 Scope 6: All processes 19

2.6.1 Customer & Partner Management 20

2.6.1 Service Delivery Management 21

2.6.2 Financial Accounting Management 21

3 PPM supported well 24

4 Approach and Methodology 26

4.1 The questionnaire 26

4.2 Analysis approach 26

| the way we see it

1

| the way we see it

2

1 There is a choice Management has a broad choice in PPM solutions. In general the PPM

market is a maturing market in which the competing solutions offer the

basic functionality you would expect of a PPM solution. At the same time

projects are carried out nearer to the core of the business and

requirements for PPM have to be defined in more detail. When taking a

more detailed look, difference is still there. For this reason we decided to

focus the survey on the more detailed aspects, relevant for situations we

encountered at our clients globally.

We found that the participating solutions still scored the same average score on

the processes in terms of percentage coverage, even with the more detailed

requirements. In line with the urgent need for tighter project management,

Project Portfolio Management (PPM) solutions are maturing regarding the

availability of basic functionality. When taking a detailed look at the individual

scores of the solutions there is an important difference in functionality offered.

When selecting and implementing a PPM solution you can therefore ask for

far-reaching functionality addressing the longer term ambitions of the

organization and still have vendors to choose between as can be found in the

results of this survey.

The outcomes of the survey are clustered in implementation scopes. Each scope

covers an area of the PPM process reference model that was used for this

survey. These implementation scopes can be looked at as different starting

points or ambition levels when looking at PPM. The scores of the individual

solutions are available as scorecards in the appendix.

Three main outcomes of the survey are:

1. Market leaders offer broad support for PPM processes but solutions

specialized in certain areas outperform the market leaders The PPM market really took off in the 90‟s. Some of the vendors have

evolved in the meantime to broad solutions offering support for all or most

of the PPM processes. New solutions appear in the market that focuses

primarily on a specific PPM process, for instance resource management or

portfolio management. These specialized solutions often outperform

broader solutions on these specific areas. Depending on the intended scope

of the implementation (based on the ambition for the next couple of years) a

lists of potential solutions can be created that includes solutions from

specialized vendors.

2. Functionality is still a distinguishing factor

Especially when looking into more sophisticated functionality a distinction

can still be made between solutions. The spread of how well the solutions

cover a certain functional area can sometimes range from 5% to 100%.

Experience shows that based on functionality a first selection can be made.

3. True point solutions do not exist since broader functional support is

always offered

Although some solutions focus on a specific PPM functional area they also

offer support for other related processes. This is logical since a process can

only be executed based on input from other processes. If an organization is

for instance primarily looking for a solution to support portfolio

Differences

are in the

details

Main

conclusions

| the way we see it

3

management and also wants to support project and resource management

processes but to a lesser detail a solution focusing on portfolio management

might be very interesting. This is also in line with a finding from a survey

published in spring 2008 into the user‟s perspective on PPM solutions1 that

showed that user organization were not particularly looking for broader

functional support but are looking for improvement in existing functionality

and usability.

1.1 Participants

We looked at the market of Project Portfolio Management vendors and

contacted vendors based on our knowledge of the market, combined with

contacts found in openly available sources. In total 33 PPM vendors

participated in this survey offering a picture of the type of solutions available in

today‟s market. The participating vendors and their solutions can be found in

Appendix A: Scorecards participating PPM solutions PPM solutions.

Since our 2005 study the market has changed. Some vendors merged (for

instance Planview and Business Engine), others became part of a large IT

company‟s portfolio (for instance Niku Clarity to CA and Mercury ITG to HP)

and new solutions (like Principle Toolbox) entered the PPM market space.

1.2 PPM Process Reference Model for IT Governance

As a basis for the survey the PPI process reference model was used. This model

describes the processes commonly found in an organization that deals with a

combination of projects and services and which is continuously trying to

optimize the allocation of limited resources on these projects and services.

The Model was originally developed in 2000 when Capgemini encountered

a need from organizations to make clear, in a simplified way, what

processes need to be in place to run projects and programmes effectively.

The reference model is based on best practices of Capgemini PPI

consultants combined with Project/Programme Management

methodologies PMBOK, PRINCE2 and MSP. The model evolved over the

years and has recently been significantly updated, based on the latest

feedback from clients and consultants, to function again as the basis for

the vendor survey.

1 PPM Solutions for IT Governance – The User Perspective, 2008, by Erwin Dunnink and

Tjie-Jau Man

33

Participants

PPI Process

Reference

Model is the

basis for the

survey

| the way we see it

4

By taking the Process Reference Model as the benchmark we ensured that the

information was structured according to the requirements of the primary

processes of project-centred organizations.

Figure 1: The Project Performance Improvement Process Reference Model

| the way we see it

5

As shown in Figure 1, the PPI Process Reference Model covers eleven

functional areas. Each functional area consists of several processes. A short

description of each functional area is given below.

CPM Customer & Partner Management

This functional area deals with managing the interaction with the customers

(both internal and external) and other contacts in the value web in which the

organization operates.

IPM Idea & Portfolio Management

An idea or new demand is captured and prioritized in combination with other

ideas and projects. Based on different scenarios a portfolio is determined and

managed.

PDM Programme Delivery Management

This functional area describes the programme management processes from

starting up, governing and to end a programme.

PEM Project Execution Management

This functional area covers the activities aimed at managing and controlling the

project: from setting up, running and ending a project.

RAM Resource Allocation Management

This functional area is about levelling the supply and demand of resources and

optimizing the utilization of resources for the organization.

TEM Time & Expense Management

This functional area describes the registration and approval of time and

expenses on projects, services and activities not related to projects.

FPM Financial Project Management

To stress the importance of the financial aspects of project management,

aspects like forecasting and monitor budgets, work-in-progress, invoices and

accruals are combined in this functional area.

SDM Service Delivery Management

Within IT Governance services have to be managed next to projects. This

functional area describes the definition of services, managing releases and

managing the SLA.

WKM Workflow & Knowledge Management

This functional area deals with supporting the collaboration within and over

projects by sending action items, alerts and by sharing documents and other

configuration items.

BIM Business Intelligence Management

BIM covers the means to inform and report on the data captured in the PPM

processes and possible combining with already existing information.

FAM Financial Accounting Management

FAM is a discipline itself. It gives insights in the contribution of each project,

customer, department or professional towards the profit of the entire

organization.

Eleven

Functional Areas

| the way we see it

6

The average scores on these areas resulting from the survey are shown in

Figure 2.

Figure 2: Average score per functional area based on 33 participating PPM

solutions.

| the way we see it

7

| the way we see it

8

2 Ambition is the driver The choice for a specific PPM solution highly depends on the local

situation, goals and ambitions. The present PPM market offers tools that

provide support for a range of aspects and processes within the projects.

When implementing a PPM solution a clear choice is needed which aspects

and processes will be supported. In this chapter the outcomes of the survey

are structured based on six implementation scopes. These implementation

scopes are based on logical combinations of processes. For each process the

average score of the participating solutions is mentioned.

The process reference model was used to indicate which functional areas and

processes should be taken into account in each of these implementation scopes.

Scope 1: Project Delivery

Scope 2: Project and Resource Management

Scope 3: Project Based Working

Scope 4: Project and Programme Governance

Scope 5: Project Portfolio Management

Scope 6: All processes

Each scope builds upon the functional areas and processes of the previous

implementation scope, except for the project portfolio management scope. It is

possible to implement a tool to support Project Portfolio Management, before

processes like Project Management or Time Reporting are implemented.

Functional areas already discussed in previous implementation scopes will not

be discussed again.

2.1 Scope 1: Project Delivery

The ambition of the organization in scope 1 is to:

implement a PPM tool to support the project management processes;

gather all relevant project information in one place and

being able to report on individual projects from a central point.

A centralized solution is implemented to enable control on multiple projects.

The focus however lies on optimizing the support for individual projects.

Six

implementation

scopes

Focus on

supporting

individual

projects

| the way we see it

9

The functional areas primarily looked at are Project Execution Management

and Financial Project Management. Besides these two areas also some

processes from Business Intelligence Management and Workflow &

Knowledge Management are taken into account.

2.1.1 Project Execution Management

Project Execution Management (PEM) covers the activities aimed at 'managing'

the project: from setting up a project, running the project to ending the project.

All participating solutions offer the basic functionality. Leaving the basics out

difference between the solutions are particularly found in controlling, planning

and scheduling, quality, risk and issues and change requests.

Figure 3: Project Execution Management process

The functional area of Project Execution Management was covered by all

solutions, with an average score of 67%. Figure 3 shows the average score per

process.

The lowest scoring process is Close the project. One of the low scoring

questions in this process was if the solution can be set up in a way that a project

cannot be closed if invoices and commitments are still open. This would

prevent a misalignment between the project financial status in the PPM solution

and in the financial solution.

The basic information of projects can be kept in the solutions. When the data is

also used for portfolio management analyses, more data is needed. For instance

how the project contributes to the business goals. In 80% of the solutions

multiple business goals can be linked to a project. Next to that, some

intelligence in calculating a project priority based, for instance on ROI or

strategic alignment, are useful. This is only supported by 43% of the solutions.

Version control of a project plan is supported by 67% of the solutions. It is only

possible in 50% of the solutions to keep track of the changes made and undo

these if required. Typically a feature that would make the solution more user

friendly from a project manager‟s perspective.

When looking at the area of controlling risks and issues we found low scores.

Of the participating solutions five do not support this area at all and another

five very limited. A strange finding knowing that many project management

methods look at risk management as one of the core aspects of project

management.

Manage the

budget from a

project

perspective is

well supported

Risk

management not

available in all

solutions

| the way we see it

10

2.1.1 Financial Project Management

Financial Project Management (FPM) is mentioned as a separate functional

area to stress the importance of proper financial control in running projects.

This functional area starts with capturing the expected benefits of a project and

forecasting the costs to charging back or invoicing the project.

Figure 4: Financial Project Management process

The functional area of Financial Project Management is covered by all


process.

Record purchases scores a high coverage of 91%. This shows that PPM

solutions recognize managing projects is not only about managing the time of

human resources. It is also important to keep track of costs for materials.

Overall the information to manage the budget from a project perspective is well

supported. Comparing the budget with actual money spent is possible in 90%

of the solutions. Two solutions score low on the process area with a score

below 30%.

2.1.2 Business Intelligence Management

Business Intelligence Management (BIM) is the process that delivers

management information and reports. PPM solutions gather a lot of information

useful not only to project- programme-, portfolio- and resource managers but to

management in general.

Figure 5: Business Intelligence Management

The functional area of Business Intelligence Management was covered by 32

out of 33 vendors, with an average score of 61 %.

PPM solutions can contain a lot of information. Getting the desired information

out of the system can be more difficult than one might expect. Remarks are

often made by users that the out-of-the box available reports are not fully

compliant with their needs. Looking at the scores it is clear that the information

we asked for is available. But perhaps information is not logically combined

from a user perspective on the standard reports. The processes Management

Project

priorities are

often not

calculated

| the way we see it

11

Information for Portfolios and Resource and the ability to create ad hoc reports

are covered best.

Most solutions (64%) score between 80% and 100% on the process Portfolio

Management Information. In this area 75% of the solutions indicate it is

possible to print a highlight report of the portfolio(s). This highlight report

contains an overview of investments with aspects like contribution to business

goal(s), needed and allocated resources and requested and allocated budget.

The function to print a delta report for the portfolio(s) is available within 60%

of the solutions. A delta report contains new approved investments, completed

investments and investments that are put on hold.

Reporting on service delivery scores low. This is not surprising since it is a

relatively new functional area to PPM solutions. It is possible to show the

actual performance of a service compared to the service level agreement in

35% of the solutions. Regarding organizational performance, within 47% of the

solutions it is possible to define, monitor and measure the service delivery

based on defined metrics and other benchmarks.

2.1.3 Workflow & Knowledge Management

Workflow & Knowledge Management (WKM) is a functional area that

supports all the other processes in the reference model.

Workflow Management is the ability to control the primary business processes

in an integrated manner.

Knowledge management is about managing the (re-)use and sharing of

information, often captured in documents.

Figure 6: Workflow & Knowledge Management process

The functional area Workflow & Knowledge Management was covered by all


process area.

All participating solutions provide support for workflow and knowledge

management. A great benefit within this functional area, as seen by many end

users2, is the ability to share documents (knowledge), to get automated alerts,

and to get automated notifications for example when the approval of an

2 PPM Solutions for IT Governance – The User Perspective, 2008 by Erwin Dunnink and

Tjie-Jau Man

A lot of

information is

captured and

available through

reports

Sharing

documents well

supported

| the way we see it

12

executive is needed. An interesting function within knowledge management is

a search option to go through all documents and/or data within the entire

solution. This option is available within 78% of the participating solutions.

A part of Knowledge Management is Configuration management.

Configuration Management has maybe one of the most unexpected outcomes.

More and more project oriented organizations are standardizing their way of

working by implementing for example PRINCE2, in which configuration

management is recognized as an important process. Only 44% of the

participating PPM solutions offer basic support for this process by offering

version control of configuration items. To support effective configuration

management, version control is an important functionality within the product-

development lifecycle. Lack of support for configuration management shows

that most PPM solutions refer to more specialized solutions to address this.

With the emphasis on governance and laws like Sarbanes-Oxley and the

Clinger-Cohen act it is becoming increasingly important for organizations to

comply with these laws. When looking at the scores on the process Manage

Audit Trails there is room for improvement. For instance tracking who entered

what in the system and when, is something that the participating solutions

cover for just 57%.

2.2 Scope 2: Project and Resource Management

In this scope additional project management processes and the functional area

of resource management are added to scope 1. The ambition in this scope is to

manage projects and to link this to the management of (limited) resources. This

implementation scope introduces the element of aligning the need for resource

from a project point of view with the capacity available in the standing

organisation. In most cases the role of a resource manager is introduced.

Two participating solutions came close to a 100 percent score (99% en 98%);

the average score within scope 2 is 62%.

Introducing the

alignment

between projects

and resource

pools

| the way we see it

13

Within the functional area Project Execution Management, the processes

Request for Resources and Assign Resources are added in this implementation

scope. These two processes cover the role and responsibilities of the project

manager in the resource allocation process. First the required capacity is

indicated, based on effort estimations and criteria like required skills and

location. Once the resources have been provided to the project the project

manager indicates on which task the resources will be working (assigning them

to tasks). PPM solutions provide different ways to support project managers in

the resource allocation process. For instance views which show the remaining

availability of resources are available in almost every solution (93%). The

ability to assign and reassign resources to tasks is however poorly supported. It

should be easy for project managers to do this, for instance by dragging and

dropping resources to the specific tasks. This functionality is the lowest scoring

one of the aspects looked at for this process. Not even 47% of the solutions

provide this option.

In the functional area Business Intelligence Management the process

Management Information of resources is added, covering some specific reports

to control the resources allocation process. For example the ability for

resources to get information about remaining vacation or hours spend on non

project related tasks is available in about 50% of the solutions. Another

example is information about critical resources. The average score on the

overviews asked for is only 63%.

2.2.1 Resource Allocation Management

Resource Allocation Management (RAM) is about matching and planning

resources within a programme or project. Both capability and availability of

resources are taken into account in this process. Other processes often looked at

in this perspective are the analysis of capacity utilization, and the supply and

demand of external resources.

This functional area also includes more generic HR-processes, Recruit & Select

Personnel and Manage resource data. This data is often interfaced to the PPM

solution from the HR system.

Figure 7: Resource Allocation Management process

A distinction is made between searching for available resources and searching

for suitable resources. When a project needs to be staffed the best resource

(most suitable) might not be available.

Depending on the priorities of the projects an organization might decide to

make the resource available. This distinction is therefore important to make in

the resource selection process. Searching for available resources is pretty well

| the way we see it

14

supported with an average of 63%. When searching for available resources it is

convenient if the result list shows the current and future projects on which the

resources are allocated. This functionality is available within 84% of the

solutions. This is a must have functionality for effective Resource Allocation

Management.

Surprisingly in connection with looking for available resources is the much

lower score of looking for suitable resources. Looking for the right people for

the job should be as important as looking for available resources. Yet this

process only scores 50%, 13% lower than for an availability search. Especially

the functionality to use more than one criterion in the search criteria scored

low. Only a third of the solutions have the ability to use more than one search

criteria. Particularly when dealing with larger resource pools this is not

sufficient.

Some organisations work a lot with a limited set of preselected external

contractors. When they have a position available in a project these contractors

are contacted to offer candidates. Preferably the project based request can be

published automatically and external contractors can propose one or multiple

candidates to the request. Only five solutions offer the possibility to propose a

candidate without having to create a user in the system for each candidate.

2.3 Scope 3: Project Based Working

In scope 3, the functional area of Time and Expense Management is added to

scope 2. The additional ambition here is to get a grip on the hours spend on

projects by resources. For accurate tracking of time and project budget spend,

time reporting is essential. This also gives the possibility to work with

Estimates and Time to Complete. This leads to more insights into the use of

resources and when they become available again for other projects. Since most

organizations focus on time first, the processes covering expenses have not

been taken into account in Scope 3.

Again, two solutions came close to a 100 percent match with 98% coverage of

scope 3. The average score on this implementation scope is 62%.

Only 50%

supports a search

for a suitable

resource

Closing the loop

between planning

and realisation

| the way we see it

15

2.3.1 Time & Expense Management

Time & Expense Management (TEM) covers the activities time recording (on

activity level) and validating & approving timesheets. Proper Time & Expense

Management gives a direct and accurate insight into the effort that is spent and

that remains to be done. Ideally this is integrated with the possibility for

resources to track expenses against the project or even better on activities in the

project.

Figure 8: Time & Expense Management process

The functional area of Time & Expense Management is covered by 32


process area.

As expected high scores are achieved on a must have functionality like the

ability to show an overview of total hours per day and total hours per period

(week).

It is striking that the process Record Time only scores 63%. This can be

explained by the details of the questions asked. It was taken for granted that

time can be registered. The questions on more advanced functionally scored

low. For instance the possibility to validate timesheets real time (50%), to

indicate if a resource is allowed to book more hours than planned on a project

(40%) and the ability to indicate the remaining duration (53%).

Being able to support the recording of time is one thing. Organisations want to

be able to check the submission of timesheets. This process often steers the

charge back or invoicing of the hours spend. In the questionnaire specific

questions were asked. The automated warning when timesheets are not

submitted in time is covered by 65%. Reminding resource they have to approve

time sheets is only supported by 56% of the solutions.

The least supported functionality related to time and expense management is

that of the ability to adjust or correct timesheets. This is needed when a mistake

was made, for instance by booking too many hours or booking on the wrong

project task. It is possible within the solutions to deal with corrections in a

closed time period by:

Recording negative hours in a new time period: 44%

Replacing the closed time period completely (with corrected items): 50%

Other: 31% (e.g. re-open a timesheet, an interface to a financial system or even

a specific role/person like the project manager, timesheet approver or „invoice

manager‟ is approved to edit timesheets)

Overall this functional area is well supported. Offering support for what is

needed often in practice, the ability to be able to make changes to timesheet

already handed in, can be improved.

| the way we see it

16

2.4 Scope 4: Project and Programme Governance

In this implementation scope the functional area of Programme Delivery

Management is added. In situations where an organization wants to achieve a

challenging strategic objective the organization structure of a programme can

be useful. In essence a new temporary department is created focusing on

achieving the strategic goal by executing projects that realize parts of it. In this

implementation scope this specific part of PPM is added to the ambition. The

areas of resource management, financial project management and time

reporting are included in this scope.

The process Management Information Programmes of the functional area

Business Intelligence Management is added.

2.4.1 Programme Delivery Management

Programme Delivery Management (PDM) covers the discipline program

management from starting up a programme, governing the programme to

closing the programme. A PPM solution should be capable of supporting

programmes.

Figure 9: Programme Delivery Management process

The functional area of Programme Delivery Management was covered by 31


process.

In 80% of the solutions it is possible to distinct a programme from a project.

This means that in six solutions the concept of a programme is not available at

all. Some of these vendors have answered the questionnaire assuming a

“special” project can be used to act as a programme.

Adding the

programme level

Linking multiple

goals to a

programme only

supported by

53%

| the way we see it

17

Before starting a programme the programme-mandate has to be made. It should

be possible to register data elements from this mandate to be able to report on it.

Most solutions offer support for registering a programme in structured way.

Related to this is the ability to identify the programme and issue a programme

brief. Programmes are related to business goals that represent the reason for

executing the programme. Sometimes a programme supports two or more

business goals. Of the solutions 62% indicate that programmes can be linked to

multiple goals, but only 53% can support an indication of how much the

programme will support the different goals.

The basis functionality to distinct a programme from a project is available

within 81% of the solutions.

Worrying are the low scores on governing and closing programmes. To support

the governance of a programme questions were asked about the possibilities to

perform what-if scenarios. To accomplish the goal of the programme a

programme manager can choose between different initiatives. Calculating and

evaluating different scenarios can help in this. About half of the solutions

provided the possibilities to perform what-if scenarios within a program.

Within portfolio management 57% of the solutions provide this possibility.

This lower score is therefore surprising, because the techniques involved are

identical.

Closing the programme is another process with a surprisingly low score. Of

course it can be indicated that a programme is no longer active. However there

is no additional functionality available to support the programme manager in

running some final checks before deactivating a programme.

2.5 Scope 5: Project Portfolio Management

Project portfolio management depends on information of projects registered

during the idea phase and the subsequent phases of a project lifecycle. The

ambition in this scope is to support the decision-making in the project portfolio

process. The objective is that projects within the portfolio have the optimal

contribution to accomplishing the goals and strategy of the organization. Next

to project portfolios, application and service portfolios can exist in an

organization.

| the way we see it

18

Project portfolio management can be done stand alone (can be implemented

within an organization without implementing the other functional area‟s). This

means that the portfolio solution is not integrated with the solution for project

management.

Over the last couple of years several organizations choose to start their PPM

ambition from a top-down perspective and focused first on this area to be able

to better base their portfolio decisions. This is why project portfolio

management was identified as a separate implementation scope.

Important aspects for portfolio management are the goals and strategy of the

organization. These goals and strategy are translated into concrete criteria

which are input for the portfolio management process to score and rank projects

on. By applying weighting criteria to criteria the PPM solution can support in

determining the optimal project portfolio.

2.5.1 Ideas & Portfolio Management

Idea Management is input for the Portfolio Management process. What

possible new investments are being created? What is the business case for this

new investment? This information will be used in the Portfolio Management

process. Demand Management is answering the question how to do it all after

selecting which idea to include. Portfolio Management is the continuing

process of deciding which investments to start, continue, put on hold or stop. In

this way the projects being executed have the most optimal contribution to

accomplishing the company goals and strategy.

Figure 10: Ideas & Portfolio Management process

The functional area of Idea and Portfolio Management was covered by 29


process.

When updating the process reference model in preparing this survey it was

decided to put specific emphasis on Idea and Portfolio Management than was

done in previous versions of the reference model by identifying a special

functional area for this. Reporting options connected to portfolio management

are covered in the functional area of Business Intelligence Management.

Manage the programme and project portfolio is the highest scoring process in

this functional area; three out of four solutions support this process area with

80-100% coverage. When managing the portfolio it is important to have a

graphical overview of all projects in the portfolio. A Gantt Chart showing all

projects of the portfolio in one view is available in 93% of the solutions.

Another much desired functionality of organizations is to be able to drill down

from the portfolio into the underlying projects which is available in 80 % of the

solutions. The processes of managing the service portfolio and managing the

application portfolio are relatively new to PPM tools and are specific to IT

Governance. These processes score remarkably better than expected.

Portfolio

management can

be implemented

stand alone

A graphical view

of the portfolio is

available in

almost all

solutions

| the way we see it

19

This has to be seen in relation with the functional area of Service Delivery

Management. The lowest scoring functionality was the ability to see the

customer satisfaction of the services in the portfolio.

What is surprising is the low score of analyse the portfolio scenarios. An

essential part of the portfolio management process is the ability to perform

what-if scenarios to look at all projects from multiple directions to support

decision making of which portfolio supports the organization best. An

interesting point of view is for instance is to look at spread of the risks in the

portfolio. This, for instance, can be done by looking at how projects score when

comparing the type of risks to the return on investments. Within the

participating solutions there is 67% coverage. The weakness is in the ability to

compare different scenarios with each other and with the current portfolio.

What is well covered is the functionality to effectuate the consequences of

these scenarios on high level resource demand (63%). This is one of the most

important requirements by organizations in the portfolio process.

Support for the portfolio management process needs to be improvement to

increase the level of support for executive managers in prioritizing their

projects. Especially when looking at the ability to set goals for the portfolio by

indicating a desired risk profile or by setting the limits of the amount of the

budget that should be spend accomplishing a business goal. Finally it is of

course essential that the current portfolio and scenario can be compared to these

goals.

2.6 Scope 6: All processes

The final implementation scope covers all processes identified in the process

reference model. Most functional areas have already been discussed in one of

the previous implementation scopes. In comparison with the previous

mentioned implementation scopes the functional areas of Customer & Partner

Management, Service Delivery Management and Financial Accounting

Management are added. The average score in this scope is 63%.

Adding non core

areas

| the way we see it

20

2.6.1 Customer & Partner Management

Customer & Partner Management includes the processes that manage the

interaction with the customers (both internal and external), and with other

parties in the value web or eco system in which the company (or department)

operates. Details of the customer are recorded, their business needs are

identified and (if required) proposals are created. Of course it is important to

measure the quality of the services provided as experienced by the customer. In

a world where part of the organization is outsourced to other companies, where

system development or other functions are performed in countries such as India

and projects are partly staffed by free-lancers or consultancy companies,

managing these interactions is important.

Figure 11: Customer & Partner Management process

The functional area of Customer & Partner Management was covered by all

solutions, with an average score of 65%. Figure 11 shows the average scores.

Identify new business is scoring reasonable. But when we look at the spread of

the scores it shows that they either score really high (24 solutions score >80%)

or really low (9 solutions score <20%).

Check customer satisfaction scores low. For instance only 44% of the solutions

offer the possibility to link satisfaction criteria to a customer from a

configurable list. Satisfaction of the customer is maybe the most important

thing in making a project successful. By managing the expectations of a

customer the success of delivering a project which connects to the customers‟

needs can be increased. Keeping track of the expectations on a customer and

project level in the solution would in that perspective is very useful.

The process, “Exchange project & resource data”, scores lowest. Being able to

share and exchange data related to projects and resources is essential in the

global economy organisation operate in today. A reason for this low score is the

inability of most solutions (67%) to support the functionality where an external

vendor offers a resource for a request.

| the way we see it

21

2.6.1 Service Delivery Management

Service Delivery Management (SDM) covers the processes from defining the

service to managing new releases.

Figure 12: Service Delivery Management process

The functional area of Service Delivery Management was covered by 27

solutions, with an average score of 53%. This area seems to be up to level with

the maturity of the market, or maybe even ahead of it. The best supported

process is defining the service. Of the participating solutions 72% is able to

make an overview of the available services and make it visible in a report. Of

the participating solutions 63% has the functionality to create a separate object

within the solution for the service; so it does not have to be defined as a project.

It looks like service management is becoming basic functionality for PPM

solutions with an IT governance focus. That there still is room for improvement

is made visible with the lowest score in the Service Delivery Management area

“Deliver new releases”. Only 50% of the solutions are able to plan new releases

within the service. Of these solutions, 45% who offer new-release planning are

able to make a connection between the release-planning and the portfolio

planning. There is a big difference between the tools. Of the solutions 30%

have a score in this process area of 80-100%, while 58% do not score more

than 60%. Functionality has to grow in this area.

2.6.2 Financial Accounting Management

Financial Accounting Management (FAM) gives insights in the contribution of

each project, customer, department and professional towards the financial

performance of the entire organization.

Figure 13: Financial Accounting Management process

The functional area of Financial Accounting Management was covered by 30

out of 33 solutions, with an average score of 49%. The most striking about the

results is the fact that there does not seem to be an in between, either solutions

support the process within Financial Account Management very well or they

barely support it.

The two strongest functionalities of the process “Chargeback/invoice the

project” are the possibilities to see all the cost of a project in one view (88%)

and the possibilities to change the rate per resource per project (80%). Really

handy when resources work on different projects for different companies with

different pricing agreements. But also when a distinction is made between

working on own department projects and on projects of other departments.

Release and

portfolio planning

poorly integrated

Financial

management

supported by half

of the solutions

| the way we see it

22

The process “Process Period Closure” contained a very important question

concerning time periods: “Is it possible to close time periods per part of the

organization instead of for the whole system at once (to support different time

zones)? Of the vendors which cover Financial Accounting Management, 82%

have answered no, this functionality is not available. This type of advanced

functionality is most often covered by an already present financial system, but

indicates the way Project Portfolio Management solutions are developing. It

shows that the PPM solutions are not completely ready yet for an enterprise

approach. Closing a month for a whole organization that operates

internationally at one moment in time is hard to do from a process point of

view.

Looking at the results for financial accounting management it is clear that it is

out of scope for most solutions. What is supported, are the functionalities

directly linked to projects and the time accounting done on them. The

information from the PPM solutions is either manually transferred or

automatically interfaced to the financial system used by an organization.

| the way we see it

23

| the way we see it

24

3 PPM supported well The outcomes of the survey show that many PPM solutions available in the

market can offer broad and sufficient support for the processes identified

in the PPI process reference model. The outcomes also show that solutions

can be found for each scope an organization wants to cover in its

implementation.

Three main outcomes of the survey are:

1. Market leaders offer broad support for PPM processes but solutions specialized

in certain areas outperform the market leaders

2. Functionality is still a distinguishing factor

3. True point solutions do not exist since broader functional support is always

offered

Over 60% of the questions asked for each of the implementation scopes

identified are answered positively.

Figure 14: Average score per scenario

In some scopes there is a big difference in the offered functionality by the

different vendors. The scope “Project Portfolio Management” taking the crown

with a spread from 4% to a 100%. Some solutions that score low in this scope

are however one of the best solutions in another scope.

The individual scores of the participating solutions can be found in Appendix

A: Scorecards participating PPM solutions.

When an organization is thinking about implementing a PPM solution, this

survey clearly shows that there are a lot of potential solutions to look at. The

basics are well covered by all. Organizations should think about functionality

they really need to support their business processes now, and also what they

want supported in the near future.

Average score per

implementation

scope

| the way we see it

25

When creating the questionnaire for the survey it was clear that some of the

questions would be difficult to some of the solutions. On the other hand we

would have expected the solutions to perform better on some functional areas,

taking into account the number of times we encountered those situations at our

clients. Looking at the average figures this is particularly true for the next

functionalities which we think should be improved in the near future to become

core PPM functionality as well.

A portfolio manager would like better support for:

o options to compare different portfolio scenarios (preferably in one screen)

o dealing with dependencies between projects in the portfolio

o playing with different risk profiles

o taking portfolio management to the corporate level.

Support for project managers should be improved in:

o tracking and acting on risks and issues,

o keeping a clear view on the tolerances set for the project

o performing final checks when closing a project

o managing the business case

For resource managers the support should be improved for:

o searching for suitable resources based on criteria set in the resource request

o being able to propose and manage a situation in which multiple candidates

are proposed for a request.

o managing resource reservations including probability and priorities,

o support for dealing with external resources proposed for a request.

Resources could use better support for:

o Making adjustments on timesheets

o Real time validations of their timesheet

o Dragging and dropping options in the solution, for instance when dragging

a document to a task in the project.

In the end the ambition of the organization using the PPM solution determines

what is required. The outcomes of this survey clearly show that broad support

for PPM processes is available.

| the way we see it

26

4 Approach and Methodology Vendors of PPM solutions were asked to fill in a 450+ questionnaire based

on the Project Performance Improvement (PPI) – Process Reference

Model. In this survey, the functional coverage of the offered solutions is

highlighted.

We invited over 100 PPM vendors to participate (searched on the internet and

gained from internal records). Of these vendors 33 have filled in the

questionnaire. Participating vendors range from multinationals that have been

around for a while, to companies just starting on the PPM market.

4.1 The questionnaire

The questionnaire is based on the PPI Process Reference Model, as was done in

the two previous surveys. The questionnaire was revised for two reasons: 1) to

keep the questionnaire manageable, and 2) to delete superfluous questions.

These questions are defined as basis functionality and are therefore used as a

starting point. The questions used are more complex to get insights in the

differences of the participating PPM solutions. Another objective of this study

is to be able to get an indication which tools perform best in a certain functional

area or process. As a result questions that did not contribute to making a

distinction between PPM solutions have been removed from the questionnaire.

The consequence of this is that solutions that do support a functional area very

well in basic functionality can score low within our survey. Vendors were

asked to answer the questions only for „out of the box‟ available functionality.

4.2 Analysis approach

The first approach to analyze the data has been to score the individual questions,

process areas and functional areas. This has been done made on the answered

questions with the following grading system:

Questions that were not answered are considered as not available. Tools that do

not support a functional area have been taken out the equation, so it will not

bring the average score for that functional area down. In the results paragraph

of each functional area will be stated how many of the participating vendors

cover this functional area. Within the individual scorecards, at the end of this

paper, it will be shown per vendor which functional area they support.

The second approach to analyze the answers is based on the eleven functional

areas as described within our process reference model. This gives a clear

indication on how the vendor-market is behaving on several functional aspects

of Project Portfolio Management.

Score = Questions answered „Yes‟ for the applicable area x weight assigned

Total number of questions in the applicable area

x100%

| the way we see it

27

A third approach used to analyze the answers, was the use of scopes as

mentioned in chapter 2. The reference model is used by PPI consultants of

Capgemini to determine what functionality is desired by the customer to

implement. Based on these experiences, we have established a couple of basic

scopes we see when implementing PPM tools. Comparison is made how well

PPM tools support these scopes.

Two remarks have to be made: 1) not every sub process in the reference model

is used in the different scopes. And 2) in every sub process the asked

functionality will not cover the need by every organization looking to

implement a PPM tool for a certain scope.

Finally we have to mention that Capgemini did not validate the answers given

by the vendors. We can therefore take no responsibility for the answers given.

The outcomes of this survey can be a starting point for PPM tool selection

processes that has to be completed by a demonstration based on a specific

situation applicable for an organization. In line with the approach taken in this

survey these demonstrations should be focussed on the advanced,

distinguishing functionalities since the base functionality is covered by more or

less all PPM solutions available in today‟s market.

| the way we see it

28

5 Appendix A: Scorecards

participating PPM solutions This appendix gives an overview of all the solutions which participated in the

survey. For each solution a scorecard is presented. We feel that choosing a

PPM solution is always a balancing act between several aspects.

The results are alphabetically ordered by the solutions name.

In the score cards, the following abbreviations are used in connection with the

spider diagrams:

CPM - Customer & Partner Management

IPM - Idea & Portfolio Management

PDM - Programme Delivery Management

PEM - Project Execution Management

RAM - Resource Allocation Management

TEM - Time & Expense Management

FPM - Financial Project Management

SDM - Service Delivery Management

WKM - Workflow & Knowledge Management

BIM - Business Intelligence Management

FAM - Financial Accounting Management

On the left the scores of the solutions per implementation scope are mentioned:

Scope 1: Project Delivery

Scope 2: Project and Resource Management

Scope 3: Project Based Working

Scope 4: Project and Programme Governance

Scope 5: Project Portfolio Management

Scope 6: All processes

On the right the overall score is represented as a spider diagram, comparing the

score of the solution to the average score of all 33 participating solutions.

The blue line represents the average score of the 33 participating vendors. The

red line represents the individual solutions score.

| the way we see it

29

Name Solution Vendor

@task AtTask Inc.

Artemis 7 version 7.2 Artemis International Solutions

Corporation, a Versata Company.

Augeo 5 version 5.3 Augeo Software

| the way we see it

30


Axxerion version 969 Axxerion B.V.

BB.Net 4.0 BusinessBase

Cardinis Suite version 4.3 Cardinis Solutions SpA

| the way we see it

31


Changepoint version 12 Compuware

CA Clarity PPM version 8 Computer Associates

Daptiv PPM Daptiv, Inc.

| the way we see it

32


Planview Enterprise 9.1 Planview, Inc.

Paradigm eServicesManager version 7.1 Paradigm Software Technologies Inc.

Telelogic’s Focal Point V6.1 Telelogic Netherlands, an IBM Company.

| the way we see it

33


GoEfficient version 2.1 MCH Information & Communication

solutions

InventX SP2M 4.5 Cranes Software International ltd.

Microsoft Office Enterprise Project

Management (EPM) 2007

Microsoft B.V.

| the way we see it

34


Planisware 5 Planisware

PowerProject PowerProject

Primavera P6, version 6.0 Primavera

| the way we see it

35


Principal Toolbox version 4.1.6 Fortes Solutions B.V.

Project Insight Enterprise Project

Management Software

Metafuse, Inc.

Rational Portfolio Manager IBM

| the way we see it

36


Resilient Project Portfolio Manager,

Version 4.0.314

Resilient

Sagitta & Centurio, Astrea, Intelligence,

Blackberry & ServicesPlanning

Icorp B.V.

PSNext version 2.5 SciForma

| the way we see it

37


ShareLock projectsoftware Dataleaf ICT

TaskTimer/Projectcontroller version 7

with MindManager Project Edition.

Mobipro

Borland Tempo 2007r2 Borland B.V.

| the way we see it

38


Timewax version 6 Timewax B.V.

Trias Relatiebeheer en

Projectmanagement

Trias Digitaal

Unanet Project Portfolio version 9.0 Unanet Technologies

| the way we see it

39


Xiphers version 7.0 Matadex

SAP RPM (SAP Resource & Portfolio

Management)

SAP

| the way we see it

40

6 Appendix B: About Capgemini

PPM Solutions Capgemini‟s Project Portfolio Management Solutions (PPM) departments are

globally present in the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Austria, Sweden, the

UK, India and the US. These departments serve project-based organisations

with the professionalization of executing and governing projects, programmes

and portfolios. PPM is a full service provider in this market space: Consulting.

Technology. Outsourcing.

The main business issue addressed by PPM involves organisations that are not

in control of the execution of their projects, programmes and portfolios. We

offer services such as project managers‟ assessments, organisation assessments

(OPM3, CMMI), setting up or running Project Management Offices,

implementing PRINCE2, MSP and Project Portfolio management (PPM). We

also focus on optimising the project portfolio management processes in an

organisation with the support of the right tools. PPM Solutions has thorough

knowledge of the solutions available in the market. Finally the implementation

of these solutions is supported from an onshore centre in the Netherlands in

combination with offshore centres in India. The offshore centres focus mainly

on application management, but they also engage in report and interface

development, configuration solutions and application management based on a

Software-as-a-Service principle.

For more information on PPM Solutions see www.nl.capgemini.com/PPI (in

Dutch).

41

About Capgemini and the Collaborative Business Experience

Capgemini, one of the world‟s foremost providers of Consulting, Technology and

Outsourcing services, has a unique way of working with its clients, called the Collaborative

Business Experience.

Backed by over three decades of industry and service experience, the Collaborative Business

Experience is designed to help our clients achieve better, faster, more sustainable results

through seamless access to our network of world-leading technology partners and

collaboration-focused methods and tools. Through commitment to mutual success and the

achievement of tangible value, we help businesses implement growth strategies, leverage

technology and thrive through the power of collaboration. Capgemini employs

approximately 68,000 people worldwide and reported 2006 global revenues of €7.7 billion.

The Capgemini Group is headquartered in Paris.

www.capgemini.com

www.nl.capgemini.com

Capgemini Nederland B.V.Papendorpseweg 100Postbus 2575 - 3500 GN UtrechtTel. 030 689 00 00Fax 030 689 99 99

cg_22290_Voorplat.indd 16 29-09-2009 09:06:06

Ppm Solutions Functional Perspective

Documents

Transcript of Ppm Solutions Functional Perspective