Loading in 2 Seconds...
Loading in 2 Seconds...
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
IT Governance Project Management Tool Sample Decision Package Review Date: October 14, 2003 Presentation Time: 9:00 – 10:00 AM CST Presenters: PMO Manager and Director
IT Governance Review – PM Tool • Purpose of this Review • Provide Team recommendations to IT Governance • Review Pros/Cons of final 2 vendor solutions • Obtain recommendation from IT Governance on final tool • Gain agreement from IT Governance to purchase and implement a Portfolio /Project Management Tool
Portfolio / Project Management Tool • Executive Summary • In today's business environment, organizations have to do more with less. Improving processes is critical but is only part of the total solution. People are a company’s number one asset - managing them and the work they do is crucial to organizational success. Many organizations have found that utilizing a Portfolio & Project Management tool results in decreased cost, by aiding management in understanding and managing the complexity of costs and benefits, resources, projects, risks, changes, and issues. They have found many benefits and increased performance by empowering everyone in the organization with collaboration tools to improve teamwork and share best practices, issues, and knowledge
Technology or Architecture – Overview Problem State Inconsistent Project Management across IT Reinvention of PM processes and tools from project to project Time wasted Quality and completeness of artifacts vary Resources challenged to learn PM processes from project to project Past failures in managing large, cross-functional projects, costing the company millions of dollars Inconsistent delivery of projects on-time and on-budget Limited ability to understand the entire portfolio of IT projects and cross-functional dependencies (Initiatives, Business Support, Production Support in Application Development) Inconsistent Project and Initiative Communications Goal State to Resolve Integrated repository which supports all levels of reporting, monitoring and control for all IT projects Consistent Project Management processes across IT Onetime entry of critical information, closest to its source Integrated issue, scope, resource and risk management processes Quality Compliance Management IT Governance Review – PM Tool
Recommendation Team IT Groups on Tool Team Application Development Call Center Systems Payroll Systems Back Office Systems Lending Systems Loan Servicing Corporate Initiatives Shared Services Web Development IT Service Delivery Arch / Process Engineering Service Delivery PMO IT Infrastructure Process and Controls Quality Assurance Corporate PMD ITPO IT Governance Review – PM Tool
IT Governance Review – PM Tool • Detailed Recommendation Review • Evaluation Team developed 118 specific requirements based on the framework procedures and existing financial reporting requirements • Use Cases developed based on these requirements and used as format for vendor presentations • Sent RFI to 5 vendors – completed vendor presentations for 6 vendors • Received feedback (evaluation) from team participants • Created Weighted Average Evaluation ( See attached) • Project Team decision meeting • Reviewed weighted average score for each vendor • Discussed … • complexity of tools and maturity of <Company> • time to market – complexity of implementation • technology • total cost • Training • Completed Technical Platform Assessment • Completed ROI • Completed Due Diligence for final 2 vendors • Architecture Review Committee Recommendation – Vendor 3
Vendor 2 Total Cost for solution (vendor 2): $147,000 Hardware/Software for environment (<Company>): $116,000 (estimated) Annual Support: Vendor – Free for first 12 months then option of $10,000 annual or fee based <Company> $2,500 More straightforward tool – more suited for where we are today Small company willing to partner with <Company> to make the tool what we need it to be Vendor willing to host the pilot at no charge to <Company> User friendly Provides functions to meet our requirements Vendor will provide more individualized support – as a small company they have the flexibility to make themselves available Support and any customization after implementation are on a fee basis Vendor 3 Total Cost for Solution (vendor) 3: $496,820 Hardware/Software for environment (<Company>): $116,000 (estimated) Annual Support: Vendor $47,920 <Company> $2,500 More robust tool – can meet our needs today but allow us to grow and expand our processes Large company with a focus on selling a World Class solution Can implement just what we need today to make it easier to embrace the change, but as we grow the functions we need will be there to support us. Client feedback indicates great support Tool supports CMM & SOP 98-1 (Capitalization) processes for several clients Vendor pricing includes basic support and maintenance but they have giving <Company> the Premium Support at no additional cost. Vendor Comparison *Note: Detailed comparison provided in attached document. (ATC PM Tool Comparison.doc)
Vendor Comparison • Vendor 2 Financials • Gross Revenue (Last 3 Years) • 2002- $2,100,000 • 2001- $2,300,000 • 2000- $3,100,000 • Staffing - Headcount : • 2003 - 20 • Vendor 2 was founded in 1998. The company has been profitable each year of business and is completely funded through the company’s revenue. Vendor 2 was chosen as one of the Sprint Winners in the St. Louis Regional Technology Fast 50 awards program. Recipients of this award are recognized as one of the 50 fastest growing companies in the region. For additional information please refer to our Dunn and Bradstreet number #########. • Vendor 3 Financials • Gross Revenue (Last 3 Years) • 2002- $11,870,946 • 2001- $17,917,318 • 2000- $13,335,432 • Net Profit (Last 3 Years) • 2002- $1,604,743 • 2001- $1,258,333 • 2000- $1,056,839 • Staffing - Headcount : • 2002 - 202 • 2001- 180 • 2000- 149 • Gross Revenue-Projected (2003) • *2003 - $26,500,000 • Cash On Hand • 2002 - $4,000,000 • 2001- $2,996,000 • 2000- $3,067,000 • R&D Expenditures • 2002 - $2,850,000 • 2001 - $2,500,000 • 2000 - $2,350,000
Implementation Approach Will utilize vendor consulting services for implementation Will implement for a small pilot group first, complete assessment and setup for remaining IT Depending on the tool selected – will evaluate what functions need to be implemented to support the Release 1 of the IT Operational Frameworks – will scale back as appropriate to lessen the impact of change to the organization. Success Criteria Support for all levels of project management (Portfolio, Program, Project and Sub-project) Automation support for the management of our defined processes in a practical and cost-efficient manner Easy access to project, program and portfolio information across all IT resources and locations, based on security authorization Comprehensive, integrated view of all IT work Scalable solution that will grow with our needs Solution that is consistent with our technology standards and is effectively integrated into our operational environment Support of true “Portfolio Management Functions” as <Company> processes are defined and implemented IT Governance Review – PM Tool
Risks Project Related With the existence of the <Company> Time Tracking tool utilized by IT today and the implementation of a project management tool, we are creating an environment with potentially two project databases. Projects will be planned, scheduled, managed and closed out using the new tool, whereas time tracking and financial reporting will be functions of the existing tool. The major risk with this environment is keeping the data and project status in synch. Note: Both tools being recommended provide time entry and financial reporting capabilities. Acceptance and use by IT user community. Potential learning curve associated with selected tool. Timing for Release 1 Implementation - can we procure hardware and software to meet the 11/17 pilot date Estimated 200 plus employees/contractors will need to attend a 1 day training class – will this be possible given current project workload <Company> IT Architecture Related The tool selection team includes ITSD representation with technical knowledge of our existing environment and standards to help mitigate risks in this area. <Company> IT Standard Software Related None identified Mitigation Plans To be determined based on tool selected. Time Tracking reports provided to each Project Manager. Communication and training for the IT user community. Vendor 2 has agreed to host the pilot to mitigate the risk of not meeting 11/17 date IT Governance Review – PM Tool
Next Steps IT Governance Approval Contract Negotiations Tool Configuration Time Line Complete “Next Steps” Requisition Request submitted by 10/15 Implementation for small pilot group by 11/17 Pilot with PM Frameworks 11/17 Begin full rollout 01/04 IT Governance Review – PM Tool
IT Governance Review – PM Tool • Supporting Documentation • Detailed Vendor Comparison • ROI • IT Estimates • Weighted Average Team Evaluation • Vendor Due Diligence • Vendor Financial Statements • Vendor 2 Dunn & Bradstreet Report (Hard copy only)