IT Management

The New IT Management Strategy:

FITS - Flexible Information Technology Tools and Strategies

Jennifer A. Potter

University College University of Denver

MOTM 4901: Capstone Project

August 13, 2006

____________________ Evans Meyhew

Capstone Advisor

____________________ Jason Wyrick

Academic Director, Masters of Technology Management

Upon the Recommendation of the Department

______________ James R. Davis

Dean

Potter-ii

Table of Contents

Abstract ___________________________________________________________________ 3

1. Introduction ______________________________________________________________ 4

2. Background – Literature Review_______________________________________________ 6 2.1 The 21st Century Information Technology Organization ______________________________________________________________ 6 2.2 IT Issues and Challenges _________________________________________________________________________________________ 8 2.3 Existing Solutions _______________________________________________________________________________________________ 9

3. The New Model – FITS _____________________________________________________ 12 3.1 Overview _____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 12 3.2 Deployment Scheme ____________________________________________________________________________________________ 16 3.3 Metrics Scheme________________________________________________________________________________________________ 21 3.4 Core Component – Flexible Prioritization __________________________________________________________________________ 25 3.5 Core Component – Agile Financial Management ____________________________________________________________________ 29 3.6 Core Component – Rapid Resource Deployment ____________________________________________________________________ 35 3.7 Core Component – Delivery Management __________________________________________________________________________ 39

5. Best Practice Tools ________________________________________________________ 44 5.0 Deployment Tools ______________________________________________________________________________________________ 45 5.1 Flexible Prioritization___________________________________________________________________________________________ 50 5.2 Rapid Resource Deployment _____________________________________________________________________________________ 56 5.3 Agile Financial Management_____________________________________________________________________________________ 60 5.4 Delivery Management __________________________________________________________________________________________ 65

Conclusion ________________________________________________________________ 69

Appendix 1 - Software Tool Vendors ____________________________________________ 70

Bibliography _______________________________________________________________ 74

Potter-3

Abstract

This capstone assesses the current hurdles faced by Chief Information Officers in meeting business

unit objectives and maximizing organizational efficiencies. A review of existing management structures

reveals operational gaps that are impacting CIOs’ ability to work efficiently and effectively. To resolve

shortcoming of existing models the Flexible Information Technology Tools and Strategies (FITS)

framework has been developed. FITS is a compilation of existing best practices and methods incorporated

into a unique rapid implementation framework. It is intended to provide IT organizations and their

executives with modular, simple, proven methods and tools for meeting their clients’ needs.

Potter-4

1. Introduction

The role of information technologies as a strategic component of most corporate and not-for-profit

entities is once again in a growth mode. US nominal IT spend between 2000 and 2001 dropped by 16% in

the aftermath of the internet collapse (Price & McKittrick, 2002). Yet the last 4 years have seen a

resurgence of IT investment with 16.7% growth of US IT budgets between 2002 and 2006, and some

industries increasing IT investment by more than 25%, see table 1.1 (Bartels, 2006).

Between 1977 and 2000 the application of information technologies in the US produced increased

productivity in 41 industries. An Economic Systems Research study published in 2003 determined that IT

capital input was the most important single factor impacting the US economic resurgence between 1995

and 2000 (Jorgenson, Ho and Stiroh, 2003).

Furthermore, it was a relatively large investment in

a concentrated few industries which drove that

economic growth. Those industries are the same

industries continuing to invest significant capital in

information technologies in the 21

st century.

Despite nearly three decades of financial

backing and focus on technology based solutions to meet organizational challenges, managing information

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Manufacturing $105 $94 $93 $100 $107 Retail & wholesale trade $38 $35 $36 $38 $41 Business services $162 $164 $171 $184 $200 Media, entertainment, & leisure $36 $32 $32 $34 $36 Utilities & telecommunications $31 $25 $27 $29 $30 Finance & insurance $108 $109 $116 $123 $135 Public sector $185 $184 $185 $192 $201 Total $665 $642 $660 $700 $749

TABLE 1.1 US Information Technology Spend in Billions

Potter-5

technologies continues to be a struggle for executive leaders. Based on a sampling in 2004, the annual

attrition rate for Chief Information Officers (CIOs) was 34%, making the average tenure of this executive

a mere 21 months, or less than 1/6 the average tenure of a CEO in that same year (Strassmann 2004, 1-

2). CIOs continue to miss corporate expectations on the management of information technology assets

and deliveries, resulting in higher than average executive turnover in this role.

Furthermore, there is little evidence that case-by-case business investment in IT has had a clear

correlation to increased corporate returns (Brynjolfsson and Hitt 2003, 3). CIOs are struggling to prove

and communicate their organizational effectiveness. In industries where information technology is

strategic to overall success, IT must be in lock step with the executive vision and strategy, and able to

demonstrate the value of the technology organization. Rapidly evolving industries require IT organizations

that are both agile and effective. Given the historic and recent investment trends in information

technologies, executives (particularly CIOs) must develop methods for quickly and effectively managing

their clients and their organizations. To meet this end, CIOs would benefit from having a simple and

flexible methodology for ensuring their organizations are aligned with business expectations and delivering

value.

There are a number of widely published information technology management strategies that are

currently available to chief information officers, yet few are packaged solutions flexible enough to be

Potter-6

leveraged by organizations of various sizes and complexities. IT organizations and their executive leaders

need a set of management strategies that is agile and modular by design allowing a particular

organization to easily customize the solution based on its current maturity. Additionally, an organization of

any size must be able to deploy the core components of the strategy within a 12 month period.

2. Background – Literature Review

2.1 The 21st Century Information Technology Organization

Within most companies the IT organization is evaluated on two levels to determine how effectively it

delivers. The first is the board of directors’ level, or the universal IT drivers. The IT Governance Institute

has summarized these principles into 4 key drivers that IT must meet to align with the business;

1. IT delivers the functionality and services inline with the organizations needs

2. IT and new technologies enable the organization to do new things not possible without the technologies

3. IT related services are delivered in the most economic manner

4. All risks related to IT are known and managed (IT Governance Institute 2004, 5).

Drilling down into the high level objectives reveals a subsequent set of key performance indicators (KPI),

or quantifiable, agreed critical factors that reflect the success of an organization (Reh, 2006). IT KPI’s

generally include budget, delivery quality, delivery timeframes and operational service levels.

Potter-7

In the last decade information technology organizations and their executives have changed the

delivery approach for meeting both the universal drivers and business KPIs. In the early 1990’s the five

key responsibilities of the CIO could be defined as capital planning and investment management,

information security, IT human capital, architecture and IT strategic planning (Koontz, 1998). Since that

time, information technology has evolved from an enabler of process efficiencies to an integral component

of most strategic business unit plans. As a result, the role of the CIO and the IT organization has rapidly

evolved. Today, Chief Information Officers regularly report to the CEO and sit on the top executive team,

possibly even the board. CIO responsibilities have expanded and often include business as well as

technology functions. A London Business School survey in 2000 of 90 CIOs from the world’s largest

corporations revealed a road map of what those executives believed the CIO role would be in 2005, see

table 2.1.1 (Tagliavini, Moro, Ravarini

and Guimaraes, 2004). While technical

functions remained a core component,

the surveyed CIOs primarily identified

traditional business functions as their

core future responsibilities. Specifically

CIOs predicted that business strategist

London Business School CIO Survey

1. Business strategist

2. Technology policy-maker

3. Change Master

4. Systems Strategist

5. Functional Leader

6. Coach and mentor

7. Technology Gatekeeper

8. General Manager

9. Service Deliverer

10. Contractor

11. Information Custodian

12. Product Developer

TABLE 2.1.1 What CIO’s Do

Potter-8

and corporate change master would be critical roles of the successful technology executive In order to

meet the growing demand for technology and a growing emphasis on the universal and KPIs drivers, IT

has adapted into increasingly business focused organizations.

2.2 IT Issues and Challenges

The evolution of IT and the CIO has also resulted in increasingly complex and varied technology and

organizational challenges. Clear trends emerge via a myriad of studies defining the top issues and

challenges faced by IT organizations since 2000. After an initial focus on security management and

disaster recovery following the September 11th terrorist attacks, CIOs and executives are now turning

their focus on how to manage their IT organizations as a businesses, to deliver clear value to their

corporate counter parts (Johnson, 2003).

Lack of Key Staff

Information and Skill Set

Retention

Inadequate Budgets and Prioritization

Volatile Market

Conditions

Percentage of Respondents

40% 37%

22%

FIGURE 2.2.1 Significant barriers to IT effectiveness

In a 2002 survey of 500 IT executives, 40% of

respondents believed that resource allocation issues

were the most significant barrier to IT effectiveness.

Prioritization and financial management were also

significant challenges for IT executives see figure

2.2.1 (CIO Magazine, 2002).A more recent 2006

version of this same CIO magazine study found that

Potter-9

executives are also now struggling with extensive backlogs of projects and are in need of more effective

ways to reduce that backlog and manage deliveries (CIO Magazine, 2006). On the other hand, CIOs do

not appear to be struggling with the technical aspects of their field. These same executive surveys indicate

that technology and operations are not critical or persistent issues for CIOs. So, over the last 5 years CIOs

main challenges are;

Proving the IT value add

Business alignment and governance

Funding availability and management

IT sourcing and allocation of internal

IT resources

Delivery effectiveness

Moreover, a 2004 survey of 335 CEO level executives revealed that 93% of the executives surveyed

were impacted by one of these top issues (Scott 2004, 16). Nearly all information technology

organizations are challenged by these pervasive issues. The ultimate result is that many CIOs are

underperforming and missing corporate expectations.

2.3 Existing Solutions

Like their executive counterparts in the business units, IT executives are attempting to address their

challenges through robust business management practices. This premise is the foundation of the IT

governance movement. IT governance is identification of key success factors and processes along with

Potter-10

assessment of process compliance (Carlino 2006, 6). The last 5 years has seen a broad movement

towards the use of IT governance, particularly in industries where information systems are strategic to the

corporate objectives. A 2006 survey by PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PWC) revealed that 64% of surveyed

executives had considered or have already implemented some form of IT governance in their organization

(IT Governance Institute 2006, 25-26). Yet despite the migration towards managing IT processes and

success factors, there continues to be dissatisfaction with overall IT performance. The ongoing trend to

align and measure IT against the business needs is not yet bridging the gap between IT performance and

corporate expectations.

There are hundreds of published methods on IT governance currently available today. Many provide

focused solutions for a single aspect of the IT challenge while others provide integrated, holistic

approaches. The following are a sampling of the diverse existing governance models currently available:

Issue Specific. When addressing challenges faced by a CIO, many models look at resolving a

single pointed problem. One such model, developed at the MIT Sloan School of Business, provides a

combined set of best practices for IT Portfolio Management (Jeffery and Leliveld, 2004). This set of

tools includes theories, practical steps and tools which can be leveraged by IT organizations to

address issues in business alignment. While this set of practices is relatively flexible and agile, its

Potter-11

area of focus is very narrow, as are most issue specific methods. As a result, companies

implementing a series of issues specific methodologies find there is no consistency in how they can

approach or implement these one-off solutions.

Holistic. Another set of methodologies include an integrated structure and working model for

all aspects of the IT organization. This is the approach of Mark Lutchen who outlines an

interdependent set of six drivers in the “IT Management Lens” including support, future, resiliency,

alignment, leverage, and operations in his book Managing IT as a Business (Lutchen, 2004).

Because of the tightly integrated approach, Lutchen’s model requires successful implementation of

all six components. Additionally these types of models are generally more theory based with few, if

any, hands on tools or examples for companies to rapidly implement.

Technology Driven – There are dozens of tools available on the market today that focus

specifically on automation. Commercially available software packages, including Mercury Interactive

and IBM provide governance automation for key business management components of IT

(Mercury.com, 2006) (IBM.com, 2006). While these solutions are derived from client requirements

and case studies, deployment of any tool still requires an organization to engineer their processes in

conjunction with a software deployment. Additionally, just like Lutchen’s holistic IT management

Potter-12

lens methodology, tools often require full use of all processes and functionality to work properly. It

is important to note that tools alone do not resolve IT management issues and that executive

support, along with agile process engineering and training is core to successful governance.

While these and other models clearly meet many CIO needs, existing governance models fall short

in the time and complexity of the implementation (IT Governance Institute 2006, 7). As a result there is

still an outstanding need for the next generation governance tool set that can be deployed quickly in

drastically different types of organizations.

3. The New Model – FITS

3.1 Overview

In an effort to meet the need for an agile and rapidly deployable set of IT organizational tools the

Flexible IT Tools and Strategies (FITS) methodology has been developed. FITS has been designed to

effectively meet the needs of the modern IT organization via a flexible set of best practices focused on the

5 key challenges of technology organizations today. While FITS is a comprehensive approach like many

holistic models, what differentiates the FITS methodology is the modular design. A company can

Potter-13

Information Driven

implement 1 or all of the modules depending on their unique set of market and organizational

circumstances. The FITS model is based on the following tenets:

Rapid Standardized Deployment

Roll-outs leverage standard methodology and

implementation plans. Baseline module deployments and

tools are rolled-out in 60-90 day cycles.

Implementations, processes and module roll-outs are

based on internal diagnostic survey results. Metrics provide

close loop reporting on methodology success.

Flexible & Simple Executive Sponsored

Methodology provides the minimum necessary process and Key stakeholders from all impacted organizations, business

Potter-14

:

The FITS framework is composed of 4 management components and 2 technical components. The 2

technical components are Operational Effectiveness and Technology Innovation and are subject to the

metrics and deployment schemes but are not directly managed by the business practices as they are

technical in nature and subsequently, are not discussed in depth in this paper. Each FITS component can

be implemented independently depending on the specific needs and requirements of the organization.

However, integral to the successful roll-out of any FITS component is the Metrics Scheme and the

Deployment Scheme, see figure 3.1.1. Both schemes provide organizations with a means for ensuring

consistent deployments and ongoing methodology success.

data to meet corporate needs. Plug and play modules and

out-of-the-box best practices offer simple solutions.

units and IT, identified early with ongoing participation at

regular intervals.

Potter-15

FlexiblePrioritization

Rapid Resource

Deployment

Agile Financial

Management

Delivery Management

Operational Effectiveness

Metrics Scheme

Deployment Scheme

Technology Innovation

FITS Core Components

Flexible Prioritization –

Processes and tools to ensure

continuous business alignment.

Rapid Resource Deployment –

Organizational structure and tools

to support placement of correct

resource quick on approved

initiatives.

Agile Financial Management –

Tool and processes to ensure

budget is available for new high

priority initiatives.

Delivery Management –

Standard core components of

successful organizational project

management.

FITS Schemes

Deployment Scheme –

Standard tools, processes and

plan for simplified

implementation of any FITS

core component.

Metrics Scheme – Process and

tools for development of key

metrics and reporting which is

a central to all FITS

implementations.

Technical Components

Operational Effectiveness &

Technology Innovation –

Core components requiring

technology based solutions, not

covered under the FITS model.

Technology components would

benefit from leveraging the

Metrics and Deployment

Schemes.

FIGURE 3.1.1 Flexible IT Tools and Strategies (FITS)

Potter-16

.

3.2 Deployment Scheme

In order to minimize risk and organizational impact while maximizing opportunity for success during

a FITS implementation, the framework provides a standard roll-out methodology, the FITS Deployment

Scheme. The deployment scheme takes an IT organization step by step through the key processes of

implementing any of the FITS core components. The Deployment Scheme, shown in figure 3.2.1, is a

modified version of a best practice process developed by students at the Massachusetts Institute of

Technology, Sloan School of

Business (Jeffery and Leliveld,

2004, 48). While the original

MIT developed process included

5 steps, the FITS model has

been modified to include a 6

FIGURE 3.2.1 FITS Deployment Scheme

60-90 Day Cycle

Design Diagnosis Process Tools Opportunities

th

deployment phase. Additionally

the FITS scheme advocates

• Balance • Risk • Returns

• Objectives • Alignment • Scope • Categories • Metrics • Hypotheses

• Quick Hits • Emergencies • Adjustment

• Metrics • Formulas • Models • Templates

• Weekly • Monthly • Quarterly • Annually

Deploy

• Operational Readiness

• Training • Communication • Implementation

Develop a clear game plan and secure buy-in from business executives

Facts and insights for effective decision making

Findings translated into specific opportunities for action

Recurring reviews, input into decision making

Installed capabilities for recurring review

Preparation for effective operational roll-out

Potter-17

consistent 60-90 day roll-out timeframes to reduce organizational impacts. A baseline project plan for a

FITS component implementation is provided in Section 5.0 Deployment Tools.

Step 1 - Design. Key planning activities to confirm the necessary stakeholder support, program

structure and FITS implementation deployment roadmap. The key tasks associated with this phase are:

1. Identification of the FITS director-level sponsor and program manager

2. Development of the FITS implementation high-level priorities and roadmap including objectives

3. Identification and confirmed commitment of the executive sponsor

4. Identification and confirmed commitment of the core team – includes stakeholders from all impacted

organizations.

5. Development and deployment of a centralized communication mechanism

The design phase does focus in-part on developing the foundation for a FITS implementation program.

Therefore if a program is already established, this phase would be used primarily to focus the core team

on the specific core component implementation.

Step 2 - Diagnosis. This involves the collection of internal data, both from the business and IT, to

validate priority assumptions documented during the design phase and focus on specific issues. The FITS

framework provides a diagnostic survey, see appendix 1, which can be used as a starting point to facilitate

Potter-18

data collection activities. After collection, the core team must compile, clarify and validate the data. The

data collection activities in the Diagnosis phase ensure that the FITS implementations are data driven and

that program stakeholders can make effective informed decisions.

Step 3 - Opportunities. Once diagnostic data has been compiled, the team should categorize finding

and group issues into 3 main categories based on complexity of the issues and potential resolutions:

1. Quick Hits - gaps or issues that can be resolved quickly with minimal effort and impact to

processes, tools and the organization.

2. Core Adjustments – gaps or issues that impact multiple organizations and require significant

process re-engineering and training.

3. Strategic Improvements – gaps or issues that impact multiple organizations and require

significant process re-engineering implementation and tool modifications/implementations.

Once gaps have been categorized, the core team should jointly select a group of key issues to address

within the FITS deployment, keeping the 60-90 day timeframe in mind. A detailed deployment plan

including owners and delivery dates should be developed and maintained by the FITS program manager.

Finally the priorities and project plan should be validated by the director-level owner and the executive

sponsor.

Potter-19

Step 4 - Process. The FITS model is intended to be agile, and even agile methodologies benefit from a

limited amount of documentation to ensure clear communication across an organization. To this end,

documenting the phase 1 and 2 process flows for an FITS module is a standard step in the deployment

scheme. To simplify this effort, high level process flows are included in each core component specific

section of this paper. Iterative process engineering work is very effective and the entire core team must

review and sign-off on the final flows at the end of this step.

Step 5 - Tools. This phase includes the development or modification of existing tools that support the

new processes. Tools can include both automated software or manual tools, such as forms and

spreadsheets that help organizations manage their work. Tool deployments should be phased to minimize

impact to the users and all stakeholders should be involved in the selection and roll-out. Section 5 is a

compiled set of best practice manual tools currently used in corporate settings that align with the FITS

core components. Appendix 1 provides an overview of off-the-shelf software that also aligns to the FITS

methodology.

Step 6 - Deploy. The deployment phase includes operational readiness, training and organizational

communications. Validation by the core team and other stakeholders that the developed solutions, tools

Potter-20

and processes work together seamlessly minimizes production risks. It is also critical that impacted users

be well informed and thoroughly trained prior to the full production deployment.

Potter-21

3.3 Metrics Scheme

Metrics are a key method for IT executives and upper management to communicate successes and

identify areas for improvement in their organizations. Most IT organizations focus on the collection of

metrics from operational, technical and transactional components. However, a study of 26 companies in

the late 1990’s found that 58% of CIO’s were measured on project performance, 50% for infrastructure

availability and 50% for staying within budget (Lutchen, 2004). CIO’s and their organizations are not

reporting on the data that matters most to the business. IT metrics often have no alignment with

business metrics. Identifying and aligning of performance reporting is crucial in demonstrating the IT

organization’s contribution to business value (Roberts, 2004). Simple and ongoing key metric reporting

also provides CIOs with a valuable mechanism for managing relationships with business partners. To meet

this end, the Metrics Scheme of the FITS framework includes steps to develop key reporting for each

implemented component.

Metric Development Steps. Identifying the right metrics for organizational reporting can be time

consuming and involved. Many organizations waste valuable budget and resource availability on

developing metrics that do not clearly communicate their core direction and drivers. The following six step

Potter-22

process has been successfully used by the US military in assessing community outreach metrics (Adcock,

2005):

1. Document the business process including standard operating procedures and/or flows (see

step 4 of the FITS Deployment Scheme)

2. Identify and define possible quantitative measures listing all key points in the process or

existing gaps.

3. Apply M-E-T-R-I-C criteria to evaluate potential metrics using +/0/- only (see Metrics

Attributes below)

4. Rank the potential metrics for effectiveness (See table 3.3.1)

5. Identify data source, collection and analysis processes

6. Create reporting system – focus on simple and visual representation of data

Once the metrics report has been built reporting intervals should be identified. All metrics reports

should be assessed on a 90-day cycle to determine if they are still critical to the organization.

Metric Attributes. As organizations are implementing FITS components and identifying the

associated metrics, they need a way to determine the quality of those metrics. The M-E-T-R-I-C attributes

Potter-23

provide an easy method for assessing the quality of potential reporting metrics. A team should consider

the following attributes as they review performance metrics (Adcock, 2005):

• Measurable and specific – quantifiable and uses well-defined start and end points

• Easy – easy to develop, change, understand and apply

• Timely – leverages current data to drive proactive efforts.

• Repeatable – data collection and analysis should be consistent and accurate

• Insightful – provide data not evident during process or activity

• Credible – reflect what is actually achievable by working harder or smarter

Additionally metrics should be flexible so that process changes can be easily supported by standard data

collection and analysis. An organization should also

ensure that their metrics are relevant and

applicable to the target audience. Executive level

metrics should be limited to a handful of key

reports that can be used to help drive behavior or

summarize the success of strategic initiatives.

Working level metrics, targeted towards

management or team members, would be

presented in greater detail and would provide data that can drive individual or team level behaviors.

Metric A Metric B Metric C

Measurable + + 0

Easy + + -

Timely 0 + +

Repeatable - + 0

Insightful + 0 -

Credible 0 - +

Score 2 3 1

Rank 2 1 3

FIGURE 3.3.1 Metric Effectiveness Ranking

Potter-24

Key metrics by FITS component. Table 3.3.2 is a compiled list of best practice metrics

implemented in high performance IT organizations (Corporate Executive Board, 2002) (O’Connell, 2003).

Delivery Management

• Actual schedule versus estimated schedule including milestones

• Actual costs versus estimated costs

• Actual scope versus target scope including number of requirements and number of changes.

Financial Management

• Number of projects funded at each gate

• Total budget versus total costs by budget category

• Number/dollar value of projects combined, cancelled or delayed annually

Agile Prioritization

• Percentage of in-progress projects tracked in portfolio

• Annual project output for each project category

• Percentage of projects at each stage of project “life cycle”

• Portfolio mix – percentage of portfolio dedicated to principled project categories versus target allocations

Resource Management

• Time to staff projects with internal or external staff

• Annual project output versus total IT staff

• Percentage of projects staffed internally versus externally

• Percentage of total staff that is pooled

Technology Innovation

• Immerging technologies in discovery

• Immerging technologies in product over previous 6 months.

Operational Effectiveness

• Application availability/outages in hours and percentage

• Cost in dollars of application outages

• Time to resolution for application outages

TABLE 3.3.2 Best practice metrics by FITS component

Potter-25

3.4 Core Component – Flexible Prioritization

CIOs continue to be scrutinized for their ability to align technologies with business strategies and to

effectively manage their budgets. Businesses concur that it is not possible to deliver sustained business

value without the alignment and tight linkage of IT and business strategies (Symons, June 2006).

Furthermore a conservative estimate within the IT industry is that between 15 and 25 percent of IT

investment is wasted on efforts not in alignment with top business priorities (Aberdeen Group, 2004). To

resolve these issues the FITS methodology includes a two-fold Flexible Prioritization model. The first

component is a standard governance model for identifying and prioritizing IT work. By standardizing the

way a business reviews and prioritizes IT work efforts, it helps ensure that the highest priorities across the

business can be addressed by IT first. The second component is an organizational structure that aligns an

IT liaison with each business unit. Together these two components provide the mechanism for any IT

organization to develop and maintain alignment with the business units it supports.

Standard Governance. Current CIO issues with prioritization include rapidly shifting business

priorities, politicized decision making and inaccurate or incomplete project information (Leto, Haas and

Williams 2005). Informed and consistent decision making are primary goals of standard governance. To

Potter-26

achieve these ends an IT organization must structure their governance processes using the following

guidelines:

1. Stakeholders owned - all key stakeholder must own and participate in the governance process

2. Non-politicized decision criteria - standard and thorough means for assessing projects

3. Cyclical Prioritization - rapid cycle reprioritization to meet changing business needs

Some organizations will develop several governance structures to manage the prioritization and approvals

for different types and complexities of IT initiatives. To this end there may be separate governance

processes for small, strategic and mandate projects. It is important to note that the above three criteria

apply to all governance models. Figure 3.4.1 is a summary flow of the FITS standard governance model.

FIGURE 3.4.1 Flexible Prioritization model

Business Case

Standardized Project Data

Data validation by independent team

1-N List Project Ranking

Prioritized List of IT work

Stakeholder review and validation of priority

Potter-27

Stakeholder Owned – Confirming the authority and commitment of the stakeholders to prioritize IT

work across the company is a critical step in developing any new governance board. Key stakeholders for

strategic critical path work are usually executives from each of the corporate business units in addition to

a finance executive and CIO representation. Stakeholders for mid-priority initiatives may be director level

business unit leadership and mandate stakeholders are likely to include regulatory compliance and legal.

This group of individuals will be asked to meet on a regular basis, monthly or quarterly, to review new

work requests, approve or reject them and validate their priority. The governance board will jointly have

ultimate authority in determining what work is done by the IT organization.

Non-Politicized Decision Making – Programs should be evaluated against other initiatives within the

same asset class and a standard method for ranking should be established at the onset of governance

process creation. Governance boards should have consistent quantitative and qualitative data to review

and approved potential programs. Today many companies use financial data, return on investment,

discounted payback and net present value to prioritize new initiative. Standardized business case

templates, such as the one in section 5.3, are excellent sources of summarized critical decision making

data that can be used by decision making boards.

Potter-28

Furthermore companies such as Bell Canada have staffed a business unit independent group to

validate project benefit and risk information prior review by their governance board (Bell Canada

Interview, 2005). This group has the authority to reject or modify projected benefits of a business unit’s

estimates. They are also responsible for tracking ongoing estimate versus actual benefits for each

business unit. This type of business unit agnostic organization has helped ensure project data is grounded

in reality. .

Cyclical prioritization – Projects prioritization that is valid during a budget cycle may not be valid 3

months later due to competition in the mark place or introduction of new business strategies. For this

reason, governance boards should plan to meet on a regular basis to review and confirm the IT priorities.

It is recommended that prioritization take place monthly or quarterly as more frequent reviews can result

in an overly fluid list of IT initiatives. Furthermore, de-prioritization of initiatives should not always result

in project cancellations. It is important for a board to review the current status and phase of the initiative

to determine if a project should indeed be cancelled, put on hold or completed.

Potter-29

Business Unit Liaison. In rapidly changing business environments an effective method of ensuring

that IT is in constant alignment with the business is to have dedicated interface engaging and working

directly with the business unit. Account managers can help align IT with the particular business unit by:

Translating business strategy

technology initiatives.

Assisting in development of high-

level business requirements.

Partnering to create business cases.

Identifying and initiating projects to

improve existing business processes.

Reporting specific operational efficiency,

project status, and budget/resource

allocation metrics to the business unit.

By aligning IT liaisons with internal business units, a CIO puts increased organizational focus

on customer service. Since liaison resources are the first and primary touch point by the business

unit into IT, they are generally senior-level and report directly to the CIO. Depending on the size of

the organization and the responsibilities; this function can be accomplished by a single resource or

small team dedicated to each business unit.

3.5 Core Component – Agile Financial Management

There are a few standard methods used by corporations to fund IT work; centralized versus

decentralized, top-down versus bottoms-up. During the corporate budgeting cycle, businesses can spend

Potter-30

weeks, even months determining the proper method for identifying the IT budget. What is rarely

considered is the timing of that funding at the initiative level (Marks, 2006). What is clear in most

industries is that the business unit approach for meeting corporate strategy can change over the fiscal

year. As a result, business units seldom have a static roadmap for IT work taking place in a 12 month

period. Agile financial management is the process of rapidly allocating budget to initiatives over the entire

corporate fiscal year and requires near constant budget availability. Projects can loose valuable time

waiting for funding to be reallocated from cancelled or lower priority initiatives. In order to accomplish

agile financial management a corporation must:

• Budget targets by asset category and by phase

• Phase-gate initiative funding, with allocations made only when the program reaches a

particular phase

• Near real-time visibility to accurate budget and project level spend data

Potter-31

Budget targets. There are two views of the IT budget that are required to support agile financial

management, asset category and program phase. The combination of these two views provides upper

management and executives with the budget information required to determine if funding is available and

should be allocated for to programs. IT spend will generally fall into one of four categories; innovation,

business opportunity, mandates and infrastructure. As part of the budget process, corporate executives

should determine the target

spend percentage for each of

these four asset categories.

The Asset Allocation Pyramid

used by Schlumberger

Limited in figure 3.5.1 is a

visual example of a budget

allocated in this manner.

(Corporate Executive Board,

2002) Corporations should

use the individual forecast

Infrastructure40%

Mandates10%

Innovation 20%

Business Opportunity

30%

Business Opportunity Costs for initiatives with

measurable benefits

Mandates Legal or

Regulatory Initiatives

Infrastructure Costs for

production support

Innovation Costs for initiatives to increase competitive

advantage

FIGURE 3.5.1 Asset Allocation Pyramid

Potter-32

and historic data to determine the appropriate allocation percentages.

The second view should include a breakdown of the budget by phase, specifically for the project

based budget; mandates, business opportunity and innovation. Spending targets at the phase level help

organizations confirm that they have a balanced IT pipeline. If a portfolio and spending are heavily

weighted towards projects in concept or planning, it will be unlikely that the organization can support the

funding and resources to develop all of these initiatives. Figure 3.5.2 is a modified high-level phase

approach with an incorporated budget component.

Phase 1 Concept

Development

5% of Total Project Cost

$500,000 Budget

Allocation*

Phase 2 Product Planning

10% of Total Project Cost

$1,000,000 Budget

Allocation*

Phase 3 Design And

Development

50% of Total Project Cost

$5,000,000 Budget

Allocation*

Phase 5 Deployment

10% of Total Project Cost

$1,000,000 Budget

Allocation*

Phase 4 Testing

25% of Total Project Cost

$2,500,000 Budget

Allocation*

Total project budget $10,000,000 Innovation $4,000,000 Business Opportunity $5,000,000 Mandates $1,000,000

*Budget allocations are based on a total project based budget of $10,000,000 and are targets equivalent to the overall costs of each phase at the project level. Percentages used in this example are illustrative and should be validated by companies leveraging this budgeting process.

FIGURE 3.5.2 Phase Gate Budget Allocation

Potter-33

After initial development of these two complimentary, but distinct budget views an organization

should track budget versus allocation for both views throughout the fiscal year.

Phase Gate Funding. A secondary effort to phase budgeting is phase gate funding where budget

allocations are made iteratively throughout the project lifecycle. Instead of allocating an entire project

budget after initial approval, the majority of funding is held and allocated as phases are completed and

the project team is prepared to spend the money. This practice limits the amount of funding tied up in

projects that may ultimately be cancelled or reprioritized. The flow illustrated in figure 3.5.3 represents a

standard phase gate process flow with incorporated funding steps. Additionally it provides checks to

Phase 1 Concept

Development

5% of Total Project Cost

Project Phase

Estimate $50,000

Phase 2 Product Planning

10% of Total Project Cost

Project Phase

Estimate $100,000

Phase 3 Design And

Development

50% of Total Project Cost

Project Phase

Estimate $500,000

Phase 5 Deployment

10% of Total Project Cost

Project Phase

Estimate $100,000

Phase 4 Testing

25% of Total Project Cost

Project Phase

Estimate $250,000

Gate 1 Provides funding for

Phase 1 & 2 work $150,000

Gate 2 Provides funding for

Phase 3 work $500,000

Gate 3 Provides funding for

Phase 4 & 5 work $100,000

FIGURE 3.5.3 Phase Gate Funding Steps

Potter-34

ensure that a project does not seriously over spend budget during any particular project phase.

The primary challenge with a phase gate funding approach is to keep the process light while still

providing financial rigor. All too often companies will incorporate labor intensive documentation and

deliverables into each approval gate. It is recommended that organizations be acutely aware of only

requesting data from project teams that is used in the decision making processes. Non-critical steps and

tools will only serve to slow down the project and delivery lifecycle. It is also recommended that

organizations consider implementing both a “standard” and “light” process to differentiate the process

rigor associated with smaller less expensive initiatives, possibly less than $50,000.

Real-time budget and spend data. Only with accurate project accounting can current spend

summaries reflect what portion of the budget is still available for allocation. Within any initiative the

project manager must have clear visibility at a detailed and aggregate level to track costs. Table 3.5.4 is

an example of a simplistic budget

tracking spreadsheet. Note that actuals

must include all spent monies including

third party goods or services received

but not yet paid.

Spend Category Budget Actual Variance

Internal Labor $20,000 $10,000 $10,000

External Labor $35,000 $30,000 $5,000

Software Licensing $12,000 $1,000 $11,000

Hardware $150,000 $0 $150,000

Training $2,000 $0 $2,000

TABLE 3.5.4 Project Budget Tracking Spreadsheet

Potter-35

3.6 Core Component – Rapid Resource Deployment

Given the fluid nature of corporate strategies and IT prioritization, IT must be able to staff initiative

and reallocate resources rapidly to maximize project and organizational effectiveness. CIO’s are

attempting to have just the right quantity of human IT resources, deployed precisely when and where

they are needed most (Ulfeder, 2004). The benefits of rapid resource allocation are clearly illustrated by

Harrah’s Entertainment Inc who saw a reduction in systems integration time of nearly 300% from 18

months to 4.5 months and a more than 100% increase in the total number of completed projects

Corporate Executive Board, 2002). The FITS rapid resource deployment model includes three best practice

methods used by highly effective IT organizations to provide flexible and rapid resource allocation.

Organizational Model – Create pooled staffing for transferable skills set resources

Skills Visibility – Know your resources full set of competencies

Allocation Visibility – Know what your resources are currently working on and their next 90

day forecast assignment

The combination of these three components provides flexibility and a roadmap to quickly staff IT

initiatives. In addition to these methodologies a truly flexible IT organization will also need to undertake

the long-term and critical effort of ongoing training and skill growth for IT resources.

Potter-36

Organizational model. To create a flexible staffing model CIOs are treating IT projects not as discrete

efforts but as components of a larger service delivery organization. There is a constant effort by IT

management to assess resource demand across both new projects and operations. The organizational skill

sets and availability are reviewed to create the right balance of needs and resources working on the right

efforts. This ongoing assessment requires two organizational components to be successful; a partial

pooled resource model and a resource management team dedicated to rapid resource allocation. Figure

3.6.1 represents an

organizational staffing model

that incorporates both of these

components.

CIO

Flexible Staffing Pool & Staffing Bench

Comprised of resources with

transferable skills – engineering, testing, project management,

systems analysis

New Application Development

Architects Account

Managers Software

Engineers with non-transferable skills or in high demand areas

IT Operations and Application

Support

Help Desk Data Centers Application

Maintenance Engineers

Resource Management Staff sourcing Skills availability tracking

and forecasting

FIGURE 3.6.1 FITS Organizational Staffing Model

Reporting hierarchy can also

have a significant impact on

rapid resource allocation. Many

highly effective organizations

have adopted professional

service models where

Potter-37

managers are responsible specifically for staffing and career development, but not day-to-day

management. Another significant factor in a successful staffing model is the right mix of internal versus

external staff. A trend among large IT organizations is off-shoring of application maintenance with the

intent of reducing costs and freeing up internal resources to work new development efforts. Companies

including NASD, National Association of Securities Dealers Inc have been successful in lowering application

support costs by 75% and making internal resources available for higher priority strategic work (Hoffman,

2004).

Skills view. Despite a CIO’s organizational staffing model, flexible staffing is not possible without

accurate and current data on resource skills. A 2003 study of 6 leaders in global staffing, including IBM

and Agilent Technologies, found that competency based staffing systems proved the most effective tool for

rapid resource deployment (Wiechmann, Ryan and Hemingway, 2003). Competency based systems do

constitute a significant data collection and management effort yet this model has proven effective in a

diverse set of organizations.

Professional service based organizations, such as consulting firms, leverage automated skill repositories

to capture resource data for staffing. Other organizations are able to gain similar skills visibility via manual

spreadsheet. The first step for either solution is to develop an exhaustive and standardized list of skills

Potter-38

and knowledge within the organization. This information in conjunction with a resource’s individual

personal details is the foundation for a competency based organizational view. An example of this

combined view is illustrated in Competency Repository tool in Section 5.

Allocation views. It is also critical to know on which projects resources are currently working and

their availability. Therefore in addition to resource competency data, agile resource management requires

accurate visibility to each resource’s current and forecast assignments. Since the FITS methodology

supports phase gate approvals, forecast assignments must be captured to reduce resource churn on

projects. Figure 3.6.2 illustrates a current and forecast resource assignment view. By capturing accurate

Resource Name Role Current Assignment January February March

FIGURE 3.6.2 Forecast Allocation View

Jane Doe Business Analyst Project A

01/10

Jim Smith Tester Project B

Current Assignment Forecast Assignment

02/10 03/04

01/13 02/20 03/20

Potter-39

assignment data an IT groups has the information necessary to forecast organizational capacity, demand

and skill set alignment.

3.7 Core Component – Delivery Management

Successful project delivery continues to be an elusive goal in many IT organizations. A 2004

PriceWaterhouseCoopers survey found that only 2.5% of global businesses achieve 100% project success.

This broad study included a wide range industry, large and small, in 30 different countries with a total

portfolio of 10,640 projects valuing $7.2 billion (Stanleigh, April 2006). Additionally a Standish Group

survey of the IT sector found that 71% of all project deliveries miss business unit expectations due to late

delivery, budget overrun, delivering less functionality than is required or are cancelled (Standish Group,

2003). Yet there are hundreds or even thousands of documented project management practices. In fact

the Project Management Institute (PMI) is an organization dedicated to the advancement of project

management standards and processes (PMI.org, 2006). The PMI regularly publishes the Project

Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK) which is widely regarded as the standard for project

management practices. IT organizations are failing at delivering successful projects despite an abundance

of available best practices.

Potter-40

The FITS Delivery Management component is based on the agile premise that every organization

faces different project management challenges and therefore requires implementation of a unique

minimum set of project management standards. The Delivery Management component provides a

methodology for organizations to identify and implement incremental project management best practices

and provides a minimum set of three core practices which are recommended for implementation across

any IT organization.

The Iterative Approach. A Forrester survey of 32 companies building project management based

organizations found that incremental, targeted implementations of project management best practices

were most effective in producing long-term results (Visitacion, June 2006). Instead of building a core set

project management practices by simply selecting standards out of the PMBOK and rolling them out to

project managers, an organization benefits from implementing a minimum set of tools and practices that

are specifically targeted at solving their unique challenges. Additionally, IT organizations adopt tools more

readily if they are implemented over time instead of in one large roll-out. The high level method for

implementing this type of targeted incremental roll-out of practices is illustrated in figure 3.7.1

Potter-41

• Identification - Initial identification of

potential areas for improvement. Gather

metrics and confirm gap/issue

• Solution Design – Identify current project

management best practices available to

meet the corporate need. Assess the

practice for completeness and modify if

necessary. Test the practice with 2-3

small project teams and modify again if

necessary.

• Deployment – Socialize with other project

managers, train and roll-out to broad IT

organization.

Key Practices. As previously mentioned, developing an iterative and effective approach to

standardizing project management practices requires information on where existing methods are falling

short. Data provides visibility to existing process gaps and issues. Within a project lifecycle there are

Core Adopted Practices

FIGURE 3.7.1 PM Method Deployment Model

Identification

Solution Design Deployment

Potter-42

three primary points for capturing metrics data; during initial estimation, in ongoing status and in post

deployment lessons learned sessions. The FITS methodology recommends implementing all three as

standard practices across an organization as they provide a consistent means for capturing critical project

data and are also effective tools for communication.

• Standard project estimation – Provides standard methods and templates for project teams and

managers to capture initial estimates prior to the start of a project. At a minimum, initial

estimates should include capturing target costs, timeframes and resources needs. It should be

noted that as an organization evolves, they may develop multiple standard estimating practices

relevant to different project types. In fact Forrester recommends that mature organizations

develop a portfolio of estimating practices including; analogy methods leveraging reuse; bottom-

up method – estimating each requirement; top-town method – estimating based on broad project

characteristics; expert provided estimates; and parametric estimates – the combination of all the

above. (Visitacion, February 2005) Each method provides an effective means for estimating a

different type of initiative. Section 5.4 includes a standard parametric estimating template.

• Status reports/dashboards – Ensures a consistent method and interval for providing project

status information to the organization. They also give CIOs a platform for reinforcing IT value

Potter-43

(Gliedman and Visitacion 2004). The dashboard should contain only key data that needs to be

communicated across the organization including current activities, risks and financials. It is

important that an organization create a simple and effective method for project managers to

capture status data so that valuable time is not wasted on repetitive status reporting or capturing

of irrelevant information. Section 5.4 includes a standard project status template.

• Lessons learned – Consists of a final project meeting including all project members that is run by

an independent facilitator. The session is intended to capture both the key strengths/practices

implemented on the project and key issues. It is also meant to serve as a forum for

brainstorming on how key issues could have been handled differently. Lessons learned sessions

should be thoroughly documented and published. This organizational body of knowledge is the

foundation for building a set of specific best practices within an IT organization. Therefore

resources should be assigned to periodically review cross organizational lessons learned

document for immerging trends, effective practices and ideas for improvement.

Potter-44

5. Best Practice Tools

In addition to information technology management strategies, CIO’s have expressed the need for

hands-on tools which will assist them in communicating with their business organizations and measure the

success of their own organizations. This section is a compilation of in-production, manual, best practice

tools coincide with the FITS model. There are key reports and tools for the deployment scheme and each

of the primary FITS components; governance, financial management, resource management and project

management.

It is critical to note that these tools, as they are presented here, should be considered boiler-plate.

Since every organization has a unique set of challenges and goals, these tools should be adapted to the

particular needs of the corporation.

Potter-45

5.0 Deployment Tools

Diagnostic Survey

Background

Chief Information Officers and IT upper

management require a tool which will help them

determine the priority of key IT competencies and

the level which their organization is currently

performing those functions. Diagnostic surveys

are used by high performing IT organizations

including Ericsson and Du Pont to continue

refining their practices and improve efficiency.

The FITS Diagnostic Survey is a modified version

of an existing CIO Executive Board survey which

has been adapted to align specifically with the

FITS component model (Chief Executive Board,

2005).

Tool Description

The Diagnostic Survey should be

administered to senior executives and upper

management on either a semi-annual or annual

basis. The survey could also be administered to

new business unit management or as executive

level changes occur.

The results of the survey provide CIOs with

key data to determine which areas of

organizational performance need improvement.

Data can also be used to benchmark an IT

organization against compiled key finding for

other Corporate Executive Board members.

Potter-46

Diagnostic Survey

Flexible Prioritization Agile Financial Management

Business Case Development We employ a standard business case template for all IT investments that captures project life-cycle costs, benefits and risks

Performance: 1 2 3 4 5 Importance: 1 2 3 4 5

Consistent Prioritization We help the business prioritize projects using a defined set of objective, weighted criteria

Performance: 1 2 3 4 5 Importance: 1 2 3 4 5

Asset Class Investment We allocate IT budget to asset classes based on the amount or percentage of investment we identify across the corporation.

Performance: 1 2 3 4 5 Importance: 1 2 3 4 5

Funding Availability IT works to ensure that reallocation of funds from cancelled or reprioritized is timely and that budget is available for new work.

Performance: 1 2 3 4 5 Importance: 1 2 3 4 5

Value Demonstration We track metrics that demonstrate IT’s contribution to the achievement of desired business outcomes.

Performance: 1 2 3 4 5 Importance: 1 2 3 4 5

Performance Reporting We track metrics that demonstrate IT’s contribution to the achievement of desired business outcomes.

Performance: 1 2 3 4 5 Importance: 1 2 3 4 5

Phase Gate Funding We allocate funds to projects as they are approved through phase gates to ensure available budget is maximized.

Performance: 1 2 3 4 5 Importance: 1 2 3 4 5

Budget Visibility We allocate to asset class budget categories and regularly review budget versus allocation reporting.

Performance: 1 2 3 4 5 Importance: 1 2 3 4 5

Operational Effectiveness Technology Innovation

Availability Management We ensure the availability of systems based on SLAs that consider business criticality.

Performance: 1 2 3 4 5 Importance: 1 2 3 4 5

Disaster Recovery We develop and regularly test enterprise plans to ensure continuous support of core business processes.

Performance: 1 2 3 4 5 Importance: 1 2 3 4 5

New Technology We proactively scan for and exploit opportunities to deploy new technologies in support of the business.

Performance: 1 2 3 4 5 Importance: 1 2 3 4 5

Process Digitization We employ a standard methodology to identify opportunities for business process automation and enhancement.

Performance: 1 2 3 4 5 Importance: 1 2 3 4 5

Potter-47

Diagnostic Survey Continued

Rapid Resource Deployment Delivery Management

Project Staffing

Scoring Scale

Performance 5 = We Are Excellent at This 4 = We Are Good at This 3 = We Are Average at This 2 = We Are Poor at This 1 = We Are Terrible at This

Importance 5 = Critical 4 = High Priority 3 = Moderate Priority 2 = Low Priority 1 = Not a Priority

Flexible StaffingProjects are staffed quickly once approved and project staffing is rarely an issue in IT deliveries.

Performance: 1 2 3 4 5 Importance: 1 2 3 4 5

Project ExecutionIT uses both external and internal pooled staffing to rapidly staff projects and manage costs.

Performance: 1 2 3 4 5 Importance: 1 2 3 4 5

Risk Management We manage projects using a standard methodology to meet budget, scope and schedule goals.

We have created a principled framework for assessing relative risk and sequence risk mitigation investments accordingly

Performance: 1 2 3 4 5 Performance: 1 2 3 4 5 Importance: 1 2 3 4 5 Importance: 1 2 3 4 5

The primary results assessment will come

from compiling results and comparing the

performance versus importance aggregate

scores. Questions with high importance

scores and low performance scores should be

addressed first.

Potter-48

FITS Component Implementation Project Plan

Background

The FITS framework includes a standard

implementation project plan that can be used as a

baseline by the program manager for the FITS

core component deliveries. As previously

mentioned a core tenet of the FITS model is

consistent 60-90 day implementation cycles.

These timeframes have been incorporated into

baseline project plan. IT organizations from Qwest

Communications International and British Telecom

have benefited from standardizing on 90 day

client delivery cycles. The standard cycles have

help the IT organization manage the scope of

deliveries and provide value add to the business

on a quarterly basis.

Tool Description

The FITS standard project plan is intended to be

used by the FITS program manager to develop a

detailed 90 core component implementation plan.

This plan has been built using Microsoft Project

and includes the key steps in completing each of

the 6 deployment scheme steps. The project plan

should be reviewed and modified during step 1

and then updated throughout the project lifecycle

on regular intervals, weekly is recommended.

Notes

A number of the project tasks particularly in

regard to data collection, process engineering or

tool development may require longer durations.

This baseline is intended to represent a simplified

deployment.

Potter-49

FITS Baseline Project Plan

ID Task Name Duration Timeline Resource Names

1 Design 8 days Day 1-82 Identification of director and program manager 1 day Day 1 CIO/Director3 Develop FITS priorities and roadmap 2 days Day 2-3 Director/PM4 Obtain Executive approval of roadmap 1 day Day 4 Director/PM5 Core team Staffed 3 days Day 5-8 PM6 Communication Plan/Mechnanism complete 3 days Day 5-8 PM7 Diagnosis 15 days Day 8-288 Modify standard FITS survey 2 days Day 8-9 Core Team9 Identify survey group and distribute 2 days Day 9-10 Core Team10 Collect and Compile Survey Data 2 days Day 18-21 Core Team11 Categorize Results 2 days Day 21-22 Core Team12 Develop Initial Resolution to top priorities 3 days Day 23-25 Core Team13 Update target project plan 1 day Day 26 PM14 Obtain approvals for detailed plan 1 day Day 28 Director/PM15 Process 12 days Day 29-4016 Confirm impacted resources/groups 2 days Day 29-30 Core Team17 Modify FITS level 1 process flows 3 days Day 31-33 Core Team18 Develop level 2 flows 4 days Day 34-37 Core Team19 Review draft processes with core team 1 day Day 38 PM20 Finalized process flows 2 days Day 39-40 Core Team21 Tools 16 days Day 41-5622 Identify critical path tools for implementation 3 days Day 41-43 Core Team23 Identify existing FITS or other Best Practice tools 2 days Day 44-45 Core Team24 Modify tools to meet organizational needs 5 days Day 46-50 Core Team25 Review modified tools with core team 1 day Day 51 PM26 Finalize tools for deployment 5 days Day 52-56 Core Team27 Deploy 10 days Day 57-6728 Ensure finalized processes & tools are in place 1 day Day 57 PM29 Complete Operational Readiness Review 1 day Day 58 Core Team30 Complete management and executive review 1 day Day 65 Director/PM31 Develop and distribute communication 4 days Day 59-62 Core Team32 Develop Training 4 days Day 59-62 Core Team33 Train users 3 days Day 63-66 Core Team34 Deploy 1 day Day 67 Team

CIO/DirectorDirector/PM

Director/PMPMPM

Core TeamCore Team

Core TeamCore Team

Co

M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T2, '06 Jul 9, '06 Jul 16, '06 Jul 23, '06 Jul 30, '06

Many project plan ta ssign the

“Core Team”. The intent is not to have all

ac jointly worked, but that there is

consensus among all team members in the

derived ta e.

sks are a ed to

tivities

sk outcom

engineering

to th

Multiple process iterations may be

required before the core team can agree e

entire flow. It is important that teams iterate

as needed.

Timelines for tools implementation is based on

manual tools. Software development and

deployment will likely require an entire 90 day

cycle and should be considered for

implementation as part of a stand-alone

initiative.

Operational Readiness Reviews may require

subsequent tool or process refinement. Again

it is important that teams iterate as needed

until the process, tools, roles and

responsibilities are all in alignment.

Potter-50

5.1 Flexible Prioritization

Balanced Scorecard

Background

The Balanced Scorecard approach to strategic

management was developed in the early 1990’s by

Dr. Robert Kaplan (Harvard Business School) and

Dr. David Norton (Kaplan and Norton, 2006) It was

developed as a management system, not just a

measure tool, so corporations could track and view

their current efforts to the strategic vision. The

original balanced scorecard was comprised of four

key areas:

• Customer Perspective

• Financial Perspective

• Learning and Growth Perspective

• Business Process Perspective

Tool Description

This balanced scorecard is either a monthly

or quarterly report intended for business unit

executive management. This version varies from

the original in that it is comprised of three types of

metrics that are specific to a balanced IT solution.

• Service Delivery – Indicators the quality of

services being provided by IT to the

corporation and/or a specific business unit.

Includes application operational metrics and

project delivery status and timelines.

• Strategic Alignment – Indicators of portfolio

program alignment to the corporate strategy.

Comprised of portfolio risk versus cost,

portfolio mix and

• Resource Allocation – Indicators of the level

of IT resources (human and capital) currently

and forecast for support of each corporate

business unit. Metrics include business unit

resource allocation, portfolio resource

allocation and customer resource snapshot.

Potter-51

Balanced Scorecard

Project Status Portfolio Timelines Tracks project and program performance versus initial cost, schedule and scope estimates, measured individually on a red/yellow/green scale

Provides an overview of program timelines, highlighting the programs that will be complete in the near future (more than 25% complete) to provide an advance window into staff availability

Portfolio Mix Business Unit Resource Allocation Displays the mix of program spending in based on the following categories Strategic, Business Unit Specific, Infrastructure and Lights-On

Details the time spent by IT resources on high, medium and low priority projects and programs, with priorities determined by the business unit head (data provided by business unit)

Portfolio Resource Allocation

Cost

Risk

Portfolio Risk versus Cost Documents the percentage of resource allocated by portfolio category (Strategic, Business Unit Specific, Infrastructure and Lights-On) across the entire portfolio

Provides a holistic view of the IT program and project portfolio to determine overall portfolio risk relative to investments. Risk can be assessed by discounted payback or other indicators.

Operational Service Level ReportDocuments system downtime, by application and severity level, includes high level SLA information.

Business Unit A Customer Resource Snapshot Documents current and forecast IT resources dedicated to each corporate function and can include project and program budget allocation, hardware and operational resources

Potter-52

Portfolio Level Business-Value Map

Background

Many quality and efficiency methodologies,

including Six Sigma, use the mapping of metrics

to projects and programs to drive the corporate

portfolio in alignment with strategic plans

(Sixsigma, 2004). The Portfolio Level Business-

Value Map specifically gives visibility program

goals as they relate to either a set of cross-

corporate key financial/performance business

metrics or to business unit specific metrics.

Tool Description

This business-value map would likely be a

monthly report and include active initiatives. The

target audience could include business unit and IT

upper management, and program/project

managers. The map includes:

• Benefits Description Linked to Key Business

Metrics – Explicitly articulating the value

contribution of the program in terms of

business metrics including, cost reduction,

productivity increase, revenue generation.

• Standard Metrics Definition – Each metric has

a standard definition, providing business

sponsors with consistent methods for

calculating the benefits of an IT investment.

• A Holistic Aggregate View of the Program

Portfolio – The map can include the entire IT

program portfolio.

Notes

• Key metrics should be agreed by all

stakeholders

• The business-value map should report at

the initiative level where the benefits will be

realized (project vs program).

Potter-53

Portfolio Level Business-Value Map

Program Type

Customer Facing Customer Care

Back Office Regulatory

Metric Description Pro

gram

A

Pro

gram

B

Pro

gram

C

Pro

gram

D

Pro

gram

E

Pro

gram

F

Pro

gram

G

Pro

gram

H

Pro

gram

I

Pro

gram

J

Pro

gram

K

Pro

gram

L

Pro

gram

M

Pro

gram

N

Pro

gram

O

Pro

gram

P

Pro

gram

Q

Days of Inventory $M/Day Balance Sheet Impact Order Process Time $M/Day Balance Sheet Impact Headcount Reduction Number of HC Reduction or Avoided x Avg

Burden Rate

Headcount Productivity 50% x ( # of HC Reduced or Avoided) x Avg Headcount Turnover $ per Turnover Avoided System End of Life Incremental $ Cost of Displaced System per

Each Actual Incident

Materials Discount Cost Avoidance From Supplier Neg Hardware/Software Avoidance

Cost Avoidance From Infrastructure Decisions

Risk Avoidance Internal Exposure x Probability of Occurrence Other Cost Avoidance Actual Cost Avoided from Unique Automation Unit Cost Avoidance Actual Cost Avoided from Process Automation Productivity Improvements $/hour of productivity improvements x total

hours

Time-to-Market $/Week Open New Markets Increased Volume x Appropriate ASP x

Appropriate Margin Rate

Opt Existing Market Incremental ASP x Appropriate Margin Rate Cross-Selling Cross-Selling Products of Multiple Divisions Customer Satisfaction Qualitative Customer Satisfaction Score

Working Capital Reductions

Expense Reductions

Cost of Sales

Profit Margin

Customer Satisfaction

OpeningMarkets

Efficiencies

CashCycle

Potter-54

Portfolio Alignment Pyramid (Modified)

Background

Separately business unit strategies and IT

project deliveries goals may be clear, however

businesses often have trouble connecting the

golden thread from unit strategy through

technology strategy and finally to IT deliverables.

The Portfolio Alignment Pyramid provides IT and

the business with a tool to visualize this

connection. Portfolio consulting firms, including

IBM use this “accountability pyramid” to define

links between each project and the corporate

strategic initiatives. (Latimore, 2004).

Tool Description

The Alignment Pyramid can provide either a

business unit or program representation of work

being delivered by IT. The target audience is

business unit and IT upper management, and

program/project managers. The tool is comprised

of a four-tier strategic alignment pyramid that

when compiled provides the related ends:

• Business Unit Strategy – The initial 2

questions of the diagnostic focus on helping

the business articulate it own strategy, both

long-term vision and specific business

strategies.

• Surfacing the Operational Implications –

The next set of questions is designed to

help with the translation of strategic into

specific business capabilities and provide

answers to funding and sponsorship issues.

• Information Technology Alignment– The

third set of questions is intended to provide

insight into the alignment of business

capabilities into IT infrastructure or

technical strategies.

• Program/Project Deliverables – The final set

of questions outlines the specific IT

deliverables and dates that implement the

needed business capabilities.

Potter-55

Portfolio Alignment Pyramid (Modified)

1. To what goal does the business aspire?

2. What specific strategies will enable the business to achieve vision

3. What specific business capabilities are required to achieve those strategies?

4. How will the work to create those business capabilities be funded and executed?

5. What solutions must IT provide to enable required business capabilities?

6. What is the strategic plan for delivering those solutions?

7. What are the specific releases/projects/programs the will deliver the capabilities needed by the business and the dates?

Business Unit

Strategy

Operationalizing the Strategy

Information Technology Alignment

Program/Project Deliverables

Potter-56

5.2 Rapid Resource Deployment Competency Repository

Background

Visibility to detailed skills and proficiencies

within an IT organization at the resource level is

needed for rapid cross organizational deployment

and targeted skill improvement/training. The

Competency Repository provides data which can

easily be manipulated and analyzed to provide

manager, resource managers and IT executives

with summary views of their resources.

Tool Description

The Competency Repository is a set of skills

based data, updated as skills or proficiency

change. By capturing skills data the repository can

provide the following competency views:

• Skill Set View – Supports training and skill

set shifting, by giving visibility to the

number of resources with a specific skill set.

• Proficiency View – Supports specific project

staffing, by providing visibility to skilled

resources with a specific proficiency level.

• Location View – Supports geographically

distributed organizations and teams, by

providing visibility into resources with certain

skills in a particular location.

Notes

• Ownership of the data capture and

maintenance should be clearly

communicated. The recommendation is that

managers be responsible for this effort.

Potter-57

Competency Repository

Tool selection should be

user friendly, flexible and

scalable to the specific

organization. Microsoft Excel

was used in this example.

Consistent terminology must

be used for the data to be

valuable. Clearly identify

and standardize skill sets

and proficiency definitions

across organization prior to

the initial data collection.

This repository has been

configured to hold 3

proficiencies per resource;

however this may not be

appropriate for all

organizations.

Potter-58

Forecast Capacity Maps

Background

Visibility into the resource supply coupled

with the holistic picture of demand provide the

information to make better decisions about

business priorities and where IT staff members

should spend their time (Symons, April 2006).

Capacity demand reports are used by highly

effective IT organizations including Qwest

Communications Inc and Teradyne Inc. to

continually assess the mix of resources in the

organization and the needs identified by future

projects.

Tool Description

There are multiple relevant views into IT

capacity and demand. Three such views are

provided in the Forecast Capacity Maps.

• Organizational Summary – Summary level

visibility into demand versus capacity

provides valuable data on determining if

there are additional needs for business

prioritization of pipeline work.

• Skills Summary – Supports specific project

staffing, by providing visibility to skilled

resources with a specific proficiency level.

• Application View – Application specific

demand versus capacity which provides IT

the ability increase staffing or work with the

business on prioritization when there is

greater demand than availability.

Notes

• Accurate and updated supply and demand

data is required to build forecast capacity

maps.

• Specific resource demand data must be

captured in the concept and design phases

to support full visibility and reporting of

demand data

Potter-59

Forecast Capacity Maps

Skill Set Summary

Provides a quarterly or monthly view of

demand versus capacity for specific

resource competencies for both in-

progress and targeted initiatives.

Capacity and demand are standardized

Application View

Provides a quarterly or monthly trend

view of target demand versus capacity

for key high-demand applications.

Capacity and demand are standardized

into hours available for key tasks

including development, testing, project

management, etc.

Forecast Capacity MapSkills Summary - XXX Month

0

50

100

150

200

250

C++ Dev

eloper

Java

Dev

eloper

Automate

d Tes

terBus

iness A

nalys

tProj

ect M

anage

rSmall

Talk.N

et Dev

elope

r

SQL

XML

Tester

Man

Day

s

CapacityDemand

Forecast Capacity MapApplication XXX View

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

1300

1400

1500

January February March April May

Avai

labl

e H

ours

Capacity Demand

Organizational Summary

Provides a monthly or quarterly

trending view of total available

resources and total resource demand

based on in-progress and targeted

initiatives. Capacity and demand are

standardized into man-days.

1Q062Q06

3Q064Q06

Demand

Capacity

15001350

1325

11001400 1400

1200

1000

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

Man

Day

s

Forecast Capacity MapAnnual Organizational Summary

DemandCapacity

13251350

1500

Potter-60

5.3 Agile Financial Management

Asset Class Dashboard

Background

Only 22% of Forrester surveyed companies

use portfolio management processes to eliminate

projects during prioritization (Hughes, 2004). To

catalyze critical prioritization decisions within

stakeholder boards the Asset Class Dashboard

provides a summary view of the asset class based

budget and aggregate impact of previous

approvals on that budget.

Tool Description

This report is intended for business unit and

IT executives and should be generated on the

cycle of the stakeholder board meeting. The Asset

Class Dashboard provides a breakout of the total

annual IT budget by asset class along with:

• Allocations – budget associated with

approved programs for the specified asset

class.

• Remaining Allocation - Remaining asset

class budget available for allocation to

prospective programs.

• Actual Spend – total year-to-date costs of

approved programs within a asset class.

Notes

• Actual spend data is only available if project

managers are required to accurately track

project spend on over the lifecycle of the

initiative.

Potter-61

Asset Class Dashboard

Infrastructure – 40%Budget $5,000,000 Allocations $2,500,000 Remaining Allocation $2,500,000 Spend $1,000,000

Mandates - 10% Budget $1,000,000 Allocations $200,000 Spend $150,000 Remaining Allocations $800,000

Budget $2,000,000 Allocations $1,500,000 Remaining Allocation $500,000 Spend $750,000

Business Opportunity

30%

Innovation 20%

Budget $3,000,000 Allocations $1,500,000 Remaining Allocation $1,500,000 Spend $850,000

Potter-62

Business Case Template

Background

To facilitate equivalent comparison of

project value across business units, corporations

will benefit from use of a standard enterprise-

wide business case template (Corporate Executive

Board, 2002). The template provides project

sponsors and IT stakeholders a uniform method

for defining and interpreting project benefits and

risks. Financial benefits and costs are defined

across a three year horizon.

Tool Description

This report is intended for use by the

project sponsors, IT stakeholder boards and

project teams. A business case should be created

as part of the concept and design phases, but

should an updated version should be built at later

phases if benefit, cost or risk data changes. There

are two primary sections to this business case

template:

• Financial Assessment Scorecard – Combines

benefit and cost data to provide visibility to

total financial value add

• Risk Assessment Scorecard – Combines a

qualitative assessment of risks in 7 areas

with a risk factor index to provide an overall

project risk index score.

Notes

• A business case is only as good as the data

it includes. For successful implementation of

a business case template, it is critical that

data validation be performed by an internal

independent third party or by an

authoritative organization.

• Business case templates can include other

key financial or risk data. To remain agile,

an organization should include only relevant

key decision data in the template.

Potter-63

Business Case Template – Financial Assessment Scorecard

Date Project Sponsor: Project:

BENEFITS (in $1,000,000’s)

Revenue from New Customers 6.2

Revenue from Existing Customers 2.3

Revenue from Additional Asset Use 0.5

Cost Reductions 4.0

Additional Productivity 5.0

Total Benefits 18.0

COSTS Start-Up Operational

Evaluation 0.2 N/A

Hardware 0.3 0.3

Software 1.0 0.4

Development 0.5 0.2

Deployment 0.2 N/A

Management N/A 0.2

Support N/A 0.4

Communication N/A 0.1

Downtime N/A 0.3

Subtotal Costs 2.2 1.9

Grand Total Costs 4.1

Total Benefits – Total Costs = Value Added 18.0 – 4.1 = 13.9

Benefit data should be summarized in

the business case, but should be

supported by detailed and realistic

business unit data.

Operational costs are limited to post

implementation costs.

Benefits and costs are generally

provided over a 3 year period; however

innovation or strategic programs may

need to include 5-7 year financial data to

produce quantifiable results.

Potter-64

Business Case Template - Risk-Assessment Scorecard

Date Project Sponsor:

Project: Risk Score

Project Staffing • Resource availability • Skills availability • Availability of experienced staff

Low

Project Schedule • Realism of current schedule • Criticality of on-time delivery

Low

Project Scope • Size and complexity of project • Measurability of success • Ability to accommodate scope cut

without loss of critical functionality

Medium

Project Dependencies • Dependence on other projects • Dependence on externally developed

technologies

Low

Technological Risks • Newness of technology to company

and world • Scalability • Data security and privacy • Disaster recovery capabilities

High

Business Risk • Business impact of downtime • Business impact of lost or improperly

released data

Low

Political Risk • Senior management commitment • Funding jeopardy

Medium

Risk Area Risk Factor

Risk Score

Total

Staffing 3 1 (Low) 3 Schedule 5 1 (Low) 5

Scope 2 2 (Med) 4 Dependencies 1 1 (Low) 1 Technology 2 3 (High) 6 Business 3 1 (Low) 3 Political 2 2 (Med) 4

Aggregate project Risk Score Possible Score 18-54

25

The Risk Assessment Scorecard should

include mitigation plans for any area that

has medium or high risk.

Key risks for a corporation change over

time. So the final risk score is calculated

by combining the project risk scores with

a corporate agreed risk factor of 1-5 (1

low, 5 high) that is applied to each of the

7 risk categories.

Potter-65

5.4 Delivery Management

Project Status Dashboard

Background

Communication, tracking and rapid risk

mitigation are essential to successful projects. A

basic standardized project status dashboard

provides all project managers and stakeholders in

a company a consistent means for distributing

status information.

Tool Description

This report should be maintained by the

project manager or project lead and the intended

distribution includes anyone with interest or stake

in the initiative. A project status dashboard should

be updated on regularly agreed intervals, the

recommendation is every week. There are four

sections to the status report:

• Financials – Financial data including original

estimates and total spend-to-date.

• Tasks/Activities – Summarized key project

tasks completed during the current week and

scheduled for the following week.

• Resource – Summary resource information

including original staffing estimates and

current project staffing.

• Schedule – Includes original and projected

end dates for the current milestone and

target end dates for the entire project.

Notes

• Common definitions of red, yellow and green

status must be used across projects.

• It is important to select a tool or template

where key data from multiple status reports

can be exported and aggregated for upper

management or executive reporting. This

dashboard was built using Microsoft Excel.

Potter-66

Project Status Dashboard

Reporting Period

Project Name Project Manager

Activities Financial Resources Schedule

Completed This Week Project Budget:

Original FTE Estimate

15 Stage Schedule Target Date

Stage Schedule Predicted Date

YTD Spend Current FTE’s on Project

17

Original Project Target Date

Status Indicator

Status Indicator

Status Indicator

Status Indicator

Scheduled Activities Not Completed

Issue/Risk Issue/Risk Issue/Risk

Next Weeks Activities Mitigation Mitigation Mitigation

Should include all incurred project costs

Summary data generally in bulleted format

Should include both business and IT risks/mitigations

Potter-67

Level of Effort Template

Background

Without a standardized method for giving

and gathering project estimates, IT organizations

may have difficulty retracing assumptions, costs

or risks that were associated with the first

timelines and figures provided to the business

unit. A Level of Effort (LOE) template is designed

to provide all development teams with a standard

method for deriving their inputs for initial cost,

timeline and resource estimate for a project. It

also gives a project manager a decipherable

artifact that can be used to communicate to IT

upper management, the business and can also be

used to assess project performance at the end of

a deployment.

Tool Description

The LOE template should be compiled and

maintained by the project manager with direct

input from each impacted technical team;

development, testing, operations, etc. The

template should be filled out as input to the

business case template and should therefore

occur prior to phase gate approval. The summary

LOE view provides the following compiled data for

each impacted technical team

• Project Costs – Project costs calculated by

hourly IT labor rate x number of estimated

labor hours.

• Monthly Resources – Calculated FTE’s based

on the number of estimated labor

hours/hours in a month

• Start & End Months – Target start and end

dates for each technical team provide by

them directly.

Potter-68

Level of Effort Template

Program Name Sample Project A

Program ID A

Program Description Sample Project

Estimation Range(+/-) +/- 30%

TEAM SUMMARY Total Application Team A Application Team B

Total Program Labor Hours 10000 5000 5000

Concept Labor Hours 1250 500 750

Development Labor Hours 4750 2500 2250

Support Labor Hours 2250 1000 1250

Maintenance Labor Hours 1750 1000 750

Total Monthly FTE 30 15

(5000/160hr/2mos)

15

(5000/160hr/2mos)

Total Program Cost ($000) $500,000 $250,000 $250,000

Labor Costs ($000) $500,000 $250,000 $250,000

Non-Labor Costs ($000) 0 0 0

Start Month 02/06 02/06 03/06

End Month 05/06 04/06 05/06

Duration (Calendar Days) 90 60 60

Estimation range provides project team with a field to identify the quality of their estimate; +/-10%, +/-20%, etc.

Estimates provided for each phase should be total team hours and include; analysis, development, testing, etc.

All light gray cells are calculated based on standard labor rates x hours input from the technical team.

Start Month and End Month are target estimates by technical team based on resource availability and current pipeline work view.

Potter-69

Conclusion

CIOs are faced with significant pressure to cut costs and improve IT efficiency. In an effort to meet

these increased demands, CIOs have begun running their organizations like agile businesses using

governance methodologies. Yet despite the new IT governance movement business alignment, financial

management, resource deployment and project management continue to be significant challenges within

most IT organizations. The inability of IT executives to manage these areas has resulted in high turn-over

for this executive-level position.

CIOs need a more adaptable and flexible methodology to overcome these obstacles. Existing

solutions are far too complex and time consuming to deploy. The Flexible Information Technology Tools

and Strategies methodology was developed specifically as a response to the shortcomings of existing IT

management solutions. FITS provides a flexible component framework with incorporated standard metrics

and deployment steps. FITS includes a compilation of best practice tools and reporting to expedite and

simplify the roll-out of the core components. The FITS framework is designed to combine the best known

practices across the IT industry within a single toolkit. As a result, CIOs can quickly deploy the business

management aspects of their organization and advance the interaction with their business counterparts.

Potter-70

Appendix 1 - Software Tool Vendors

Along with the industry push to manage IT as a discreet entity and as a business has come the

proliferation of software available to automate and track the workings of the IT organization. While many

organizations still use standard spreadsheet or a combination of manual intensive tools to capture and

track data, there are a number of benefits including integration, automation, data accuracy and efficiency

which make package software appealing to companies.

This appendix comprises a partial list of vendors with products that support the four main functions

of the FITS model; governance, resource management, financial management and project management.

Where available this appendix provides independent review data along with core functionality and

architecture information (Visitacion, March 2006) (Corporate Executive Board, 2002). It should be noted

that this compilation of information is intended to serve as a starting point for any organization

considering the acquisition of software tools to manage their IT organization. It is recommended that a full

analysis of corporate needs and vendor product specifications be completed prior to purchase or

implementation.

Potter-71

*Forrester Portfolio and Project Management Score CO = Current Offering, NG = Next Generation Offering, MP = Market Place. The scores are based on a scale of 0 (weak) to 5 (strong).

Vendor and Product Contact Information Core Functionality Platform Architecture Forrester

PPM Score

Artemis International

Artemis 7

4041 MacArthur Blvd. Suite 401 Newport Beach, California 92660, USA Tel: 1-800.477.6648 Fax: 949.660.6501

Email: [email protected]

Website: www.aisc.com

CO = 3.37 • Analysis of investment scenarios • Web-Based versus funding and staffing

• Import/Export XML constraints at the enterprise or NG = 2.60 Schema Integration API’s unit level

• Oracle, SQL, or Solaris MP = 2.26 • Role based process support via dynamic process modeler.

• Dynamic configuration management

Business Engine

Business Engine Network TM (BENTM)

100 Bush Street, 22nd Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: 415.616.4000 Fax: 415.616.4008

[email protected]

www.businessengine.com

CO = 4.00 • Provides multi-dimensional • Web-based and available portfolio views, role-based access, as a hosted service NG = 3.83 scenario modeling and capacity

MP = 2.79 analysis for staff, skills and funding

Computer Associates International

Enterprise IT Management (EITMTM)

CA One CA Plaza Islandia, NY 11749, USA Phone: +1 631 342-6000 Fax: +1 631 342-6800

Website: www.ca.com

CO = 4.12 • Provides a full suite of modular • Open service oriented yet integrated IT management architecture which NG = 4.22 functions. supports most major

MP = 4.33 hardware and operating • Flexible form-driven project and system platforms

work management functions

• Supports linking of IT development, maintenance and support functions

Potter-72

Forrester PPM

Vendor and Product Contact Information Core Functionality Platform Architecture Score*

*Forrester Portfolio and Project Management Score CO = Current Offering, NG = Next Generation Offering, MP = Market Place. The scores are based on a scale of 0 (weak) to 5 (strong).

Compuware Compuware Corporation CO = 4.14 • Professional services automation • Integrates with MS One Campus Martius (PSA) software adapted for use by project and major NG = 3.26

corporate IT financial, HR and CRM Detroit, Michigan 48226 MP = 2.19 systems

Phone: 313 227 7300 • Provides a library of more than • Available as a hosted 100 standard and customizable Changepoint Website: relationship and request service

www.compuware.com management, resource management, project accounting and management and knowledge capture.

IBM www- CO = 3.95 • Configurable workflow engine to • Supports AIX,

rigorously manage and track WindowsXP/2000/2003, NG = 4.40 306.ibm.com/software/awdt project delivery process from Solaris, HP-UX, Redhat MP = 2.65 request to closing Linux, Suse Linux

ools/portfolio/ operating systems • Systematic phase-gating &

Rational Portfolio • Supports Oracle, IBM DB2 portfolio review processes, Manager complete with Save/Kill decision on AIX, Solaris, HP-UX,

points Windows 2000/2003 databases.

• Enterprise project portfolio data

North American Offices ITM Software CO = 3.14 • Fully integrated set of seven • 100% web-based, J2EE-161 East Evelyn Ave, functional modules based on a compliant application NG = 3.60 Mountain View, CA 94041 single data set. Includes financial architecture Main: 650-864-2500 MP = 1.79 resource management, human Fax: 650-864-2510 • XML interfaces for data capital management, project Email: info@itm- integration portfolio management, vendor software.com management, governance and • Integrates with Oracle, Website: www.itm- compliance management PeopleSoft, SAP and office ITM Business Suite software.com productivity tools

Potter-73

Forrester PPM

Vendor and Product Contact Information Core Functionality Platform Architecture Score

*Forrester Portfolio ment Score CO = Current Offering, NG = Next Generation Offering, MP = and Project ManageMarket Place. The scores are based on a scale of 0 (weak) to 5 (strong).

Mercury Interactive

Mercury IT Governance Center

379 North Whisman Road Mountain View, CA 94043 USA Tel: (650) 603-5200 Fax: (650) 603-5300

Website: www.mercury.com

CO = 3.85 • Flexible and powerful reporting, • Database options are with a variety of dashboards views limited to Oracle. NG = 3.70 configurable at the administrative

• JBoss is the only MP = 4.12 level. supported application

• Portfolio management with server. individual user views, supports

• 100% Web based comparison through scenario modeling.

• Financial Management via creation of multiple types of budgets.

CO = 4.24 PlanView PlanView, Inc. 8300 North Mopac #100 Austin, Texas 78759 Tel: 800.856-8600 or +1.512.346.8600 Fax: (512) 346-9180

• Supports Oracle and Microsoft SQL server Databases.

• Built in financial models to identify key performance indicators to evaluate initiatives

NG = 4.24

MP = 3.10 • Comprehensive Resource

Management module includes both allocation and demand/forecast functionality

Enterprise Portfolio

Management

• Workflow and processes are based

on Planview developed PRISM processes.

Website: www.planview.com

Primavera Primavera Systems, Inc. Corporate Headquarters Three Bala Plaza West, Suite 700 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 USA

Website: www.primavera.com

CO = 4.19 • Robust financial management • Supports Microsoft SQL including organizational, program, Server and Oracle for NG = 4.44 project or work activity budgets. database.

• Supports both resource and schedule calendars with a master calendar for modeling resource availability and usage

• 5 Operating systems

• Offers a web-based user interface.

MP = 3.14

Potter-74

Bibliography

Adcock, Jason. “Performance Metrics in Community Outreach.” Fort Bragg Technology Information (March,

2005).

Bartels, Andrew. “Global IT Investment Data: Q42005” Forrester Research (April 5, 2006).

Bell Canada Interview, Qwest Communications and Bell Canada. March 31, 2004.

Brynjolfsson, Erik and Hitt, Lorin M. "Computing Productivity: Firm-Level Evidence" MIT Sloan Working

Paper No. 4210-01 (2003). http://ssrn.com/abstract=290325 (accessed May 12, 2006).

Carlino, Bill. “Two Left Hands.” Accounting Today (February 2006): 6

“Chaos University 2003 – Keynotes and Discussions.” The Standish Group, (2003).

http://www.standishgroup.com/chaos/discussions.php accessed July 10, 2006.

Gliedman, Chip and Visitacion, Margo. “Use Project Status Reports to Reinforce IT Value.” Forrester

Research (July 19, 2004).

“Governance and Prioritization for Agile Organizations” Corporate Executive Board (2002).

Hoffman, James. “Staff Augmentation Case Studies” PriceWaterhouseCoopers (2004).

Potter-75

Hughes, Lauren. “Managing A Portfolio of IT Investments” Forrester Research (September 27, 2004).

“IT Governance Global Status Report” Illinois: IT Governance Institute (2004).

http://www.itgi.org/Template.cfm?Section=home&Template

=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=22877 (accessed on May 10, 2006).

“IT Governance Global Status Report - 2006” Illinois: IT Governance Institute (2006).

http://www.itgi.org/AMTemplate.cfm?Section=ITGI_

Research_Publications&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=24224

(accessed on May 8, 2006).

“IT Management Competency Diagnostic Tool.” Corporate Executive Board (2005).

Jeffrey, Mark and Leliveld, Ingmar. “Best Practices In IT Portfolio Management.” MIT Sloan Management

Review (Spring 2004): Vol. 45, No.3.

Johnson, Jim “Top 10 CIO Concerns Shift As Industry Is Under Fire” Software 500 (Summer 2003). Page

38-39.

Potter-76

Jorgenson, Dale W., Ho, Mun S. and Stiroh, Kevin J. “Growth of US Industries and Investments in

Information Technology and Higher Education.” Economic Systems Research (September 2003) Vol.

15, No.3.

Dr. Kaplan, Robert and Dr. Norton, David. “Balanced Scorecard Method.” Value Based Management.Net.

http://www.valuebasedmanagement.net/methods_balancedscorecard.html accessed July 27, 2006.

Koontz, Linda. “VA Assigned CIO Responsibilities” Government Veteran Affair Hearings (1998).

http://www.house.gov/va/hearings/schedule109/sep05/9-14-05/gao.pdf accessed on July 15, 2006.

Latimore, Daniel.”Reaching efficient frontiers in IT investment management: What financial services CIOs

can learn from portfolio theory.” IBM Institute for Business Value (2004). http://www-

03.ibm.com/industries/financialservices/doc/content/bin/fss_bae_IT_management.pdf accessed

July 5, 2006.

Leto, Robert, Haas, Ron, and Williams, Mark. “IT Effectiveness: Managing IT Like a Business.”

PriceWaterhouseCoopers (August 31, 2005).

Lutchen, Mark D. “A Survival Guide for CEOs – Managing IT as a Business.” New Jersey: John Wiley &

Sons (2004).

Potter-77

Marks, Eric. “Agile Funding for SOA.” MA Managing Automation: Technology Strategies for Progressive

Manufacturers (June, 29 2006) http://www.managingautomation.com/maonline/magazine

/read/Agile_Funding_for_SOA_10649609 (accessed on July 20, 2006).

Mercury IT Governance Center, Mercury Interactive. www.mercury.com (accessed on July 14, 2006),

“Introduction to the Project Management Institute.” Project Management Institute.

http://www.pmi.org/info/AP_IntroOverview.asp?nav=0201 (accessed July 24, 2006).

O’Connell, Laurie. “Management Metrics” Dr. Dobb’s Portal: The World of Software Development (March

28, 2003) http://www.ddj.com/dept/architect/184415948 (accessed on July 15, 2006).

Price, Lee & McKittrick, George. “The New Economy Endures: Despite Reduced IT Investment.” US

Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration (2002).

https://www.esa.doc.gov/reports/DE2002r1.pdf (accessed on July 21, 2006).

“IT Investment Portfolio Management” Price Waterhouse Coopers (August 2005): 7.

Rational Portfolio Manager, IBM. www-306.ibm.com/software/awdtools/portfolio/ (accessed June 16,

2006).

Potter-78

Reh, John F. “Key Performance Indicators (KPIs).” About Management General Management.

http://management.about.com/cs/ generalmanagement/a/key perfindic.htm (accessed May 12,

2006).

Roberts, J. “Link IT Performance Metrics to Business Value.” Gartner Research (November 5, 2004)

Scott, A. “Executives Real IT Concerns.” Internal Auditor 61, issue 6 (December 2004): 16.

Stanleigh, Michael. “From Crisis to Control: New Standards for Project Management” Ivey Business

Journal: Improving the Practice of Management (March/April 2006).

Strassmann , Paul A. “The Cost of Short-Term CIOs” Computerworld (2004).

http://www.strassmann.com/pubs/cw/short-term-cios.shtml (accessed on April 10, 2006).

“The Strategic Enterprise IT Budget Realities Benchmark Report.” Aberdeen Group (October 2004)

Symons, Craig. “How IT Must Shape And Manage Demand: Influencing The Behavior That Consumes IT

Resources.” Forrester Research (June, 15, 2006).

Symons, Craig. “Topic Overview: IT Governance” Forrester Research (April 3, 2006).

“The State of the CIO.” CIO Magazine (March 1, 2002)

Potter-79

“The Status of the CIO – Revisited.” CIO Magazine (March 31, 2006)

Tagliavini, M., Moro, J., Ravarini, A., Guimaraes, T. “Important CIO features for successfully managining

IS sub-functions.” Strategies for Managing IS/IT Personnel (2004).

Ulfeder, Steve. “ The Elastic IT Staff” ComputerWorld (September 20, 2004) Page 29-31.

“The Use of Six Sigma Methodology for Software Application Development” SixSigma (2004).

www.sixsigma.com (accessed on July 18, 2006).

Visitacion, Margo. “Establishing A Portfolio of Estimation Practices: Flexibility Means Better Accuracy.”

Forrester Research (February 9, 2005).

Visitacion, Margo. “The Forrester Wave: Project Portfolio Management, Q1 2006.” Forrester Research

(March 13, 2006).

Visitacion, Margo. “The Path to Becoming a Project-Based Organization.” Forrester Research (June 13,

2006).

Wiechmann, D., Ryan, A.M. and Hemingway, M. “Designing and Implementing Global Staffing Systems

Part II – Best Practices.” Human Resource Management (2003) Vol. 42 No.1.