IT Program Planning: Linking Strategic Direction to REAL Projects

1
IT Program PlanningLinking Strategic Direction
to REAL Projects

• A Case Study by Phil Keast
• PKPM Inc.

2
Set Up
Execution

• The Scope
• The Situation
• The Constraints
• Reality Check

• Framework
• Strategic Vision . . .
• Core Beliefs
• Inventory
• Template
• Tools and Methodology
• The Data
• Strategic Vision !!
• Analysis, Governance and Decision-Making
• Lessons and Bonuses!!

3
Set Up
4
The Scope

• Help me figure out what were working on and
  whos working on it
• Help me figure out what were not working on and
  WHOS WORKING ON THAT!!
• Develop a 1 year infrastructure plan
• Implement a one-year planning process that is
  grounded in reality
• Implement project governance, prioritization and
  decision-making framework

5
The Situation

• 1 Super-Director, 4 Directors, 19 Technology
  Managers, 300 Technical Staff
• 100s of projects on-the-go
• Everybody is super-busy doing stuff
• Numerous status, reporting and tracking meetings
• Previous planning data exists with Managers and
  Directors in various forms, varying degrees of
  detail
• Current PCO is not providing the info we need
• Strategic Vision? Yes, we inherently
  understand it and do the best we can to support
  it.

6
The Constraints

• Everybody is super-busy doing stuff.
• Youre stuck with the tools you got.
• This has been done before . . . attitude.
• Resistance to change.
• THERE ARE NO OTHER CONSTRAINTS

7
Execution
8
Framework
Strategic Vision
Not necessarily in that order!!
Project Data
9
Strategic Vision . . . ?

• There isnt a unified strategic direction.
• Each Manager and Director has their own vision
  which they believe to be correct.
• A strategic vision for an I.T. organization is a
  complex and elusive document that I probably
  wouldnt understand anyways, even if I could
  actually find one.
• The Architecture Committee stopped meeting cause
  Bob and Fred just couldnt get along.

10
Core Beliefs

• Project Management techniques are core beliefs
• Technology Managers are the key
• There is lots of information
• A small success will be a huge success
• Planning processes can be simple
• (Its the decision-making that is complex)

11
Inventory (Data)

• List of current and desired projects is required
• Remember your Core Beliefs
• Managers are key, lots of info, simplicity
• Simple Template
• Drawn from and approved by Managers
• Very careful with mandatory fields
• This hurt and it took awhile, but still stands
  today

12
Project Template

• Title
• Description
• Big Dependencies
• Related Projects
• Directors Name
• Managers Name
• Functional or PM
• Client
• or clients affected

• Capital
• On-going Maintenance
• Level of Effort
• Project Phase
• Proposal, Planning Implementation or Close-out
• Service Area
• Network, Storage, Mainframe, Office, Telecom . .
  .
• Project Objective

13
Tools
Methodologies

• Lotus 123
• MS Excel
• Expertise
• MS Word
• The Intranet

• PKPM Framework
• Pretty Klose Planning Methodology Framework
• Project Scorecard
• Visibility Index
• Rolled-up Reporting and Categorization
• SOHK Management Framework
• School of Hard Knocks Management Framework

14
Framework Revisited
Strategic Vision
Project Data
15
Real Data

• 182 Projects
• 76 Proposal, 44 Planning
• 52 Implementation, 10 Close-Out
• Directors, Managers/PMs, descriptions for each
  project
• Projects range from 5K to 2.0M
• Directors determine project objectives
• Capital Replacement, Technology Evolution, Cost
  Savings/Avoidance, Strategic Project, Client
  Project
• Data, data, data . . .
• But what about the Strategic Vision . . .

16
Strategic Vision

• Discovered a report card and discussed it with
  Directors
• BIG DISCOVERY
• I.T. Strategy could be simplified / agreed to
• Keep the lights on Capital Replacement
• Keep current Technology Evolution
• Reduce cost/complexity Cost Savings/Avoidance
• Strategic project Future looking projects
• Service to clients Client Project

17
Analysis, Governance and Decision-Making

• Time to get tough.

18
Top-down, High-level Analysis

• 10 Close-out Projects Done.
• Nothing for management to do.
• 182 10 172 Projects
• 44 Planning Projects Analyze these first.
• Dont plan what doesnt fit the vision.
• 16 Projects put on-hold
• 172 16 156 Projects
• 76 Proposals Analyze these next.
• Looking for fit, do-ability and relevance
• 46 Projects put on-hold
• 156 46 110 Projects

19
Top-down, High-level Analysis

• 52 Implementation Projects 16 are done
• 110 16 94 Projects
• New Stats
• Proposals 30
• Planning Projects 28
• Implementation Projects 36
• Total 94 (not 182)
• We eliminated the close-out phase

20
Financial Analysis

• 80M dollar budget, 120M in projects (including
  proposals)
• 9 projects on-hold based on
• No money in the budget
• No short-term impact of not doing project
• Down to 85 projects!!

21
Scorecard Analysis

• Scorecards completed for all projects
• Which projects should we DO!!
• Used for order of magnitude prioritization
• 6 projects with very low scores put on-hold
• Down to 79 projects!
• Discovered the directed project
• Scorecard not required
• Implemented light process for scorecard
  completion of every new project idea

22
Project Scorecard

• Funding
• ROI
• Operational Improvements
• Capital Costs
• Client Business Impact

• Internal Business Impact
• Schedule
• Level of Effort
• Timing

• Adds to 100
• Definitions with quantifiable measurements -
  (ie ROI realized in less than 2 years)

23
Set up for Governance

• Set up the Review Board
• Keep it light, no big splash
• Dont do this until the groundwork is laid
• Introduced rolled-up spreadsheet of ALL projects
• Categorized and including all collected data
• Real-time roll-up, filtering of ALL projects
• Provided portfolio context that was missing.
• Made governance and decision-making possible.
• Strategic Vision!!
• REVALIDATED OBJECTIVES OF EVERY PROJECT

24
Set up for Governance

• Manager Presentations
• Provided forum for Director/Manager interaction
• Visibility Index
• Which projects should we REVIEW!!
• Based on value, client impact, executive
  visibility, capital spend, resource consumption .
  . .
• Put some structure around Project Review
• But keep it light. Process scares off key
  resources
• Get Plugged In! Understand the key projects
• Its not good enough to be the process person!!

25
Lessons

• Be consistent
• Dont over-promise
• Tool Integration
• Nothing out of left field

26
Bonus!!

• Directors felt connection between strategic
  vision and real projects
• Successful Capital Funding request. gt20M
• One-year Plan served as basis for 5-Year Planning
  effort.
• Internal tool development is based on processes
  created during this project

27
Questions!!

• Phil Keast, PKPM Inc.
• phil_at_philkeastpm.com
• www.philkeastpm.com
• www.pkpmonline.com
• 613-276-2544