- The effect of people on programs within a portfolio is difficult to assess particularly when stakeholders are spread across multiple programs in a portfolio
------------------------
- Determine which programs may require assistance
- Determine which programs are hitting stakeholders the hardest
- Improvements in delivering the portfolio of programs as a whole
|
- Enabling PMO Governance Committees to validate project/program progress continuously and in real-time
- Highlighting divergent Project Success Probability (PSP) and Meeting Quality Score (MQS) assessments between constituent groups
- Revealing the effects of shared resources and shared stakeholders across multiple projects
|
- The Waterfall Portfolio Report (above) tracks each project constituent group’s performance assessments across multiple Programs and Portfolios
- Constituent groups for Agile Projects are:
Backlog, Retrospective and Demonstration meetings
- Constituent groups for Waterfall Projects are:
Steering Committee, Project Team, Stakeholders, and Working Groups
- At each project constituent group meeting, members assess:
- Meeting Quality Score (MQS)
(combination of meeting satisfaction level and overall Meeting Promoter Score (MPS) for that meeting)
- Project Success Probability (PSP)
(their estimate of the project’s ultimate success)
- In the Waterfall Portfolio Report (above):
- The dark blue colored cells (for PSP) illustrate that both the Project Team (40%) and Stakeholders (25%) feel that Project B is unlikely to succeed
- Note that the Project Team's MQS (35%) is quite low
- During this same period, Steering Committee members believe strongly (80%) that Project B will succeed
- This indicates that there is a high probability that an over optimistic Project Manager may be withholding certain information from the Steering Committee
|