SampleDecPkg.ppt

IT Governance
Project Management Tool
Sample Decision Package
Review Date: October 14, 2003
Presentation Time: 9:00 – 10:00 AM CST
Presenters: PMO Manager and Director

2
IT Governance Review – PM Tool
 Purpose of this Review
 Provide Team recommendations to IT
Governance
 Review Pros/Cons of final 2 vendor solutions
 Obtain recommendation from IT Governance on
final tool
 Gain agreement from IT Governance to
purchase and implement a Portfolio /Project
Management Tool

3
Portfolio / Project Management Tool
 Executive Summary
 In today's business environment, organizations have to do
more with less. Improving processes is critical but is only
part of the total solution. People are a company’s number
one asset - managing them and the work they do is crucial
to organizational success. Many organizations have found
that utilizing a Portfolio & Project Management tool results
in decreased cost, by aiding management in understanding
and managing the complexity of costs and benefits,
resources, projects, risks, changes, and issues. They
have found many benefits and increased performance by
empowering everyone in the organization with collaboration
tools to improve teamwork and share best practices,
issues, and knowledge

4
 Technology or Architecture – Overview
 Problem State
 Inconsistent Project Management across IT
 Reinvention of PM processes and tools from project to project
 Time wasted
 Quality and completeness of artifacts vary
 Resources challenged to learn PM processes from project to project
 Past failures in managing large, cross-functional projects, costing the company
millions of dollars
 Inconsistent delivery of projects on-time and on-budget
 Limited ability to understand the entire portfolio of IT projects and cross-
functional dependencies (Initiatives, Business Support, Production Support in
Application Development)
 Inconsistent Project and Initiative Communications
 Goal State to Resolve
 Integrated repository which supports all levels of reporting, monitoring and
control for all IT projects
 Consistent Project Management processes across IT
 Onetime entry of critical information, closest to its source
 Integrated issue, scope, resource and risk management processes
 Quality Compliance Management

5
 Recommendation Team
 IT Groups on Tool Team
 Application Development
 Call Center Systems
 Payroll Systems
 Back Office Systems
 Lending Systems
 Loan Servicing
 Corporate Initiatives
 Shared Services
 Web Development
 IT Service Delivery
 Arch / Process Engineering
 Service Delivery PMO
 IT Infrastructure
 Process and Controls
 Quality Assurance
 Corporate PMD
 ITPO

6
 Detailed Recommendation Review
 Evaluation Team developed 118 specific requirements based on the
framework procedures and existing financial reporting requirements
 Use Cases developed based on these requirements and used as format for
vendor presentations
 Sent RFI to 5 vendors – completed vendor presentations for 6 vendors
 Received feedback (evaluation) from team participants
 Created Weighted Average Evaluation ( See attached)
 Project Team decision meeting
 Reviewed weighted average score for each vendor
 Discussed …
 complexity of tools and maturity of <Company>
 time to market – complexity of implementation
 technology
 total cost
 Training
 Completed Technical Platform Assessment
 Completed ROI
 Completed Due Diligence for final 2 vendors
 Architecture Review Committee Recommendation – Vendor 3

7
Vendor Comparison
Vendor 2
 Total Cost for solution (vendor 2): $147,000
 Hardware/Software for environment
(<Company>): $116,000 (estimated)
 Annual Support: Vendor – Free for first 12
months then option of $10,000 annual or fee
based <Company> $2,500
 More straightforward tool – more suited for
where we are today
 Small company willing to partner with
<Company> to make the tool what we need it to
be
 Vendor willing to host the pilot at no charge to
<Company>
 User friendly
 Provides functions to meet our requirements
 Vendor will provide more individualized support
– as a small company they have the flexibility to
make themselves available
 Support and any customization after
implementation are on a fee basis
Vendor 3
 Total Cost for Solution (vendor) 3: $496,820
 Hardware/Software for environment
(<Company>): $116,000 (estimated)
 Annual Support: Vendor $47,920 <Company>
$2,500
 More robust tool – can meet our needs today
but allow us to grow and expand our processes
 Large company with a focus on selling a World
Class solution
 Can implement just what we need today to
make it easier to embrace the change, but as
we grow the functions we need will be there to
support us.
 Client feedback indicates great support
 Tool supports CMM & SOP 98-1
(Capitalization) processes for several clients
 Vendor pricing includes basic support and
maintenance but they have giving <Company>
the Premium Support at no additional cost.
*Note: Detailed comparison provided in attached document. (ATC PM Tool Comparison.doc)

8
Vendor Comparison
 Vendor 3 Financials
 Gross Revenue (Last 3 Years)
 2002- $11,870,946
 2001- $17,917,318
 2000- $13,335,432
 Net Profit (Last 3 Years)
 2002- $1,604,743
 2001- $1,258,333
 2000- $1,056,839
 Staffing - Headcount :
 2002 - 202
 2001- 180
 2000- 149
 Gross Revenue-Projected (2003)
 *2003 - $26,500,000
 Cash On Hand
 2002 - $4,000,000
 2001- $2,996,000
 2000- $3,067,000
 R&D Expenditures
 2002 - $2,850,000
 2001 - $2,500,000
 2000 - $2,350,000
 Vendor 2 Financials
 Gross Revenue (Last 3 Years)
 2002- $2,100,000
 2001- $2,300,000
 2000- $3,100,000
 Staffing - Headcount :
 2003 - 20
 Vendor 2 was founded in 1998. The company
has been profitable each year of business and
is completely funded through the company’s
revenue. Vendor 2 was chosen as one of the
Sprint Winners in the St. Louis Regional
Technology Fast 50 awards program.
Recipients of this award are recognized as one
of the 50 fastest growing companies in the
region. For additional information please refer
to our Dunn and Bradstreet number
#########.

9
 Implementation Approach
 Will utilize vendor consulting services for implementation
 Will implement for a small pilot group first, complete assessment and setup for remaining IT
 Depending on the tool selected – will evaluate what functions need to be implemented to support the
Release 1 of the IT Operational Frameworks – will scale back as appropriate to lessen the impact of
change to the organization.
Success Criteria
 Support for all levels of project management (Portfolio, Program, Project and Sub-project)
 Automation support for the management of our defined processes in a practical and cost-
efficient manner
 Easy access to project, program and portfolio information across all IT resources and
locations, based on security authorization
 Comprehensive, integrated view of all IT work
 Scalable solution that will grow with our needs
 Solution that is consistent with our technology standards and is effectively integrated into our
operational environment
 Support of true “Portfolio Management Functions” as <Company> processes are defined and
implemented

10
 Risks
 Project Related
 With the existence of the <Company> Time Tracking tool utilized by IT today and the
implementation of a project management tool, we are creating an environment with
potentially two project databases. Projects will be planned, scheduled, managed and closed
out using the new tool, whereas time tracking and financial reporting will be functions of the
existing tool. The major risk with this environment is keeping the data and project status in
synch.
Note: Both tools being recommended provide time entry and financial reporting capabilities.
 Acceptance and use by IT user community.
 Potential learning curve associated with selected tool.
 Timing for Release 1 Implementation - can we procure hardware and software to meet the
11/17 pilot date
 Estimated 200 plus employees/contractors will need to attend a 1 day training class – will this
be possible given current project workload
 <Company> IT Architecture Related
 The tool selection team includes ITSD representation with technical knowledge of our
existing environment and standards to help mitigate risks in this area.
 <Company> IT Standard Software Related
 None identified
 Mitigation Plans
 To be determined based on tool selected.
 Time Tracking reports provided to each Project Manager.
 Communication and training for the IT user community.
 Vendor 2 has agreed to host the pilot to mitigate the risk of not meeting 11/17 date

11
 Next Steps
 IT Governance Approval
 Contract Negotiations
 Tool Configuration
 Time Line
 Complete “Next Steps”
 Requisition Request submitted by 10/15
 Implementation for small pilot group by 11/17
 Pilot with PM Frameworks 11/17
 Begin full rollout 01/04

12
 Supporting Documentation
 Detailed Vendor Comparison
 ROI
 IT Estimates
 Weighted Average Team Evaluation
 Vendor Due Diligence
 Vendor Financial Statements
 Vendor 2 Dunn & Bradstreet Report (Hard
copy only)

SampleDecPkg.ppt

More Related Content

Similar to SampleDecPkg.ppt (20)

More from Courtney Doutherd (6)

Recently uploaded (20)

SampleDecPkg.ppt