Project Portfolio Management Planning: A Method for Prioritizing Projects

Transcription

1 Portfolio Management Planning: A Method for Prioritizing s Presented by: Mike Ross, Chief Engineer Galorath Incorporated 100 North Sepulveda Boulevard Suite 1801 El Segundo, California (o) (f) mross@galorath.com

2 Summary Software Management Software Planning, Software Tracking and Oversight Portfolio Management Portfolio Planning, Portfolio Tracking and Oversight Measurement objectifies management Size, Technology Time, Effort, Defects Size and Technology are Uncertain Uncertainty Confidence Effort, Confidence Risk-Adjusted Investment Pairwise Comparison Process Relative Return Risk-Adjusted Investment, Relative Return RARROI Portfolio Sorted by RARROI Priority, Budget Cut Line

3 SEI CMM Software Management KPAs Software Planning Software Tracking and Oversight

4 Portfolio Planning Portfolio Tracking and Oversight Portfolio Management Key Elements

5 Fundamental Measures Size Effective Technology Time Effort, Cost, Staffing Defects

6 Software Management Measurement Process Planning PROJECT PLANNING Predict future performance Tracking PROJECT TRACKING AND OVERSIGHT Control current performance Learning PROCESS MANAGEMENT Learn from past performance Facilitates communication that is: Objective (fact-based) Repeatable Learning Planning Tracking

7 Estimate Defined es ti mate (es ti mit), n. an approximate judgment or calculation, as of the value or amount of something a prediction that is equally likely to be above or below the actual result (Tom DeMarco)

8 Brooks Law Quote: Adding people to a late project makes it later. Interpretation: Productivity is inversely proportional to some function of the project s average staffing rate. Assumptions (based on regression analysis of historical data): The function is a power function. The exponent (beta) represents process entropy and is approximately 0.5. The constant of proportionality represents effective technology. Size Effort Size Effort 2 Effort Time Technology a Effort Time = 2 0.5

9 Software Equation Conceptually Simplified Effort 0.5 Time = Size Technology The family of project time-effort solutions depends on the software s size and the project s effective technology As the size goes up, the effort and/or time goes up As the effective technology goes up, the effort and/or time goes down As the time goes up, the effort goes down

10 Software Development Dynamics Complexity Limit Idealized Tradeoff Effort (person-months) Minimum Time Impossible Inefficient Optimal Effort For a Given Size and Technology Elapsed Calendar Time (months) Michael A. ROSS Consulting & Training 2002 Reprinted by Galorath Inc. with permission from ROSS

11 Uncertainty and Confidence = Goals Effort (person-months) Effort Confidence (%) TIME Confidence (%) For a Given Size & Technology Elapsed Calendar Time (months) Michael A. ROSS Consulting & Training 2002 Reprinted by Galorath with permission from ROSS

12 Low Confidence (Risky) Effort (less time more effort, cost, defects) Effort (person-months) Effort Confidence (%) TIME Confidence (%) = Goals For a Given Size & Technology Elapsed Calendar Time (months) Michael A. ROSS Consulting & Training 2002 Reprinted by Galorath with permission from ROSS

13 Low Confidence (Risky) Schedule (more time less effort, cost, defects) = Goals Effort (person-months) Effort Confidence (%) Elapsed Calendar Time (months) For a Given TIME Size & Confidence Technology (%) Michael A. ROSS Consulting & Training 2002 Reprinted by Galorath with permission from ROSS

14 Balanced Risk = Goals Effort (person-months) Effort Confidence (%) TIME Confidence (%) For a Given Size & Technology Elapsed Calendar Time (months) Michael A. ROSS Consulting & Training 2002 Reprinted by Galorath with permission from ROSS

15 Reduced Uncertainty = Goals Effort (person-months) Effort Confidence (%) TIME Confidence (%) For a Given Size & Technology Elapsed Calendar Time (months) Michael A. ROSS Consulting & Training 2002 Reprinted by Galorath with permission from ROSS

16 What About This One? = Goals Effort (person-months) Effort Confidence (%) TIME Confidence (%) For a Given Size & Technology Elapsed Calendar Time (months) Michael A. ROSS Consulting & Training 2002 Reprinted by Galorath with permission from ROSS

17 Expressing Uncertainty Estimates of Size and Technology expressed as single point values don t tell the whole story: How confident am I in this value; i.e., what is the probability of not exceeding this value? How certain am I in this value; i.e., how wide is the probability distribution? Three-point estimates are better: LEAST: 1% Probability; I can t imagine the result being any smaller than this. LIKELY: Best Guess; If I were forced to pick one value, this would be it. MOST: 99% Probability; I can t imagine the result being any larger than this.

18 Managing Risk Probability of Success > 99% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% < 1% Cost Expect (50%) Commit (maybe 80%) Michael A. ROSS Consulting & Training 2002 Reprinted by Galorath Inc. with permission from ROSS

19 Portfolio Planning Process Data Flow

20 Structured Estimating Process Data Flow

21 Example Decision Hierarchy for Return Parameters

22 AccuScope Comparison Options i having much smaller impact than j. i having smaller impact than j. i having a slightly smaller impact as j. i having equal impact as j. i having slightly bigger impact than j. i having bigger impact than j. i having a much bigger impact than j.

23 Analytic Hierarchy Process Relative Importance Ratio Mapping

24 Arbitrarily-Selected Relative Baseline

25 Other s Relative to Baseline

26 Individual Pairwise Comparison

27 Example Parameter Importance to the Overall Return Pairwise Comparison Matrix Return Parameters i Customer Satisfaction Productivity Improvement Customer Satisfaction j Productivity Improvement Relative Weight Normalized Weight

28 Example Importance to Customer Satisfaction Pairwise Comparison Matrix Customer Satisfaction i Much Much 6 7 Much Equal Equal j Equal 8 Equal 9 10 Equal Equal Relative Weight (AccuScope) Normalized Weight

29 Example Importance to Productivity Improvement Pairwise Comparison Matrix Productivity Improvement i Equal Equal j Much Much 8 9 Equal Equal Equal Much Equal Relative Weight (AccuScope) Normalized Weight

30 Risk-Adjusted Relative Return on Investment Calculation RARROI P = n i= 1 I RW C i i RARROI P is the Risk Adjusted Relative Return on Investment for project P. R i is the normalized project relative importance for the i th return parameter. W i is normalized relative parameter importance (weight) for the i th return parameter. I C is normalized relative investment (cost of ownership) with confidence percentage C where C represents the enterprise standard risk tolerance (desired probability of success).

31 Example RARROI Calculations RARROI Computations Before Sorting Name Investment 80% Confidence Estimated Cost of Ownership Relative Weight Return Customer Satisfaction Productivity Improvement Relative Parameter Value Relative Parameter Weight Relative Parameter Value Relative Parameter Weight RARROI Cumulative Investment $ 28, $ 28, $ 237, $ 265, $ 304, $ 570, $ 173, $ 743, $ 283, $ 1,026, $ 680, $ 1,706, $ 68, $ 1,774, $ 108, $ 1,883, $ 200, $ 2,083, $ 87, $ 2,170,000.00

32 Example Ranking with Budget Cut Line RARROI Computations Sorted by Descending RARROI with Budget Cut Line Shown Name Investment 80% Confidence Estimated Cost of Ownership Relative Weight Return Customer Satisfaction Productivity Improvement Relative Parameter Value Relative Parameter Weight Relative Parameter Value Relative Parameter Weight RARROI Cumulative Investment $ 68, $ 68, $ 28, $ 96, $ 108, $ 205, $ 173, $ 378, $ 283, $ 661, $ 304, $ 966, $ 87, $ 1,053, $ 200, $ 1,253, $ 237, $ 1,490, $ 680, $ 2,170,000.00

33 Summary Revisited Software Management Software Planning, Software Tracking and Oversight Portfolio Management Portfolio Planning, Portfolio Tracking and Oversight Measurement objectifies management Size, Technology Time, Effort, Defects Size and Technology are Uncertain Uncertainty Confidence Effort, Confidence Risk-Adjusted Investment Pairwise Comparison Process Relative Return Risk-Adjusted Investment, Relative Return RARROI Portfolio Sorted by RARROI Priority, Budget Cut Line