November 5, 2020, 8:30 a.m. to 6 p.m. EDT | November 6, 2020 – February 7, 2021, On-Demand | Online Conference
Please login or join to subscribe to this thread
In my actual work place I was in charge to create what we call "one page report". The indicators on project/program/portfolio health are: overall, financial, schedule, resource, scope, risk/issues. Each one get a color because a calculated reason.
There is a really good reason to include a resource indicator which has nothing to do with capacity. Projects are delivered by people and if team morale is low, that is something which needs to be highlighted to leadership. I've always recommended having measures for team and key stakeholder satisfaction on such reports - you can decide how objective/formal to go about evaluating this.
Resource issues are a leading indicator that may be identified before it shows up on cost, schedule, or scope. They may also be included in risks and issues, but in many cases it is a systemic problem and deserves individual attention.
What it is of value on the dashboard is dependent on the business environment. If it's only an occasional problem, it may be covered under specific team risks. Dashboards should be customized to highlight the specific metrics which help drive the business. Likewise you don't mention supplier health, but in some business environments that may deserve its own spot on the dashboard if that is the risk area that is prevalent across programs.
I've found resource indicators to be more telling when looking at the full list of in-flight projects and the backlog of waiting projects, to gain a better understanding of when resources will be available to work on upcoming projects, potentially identify small initiatives that can be knocked out quickly between larger projects, and if we need to hire contractors to fill the gaps. This is not to say that there is no value at the individual project level, it's just good to be aware of the larger picture.
I'd like to be able to recommend a good tool for doing this, but it's mostly been a list in Excel and discussions with managers.
Numerical limits are one approach and can work well for EVM type metrics. I've also implemented risk based approaches where we use a 5x5 risk grid where metrics are difficult to objectively measure. (How likely is it for the qualification test to fail, considering we're trying very hard to pass?) In experience, if 4 people were to rate the same risk, they come all within 1 square on the grid. That's fine. Pick a spot and don't worry about being exact. The conversation among the team of WHY everyone put it about the same place on the grid is far more valuable than whether we picked Yellow or Red for the stoplight on the one pager.
Kiron and Sergio made good points
Please login or join to reply