Program Manager, PPM&PMO Specialist.| Coppel, Mexico.Culiacán, Sinaloa, Mexico
In my organization, they’ve just updated the project health indicators. This exercise is done annually, but in your experience, how often are these indicators updated in your organization? And how often do you think they should be updated? I feel that the indicators don’t fully mature when they’re changed so frequently, and it gives me the impression that they might not be properly defined Saving Changes...
Senior Projects Manager | Field & Marten AssociatesNew Westminster, British Columbia, Canada
Francisco, from my experience, the frequency with which project health indicators are updated can vary widely between organizations. Some update them quarterly or semi-annually, while others like yours, opt for annual updates. The pace of change in the business, the complexity of the projects, and the need for real-time insights are key factors in determining this frequency.
That said, updating indicators too frequently can present challenges. Rapid changes can obscure meaningful trends and make it harder to track consistent progress over time. For indicators to truly mature and become reliable benchmarks, they need time to prove their relevance. Constant changes can disrupt this process and lead to inconsistency in how projects are assessed.
In light of the aforementioned, I recommend adopting a more balanced approach. Core indicators should remain stable for a period of one to two years, with updates only occurring when there is a significant shift in the organization’s strategy, project types, or external conditions. This approach allows the indicators to mature, offering more valuable insights over time. At the same time, minor adjustments can still be made to ensure they remain relevant and aligned with any incremental changes in the business.
Hope this makes sense.
...
1 reply by Francisco Herrera
Jan 24, 2025 6:11 PM
Francisco Herrera
...
Rami, I agree with your perspective. Maintaining core indicators stable for a period of one to two years while allowing minor adjustments for incremental changes strikes a good balance. This approach ensures consistency, enables meaningful trend analysis, and supports the maturity of indicators, all while remaining adaptable to significant shifts in strategy or external conditions.Thanks!
Saving Changes...
Thomas WalentaGlobal Project Economy ExpertHackenheim, Germany
Hi Francisco, updating health indicators can be a healthy sign of incorporating lessons learned and growing maturity. That's what we did at IBM when we updated our risk checklist - permanently.
A certain stability is introduced by clustering indicators into categories, following some standard.
If those updates result in significant changes (e.g., new categories of indicators), it is instead a sign that the organization's maturity needs improvement.
...
1 reply by Francisco Herrera
Jan 27, 2025 11:43 AM
Francisco Herrera
...
Thomas it make sense! Updating health indicators, like we did with our risk checklist at IBM, reflects a positive evolution and a commitment to continuous improvement. Categorizing indicators enhances consistency and stability. However, frequent and significant changes to the framework might suggest a need to address underlying maturity gaps within the organization.
Thanks for you answer!
It should come down to "why" the indicators are being changed. If it is to fit an arbitrary frequency or schedule, that isn't good, but if there is a feedback loop in place that shows there is a benefit in changing what is being measured and reported, that's different.
Kiron
...
1 reply by Francisco Herrera
Jan 27, 2025 7:10 PM
Francisco Herrera
...
Hi Kiron, you’re absolutely right that the "why" is key. I don’t see an issue with adapting indicators based on meaningful feedback, but I agree that adjusting them solely to match a specific frequency or schedule wouldn’t be ideal. It’s all about aligning with the project’s goals and value.
Program Manager, PPM&PMO Specialist.| Coppel, Mexico.Culiacán, Sinaloa, Mexico
Jan 22, 2025 7:15 PM
Replying to Rami Kaibni
...
Francisco, from my experience, the frequency with which project health indicators are updated can vary widely between organizations. Some update them quarterly or semi-annually, while others like yours, opt for annual updates. The pace of change in the business, the complexity of the projects, and the need for real-time insights are key factors in determining this frequency.
That said, updating indicators too frequently can present challenges. Rapid changes can obscure meaningful trends and make it harder to track consistent progress over time. For indicators to truly mature and become reliable benchmarks, they need time to prove their relevance. Constant changes can disrupt this process and lead to inconsistency in how projects are assessed.
In light of the aforementioned, I recommend adopting a more balanced approach. Core indicators should remain stable for a period of one to two years, with updates only occurring when there is a significant shift in the organization’s strategy, project types, or external conditions. This approach allows the indicators to mature, offering more valuable insights over time. At the same time, minor adjustments can still be made to ensure they remain relevant and aligned with any incremental changes in the business.
Hope this makes sense.
Rami, I agree with your perspective. Maintaining core indicators stable for a period of one to two years while allowing minor adjustments for incremental changes strikes a good balance. This approach ensures consistency, enables meaningful trend analysis, and supports the maturity of indicators, all while remaining adaptable to significant shifts in strategy or external conditions.Thanks! Saving Changes...
Consultant| Canarys Automation LtdBangalore, Karnataka, India
In my experience, using well-defined metrics can provide a clearer picture of project health. Metrics such as Defect Density and Burn-Up Charts are valuable for tracking quality and progress. Other useful metrics include:
Schedule Variance (SV): To track whether the project is ahead or behind schedule.
Cost Performance Index (CPI): To monitor if the project is staying within budget.
Velocity: To measure the amount of work completed in each sprint (in agile projects).
Customer Satisfaction (CSAT): To gauge stakeholder happiness with the project's progress or deliverables.
While annual updates to project health indicators ensure alignment with organizational goals, frequent changes can hinder their effectiveness. I recommend assessing their impact and refining them based on data trends and organizational needs. Consistent tracking of these metrics can enhance decision-making and maintain focus on critical success factors.
...
1 reply by Francisco Herrera
Jan 28, 2025 6:48 PM
Francisco Herrera
...
Ashwin it sounds good! Annual updates strike a good balance for alignment, while consistent tracking ensures meaningful insights. Frequent changes should indeed be based on clear data trends and organizational priorities to maintain focus and effectiveness. Thanks!
Program Manager, PPM&PMO Specialist.| Coppel, Mexico.Culiacán, Sinaloa, Mexico
Jan 23, 2025 1:20 AM
Replying to Thomas Walenta
...
Hi Francisco, updating health indicators can be a healthy sign of incorporating lessons learned and growing maturity. That's what we did at IBM when we updated our risk checklist - permanently.
A certain stability is introduced by clustering indicators into categories, following some standard.
If those updates result in significant changes (e.g., new categories of indicators), it is instead a sign that the organization's maturity needs improvement.
Thomas it make sense! Updating health indicators, like we did with our risk checklist at IBM, reflects a positive evolution and a commitment to continuous improvement. Categorizing indicators enhances consistency and stability. However, frequent and significant changes to the framework might suggest a need to address underlying maturity gaps within the organization.
Thanks for you answer! Saving Changes...
Program Manager, PPM&PMO Specialist.| Coppel, Mexico.Culiacán, Sinaloa, Mexico
Jan 23, 2025 7:58 AM
Replying to Kiron Bondale
...
Francisco -
It should come down to "why" the indicators are being changed. If it is to fit an arbitrary frequency or schedule, that isn't good, but if there is a feedback loop in place that shows there is a benefit in changing what is being measured and reported, that's different.
Kiron
Hi Kiron, you’re absolutely right that the "why" is key. I don’t see an issue with adapting indicators based on meaningful feedback, but I agree that adjusting them solely to match a specific frequency or schedule wouldn’t be ideal. It’s all about aligning with the project’s goals and value. Saving Changes...
Program Manager, PPM&PMO Specialist.| Coppel, Mexico.Culiacán, Sinaloa, Mexico
Jan 25, 2025 7:14 AM
Replying to Ashwin Kumar H M
...
In my experience, using well-defined metrics can provide a clearer picture of project health. Metrics such as Defect Density and Burn-Up Charts are valuable for tracking quality and progress. Other useful metrics include:
Schedule Variance (SV): To track whether the project is ahead or behind schedule.
Cost Performance Index (CPI): To monitor if the project is staying within budget.
Velocity: To measure the amount of work completed in each sprint (in agile projects).
Customer Satisfaction (CSAT): To gauge stakeholder happiness with the project's progress or deliverables.
While annual updates to project health indicators ensure alignment with organizational goals, frequent changes can hinder their effectiveness. I recommend assessing their impact and refining them based on data trends and organizational needs. Consistent tracking of these metrics can enhance decision-making and maintain focus on critical success factors.
Ashwin it sounds good! Annual updates strike a good balance for alignment, while consistent tracking ensures meaningful insights. Frequent changes should indeed be based on clear data trends and organizational priorities to maintain focus and effectiveness. Thanks! Saving Changes...
Product Operations Program ManagerBarcelona, Cataluña, Spain
Hi Francisco Herrera, thanks for bringing up this topic. Do you mind elaborating which these new indicators are and which stakeholders have contributed in their definition? Saving Changes...
Program Manager, PPM&PMO Specialist.| Coppel, Mexico.Culiacán, Sinaloa, Mexico
Hi Eduard,
The new indicators have been defined,supposedly, through a collaborative effort between the Central PMO and Senior Management. These key performance indicators (KPIs) focus on the following areas:
Time – Measuring adherence to project schedules and milestones.
Budget – Monitoring financial performance and ensuring cost control.
Risk Management – Assessing risk identification, mitigation, and response effectiveness.
Deliverables Evaluation – Ensuring quality and alignment with acceptance criteria.
These indicators have been designed to enhance project oversight and decision-making, aligning with organizational priorities. Let me know if you need further details!
Community Champion
