Project Management Central

Please login or join to subscribe to this thread

Topics: IT Project Management, PMO
We are a PMO that has functions of portfolios in an IT area for digital transformation of the company, and we have to group the projects into programs and portfolios.
Network:47



Can you please advise me on how to group software or technology development projects into portfolios according to their technology?
We are a PMO that has functions of portfolios in an IT area for digital transformation of the company, and we have to group the projects into programs and portfolios.
Sort By:
Network:1275



Francisco -

There is no single objective definition for programs which applies across all companies. One company's program might just be managed as a large project by another.

If there is an overriding theme or outcome for an initiative, it will span a long duration and have a sufficiently high cost and benefit estimate to justify the overhead, then structuring it as a program might be advisable. Large scale upgrades, data center moves, significant legacy application replacements or major initiatives tied to a specific legislation or regulation could all be candidates.

Portfolios are structured to help governance committees and other decision makers make well informed investment decisions. One way in which this could be done for technology might be to separate truly mandatory projects from discretionary ones. You could also define portfolios by technology stack.

As always, it depends!

Kiron
Network:47



Thanks a lot for your answer Kiron, Could you please give me examples of technology stacks? Or a good source where I can check this stacks?

Best Regards, Francisco
...
1 reply by Kiron Bondale
Jan 24, 2018 3:42 PM
Kiron Bondale
...
Sure Francisco -

You could organize portfolios by technology provider (e.g. Microsoft vs. Java) or by location (e.g. on premise vs cloud/hosted) if that aligns with the decision making authority and functional structure of the organization. However, I'd prefer to go with a model which is not technology-centric to ensure that you don't have optimization of the part but sub-optimization of the whole.

Kiron
Network:1275



Jan 24, 2018 3:19 PM
Replying to Francisco Herrera
...
Thanks a lot for your answer Kiron, Could you please give me examples of technology stacks? Or a good source where I can check this stacks?

Best Regards, Francisco
Sure Francisco -

You could organize portfolios by technology provider (e.g. Microsoft vs. Java) or by location (e.g. on premise vs cloud/hosted) if that aligns with the decision making authority and functional structure of the organization. However, I'd prefer to go with a model which is not technology-centric to ensure that you don't have optimization of the part but sub-optimization of the whole.

Kiron
Network:47



Sounds good! thanks for your answer! FHQ.
Network:130



As Kiron says above, "It depends". There is no 'right way' to organize or group your projects. And there are certainly a number of different ways as suggested. One very simple thought here would be to go to your local Barnes and Noble or other book store in the information technology section and simply examine how the subject matter is presented/sorted. Not a perfect solution but it would certainly be a start.
Network:137



Francisco,
I not only agree with both Kiron and Ronald that "it depends", I can say without a shadow of a doubt that there is an entire engineering science devoted to answering that question.

At the core of your question, I believe you are trying to define your own system architecture: "How do I best organize the information I have about what we are trying to do, in order to be the most descriptive, yet in a succinct format so that it is manageable?"

If you are working on "digital transformation" you are trying to re-architect your system. System architectures are broken out into different views because no one view alone tells the whole story well. Commonly we think about the physical view (what are the pieces fitting together?), functional view (what is the value of the things we do?), and in project management, an organizational view (who are the people doing the work?). The better they align, the easier things get.

If you are building a physical server farm, organizing portfolios by physical architecture might be best. If you are trying to develop a suite of applications to cover a solution space (e.g. Microsoft Office), organization by function might be better. If you are more interested in project throughput within the organization, you might organize the projects themselves based on the prime knowledge areas involved.

At the end of the day, how they are grouped is only as effective is how well that enables them to be executed as projects, so thinking about how you plan to manage the projects will give you better insight into how to organize them into portfolios.
Network:2090



By technology may be hard to maintain and not sustainable long-term. I'd suggest matching with the verticals within the organization - also will help with financials and budgeting; i.e., Digital, Commercial, Corporate, etc.

But it depends :)
Network:461



Grouping the projects into programs and portfolios should be more like a library catalogue. You arrive at an understanding of WHY(purpose)-WHO(leadership)-WHAT(scope). Also, one of the key objectives could be how does it reduce the cost for the organization along with standardization of practices.
Network:1735



I fully agree with @Keith here. I fully support that this is the line of thinking to follow to be success. Perhaps because it is the way I followed from years including I am in charge of this type of initiatives in my actual work place and I have "to fight" a lot to sell that idea and to demostrate its efficiency. The last statement on @Keith comment is critical to understand. If you are searching for a receipt you will not find it and perhaps here is when some people is answering "it depends".

Please login or join to reply

Content ID:
ADVERTISEMENTS

"Always do right. This will gratify some people and astonish the rest."

- Mark Twain

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsors