As technology becomes ever more critical to business success, changes are coming in IT governance that tighten its relationship to strategic objectives. Here, analysts discuss the business basis for the shift.
How do you measure the success of projects in your portfolio? Cost and schedule, of course — but other criteria should be included to gain a more holistic perspective. And the concept of tolerances should be understood and applied to any evaluation of success (or failure).
A new federal report outlines 25 ways to reform the government’s IT programs, including creating a career path for program managers and building greater transparency into project portfolios. Essential elements transfer private-sector wisdom to the public agencies struggling to realize benefit for the billions expended. Industry supporters laud the plan and its clear accountability.
Project managers wear many hats, but if we are continuously multi-tasking we run the risk of paying partial attention to important activities. Striking the right balance between multi-tasking and focusing on singular, critical tasks is the key to getting things done. Here are some suggestions.
Some organizations spend too much money on internal projects and fail to drive revenue; some play it safe with too many low-risk, low-reward projects; and others focus mainly on strategic projects, neglecting short-term tactical needs. The use of balance points can better optimize the portfolio.
What are the common reasons that projects fall into troubled waters and what steps can be taken to get them back on the right path? Depending on the organization you work in and your level of authority, appropriate responses will vary, but here some corrective actions that span many situations.
There is no such thing as a perfect methodology. Each has advantages and disadvantages. Each has situations they handle well and situations where their use will spell disaster. Unfortunately, most organizations choose simplicity over common sense. A better way begins with some questions.
To strengthen its management and oversight capabilities, a National Science Foundation Science and Technology Center turned to project management. But it needed a model that suited the academic research environment. It created a unique application of processes and tools developed in collaboration with the researchers, rooted in simplified practices, and dedicated to flexibility and applicability. The results have been remarkable.
In the face of unmet requirements and slipped deadlines, how do you begin to catch up? Can a better process erase previous shortfalls? Not overnight. Here are suggestions for making realistic progress through ruthless prioritization, transparency and positivity (which is not the same as magical thinking).
In part three of our series, here is an overview of the key planning activities, sub-processes and deliverables involved in requirements planning, which should be driven by the business analyst as a member of the project team.