PROJECT PRIORITISATION - c.ymcdn.com · PDF filePROJECT PRIORITISATION APPROACH 2 Determine your prioritisation criteria and input constraints and ... Planning • Electrification

PROJECT PRIORITISATION

Alignment to Business Drivers


APPROACH

2

Determine your prioritisation criteria and

input constraints and threshold

Collect project data with standardised template

Determine most relevant costs and benefits for each project type with

business case

Consolidate information and produce reports to highlight key portfolio and project data in support of the prioritisation process

High Value

Low Value High Risk

Risk/Value Matrix : All Projects

A1

A2

A3

A4

A5

A6

A7

A8

A9

A10

A11 A12

A13

I1

I2

I3

I4

I5

I6

I7

I8

O1 O2

O3

O4

O5 O6

O7

O8

T1

T2

T3 T4

T5 T6

T7

T8

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Valu

e

Innovation Maintenance Productivity Growth

Low Risk

1 2

3

4

5

6

3

1 Setting up of Client’s Portfolio entailed the following:

Stakeholder Value Map

Business Sustainability Reliable Supply Provide Electricity for the Future Developmental Objectives

E&FS T HPS OFS

• Cost Mgt

• ROI/Cost Savings

• Invest in Core Business

• Debtors Days

• Resource utilisation

• Borrowing

• Abide by Tariff

Regulations

• Effective IT

• Customer Centricity

• Operational Excellence

• Process Mgt

• Internal Energy

Efficiency

E&FS T HPS OFS

• Coal Stock & Transport

• Plant Age

• Reduce Losses & Theft

• Regulation

• Power Delivery

Reliability

• Power Source

Reliability

• Outage, Maintenance

and Operations

• Innovation

• Monitoring

• Smart Grid

• Mobility

• Workforce Mgt

• Asset Maintenance

• Demand Side Mgt

• Manage Load

Shedding

E&FS T HPS OFS

• Carbon Reduction

(Environment)

• Secure Resources

• Capital Programme

• Water (Environment)

• Integrated Resource

Planning

• Electrification

• Coal & Bio Sourcing

• Coal & Bio Transport

• Fuel & Gas Sourcing

• IPP

• Plan for Tomorrow

E&FS T HPS OFS

• Productivity

• Growth & Employment

Contribution to Society

• Local Content

• Free Basic Electricity

• Talent Development

• Safety

• Behaviour & Culture

• Critical Skills

• Organisation

E&FS – Economic & Financial Sustainability

T – Tariffs

HPS – High Performance Shift

OFS – Organise for Success

Legend

1

SAMPLE DATA ONLY

CLIENT CASE STUDY

4

Cost Categories (Client Standard):

Capital Expenditure (CAPEX)

• Manpower - Internal

• Manpower Overtime – Internal

• Manpower – Contractors

• Hardware Purchases and

Maintenance

• Software Package Purchases and

Maintenance

• Software License Purchases and

Maintenance

• Training Course / Seminar Cost

• Travel & Subsistence (T&S) – Airfare

• T&S – Vehicle Hire

• T&S – Meal and Hotel

• T&S – Local Daily Allowance

• T&S -

• Specifically for attending Training and

Seminars

• T&S – Overseas Airfare

• T&S – Overseas Meals, Hotel,

Transport

• T&S –Overseas Daily Allowance

• T&S – Venue costs

• T&S – Catering costs

1 Setting up of Client’s Portfolio entailed the following (continued):

Business Processes:

The business processes were aligned with 5 High

Performance Areas (Level 0) and Business

Functions (Level 1)

Process Impacts were measured in terms of

following criteria:

• 1 – Weak

• 2 – Low

• 3 – Medium

• 4 – High

• 5 – Very High

Project Types:

• Strategic

• Maintenance

• Efficiency

• Regulatory/Mandatory

Dependency Types:

• Successor

• Predecessor

• Interdependency

Project Life Cycle Phases:

1. Prioritisation and Approval

2. Concept Phase

3. Design Phase

4. Execution Phase: Build & Test Stage

5. Execution Phase: Implementation Stage

6. Execution Phase: Stabilisation Stage

7. Finalisation Phase: Close out

8. Benefits Tracking Stage

Non Capital Expenditure (OPEX)

• Manpower - Internal

• Manpower Overtime – Internal

• Manpower – Contractors

• Hardware Purchases and

Maintenance

• Software Package Purchases and

Maintenance

• Software License Purchases and

Maintenance

• Training Course / Seminar Cost

• Travel & Subsistence (T&S) – Airfare

• T&S – Vehicle Hire

• T&S – Meal and Hotel

• T&S – Local Daily Allowance

• T&S -

• Specifically for attending Training and

Seminars

• T&S – Overseas Airfare

• T&S – Overseas Meals, Hotel,

Transport

• T&S –Overseas Daily Allowance

• T&S – Venue costs

• T&S – Catering costs

• Project Marketing / Advertising Costs

SAMPLE DATA ONLY

CLIENT CASE STUDY 1

5

1 Setting up of Client’s Portfolio entailed the following (continued):

Organisational Structure:

IT

Business Process Management

IT Strategy Execution &

Architecture

Solution Delivery

Service Delivery

Business Enablement

Governance, Risk & Compliance

Information Asset Management

Information Management

Resources:

Resource Category: Type: Expertise:

Project Delivery Manager Internal Senior

Portfolio Manager External Junior

Programme Manager Intermediate

Project Manager

Project Coordinator

Enterprise Architect

Solution Architect

System Analyst

Business Analyst

Developer

Project Office Manager

Project Services Manager

Project Services Officer

Project Administrators

SAMPLE DATA ONLY

CLIENT CASE STUDY 1


APPROACH

6





business case


High Value

Low Value High Risk


A1

A2

A3

A4

A5

A6

A7

A8

A9

A10

A11 A12

A13

I1

I2

I3

I4

I5

I6

I7

I8

O1 O2

O3

O4

O5 O6

O7

O8

T1

T2

T3 T4

T5 T6

T7

T8

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Valu

e


Low Risk

1 2

3

4

5

6

7

Risk Criteria Assessment:

A weighting is allocated against each Risk Criteria against the 4 different Investment Categories: TO

TAL

Clie

nt

Pro

cure

me

nt

Pro

cess

B

en

efi

ts R

eal

isat

ion

P

lan

(B

RP

) ap

pro

ved

Bu

sin

ess

Cas

e

Sen

siti

vity

Stak

eh

old

er

Alig

nm

en

t an

d

Sup

po

rt

Tech

no

logy

C

om

ple

xity

Pro

ject

Co

mp

lexi

ty

Envi

ron

me

nt

Stab

ility

Ava

ilab

ilit

y o

f Sk

ille

d

Re

sou

rce

s

De

gre

e o

f C

han

ge

Stat

em

en

t o

f W

ork

(S

OW

) in

pla

ce

Efficiency 100 10 15 15 10 5 10 10 5 10 10

Maintenance 100 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

Strategic 100 5 15 15 10 5 10 10 10 10 10

Regulatory/ Mandatory

100 10 0 0 10 10 15 15 15 15 10

Value Criteria Assessment:

A weighting is allocated against each Value Criteria against the 4 different Investment Categories:

TOTA

L

Fin

anci

al B

en

efi

ts

Cre

ate

d

Qu

alit

ativ

e B

en

efi

ts

Cre

ate

d

Tim

e t

o B

en

efi

ts

Cre

atio

n

Imp

acts

on

th

e

Pri

ori

ty V

alu

e D

rive

rs

Val

ue

at

Ris

k A

dd

ress

ed

Fou

nd

atio

n-b

uil

de

r

Win

do

w o

f O

pp

ort

un

ity

Urg

en

cy o

f St

art

Efficiency 100 10 10 10 10 15 10 20 15

Maintenance 100 10 10 10 10 10 10 20 20

Strategic 100 10 10 15 10 15 10 20 10

Regulatory/ Mandatory

100 10 10 10 10 20 15 10 15

2

SAMPLE DATA ONLY

CLIENT CASE STUDY

High-numbers =

Filter Through

High-numbers =

Catch

8

2

SAMPLE DATA ONLY

CLIENT CASE STUDY


APPROACH

9





business case


High Value

Low Value High Risk


A1

A2

A3

A4

A5

A6

A7

A8

A9

A10

A11 A12

A13

I1

I2

I3

I4

I5

I6

I7

I8

O1 O2

O3

O4

O5 O6

O7

O8

T1

T2

T3 T4

T5 T6

T7

T8

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Valu

e


Low Risk

1 2

3

4

5

6

10

Thresholds: 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 …

Scenario 1 – Costs / Risks Threshold 30 000 000 30 000 000 30 000 000 30 000 000 30 000 000

Scenario 2 – Benefits / Value Threshold

70 000 000 70 000 000 70 000 000 70 000 000 70 000 000

Scenario 3 - Resources 1 000 1 000 1 000 1 000 1 000 FTE

Organisational constraints are defined for each year in terms of working capital, expenses and resources. These constraints are used in some reports to highlight budget/resource limits.

Total Costs 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Threshold: Scenario 1 – Costs / Risks 30 000 000 30 000 000 30 000 000 30 000 000 30 000 000

All Projects 20 000 000 50 000 000 0 0 0

Prioritized projects 10 000 000 40 000 000 0 0 0

Value threshold: > 40

Risk threshold: < 100

Cost Tolerance: 10%

Project ABC

Network analysis

GIS Solution

System Replacement Project

++

++

1. GIS Solution

2. System Replacement Project

3. Project ABC

Prioritised or scenario planned

projects:

All Projects:

• The projected annual project costs are

MAZ30m (predicted for 5 year period)

• For 2012: the projected project costs for the selected as well as

the prioritised projects are: MAZ10 000 000.

• The project costs for the 2012 prioritised projects are shown in

green, indicating project costs are less than projected

• For 2013: the projected project costs for selected as well as

the prioritised projects are MAZ50 000 000

• The project costs for the 2013 prioritised projects are shown

in red, indicating project costs are more than projected

Sa

mp

le

prio

ritisa

tio

n:

SAMPLE DATA ONLY

CLIENT CASE STUDY 4&5

11

Financial Benefits Created

Qualitative Benefits Created

Time to Benefits Creation

Impacts on the Priority Value Drivers

Value at Risk Addressed

Windows of Opportunity

Procurement Process

Benefits Realisation Plan (BRP) approved

Business Case Sensitivity

Stakeholder Alignment and Support

Technology Complexity

Project Complexity

Environment Stability

Availability of Skilled Resources

Degree of Change

Statement of Work (SOW) in place

Value Criteria: Risk Criteria:

Foundation-builder

4&5

SAMPLE DATA ONLY

CLIENT CASE STUDY

12

Rev

iew

ed a

nd

ad

just

ed a

nn

ual

ly

Portfolio Setup (A)

Projects Prioritised (C)

Costs (Risks), Benefits (Value) and Resources Thresholds (D)

Investment Categories Mapped to Risk and Value (B)

List of

prioritised

projects

Cost S

ce

na

rio

Be

ne

fits

Sce

na

rio

Res

ou

rces

Sce

nar

io

Projects are now prioritised

based on direct business value

Project A

Project B

Project C

Project D

The solution allows projects to be prioritised on 3 different scenarios:

• Costs / Risks

• Benefits / Value

• Resources

Your prioritisation of projects will be based on the changing business and economic variables and it also allows

for a save environment to plan based on the changing business and economic environment.

SAMPLE DATA ONLY

CLIENT CASE STUDY Portfolio Maintenance

© 2011 Deloitte Consulting (Pty) Ltd 13

Alignment to Client’s Stakeholder Value Map


APPROACH

14





business case


High Value

Low Value High Risk


A1

A2

A3

A4

A5

A6

A7

A8

A9

A10

A11 A12

A13

I1

I2

I3

I4

I5

I6

I7

I8

O1 O2

O3

O4

O5 O6

O7

O8

T1

T2

T3 T4

T5 T6

T7

T8

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Valu

e


Low Risk

1 2

3

4

5

6

15

Issues

Management

System Refresh

System

Stabilisation

Efficiency

Efficiency

Efficiency

1,234,000 0

4,321,000

0

Pro

ject N

am

e

Cate

gory

Tota

l C

osts

Tota

l B

enefits

Data Lock Efficiency 0

System Upgrade Maintenance 0

Project ABC Regulatory /

Mandatory 0

Equipment Reliability

Process System Strategic 0

Business

Sustainability

Reliable

Supply

Provide

Electricity for

the Future

Development

al Objectives


For projects with total costs less than MAZ15m:

SAMPLE DATA ONLY

CLIENT CASE STUDY 6

1,234,000

1,234,000

1,234,000

1,234,000

1,234,000

1,234,000

16

Fuel Oil Management

System

Integrated

Control Centre

Transmission

Inventory Mgt System

Efficiency

Efficiency

Efficiency

12345

12345

12345

0

0

321

Pro

ject N

am

e

Cate

gory

Tota

l C

osts

Tota

l B

enefits

Telecom Inventory

Management System Efficiency 12345 321

System 2 Upgrade Maintenance 12345 0

Application Roll-out Regulatory /

Mandatory 12345 0

Generation

Application Roll-out 12345 0

Application

Framework 12345 321

Systems Replacement 12345 321

GIS Solution 12345 321

Business

Sustainability

Reliable

Supply

Provide

Electricity for

the Future

Development

al Objectives


Systems Services 12345 321

Regulatory /

Mandatory

Regulatory /

Mandatory

Regulatory /

Mandatory

Regulatory /

Mandatory

Regulatory /

Mandatory

For projects with total costs between MAZ15m and MAZ80m:

SAMPLE DATA ONLY

CLIENT CASE STUDY 6

17

Online Condition

Monitoring System

Hardware

Refresh

IT Infrastructure

Provisioning

Efficiency

Efficiency

Efficiency

12345

12345

12345

0

0

0

Pro

ject N

am

e

Cate

gory

Tota

l C

osts

Tota

l B

enefits

Client Stakeholder Value Map

OT Security Efficiency 12345 321

Advanced Distribution

Mgt System Efficiency 12345 0

Mobile Design &

Infrastructure Efficiency 12345 321

Unified

Communications Maintenance 12345 321

Business

Sustainability

Reliable

Supply

Provide

Electricity for

the Future

Development

al Objectives


Advanced Metering

Infrastructure

Regulatory /

Mandatory 12345 321

System 3 Regulatory /

Mandatory 12345 321

For projects with total costs greater than MAZ80m:

SAMPLE DATA ONLY

CLIENT CASE STUDY 6

18

Considering all of the projects, the following analysis can be made regarding alignment to the Client Stakeholder

Value Map:

• The majority of the projects activate the ‘Business Sustainability’ value driver.

• The least active value driver is the ‘Provide Electricity for the Future’.

• The ‘Advanced Metering Infrastructure’ project provides the largest total benefit (MAZ 12345) and activates

the ‘Reliable Supply’ value driver.

• The ‘System 3’ project is the project with the greatest total costs (MAZ 321) and it activates the ‘Business

Sustainability’ value driver.

• The following indicate the number of project per Investment Category:

‒ Strategic: 1

‒ Maintenance: 3

‒ Efficiency: 14

‒ Regulatory/Mandatory: 9

SAMPLE DATA ONLY

CLIENT CASE STUDY 6


Alignment to Client’s Business Process Groups

20

Process Impact: Great Medium Small

Legend

Pro

ject N

am

e

Cate

gory

Tota

l C

osts

Tota

l B

enefits

Business Process Alignment

Issues

Management

System Refresh

System

Stabilisation

Efficiency

Efficiency

Efficiency

12345

12345

12345

0

321

0

Data Lock Efficiency 12345 0

System Upgrade Maintenance 12345 0

Project A Regulatory /

Mandatory 12345 0

Equipment Reliability

Process System Strategic 12345 0

Tra

nsm

it a

nd

Dis

trib

ute

Ele

ctr

icity

Genera

te &

Supply

Environm

ent

Enable

the

Ente

rprise

Reta

il and

Custo

mer

Opera

tions

Manage the

Ente

rprise

For projects with total costs less than MAZ100m:

SAMPLE DATA ONLY

CLIENT CASE STUDY 6

21

Pro

ject N

am

e

Cate

gory

Tota

l C

osts

Tota

l B

enefits


Tra

nsm

it a

nd

Dis

trib

ute

Ele

ctr

icity

Genera

te &

Supply

Environm

ent

Enable

the

Ente

rprise

Reta

il and

Custo

mer

Opera

tions

Manage the

Ente

rprise

Fuel Oil Management

System

Integrated

Control Centre

Transmission

Inventory Mgt System

Efficiency

Efficiency

Efficiency

12345

12345

12345

0

0

321

Telecom Inventory

Management System Efficiency 12345 321

System Upgrade Maintenance 12345 0

Application Roll-out Regulatory /

Mandatory 12345 0

Generation

Application Roll-out 12345 0

Application

Framework 12345 321

Systems Replacement 12345 321

GIS Solution 12345 321

Systems Services 12345 321

Regulatory /

Mandatory

Regulatory /

Mandatory

Regulatory /

Mandatory

Regulatory /

Mandatory

Regulatory /

Mandatory


Legend

For projects with total costs between MAZ100m and MAZ200m:

SAMPLE DATA ONLY

CLIENT CASE STUDY 6

22


Legend

Pro

ject N

am

e

Cate

gory

Tota

l C

osts

Tota

l B

enefits


Tra

nsm

it a

nd

Dis

trib

ute

Ele

ctr

icity

Genera

te &

Supply

Environm

ent

Enable

the

Ente

rprise

Reta

il and

Custo

mer

Opera

tions

Manage the

Ente

rprise

Online Condition

Monitoring System

Hardware

Refresh

IT Infrastructure

Provisioning

Efficiency

Efficiency

Efficiency

12345

12345

12345

0

0

0

OT Security Efficiency 12345 321


Mgt System Efficiency 12345 0

Mobile Design &

Infrastructure Efficiency 12345 321

Unified

Communications Maintenance 12345 321

Advanced Metering

Infrastructure

Regulatory /

Mandatory 12345 321

System C Regulatory /

Mandatory 12345 321

For projects with total costs greater than MAZ200m:

SAMPLE DATA ONLY

CLIENT CASE STUDY 6

23

Considering all of the projects, the following analysis can be made regarding alignment to Client ‘s process

groups:

• 50% of the projects indicated a process impact specific to the ‘Enable the Enterprise’ process group.

• The following project generates the greatest process impacts:

• Systems Refresh (‘Enable the Enterprise’ process group)

• Integrated Control Centre (‘Generate & Supply Environment’)

• Advanced Metering Infrastructure (‘Transmit and Distribute Electricity’)

• The following project generated the smallest process impact:

• ‘Mobile Design & Infrastructure’ (‘Transmit and Distribute Electricity’)

• The ‘Application Framework’ project covers 80% of the process groups.

SAMPLE DATA ONLY

CLIENT CASE STUDY 6


Risk vs Value Bubble Chart

Fuel Oil

Mgt System

25

100

Risk

0

Va

lue

0

100

Plan Do

Reassess Control

Risk-Value Matrix

Size of bubble

indicates project costs

Legend

Execution phase: Build & Test phase

Design phase

Prioritisation and Approval

phase

Execution phase: Implementation

phase

ABC

D

Online Condition

Monitoring Systems

Transmission Inv. Mgt System

System X Upgrade

Telecom Inventory

Management System

Unified Communications

Mobile Design and

Infrastructure

Application

Framework

GIS Solution

IT Infrastructure

Provisioning

Advanced Metering

Infrastructure


Management System

OT Security

Hardware Refresh

Systems

Services

Systems

Replacement Project

Integrated Control

Centre

System

Refresh

Issues Mgt System Upgrade

Equipment Reliability Process System

ABC

Data

Lock

Stabilisation

All projects:

SAMPLE DATA ONLY

CLIENT CASE STUDY 6

26

Considering all of the projects, the following risk and value analysis can be made:

• 30% of the projects are high risk and high value projects, which places a premium on resources

(timelines, budgets and staff) to manage these successfully.

• 37% of the projects lies within the ‘high value, low risk’ quadrant which indicates that these projects

should be implemented in the short term (‘quick wins’).

• The ‘Systems Refresh’ is the project with the highest value as well as highest risk.

• The ‘Application Framework’ project has the highest value and manageable implementation risk.

• The ‘Stabilisation’ and the ‘Data Lock’ projects has the lowest implementation risk.

• The following indicates number of projects by phase:

‒ Prioritisation and Approval phase: 9

‒ Design phase: 6

‒ Execution: Build and Test phase: 8

‒ Execution: Implementation phase: 4

SAMPLE DATA ONLY

CLIENT CASE STUDY 6


Combined Stakeholder Value Map and Business

Process Group Alignment - Mash-up

28

Business

Sustainability Reliable Supply

Provide Electricity

for the Future

Developmental

Objectives


123,456,000 12,345,000 123,456,000 123 3,800,000 543

123,000 0 12,3456,000 0

123,446,000 543,210,000 87,654,000 12,345,000 78,110,000 432

123,456,000 123,456,000 9,876,000 0

654,321,000 321,000,000 7,654,000 8,765,000 6,543,000 9,876,000

Legend

No projects reported

Sum Total of Reported

Benefits

Sum Total of Reported

Costs

• The least amount of

projects are aligned

with the ‘Provide

Electricity for the

Future’ value driver.

• The sum total of all

projects costs is

greater than the sum

total of the monetary

benefits gained from

the projects.

• The greatest benefits

are aligned with the

‘Business

Sustainability’ value

driver and within the

‘Transmit &

Distribute Electricity’

business processes.

SAMPLE DATA ONLY

CLIENT CASE STUDY 6


Question and Answers

Thank-You

John Karageorgiou (Linked In)

[email protected]

@Art_Of_Victory (Twitter)

mailto:[email protected]

Documents

PROJECT PRIORITISATION - c.ymcdn.com · PDF filePROJECT PRIORITISATION APPROACH 2 Determine your prioritisation criteria and input constraints and ... Planning • Electrification