Upload
nasapmc
View
12.782
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Citation preview
NASA Ames Research Center OCIOAligning project prioritization to the
organizational roadmap
Vonnie Simonsen, PMPFebruary, 2011
Just How Important is Your Project?
Outline
Abstract Dilemma NASA Ames Research Center (ARC) OCIO Project Challenges Addressing the Gaps Selection & Prioritization High-level Process Requirements Leveraging GAO Best Practices Selecting the Appropriate Projects Select Process Overview Prioritization Evaluation Scorecard
2
Abstract
This presentation will discuss the development of the project prioritization approach, how it aligns to overall organizational goals and objectives, and the resulting benefits to the organization. It will also provide an overview of the governance structure.
3
Abstract
The NASA Ames Research Center OCIO has developed and implemented an agnostic approach to prioritizing projects within the directorate
The process allows for defining which projects are deemed most important by the organization and increases the effectiveness of work being accomplished that aligns to organizational and agency goals
The visual representation of the project prioritization on the OCIO dashboard provides the entire organization a clear understanding of the efforts deemed most important by the senior leadership
4
Dilemma
5
According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO) Accounting and Information Management Division:
“Poor investments, those that are inadequately justified or whose costs, risks, and benefits are poorly managed, can hinder and even restrict an organization’s performance.”1
1 Assessing Risks and Returns: A Guide for Evaluating Federal Agencies’ IT Investment Decision-making, GAO/AIMD-10.1.13
6
o Controlled cost, risk, and value (benefit) within the context of IT strategic mission
o Captured accurate estimates regarding scope, schedule, and cost early in the conceptual phase of lifecycle
o Captured over taxation of resources
o Discerned opportunity cost impacts across all proposed projects
o Allocated the proper resources and capabilities to the right efforts
o Ensured consistent and reliable results through objective, quantifiable criteria
o Communicated prioritizes throughout the organization
NASA ARC OCIO Project Challenges
• Project costs not controlled
• Competing resources across several projects
• Resources not managed efficiently
NASA ARC OCIO recognized consistent challenges in the ability to “on-board” proposed projects in a way that.…
Main challenges
7
NASA ARC OCIO Project Challenges (cont.)
Lack of project prioritization lead to:
Confusion as to which projects should be given attention by competing resources
Lack of consistent standards and messaging regarding importance of particular projects
Misallocation of resources to IT projects that did not best support mission and organizational needs
If everything is a priority then nothing is really a priority!
8
In order to address the lack of project prioritization:
Major Directorate selection and prioritization requirement gaps were identified
Industry and Government best practices were evaluated
GAO high level concepts for prioritization guidelines were adopted
Prioritization Scorecard was developed
Addressing the Gaps
Selection & Prioritization High-Level Process Requirements
High-Level Requirements:
• Align with NASA ARC Code I Project Management Office (PMO) NPR 7120.7 based framework
• Provide a governance framework for decision-making determinations on all proposed projects
• Capture high-level business needs
• Allow for screening and selection of proposed projects
• Ensure alignment of proposed projects with mission objectives
• Provide visibility into proposed project pipeline to better align project resources and determine priorities
9
Major requirements to address gaps were identified for the selection and prioritization process:
Leveraging GAO Best Practices
10
GAO best practice recommends that a successful IT investment management process have three fundamental phases:
» Select – How do you know you have selected the best projects?
o Project “on-boarding” process
» Control – How are you ensuring that the projects will deliver the promised benefits?
o PMO framework using 7120.7
» Evaluate – Are the solutions delivering what you expected?
o Project Completion Reviews (PCRs)
In addressing the needed requirements for development of the selection and prioritization process, NASA ARC OCIO leveraged GAO guidance on IT investment decision-making (GAO/AIMD-10.1.13)
How do you Select the appropriate projects?
We will focus exclusively on the select phase by outlining key steps incorporated into NASA ARC OCIO “on-boarding” process
Select phase represents the first stage in the “on-boarding” process
3 steps comprise the select phase:
11
1) Screen• Establish initial acceptance requirements all
proposed projects must meet• Ensure all proposed projects are being reviewed at
the most appropriate organizational level
2) Rank• All proposed projects meeting initial acceptance
requirements are analyzed based using GAO recommended minimum criteria of value (benefit), cost, and risk
• Evaluation score results in overall ranking
3) Determine• OCIO makes final project portfolio and prioritization
IT investment determination
12
• Establish initial acceptance requirements all proposed projects must meet
• Ensure proposed projects are being reviewed at the most appropriate organizational level
• All proposed projects meeting initial acceptance requirements are analyzed using NASA ARC OCIO criteria of value (benefit), cost, risk, and intangibles
• Evaluation score results in overall ranking
• ARC OCIO makes final project portfolio and prioritization IT investment determination
Screen
Rank
Determine
• Allow for screening and selection of proposed projects
• Capture high-level business needs
• Provide visibility into proposed project pipeline to better align project resources and determine priorities
• Ensure alignment of proposed projects with mission objectives
Business NeedQualification
Business NeedRefinement
Select PhaseNASA ARC OCIO
Process RequirementNASA ARC OCIO
Process Step
1
Select Process Overview
Proposal3
2
Selection Process Alignment with PMO Framework At a Glance
13
Phase AConcept
Development
Phase BPreliminary
Design
Acquisition, Development & Implementation
KDP - CKDP - B
Customer Decision Pt
Phase C, D, EFinal Design & Build
Assembly, Integration, TestDeployment & Operations
Alignment to PMO FrameworkInitial Request Evaluation
OCIODecision Pt
Selection Control
Eva
luat
ion
Business CaseDevelopment
Business NeedQualification
Business NeedRefinement
Proposal
PreliminaryDesign
“On-boarding” selection steps aligned to NASA ARC OCIO Project Management Office Framework
1 2 3
A B
OCIO Decision Pt
C
Screen Rank Determine
What special considerations must be
considered?
14
Evaluation criteria used for the select phase include factors for cost, value (benefit), risk, and intangibles
Basis of PrioritizationEvaluation Criteria
15
Prioritization Evaluation Scorecard
NASA ARC OCIO has developed evaluation scorecard containing specific questions and point values for all evaluation criteria
*Scorecard model adopted from the Value Measuring Methodology (VMM), CIO Council Best Practices Committee, October 2002
• DME• Ops. & Maint.• Resources
• Direct Users• Organization/Strategic• Mission
• Schedule• Technical• Programmatic• Security
• Special ConsiderationsScorecard
Cost
100 Pts Total
Value
Risk
Intangibles
30 Pts Total
30 Pts Total
20 Pts Total
20 Pts Total
16
Several approaches considered in devising suitable point values for each criteria
Higher point values considered for proposed projects that indicate/show the following (by factor):» Cost
• Realistic preliminary estimates for labor (FTE, WYE) and procurement (hardware/software) • Sustainability to the overall organization via Operations & Maintenance (O&M) efficiencies
» Risk• Low risk to the organization in the area of schedule, technical, programmatic, and security • Availability and utilization of “in-house” resources
» Value (Benefit)• Support a mission directorate, and/or align to OCIO strategic mission objectives • Show a strong EA alignment
Evaluation Criteria
17
Prioritization Ranking Example
Proposed Project Name
Estimated Project Costs/Year
Value (Benefit)(30 pts)
Cost(30 pts)
Risk(20 pts)
Intangibles (20 pts)
Total Score (100 pts)
Project 01 $375K 30 20 20 10 80
Project 02 $250K 30 20 20 7 77
Project 03 $500K 20 25 20 10 75
Project 04 $675K 15 25 20 5 65
Project 05 $150K 20 20 20 0 60
Project 06 $275K 10 25 20 5 60
Project 07 $300K 20 15 15 0 50
Project 08 $1,000K 5 10 20 10 45
Project 09 $100K 10 15 10 5 40
Project 10 $500K 15 10 5 0 30
Ap
pro
ved
PrioritizationEvaluation Scorecard
18
19
Basis of PrioritizationEvaluation Criteria Details
• DME (Development, Modification, Enhancement)
• O&M (Operations & Maintenance)
• Human Resources
• Direct Users• Organization/Strategic• Mission
• Schedule• Technical• Programmatic• Security
• Executive Management special considerations
What special considerations must be
considered?
Sample: NASA ARC OCIO Prioritization Scorecard*
20*Scorecard model adopted from Value Measuring Methodology (VMM) how-to-guide
Prioritization Scorecard:Understanding Cost Criteria
21
• DME• O&M• Human Resources
How MuchWill It Cost?
22
Prioritization Scorecard:Understanding Value (Benefit) Criteria
• Direct Users• Organization/Strategic• Mission
What Benefits Will It Provide?
23
• Schedule• Technical• Programmatic• Security
Prioritization Scorecard:Understanding Risk Criteria
What Could Make Costs Go Up or
Performance Slip From Projected
Levels?
Prioritization Scorecard:Understanding Cost Criteria
24
What special considerations
must be considered?
• Special Considerations
25
Selection process ensures that the NASA ARC OCIO
Matures its capabilities via a repeatable and efficient methodology for choosing IT projects that will best support mission needs and benefit
Makes smarter IT investment decisions
Prioritizes projects to better align resources to meet current and future project needs
Maintains a consistent set of standards and messaging around the importance of priority projects
In Conclusion. . .