I just read something that said “avoid subjective prioritization” of the project portfolio beyond the triage of the initial project request. The problem with this statement is that it implies something that actually isn’t true. All project portfolio prioritization is subjective. It can be transparent. It can be the result of a consensus but a consensus around prioritization doesn’t make it any more objective, especially if the word “objective” is intended to be shorthand for fact-based. If anyone out there is tempted to shout at me that projects with ROIs have a factual basis then I will be forced to conclude that they’ve never sat next to a pro while she creatively comes up with a great looking set of numbers.
About a month ago I spent some time with a client who was attempting to derive an “objective” approach to Project Portfolio Management. They thought that weighting different factors somehow made it more objective. When we reviewed all their work I offered the opinion that if they stopped worrying about weighting factors and scoring models, what they had developed was excellent set of questions for consensus building that would by itself aid senior management in making more informed decisions about the real prioritizes for the organization.
Now on the flip side of this discussion I’m a huge fan of tangible benefit statements. A Benefit doesn’t need to be financial but it does need to be uniquely trackable in order to attempt to tie the result to the investment. From my point of view I’d rather organizations spent their time, effort and energy articulating exactly why the project is being done and what will change as a result than doing scoring models but that’s just the view from my corner of the world.
Do you agree? Disagree? Let me know…
5 responses so far ↓
1 Steve Romero, IT Governance Evangelist // Jun 10, 2009 at 12:13 am
I think this may simply be a matter of semantics. Normally this would not be a big deal, but I think your assertion is dangerous if folks dismiss the value of establishing PPM processes and the associated criteria used in the go/no-go and kill/fix investment decisions.
Yes, folks may be overstating the objective nature of such criteria given there is subjectivity in the selection of criteria , the weighting of criteria and even the application of criteria .
So no, we are not eliminating subjective decision-making, but we are eliminating arbitrary decision-making. The approach does not eliminate subjectivity, but it does force the consensus you mention that then provides an initial objective perspective that provides a great foundation for subsequent discussion and debate. Instead of folks starting these investment decision conversations with a blank page, they can start on the same page.
Steve Romero, IT Governance Evangelist
http://community.ca.com/blogs/theitgovernanceevangelist/
2 Donna Fitzgerald // Jun 10, 2009 at 9:58 am
I think we’re in violent agreement on much of what you said. With regard to a decision making criteria I’m just leaning toward transparent rather than objective as a descriptor. I’m also asserting that there is a logical process that follows if you understand that the goal is transparency in the basis for making a decision.
As to one point you made, I’m curious where you got the impression I was attempting to “dismiss the value of establishing PPM processes”. Challenging a common assumption on how something should get done should never, IMHO, be construed as implying that nothing should be done.
As to your next point on the associated criteria used in the go/no-go and kill/fix investment decisions, we might have a language issue here. Go/no-go and kill/fix investment are terms I use in the gating process and not in the initial portfolio process (though these terms are certainly part of the end to end portfolio lifecycle). Exploring how to use the gating process as a key component of a governance model is definitely a topic worth a blog column of its own.
Thanks for taking the time to comment and for sharing your views. As I said in one of my earlier posts it’s the dialogue around the topic rather than any single opinion that makes us all that much smarter.
3 Bill Monroe // Jun 10, 2009 at 10:10 am
I think your post is important precisely because most companies haven’t established PPM processes. There’s a growing realization that prioritization is needed because there’s more work than capacity for most companies. But, the fact is, PPM demands a higher level of process sophistication than what most companies are currently capable of.
Still, something needs to enable prioritization, and unfortunately companies try to use ROI most of the time. The problem is that, as you alluded to, determining ROI at the beginning of a project is misleading, at best. We tend to overestimate benefits and underestimate costs early-on leading to choices that are best described as “Management by Wishing it Were So.”
This is why Project Portfolio Excellence concentrates on elements such as the level of collaboration between Senior Managers, Business Professionals, and Technology Professionals (The Project Triad), and the attributes of Skill, Will and Capacity (The Project Trinity) during project evaluation, selection, and prioritization activities. While these may still be somewhat subjective areas, all too often they’re overlooked completely or taken for granted resulting in a lot of the project failure that we experience.
4 Steve Romero, IT Governance Evangelist // Jun 10, 2009 at 10:20 pm
Yes Donna, I think we are in violent agreement. And I never meant to imply that “you” were dismissing the value of PPM processes. I was worried that some folks would misinterpret your message and subsequently dismiss PPM – given the subjectivity of the criteria used to make decisions.
And I think we did have a “language issue.” I (perhaps mistakenly in this context) lump prioritization in with the go/no-go decision. My belief is the same criteria that apply to go/no-go are also used to determine which investments “go” first, second, etc.
Thanks for the provocative and insightful post, and the engaging exchange.
Steve Romero, IT Governance Evangelist
http://community.ca.com/blogs/theitgovernanceevangelist/
5 Portfolio Management Can Come Before Project Management if the Culture Is Right // Jun 11, 2009 at 4:51 pm
[...] blog entry All Project Portfolio Management Prioritization is Subjective has generated some interesting comments. There was one underlying thread in the discussion that I [...]
Leave a Comment