The one thing I think resonates most from these discussions are the numerous ways you can skin this investment governance cat. Donna notes a MAJOR factor in the options that are chosen – culture. There are even more.

Consider that Governance is the processes and relationships that lead to reasoned decision-making. The trick for any Enterprise is to strike the correct balance between these two dimensions. This is not easy given the constant change to the variables that affect this balance:
- Industry and business sector
- Enterprise Goals and Objectives
- Process capability / maturity
- Resource capacity / capability
- Resource demand (planned and unplanned)
- etc.

Given the moving targets I listed above, the two dimensions of investment governance [investment decision-making (ensuring we are doing the right things via PPM) and investment delivery (ensuring we do things right via Project Management)] will vary greatly from one circumstance to the next.

Some organizations need to focus on and mature one dimension more than the other – and you can bet that will inevitably change. The key is to understand the ultimate objectives of investment management:
- Knowing where you want to go
- Choosing and prioritizing the right investments that will get you there
- Connecting plans to delivery to enable and foster execution
- Monitoring, fixing and killing investments to ensure you are always moving the right direction
- Assessing the value of investments (in progress) and realizing the value of investments (post-implementation)
- Constantly measuring and improving the effectiveness of this cycle

The what, where, when and who of getting this done will vary greatly. The manifestation of PPM processes, Portfolio, Programs, Projects, PMOs, Steering Committees, PMs, PM Processes and Methodology, Systems, and Tools will vary greatly – dependent on a head-swimming number of variables driven by every-changing circumstances.

I have my beliefs and preferences as to how to go about this. My own bias aside, what matters more than my approach are my goals and objectives and my ability to realize them. How you slice it and dice it should be driven by one simple question – is it working?

In some cases it will be a PMO providing oversight and in some cases it will be a Steering Committee. In some cases PMs will execute according to prescribed rigorous methods and in other cases they will be left to “do the voodoo that they do.”

I don’t think the answer is easy. I agree with Donna that it need not necessarily be one thing or the other, and I care little about what we call it. 50% of our projects continue to fail. We need to do something and that “something” will differ from one organization to the next.

So even though it is an incredibly complex business problem and there is no one easy answer, I am heartened there are Donna Fitzgeralds and Eric Derapes in the world. It is your conviction and conversation that will inspire success. Please keep it up.

Steve Romero, IT Governance Evangelist
http://community.ca.com/blogs/theitgovernanceevangelist/

I can see from you comments that I completely forget to mention I was the finance person in my story. I also forget to mention that I’ve always been the queen of feretting out information by walking or phoning around and hence knew where every single dime was and how it was being spent and how much more they were going to need. It also seems that I forget to mention that I was a dual report to the CIO and the CFO and went over my perceptions of what was happing in detail on a weekly/monthly basis and that I always had an indepth 180 rolling forecast?

So I agree with you completely on 95% of what you said. Where I disagree is your assumption that the PMO is the only place that can provide oversight. A portfolio office is more than capable of providing all the oversight you mentioned and in fact may be better positioned than a classic multipurpose PMO

Unfortunately part of my story was to point out that I’ve seen very few PMOs who could compete with the level of detailed financial management that I or in later years my staff could provide. There are two reasons for this. The first is generally one of training and temperment and the second (in defense of the PMO) is that most PMOs are so busy they can’t possibly do what they aren’t staffed to do.

Like everything in life you get what you pay for. So I’m not knocking PMOs. Lttle to no staff and a broad charter means something is going to have to get prioritized lower than something else and in my experience its generally financial management (which we point out in our maturity model) but strangely enough that might be ok as long as somebody picks up the slack, In my example it was finance.

Thanks for the great comment. I really appreciated it.

In the true story mentioned here, the missing pieces of Portfolio Management would be Financial Management, Portfolio Health Management, Value Management, and ongoing communication. Without these pieces, I wouldn’t consider the organization at a level 4 maturity even if they already do a great job at Demand Management. I can see that, in a project-oriented culture, some of these elements can be taking care of informally. Without a solid PMO in place, I would be concerned about the consistency and accuracy of information being fed to the Portfolio to ensure proper finance management, project monitoring, and communication takes place.

That said, an organization can start with the PPM function first to adress the very important process of Demand Management. A consistant PM methodology (often governed by the PMO), would have to be built soon after to capture the appropriate amount of information that the portfolio needs to make critical adjustments during the year.

For more on this, see my blog at http://www.chiefportfolioofficer.com

Great topic!

Thanks,

Eric Deraspe
http://www.amplioconsultants.com