Download (direct link):
> Data Currency
> System Quality
> Low threat levels, but poor audit trails/tools
> Disaster Recovery
> Assimilated into corporate disaster recovery plan
> Vendor Viability
> Application vendor acquired, product retired
> Regulatory Compliance
> No regulatory issues
> IT HR Risk
> Knowledgeable staff retiring
> Customer data available web connection
> Information Risk
> Information retention policy not applied
attributes required for each application, and the types of analysis to be performed. In addition, the needs for ongoing updates and analysis must be considered. In the simplest case, and organization having relatively few applications (<10), wanting to assess relatively few attributes, and seeking only to “inventory” its applications (rather than perform sophisticated analyses) will be adequately served with a “low-tech” approach. Based on the answers to these questions, the options available are:
• Unstructured manual (e.g., Excel, Visio): manually gathering information, keeping it in spreadsheets, and performing analysis on spreadsheets. Any kind of dependency/relationship diagramming is done manually in Visio.
168 CHAPTER 4 IT PORTFOLIOS AND THEIR CONTENT IN CONTEXT
• Structured manual (e.g., database and Visio): manually gathering information and putting it into a relational database. Designing an appropriate schema to do the types of queries and analysis that need to be performed. Visio is used to manually produce diagrams.
• Automated/advanced: portfolio management software (see Chapter 6) from vendors can be configured automatically to collect data, automatically generate graphical diagrams, and make recommendations concerning portfolio balance.
The Big Picture
Many companies only have partial portfolio views of their applications—usually a by-product of some other analysis (e.g., during gap analysis for a top-down business initiative). The key is to take an iterative approach to applying portfolio management to existing applications. If the majority of application projects are already agreed to and well understood, the initial focus should be on just getting an accurate list of applications and some basic attributes (e.g., name, business process enabled, cost). As companies become more sophisticated in running IT as a business, the mapping of portfolio management disciplines to existing applications will become more sophisticated.
Portfolio management for the discovery, project, and asset portfolios categorizes investments in each of three phases of the IT life cycle, enabling decision makers to objectively inventory, evaluate, balance, analyze, align, and optimize investments according to defined criteria and scoring. For each portfolio there are processes for inventorying, analyzing, planning, tracking, and reviewing investments. There is no one-size-fits-all approach to IT portfolio management—the definitions of business and strategic objectives, value, risk, benefit, core dependencies, and priorities differ by company and by industry.
Chapter 5 discusses the overall process for doing IT portfolio management. Readers may want to refer back to Chapter 4 for descriptors of the IT life cycle processes and detailed information regarding the content and context of subportfolios.
1. Robert G. Cooper, Scott J. Edgett, and Elko J. Kleinschmidt, “Optimizing the Stage-Gate Process: What Best-Practice Companies Do—II,” Research-Technology Management, Nov.— Dec. 2002.
2. Robert G. Cooper, Winning at New Products, 3rd edition, Perseus Publishing, 2001.
5. Robert G. Cooper, Scott J. Edgett, and Elko J. Kleinschmidt, “Optimizing the Stage-Gate Process: What Best-Practice Companies Do—I,” Research-Technology Management, Sept.—Oct. 2002.
6. Adapted from Peter Koen, Greg Ajamian, Robert Burkart, Allen Claman, Jeffrey Davidson, Robb D’Amore, Claudia Elkins, Kathy Herald, Michael Incorvia, Albert Johnson, Robin Karol, Rebecca Seibert, Aleksander Slavejkov, and Klaus Wagner, “Providing Clarity and a Common Language to the ‘Fuzzy Front End,’ ” Research-Technology Management, March-April, 2001.
8. Ian S. Hayes, “Managing the Project Portfolio,” Clarity Consulting, www.clarity-consulting.com.
9. Paul Belliveau, Abbie Griffen, and Stephen Somermeyer, The PDMA Toolbook for New Product Development, Chapter 1, John Wiley & Sons, April 2002.
10. Richard N. Foster, “Corporate Performance and Technological Change through Investors’ Eyes,” Research-Technology Management, Nov.-Dec. 2003.
11. Richard N. Foster, “Corporate Performance and Technological Change through Investors’ Eyes,” Research-Technology Management, Nov.-Dec. 2003.
12. Richard N. Foster, “Corporate Performance and Technological Change through Investors’ Eyes,” Research-Technology Management, Nov.-Dec. 2003.