risk and project success, the project portfolio is summarized monthly in a dashboard format, as shown in Figure 7-40.
Figure 7-40 shows that effective dashboards are neither entirely art- work nor text material. A mixture of text and artwork often provides the best results.
7.7 DASHBOARDS IN ACTION: MAHINDRA SATYAM
Mahindra Satyam is a leading information, communications, and technol- ogy (ICT) company providing first-class business consulting, information technology and communication services. By leveraging deep industry and functional expertise, leading technology practices, and a global delivery model, Mahindra Satyam enables companies to achieve their business goals and transformation objectives.
Mahindra Satyam is powered by a pool of talented IT and consulting professionals across enterprise solutions, client relationship management, business intelligence, business process quality, operations management, engi- neering solutions, digital convergence, product life cycle management, and infrastructure management services, among other capabilities. They maintain development and delivery centers in the United States, Canada, Brazil, the UK, Hungary, Egypt, UAE, India, China, Malaysia, Singapore, and Australia as well as serving numerous clients, including several Fortune 500 companies.
Companies like Mahindra Satyam must possess the capability to develop multiple dashboard designs for a multitude of companies world- wide, and each at possibly at a different level of project management maturity. For companies at a more advanced level of maturity, highly detailed dashboards can be created. For companies that may be at the infancy stages of project management maturity, relatively simple dash- board designs may be usable. Figures 7-41 through 7-45 show typical dashboards that can be used for clients that are at various levels of project management maturity.
5
5. Material on Mahindra Satyam provided by Hirdesh Singhal and Mahadevan S., of Mahindra Satyam’s Process Management Group. ©2010 by Mahindra Satyam; reproduced with permission.
Figure 7-40 June 2010 IT Services Metrics Dashboard (©2010 by Westfield Insurance.) Jun 2010-IT Service Metrics
Portfolio Mix by Business Unit Portfolio Execution Status
Analysis
H1-10 Risk Assessment
2009-H1 2009-H2
Analysis
Success Measures 2009
Attribute
2008 2007
2010-H1 14
12 11.22
10.14 10.30
10 8
The risk factors associated with the number of business units or functions impacted by project outcome, and the negative impact to the business if the project were delayed 12 months are the highest average risk factors.
As noted in previous assessments, this indicates that a high risk to the technology portfolio comes from the projects that are essential to our company’s competitive position and that have broad impact to the business. We would expect these factors to remain high since they define the base reason for why we apply formal program and project management to initiatives in the technology portfolio.
This assessment’s results were based on 10 projects; 4 at budget level and 6 at order of magnitude level. By comparison, the previous assessment was based on 7 projects;
6 at budget level and 1 at order of magnitude level.
As expected, we saw the overall risk rating trend upward as new order of magnitude projects were added to the technology portfolio. We also saw a moderate decrease in the risk associated with estimated project cost due to staffing portfolio projects with fewer consultants.
We expect the overall risk rating to decrease in a number of factors such as credibility of estimation assumptions and clarity of project scope as projects are further defined.
Risk Score Trend Analysis Risk Factors Ranking
Risk Factors Ranking
Average Risk Score
2009 Project Success Measures - Attribute Averages
Scope Schedule Budget Quality Client Sat EXP Consulting
Business Unit/Area
YTD Year End
Business Unit A 6 28.0% 0 0
0 0
2
9 10
0 0
0 11
1 1 1
1 Yellow
Red Green Not Started Completed
There are 12 current programs and projects in the portfolio. 11 are In Process and 1 is Completed.
The YTD underrum of $1,052M is attributable to an underspend in Project A ($625K), Project B ($156K), Project C ($167K) and Project D (S120K.) 24.2%
16.4%
11.4%
10.4%
9.6%
2 1 1 1 1
YTD Actual
9 = Negative impact of project outcome on company’s competitive position if the
project is postponed 12 months 12 = Number of business units or functions
impacted by project outcome 7 = Number of existing automated application systems that must interface
with the new system 4 = Credibility of estimation or
scheduling assumptions
2 = Estimated project cost
3 = Uniqueness of project’s technical requirements 1 = Clarity of project scope
to participants
11 = Clarity of benefits
5 = Flexibility of project’s major milestones and operational dates
6 = Availability of project team 10 = Alignment of project outcome to business vision, as well as strategic or
tactical plans 8 = Role of project in ensuring the company is in compliance with applicable
laws or regulations 0.00
Avg. Score for Completed Projects Baseline 5
4.3 4.7
2.8 3.2
4 4.0 3 2 1 0
2010 IT Portfolio as of January 2010 0.00
0.11 0.22
0.44 0.78
0.89 1.22 1.22 1.22
1.56 1.67
0.33
1.00 2.00
Total Projects 6 100
Count % of Completed Projects Count % of Completed Projects Count % of Completed Projects 17
17 100
8
8 100
100 63 25 5 2 6 6 76 53 73 93 13 9 14 11 100
100 67 83
- - -
6 6 4 5 6 Scope
Client Satisfaction2
1 - Quality ratings were only applicable for 15 of the 17 projects completed ub 2008, and for 6 of the 8 projects completed in 2007.
2 - Client satisfaction ratings were only available for 15 of the 17 projects completed in 2008, and for 6 of the 8 projects completed in 2007.
Qualit1 Budget Schedule YTD
Variance 2010 Budget
2010 Forecast
2009 Actual
Business Unit B Business Unit C Business Unit D Business Unit E Business Unit F
$6,000,000
$4,000,000
$2,000,000
($2,000,000)
$0
1,481,471 429,526 1,051,944 3,943,034 8,694,297 5,255,814
Current Projects Est. % of Total Project Cost Status June May April IT Service:Program and Project Planning and Execution Core Metrics:Budget, Schedule, Quality, Customer Satisfacgtion, Scope
Scope of Service: Enables the delivery of new business capabilities through solution development
YTD Budget
335
7.7 DASHBOARDS IN ACTION: MAHINDRA SATYAM
Figure 7-41 A Typical Dashboard for Projects per Customer
Projects Customer 1 Customer 2
Customer-Projects 12
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
6 7
5 6
Customer 3 Customer 4 Customer 5
Figure 7-42 Dashboard for a Program Summary Report (©2010 by Mahindra Satyam; reproduced with permission.)
Program Name
Program ID PgM012010 Program Manager Name Steve Martin
77747 5 36 01:04.2 2-Aug-10 Program Manager ID
No. Customers No. Project manager’s Onsite Offshore Ratio Refresh Date UK Program 1
$16,510,000,00 48 1800 Optima Program Size - $(USD) Value*
Program Size - No. Projects Program Size - No. Associates Source
Customer Name Size
Dollar Value
Customer 1 $5,200,000.00 718 Banking
Banking Banking Insurance Insurance 340
390 80 272
$3,200,000.00
$4,200,000.00
$1,520,000.00
$2,290,000.00 Customer 2
Customer 3 Customer 4 Customer 5
Associate Count
Domain Program Summary Report
Figure 7-43 Sample of a Typical Dashboard Report (©2010 by Mahindra Satyam; reproduced with permission.)
Risk Rating
Risk Rating 1 4%
29%
11%
5%
8%
45%
56%
6%
7%
16%
8% 0%
4%
3%
EVI <20
EVI (5 to 0) EVI (<20 to 5) EVI (0 to 5) EVI (>10) EVI (5 to 10)
Risk Rating 2 Risk Rating 4
Data Not Available Data Not Available Risk Rating 2
Risk Rating 5
Schedule Variance
SVI <20
SVI (5 to 0) SVI (20 to 5)
SVI (0 to 5) SVI (> 5) SVI (5 to 10)
COQE
Rework Effort Variance
65%
16% 5% 4%
2%
3%
5%
Rework = 0 Rework (2.5 to 5) Rework (>10)
Rework ( 0 to 2.5) Rework (5 to 10) Data Not Available
66%
5%4%
5%
6%
24%
COOE = 0 COOE (2.5 to 5) COOE (15 to 20)
COOE (0 to 2.5) COOE (5 to 15) COOE (> 20) Data Not Available
26%
24%
11%
11%
10%
9%
9%
337
7.7 DASHBOARDS IN ACTION: MAHINDRA SATYAM
Figure 7-44 Sample of a Typical Dashboard Report (© 2010 by Mahindra Satyam; reproduced with permission.)
61% 50%
22%
28%
36%
22%
20%
14%
61% 8%
22%
17%
39%
Pricing Model
Delivery Ownership Execution Model
Count of Projects
T&M Fixed Bid T&M with Cap
MSat Managed Customer Managed
Maintenance IMS
Production Support
Offshore Onsite-offshore Onsite
Consultancy Development
Figure 7-45 Sample of a Typical Dashboard Report (© 2010 by Mahindra Satyam; reproduced with permission.)
95%
0%
5%
23% 41%
25%
11%
15%
60%
21%
4%
4%
94%
2%
37%
31%
27%
5%
56%
34%
5% 5%
Project Billing Chart Project Execution Model Chart
Project Pricing Model Status Chart Project Type Chart
Collaboration Status Chart Project Status Chart Billable Non Billable
Onsite-Offshore Onsite
Professional Services Offshore
Internal T&M
T&M with Cop Fixed Bid
Development
Prodction Support & Maintenance Prodution Support
Approved - Active Approved - Warranty
Approved - Onhold Delegated by Others
Organic
Full Delegation Partial Delegation
339 OVERVIEW
CHAPTER OBJECTIVES
KEY WORDS
Measurement seems simple, and sometimes it is simple. Measurement con- cepts in a project or business environment are more complicated than most people think, however. To truly understand measurement, it is necessary to give up some commonly held beliefs and adopt new ways of thinking. This chapter will present measurement concepts, measurement definitions, the measurement creation process, and demonstrate the process with a case study.
◾ To understand the necessity for effective measurement
◾ To understand various measurement techniques
◾ To understand which techniques may be more appropriate than other for a given situation
◾ Measurement
◾ Information requirement
◾ Information solution