Information and Communication Technology (ICT)
Portfolio
Management Awareness Survey 2004
- Introduction
- Formation Of Study Group
- Conduct Of The Survey
- Findings
- Conclusion
- Annex A
- Annex B
- Download this page as a PDF file(opens a new window)
Introduction
Tay So Leng
Assistant Director,
e-Government Planning & Management
Government Chief Information Office
Infocomm Development Authority of Singapore
June 2005
The
International Council for Information Technology in Government Administration
(ICA) is a non-profit making organisation established to promote the informal
exchange of knowledge, ideas and experiences between Central Government IT
Authorities on all aspects of the initiation, development and implementation of
computer-based systems in and by Government. Established in 1967, it has proved
to be to be an effective international forum for the support of senior
management in the formulation of policies for IT as an instrument for improving
the efficiency and effectiveness of government administration.The Council's major event is the Annual Conference, held each year in a different country. Every year ICA's officers identify an issue of vital importance in the realisation of its objectives as the theme for its Annual Conference. In 2004 the conference was held in Cyprus taking as its theme 'E-Gov FAQs: Searching for the Right Answers' . Over three days more than 20 speakers from some 16 countries asked the right questions and provided the answers, while over 80 delegates from 27 countries plus the European Commission and OECD each had the opportunity to add their knowledge and wisdom to this important issue. In September 2005, the 39th Conference is to be hosted by Austria in Salzburg when the theme is to be Anticipating the Citizens Needs in the 21st Century.
Between Conferences international Study Groups meet to consider, in depth, topics of special interest. The Council publishes their work. In 2003 ICA published a report on SECURITY - Policy, Technological and Operational Aspects and recently published its report, led by Malta, on Knowledge Management. This report is the first to be published in 2005 and a second report on Enterprise Architecture will be published later in the year.
The activities of ICA are determined by the Council and implemented by the Board of Officers and the Programme Committee. Since 2001, its publications have been published on this web site.
All enquiries to: Editorial Office: 4, Saunders Copse, Mayford, WOKING GU22 0NS, United Kingdom
Tel & Fax: +44 (0) 1483 770737 e-mail: ica@globalnet.co.uk
Formation Of Study Group On ICT Portfolio Management
As ICT Portfolio Management (ITPM) gains popularity in the private sector as a management tool for ICT investments, we see that increasingly e-governments are looking for better ways of managing and prioritizing their ICT initiatives, so that these ICT investments will bring the best possible returns. It is now a good opportunity for the ICA community to look into how governments can leverage on ITPM to achieve e-government investment objectives.
The study group on ITPM was formed in July 2004. Its main objective is to understand the use of ITPM approach in the ICA member countries and to share the experience and insights, including trends, among the countries. It begins with a preliminary survey in 2004 on the awareness of ITPM among the member countries. With the results of the survey, it aims to call for participation in 2005 to further share understanding about ITPM, experience and good practices in implementing ITPM, and possibly trends and benchmarks on ICT spending in the public administration that are guided by the ITPM approach.
Conduct Of The Survey
The purpose of the survey is to understand the level of awareness and the extent of use of ITPM in managing ICT investments among the ICA community.
The survey was designed with the background understanding that Portfolio Management had been frequently mentioned by government in describing their approach in managing their ICT projects, yet there did not seem to be a common understanding of the term, nor a specific methodology that countries commonly refer to. Hence it would be both interesting and useful for the ICA community to establish such a common reference point for further discussion and learning on this area. Another motivation of the survey was to find out which specific methodologies of ITPM had been adopted by ICA countries, and to identify how we could share the experience and learn from these ITPM implementations.
The survey polled ICA members on the following areas:
- Level of awareness of ITPM, and whether the countries are currently using the methodology, or will use it in the near term;
- Definition of key processes in ITPM, and the criteria involved in evaluating projects in the ICT portfolio;
- Benefits of adoption of ITPM in the government;
- Number and percentage of agencies in the country that have implemented ITPM;
- Extent to which ITPM is incorporated into existing corporate planning process in the ITPM implementations in the country.
In September 2004, the survey was sent to all ICA national representatives to call for participation. While the survey was ongoing, an introduction on the subject of ITPM and a preliminary update on the survey were presented at the 38th ICA Conference in Limassol, Cyprus, 19-21 October 2004. A second call for participation was sent to the national representatives in November 2004.
As at January 2005, submissions from a total of eight countries were received. The respondents were:
Australia
Denmark
Malta
Portugal
Singapore
Sweden
Taiwan
United Kingdom
Findings
On the whole, ITPM adoption appeared to be in the early stages in the participating countries. In some countries such as Australia and Sweden, individual government agencies were responsible for their ICT investments and would be able to choose appropriate management tools to manage the ICT investments. In others, specifics required in this survey might not be available as there were no channels for collecting such information.
As countries might not have responded to all questions, this report only provides findings where responses were available.
Level of awareness and use of ITPM
Of the eight countries that responded, Portugal, Singapore and UK were currently using ITPM while Denmark indicated that it would be using ITPM in a year. Taiwan indicated that it was new to ITPM but more familiar with other methodologies such as Return on Investments.
In terms of the understanding of key concepts and processes of ITPM, four out of eight countries reflected that they had a moderate to excellent levels of understanding of ITPM. Denmark and UK rated their understanding as moderate while Portugal and Singapore rated their understanding as excellent. Taiwan rated her understanding of ITPM as minimal.
Among the participating countries, Portugal and Singapore reported that explicit and detailed description of the ITPM processes, such as Categorisation, Prioritization and Selection of projects, facilitated their understanding of the subject. UK indicated that in general it maintained a moderate level of explicitness in the documentation of ITPM processes, with greater details in the Prioritization and Selection process. Denmark reflected that only a high level description of the various ITPM processes was available.
Definition of key processes and evaluation criteria used in ITPM
There were different ways of categorizing ICT projects to form the ICT portfolio:
| Respondent | Categories in the ICT Portfolio | |
| 1 | Denmark | Defined by Digital Taskforce : Public Sector, Citizens, Business Defined by Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation : Public Sector (IT), Public Sector (Organisation), Users |
| 2 | Portugal | Strategic, Key Operational, Support, High
potential (with reference from MacFarlan Matrix) |
| 3 | Singapore | Growth, Enhancement, Operational |
| 4 | United Kingdom | Mission Critical, Highly Desirable,
Desirable |
Different criteria were used for the evaluation of projects in the ICT Portfolio:
| Respondent | Criteria used for evaluation of projects in
the ICT Portfolio |
|
| 1 | Denmark | A wide range of criteria is used by different
public sector agencies, some include: Financial Business case tool,
Cost-estimation tool, Net Present Value, top-down key-indicators, and alignment
with standards and IT infrastructure decisions by the Govt. The Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation has identified the factors in a preliminary value framework which addresses measure of qualitative benefits in addition to economic value. |
| 2 | Portugal | Strategic Alignment, Financial Analysis, Risk
Analysis. Multiple criteria are defined in the Financial and Risk Analyses and in addition, project success factors are requested for further validation. (see more details in Annex B ) |
| 3 | Singapore | Projects are evaluated with a structured set of
decision criteria, including alignment to the agencies strategic thrusts, and
the extent of value contribution comprising tangible and intangible
benefits. |
| 4 | United Kingdom | Mixture of intuitive evaluation and/or formal
scoring based on weighted criteria (see more info on governance structure in
Annex B ) |
The Prioritisation and Selection of projects in the ICT Portfolio involved the following:
| Respondent | Prioritisation / Selection of projects in the
ICT Portfolio |
|
| 1 | Denmark | The business case tool is typically used. (See
more info on governance structure involved in Annex B ) |
| 2 | Portugal | The results of evaluation from Strategic
alignment, Financial analysis and risk Analysis are given different weights and
analysed. In addition, the final evaluation also takes into account the role of
the projects in the organization, according to the classification of Strategic,
Key Operational, Support and High Potential. |
| 3 | Singapore | Prioritization of projects is performed with a
scoring model, which based on the degree of alignment to business strategies,
extent of contribution to returns and implementation risks. In each portfolio
category, the projects are prioritised according to their total score. |
| 4 | United Kingdom | Projects are prioritized at board level and the
priorities are used in the budgeting process. |
The overall management of ICT portfolios involved the following processes:
| Respondent | Categories in the ICT Portfolio |
|
| 1 | Denmark | Ministries report on their portfolios of ICT
projects in Feb 2004 to the Finance Ministry. The reports included
characteristics of the portfolio, including economy, schedule, scope
etc. |
| 2 | Singapore | Agencies can assess their own ICT portfolios with
respect to their ICT spending across the various portfolio categories. The
portfolio is further assessed based on the relative performance of projects,
determined by their alignment to business strategies, returns and risks, so as
to facilitate decisions e.g. to continue or to retire a particular project. The
frequency of review of ICT portfolio is determined by the respective government
agencies. |
Benefits of Adoption of ITPM
Regardless of being in various stages of adoption of ITPM, the countries converged on the key benefits of ITPM.
Denmark, Portugal, Singapore and UK rated the most significant benefits of ITPM in the following areas:
- More efficient ICT resource allocation
- Greater strategic alignment of ICT programmes to business needs
- Better communication between ICT and business functions
In general, the countries deemed that ITPM had moderate to low impact in generating revenue for the government sector. Denmark, on the other hand, deemed that ITPM could bring about considerable benefits in terms of increased revenue.
Number of agencies in the country that have implemented ITPM
As most countries did not have specific channels to collect statistics on the status of implementation of ITPM among the government agencies, they qualified that numbers and percentages, as shown in Table 5, are for indicative purpose only.
Extent to which ITPM is incorporated into existing corporate planning process
One of the common approaches to implement ITPM was to incorporate the various steps into existing corporate planning process. The participating countries also provided an indication of the extent of which ITPM has been integrated into corporate planning processes at their government agencies, as illustrated in Table 5 .
| Country | Agencies that have Implemented ITPM | Agencies that are in the process of implementing ITPM | Extent to which ITPM has been integrated into corporate planning process | ||
| Total Number | As a % of all government agencies | Total Number | As a % of all government agencies | ||
| Denmark | - | - | - | - | 3 |
| Portugal | 5 | 5 % | 15 | 15% | 5 |
| Singapore | 10 | 10% | 20 | 20% | 3 |
| Sweden | 10 | 5% | - | - | - |
| UK | - | 60% | - | 40% | 5 |
Observations and suggestions on implementation of ITPM
Sharing its view on further development of the Portfolio Management methodology, Denmark pointed out that the methodology would be strengthened as the government rolled out its National Enterprise Architecture.
Commenting on the application of the ITPM, Singapore noted that it requires inputs from other frameworks, such as the Balance Scored Card and ICT Project Risk Management.
Portugal emphasized that importance to engage all stakeholders for the implementation of ITPM. It could be done through close interaction, exchange of good practices, and sharing of responsibilities.
Other investment methodologies reported
Australia and Taiwan indicated that they did not specifically deploy ITPM. Instead, other methodologies and processes were in place. :
| Country | Description of Other Frameworks |
|
| 1 | Taiwan | Taiwan did not implement ITPM. The Government
deployed a project-oriented approach to manage its ICT investments. Separate
committees evaluated the new and innovative projects versus those which
required annual IT funding. The process of prioritization of ICT projects
involved negotiation and sometimes, political factors. A dedicated funding
mechanism under the e-government central fund had been set up since 2003 for
new and innovative ICT projects. |
| 2 | Australia | Australia reported that under Australias
federated system of government, individual agencies had the discretion, within
strict limits, to apply their own project management approaches. There was no
information on the level of awareness or the use of ITPM by the agencies.
However, a set of Demand and Value Assessment Methodologies had been developed
to assist agencies in assessing demand and value propositions for
online-government programs. It established common measurement criteria for
assessment at the project level e.g. impact on agency business and on its
customer base, and at agency level e.g. contribution to overall agency goals
and to whole-of-government strategies. For more information, please refer to Annex B . |
Conclusion
Judging from the limited responses to the survey, ITPM adoption and implementation are in the early stages in the ICA countries. Portugal, Singapore and the UK are among the few that have reported explicit ITPM methodology and more significant ongoing ITPM implementation. However, there was no prevalent definition for ITPM and ITPM implementations among ICA countries were not extensive. In some countries such as Australia, Denmark and Sweden, implementations may have taken place, but the total number of such implementations was not available for this survey due to distributed management of ICT resources under their federated approach in ICT governance.
Respondent countries identify the most prominent benefits of ITPM in improving efficiency in ICT resource allocation and in enhancing strategic alignment of ICT programmes to business needs. On the other hand, some countries have existing ICT assessment frameworks or rigorous business case practices, ranging from those that measure quantitative returns on investments of ICT projects, or those that assist rigorous assessment in ICT business cases, to those that measure value of ICT projects from the citizens perspectives. This suggests that there could be merits to collate ideas and proposals on the integration or relationships between such existing practices and the ITPM methodology. These ideas and proposals can help those who need to embark on ITPM to jumpstart by leveraging on existing frameworks, and also help those who are implementing ITPM to adopt good practices of others to strengthen their own ITPM implementations.
Annex A
Annex A Sample of ITPM Awareness Survey Questionnaire
| INFOCOMM DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF SINGAPORE | IDA
8 Temasek Boulevard #14-00 Suntec Tower 3 Singapore 038988 Tel No : 6211-0888 Fax No : 6211-2235 |
|
| Date: 7th September 2004 | Due Date: 8th October 2004 Please return the completed form by this date. |
ICA STUDY GROUP ON ITPM - AWARENESS SURVEY 2004
Purpose of the Survey:
The main purpose of this survey is to understand the level of awareness and use of ICT Portfolio Management (ITPM) amongst ICA member countries.
Submission of the Questionnaire:
Please return the completed questionnaire not later than 8 October 2004 . You may EITHER
- submit this questionnaire electronically to the email
Rayson_Tan@ida.gov.sg ;
OR - faxthe completed questionnaire to +65-6211-2128 (Please fax from this page onwards).
All information provided in your completed return will only be shared with members of the ICA Study Group on ICT Portfolio Management, with the ICA member countries at the ICA Annual Conference, or through ICA Study Group Reports.
Questions and Clarification: If you need help or advice in completing the survey questionnaire, please do not hesitate to contact our officers-in-charge at:
Mr Rayson Tan Tel: +65-6211-1067 or email at Rayson_Tan@ida.gov.sg
Ms Tay So Leng Tel: +65-6211-0512 or email at Tay_So_Leng@ida.gov.sg
Thank you for your participation!
Tay So Leng
Executive Consultant
e-Government Planning & Management Division,
Government Chief Information Office
Infocomm Development Authority of Singapore
1a. Please indicate if you are aware of the following methods of Financial Management.
If AWARE , please indicate whether your organisation is currently using, will use in a year, will use in 2 years, or have no plans to use them within the next 2 years.
If UNAWARE , please indicate appropriately in the last column.
ICT Portfolio Management (ITPM)
is an investment framework that enables the organisation to systematically
categorise, evaluate, prioritise, select and manage ICT investments in
alignment with strategic objectives, balancing benefits and risks and achieving
optimal value.
| AWARE | UNAWARE | |||||
| Currently Using | Use in a year | Use in 2 years | No plans to use within next 2 years | |||
| Methods of Financial Management | ||||||
| a) | Investment Management | q | q | q | q | q |
| b) | ICT Portfolio Management | q | q | q | q | q |
| c) | Returns on Investment | q | q | q | q | q |
| d) | Others, please specify: ___________ | q | q | q | q | q |
1b. Please rate your understanding of the following methods of Financial Management.
| Minimal Understanding < ========== > Excellent Understanding | |||||||
| a) | Investment Management | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
| b) | ICT Portfolio Management | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
| c) | Returns on Investment | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
| d) | Others, please specify: ___________ | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
If your government is currently not using ITPM, please proceed to Question 5.
2a. Please describe the ITPM methodology used in your government, in terms of the processes to categorise, evaluate, prioritise, select and manage the ICT projects and the assumptions, if applicable. Please also elaborate on the differences, if any, between your ITPM methodology and the description of ITPM used in this study.
| Description of ITPM Methodology | |
| Categorization | |
| Evaluation | |
| Prioritisation and Selection | |
| Overall Management of ICT Portfolio | |
| Assumptions | |
| Differences | |
| Others remarks |
2b. Please rate the extent to which the steps involved in your ITPM methodology are explicitly defined and documented.
| ITPM Methodology | Only high level description | <=====> | Explicit and detailed description | ||||
| a) | Categorization | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
| b) | Evaluation | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
| c) | Prioritisation & Selection | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
| d) | Overall Management of ICT Portfolio | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
3. Please rate the benefits of adopting ITPM in the government.
| Least Beneficial <====> Most Beneficial | |||||||
| a) | More Efficient ICT Resource Allocation | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
| b) | Greater Strategic Alignment of ICT Programmes to Business Needs | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
| c) | Increased Cost Savings | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
| d) | Increased Revenue | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
| e) | Better Communication Between ICT and Business Functions | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
| f) | Others, please specify: ___________ | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
4a. Please indicate the number of government agencies that have adopted ITPM or are in the process of implementing ITPM.
Implemented ____________
In the Process of Implementation ____________
4b. Please indicate the number of government agencies that have adopted ITPM or are in the process of implementing ITPM as a percentage of all government agencies.
Implemented ____________
In the Process of Implementation ____________
4c. One of the common approaches to implement ITPM is to incorporate the various steps into existing corporate planning process. On a scale of 1 to 6 (where 1 is not incorporated and 6 is fully incorporated ), please rate the extent of which ITPM has been integrated into corporate planning processes at government agencies.
______________________________________________
Please proceed to Question 6.
5a. If your government is currently not using ITPM, please describe your methodology to manage your ICT investments, in terms of the processes to categorise, evaluate, prioritise, select and manage the ICT projects and the assumptions, if applicable.
| Description of ICT Investment Management Methodology | |
| Categorization | |
| Evaluation | |
| Prioritisation and Selection | |
| Overall Management of ICT projects | |
| Assumptions | |
| Other remarks |
5b. Please rate the extent to which the steps involved in your ICT Investment Management Methodology are explicitly defined and documented.
| ICT Investment Management Methodology | Only high level description | <=====> | Explicit and detailed description | ||||
| a) | Categorization | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
| b) | Evaluation | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
| c) | Prioritisation & Selection | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
| d) | Overall Management of ICT Portfolio | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
6. Please list the contact person for any queries arising with regards to the contents of the form.
| Salutation | Mr/Ms/Mrs | Main Tel | |
| Name | DID | ||
| Designation | Fax | ||
| Organisation Email | |
| Organisation Website | |
| Organisation Address |
Thank you for your participation!
Annex B
Additional Information Provided by Survey Respondents
Australia
The Australian Government Information Management Office has developed 'Demand and Value Assessment Methodologies' . These assist agencies in developing transparent and auditable assessments of demand and value propositions for online-government programs. These propositions underpin the business case and assist in substantiating the viability of the initiative, in justifying resource investment and in demonstrating transparency and accountability. The methodology provides for a consistent approach across agencies.
These can be found at http://www.agimo.gov.au/government/damvam
Denmark
The Digital Taskforce has developed a financial business case tool and a cost-estimation tool, which are based on a bottom-up method and presents a Net Present Value estimation of the project. Besides, some use a top-down method on the basis on key-indicators. So, various methods are used across the Danish public sector to evaluate the eGovernment projects. In some cases, presumably no evaluation is undertaken.
The Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation in Denmark have recently undertaken a literature review to determine the benefits of e-government projects to government and to end users, i.e. citizens and businesses. One of the main objectives of the literature study was to grasp the qualitative benefits in order to improve already existing economic value frameworks.
In the literature review, attention has been given to the factors of a preliminary value framework . The literature review has thus led to knowledge about both input and output variables spread on three main categories, namely IT, Organisation and End Users. The findings have been synthesized into main output variables (Benefit indicators). The literature review undertaken by the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation also includes the input side of the business case, focusing on the input of IT, Organization and Political Leadership.
For the prioritisation and selection of ICT projects in the Danish state authorities, the Ministry of Finance and the Financial Committee in the Parliament must approve all important ICT projects. For some larger ICT-projects that cut across authorities the decision is taken in the Board of Project eGovernment consisting of the Permanent Secretaries from 6 ministries and the local and regional organizations. The business case tool is frequently but not consequently used in the prioritization process.
Portugal
MAIS (Metodologia de Avaliaçã de InvestimentoS )
Investment Assessment Methodology for IS/IT Projects
Background and Rationale
With the aim of rationalizing investment in Information Systems and Technologies in Public Administration, as well as improving the management of investment budgets, Informatics Institute has developed a methodology whose purpose is to assess ex-ante the IS/IT projects candidatures. The State Secretary for the Budget backed up this initiative. Three main guidelines were defined for the design of the Methodology:
- To go beyond Market offers, generally focused on financial aspects
- To integrate the methodology with the ongoing reform process of Public Administration
- To develop a methodology that can really be applied in Public Administration at the present moment, as well as be capable of evolution, thus accompanying Public Administration development and increasing management capabilities
The Principles of the Methodology
Taking into account the guidelines previously defined, the methodology supports itself in sound and proved technical references and good practices, like for example the Cranfield University Methodology for Benefits Management, which was used partially, given the actual state of development of Public Administration, the IDA VOI (value of Investment), which is applicable for the evaluation of projects of difficult quantification, the IWOA State project ROI (Return on Investment), among others.
The MAIS encompasses three main dimensions of analysis:
- Strategic alignment where the following analysis are
performed:
- Project pursued objectives against formally defined business objectives and degree of contribution of the project for the achievement of those objectives
- Benefits to be obtained and respective measures
- Alignment of the project with the organisational strategy for IS/IT (when it exists)
- Financial analysis using a multicriteria approach, based on
the following indicators:
- Return On Investment
- Weighted Average
- Cost of Capital Net Present
- Value Pay-back period
- Internal Rate of Return
Risk analysis structured around three domains:
- Strategic/organizational risk which assesses the capacity of the organization to absorb and support the project
- Project risk which deals with project management practices and capacities
- Technology risk assessing the nature of the project against the type of technology planned to be used
This module also enquires about project success factors, which are here used as a basis for validation of different types of information given in the different modules.
The partial results of the different modules are analysed together and will have different weights in the final evaluation, taking into account the role of the project in the organisation, classified according to the MacFarlan matrix (strategic, key operational, support, high potential).
Implementation Issues
The methodology will be applied, in this first year, for all IS/IT projects in the Ministry of Finance, before being spread to other sectors.
The mainly qualitative nature of the MAIS methodology implies that its implementation must be based on close interaction with the organisations responsible for the candidate projects. This interaction will give raise to recommendations and interchange of good practices, thus leading to increased learning, involvement and responsibility of all stakeholders.
The receptivity of MAIS by the different agencies in the Ministry of Finance has been quite encouraging, since they see in it a management tool that can help them in achieving a better control of their IS/IT investment projects.
Singapore
A Tool for Managing ICT Investments Effectively:
The ICT Portfolio Management Framework
In most agencies, ICT spending constitutes a significant portion of expenditure. In times of tightened budget, there is an increasing need for agencies to ensure their ICT expenditures yield the best value in terms of meeting agencies' outcomes through the optimal use of available resources. With this awareness in mind, a study on ICT Portfolio Management (ITPM) was initiated in end 2003. The aim is to create a framework to help agencies systematically manage ICT investments.
What is the ITPM Framework?
The ITPM is a useful investment framework which agencies can employ to systematically categorise, evaluate, prioritise, select and manage ICT investments. This framework enables agencies to fulfill their strategic objectives while achieving optimal value through four phases of the ICT investment life-cycle.
In the Strategic Planning phase, an agency analyses its business objectives, measures and conducts gap analysis to identify new ICT investments which are prioritised through the use of an objective scoring model in the New Project Prioritisation phase. A comprehensive review of existing ICT investments is conducted in the Current Investment Review phase . Last but not least, the final phase of Portfolio Management constitutes the active management of ICT portfolio to attain the agencies' desired results.
ICT investments are categorized into Growth, Enhancement and Operational types according to their influences on organisational outcomes in the form of a portfolio. This is similar to how bonds, blue chips and high-tech equities are categorised in a typical financial investment portfolio. With the portfolio in place, agencies can easily assess their ICT investments with respect to their strategic outcomes.
What can it do for public sector agencies?
Between September 2003 and February 2004, seven agencies participated in a study where they established their agencies' ICT portfolios and gained insights into the analyses of values and cost of the portfolios.
Key findings of the study revealed that the framework is a practical and useful way for evaluating and prioritising new and existing ICT investments for the attainment of best value per dollar spent. The ICT portfolio categories also enabled the agencies to identify investments that were either discretionary or non-discretionary to the agency's operation. In addition, the framework facilitates proactive checks for over-spending or under-spending of ICT investments so as to meet short- and long-term goals of the agencies. Indeed, having a centralised and consolidated view of their ICT investments gave agencies a holistic understanding and assessment of how well the investments met their strategic outcomes, KPIs and quantitative benefits.
United Kingdom
Under the Centres of Excellence for Programme and Project Management , there is a mandate for departments to put in place portfolio management:
http://www.ogc.gov.uk/sdtoolkit/keyissues/centexcel/index.html?id=1000329
The successful delivery of projects and programmes is an essential component in the achievement the Governments Reform and Delivery agenda:
http://www.ogc.gov.uk/sdtkdev/new_content/ppmframe/ppmdelframe.html
The Division in Office of Government Commerce was established to help departments put in place best practices (including portfolio management). See
http://www.ogc.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1000329
For the OGC Successful Delivery Toolkit material on portfolio management, see
http://www.ogc.gov.uk/sdtoolkit/ .
Other resource to departments: What is Portfolio Management?:
http://www.ogc.gov.uk/sdtoolkit/keyissues/portfolio/index.html
Case Study on HM Customs and Excise :
http://www.ogc.gov.uk/sdtkdev/examples/HMCE/Programme/Activities/BusinessStudy/assemble_project_portfolio.htm