general planning techniques - queensland government chief ... · general planning techniques gather...

Investment planning methodology

General planning techniques

Gather

The Investment planning methodology requires a significant body of information to be gathered across a

potentially diverse range of personnel within the organisation. As a result various stakeholders will need to be

engaged using the most appropriate method. For this reason the Investment planning methodology

recommends the use of a number of common, but useful, techniques to elicit information and gain ownership

of the outcomes of the process.

The primary gathering techniques are:

document analysis

group workshops

interviews

surveys

formal presentations.

Each of these techniques requires a slightly different approach and may be more appropriate for certain

stakeholders than others. Each technique offers different advantages and disadvantages. When conducting

any form of information gathering exercise the organisers should ensure an effective outcome by following

these 10 simple steps1 for having effective meetings:

1. Have a clear purpose.

2. Invite the right people.

3. Arrange a convenient location and appropriate room.

4. Schedule only the amount of time you really need.

5. Organise the agenda to meet the meeting’s purpose.

6. Distribute documents and key materials in advance.

7. Actively conduct the meeting to keep it on schedule and on task.

8. State the purpose of the meeting at the start of the meeting.

9. Summarise the results and explain any next steps.

10. Keep and distribute minutes or notes.

Outlined in the table on page 2 are recommendations in relation to these techniques and their use within the

Investment planning methodology.

1 Based on Meetings, Meetings and More Meetings (2006), Janet Porter and Edward Baker, Journal of Public Health

Management and Practices, Jan/Feb 2006, Vol 12, Issue 1, pages 103-106.

QGEA PUBLIC Business profile – Investment management methodology

Final draft | v3.0.1 | October 2014 PUBLIC of 25

Primary gathering techniques and their uses

Gathering

technique

Description Advantages Disadvantages Key considerations

Document analysis Review existing documentation.

This type of technique is

recommended for initial discovery

of information and assets that can

be validated by participants at

workshops. An example would be

extracting the vision, goals

objectives and strategies from

existing strategic plans and

business plans.

Less impact on resource

requirements.

Minimal involvement of

stakeholder time.

Useful to develop straw man

models to be presented to

stakeholders using other

methods.

The information collected may

lack detail.

The information will lack the

people perspectives.

The information may reveal

what happens but not why.

Will the information collected

lack detail?

Is the information in the

documents reasonably

current?

Does the team have the

capacity to review and

summarise information from

potentially large documents or

large numbers of different

documents?

Are the team familiar with the

types of documentation

available?

Group workshops The most common technique

recommended for use within the

Investment planning methodology

is group workshops with subject

matter experts.

This is due to the need to gather a

wide range of information from a

large number of stakeholders as

quickly as possible.

The use of workshops is

recommended when gathering

data from or performing validation

with middle management and

operational staff.

Builds a relationship with the

business representatives.

Reduces the time taken to

gather requirements as the

number of participants is

smaller.

Users are usually very

motivated as they have

sacrificed their time to attend.

The outcomes from

workshops are typically

shared.

Offers a level of control over

the over length and frequency

of workshops.

Workshops can be offered as

a series that build on one

another.

Limited to the input of those in

the focus group.

The quality of the output is

dependent on the expert

knowledge of the participants.

Participants may be reluctant

to push the boundaries.

Outcomes can depend on

abilities of the facilitator.

Some stakeholders may be

reluctant to participate.

Some stakeholders may feel

that they were not given

appropriate attention.

Attendees may have a broad

range of skills and

experience.

May have difficulty getting a


capacity to develop good

workshop?

Can team teach or bring in

experts to assist?

What resources do you have?

(The Investment planning

methodology contains many

resources, but these may

need to be specialised for

your organisation)

How big a group can you

manage?

Does the culture of the

organisation encourage group

decision making or is it

command and control

oriented?

Does the team have venues



Gathering

technique


Typically faster way to

achieve a consensus than via

interview or survey.

Reduce time to gather

requirements as all

stakeholders can be brought

together at the same time.

Useful when gathering

requirements for problems.

room (if space is in short

supply).

May be hard to fit everything

that you want to cover into a

single workshop.

Handling large groups may be

difficult.

May be unsuitable if the

organisation expects

information to be collected

from large numbers of people

to be consulted or engaged.

Workshops may invoke the

‘Abilene Paradox’ (see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abi

lene_paradox ) making the

results ineffective.

suitable for conducting

workshops?

Does the team have budget to

cover venue hire, catering and

other resources?

Interviews Conduct individual interviews with

stakeholders.

This technique is recommended

when more expert knowledge is

required and where there is a risk

that document analysis and group

workshops may not provide a

suitable level of detail.

Builds a relationship with the

business representatives.

Resource requirements can

be high.

Quality of responses can vary

between interviewees.

Interviews should be

structured consistently to

ensure comparable data.

Not suitable where large

numbers of people need to be

interviewed.


capacity to conduct individual

interviews?

Can team teach or bring in

experts to assist?

How big a group can you

manage?

Can a number of information

gathering activities be

combined to maximise the

outputs the interview?

Do the interviewees have

background and context prior

to the interview?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abilene_paradox

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abilene_paradox



Gathering

technique


Surveys Structured questionnaires

distributed to stakeholders for their

input.

This approach is recommended

when stakeholders are time poor

and the nature of the information

can be collected in a consistent

and structured manner.

Easy to gather requirements

from large samples of people.

Increased freedom to provide

input without the pressure or

criticism from peers.

Fixed questions can limit the

freedom of responses.

Questions can be

misinterpreted.

This technique is less

effective when a large

proportion of responses to

questions need to be qualified

with additional comment.


capacity to develop a good

survey instrument?


capacity to monitor and follow

up the completion of surveys?

Does the team have sufficient

resources to process and

cleanse the data collected?

Does the team expect the

audience will respond well to

a survey?

How much of information can

be collected using standard

responses?

Formal presentations There are certain points within the

investment planning process

where key decisions should be

taken by small groups, individual

executives or governance bodies.

In this case a formal presentation

may be required.

The use of presentations is

recommended when seeking final

approval from small groups of

senior executives and upper

management.

Users are usually very

motivated as they have

sacrificed their time to attend.

Often short (~1 hour) which

appeals to executives.

All attendees receive the

same message(s).

Typically a fast way to obtain

a decision.

Can be prepared, reviewed

and rehearsed prior to

delivery.

Can be delivered to existing

bodies or group meetings.

Can only effectively deal with

a single topic or subject.

May be limited to a short

period of time.

There may be little

opportunity for participation or

feedback.

Attendees may have a broad

range of skills and

experience.

May have difficulty getting a

room (if space is in short

supply).

May be hard to fit everything

that you want to cover into a

single presentation.

Handling large groups may be

difficult.


capacity to develop a good

presentation?

Is there an appropriate forum

to deliver the presentation to?

Does the culture of the

organisation allow for the

project team to deliver the

presentation or will it be given

on the team’s behalf by a

manager?

QGEA PUBLIC General planning techniques


Classify

This section is focussed on general classification analysis and techniques of business processes, information

assets, applications and technologies.

Classification to standard classification frameworks results in four key analysis areas including: coverage;

gaps; duplicates; and spend per domain. The table below provides an interpretation of the key outcomes

resulting from classifying elements to their respective classification frameworks.

Key analysis areas

Analysis area Description Possible causes

Coverage The extent to which the

portfolio of business

processes or assets are

spread across the business or

functional domains of the

classification framework.

Coverage is a general indicator of how the business processes and

assets are distributed across the relevant classification framework

domains. For example: ‘Is the number of processes or assets in the

portfolio evenly distributed across line of business, business

imperative or functional domains?’ or ‘Is there a concentration of

processes or assets in a particular line of business or functional

domain?’

Gaps The proportion of domains in

each of the classification

framework that have no

processes or assets classified

to them.

Gaps are particularly important for domains in the classification

frameworks that directly support the line of business or strategic

direction of the organisation. Gaps indicate that the organisation

may have failed to adequately invest in resources, processes and

assets that directly support line of business of the organisation and

its customers.

Duplicates The proportion of domains in

each of the classification

frameworks that have multiple

processes or assets classified

to them.

Duplication may indicate that the organisation has over invested in

processes and assets in particular domains and is duplicating

processes and functions.

The organisation may question: ‘What is the extent of potential

duplicate processes and assets in the organisation and what is the

extent to which the portfolio of processes and assets can be

rationalised’?

Spend per

domain

The proportion of spend in

each domain of the

Queensland Government

Enterprise Architecture

(QGEA) classification

frameworks based on the

annual estimated cost of

operation of each asset or

proportion of each asset

classified to each domain.

Spend per domain represents the level of investment in assets that

directly supports the line of business or strategic intent of the

organisation versus the level of spend to support the business

imperatives and other functions conducted by the organisation.

Questions to consider include, ‘Is the level of spend in particular

business and functional domains appropriate for the nature of

business conducted by the organisation?’ and ‘Are there

opportunities to rationalise spend in some domains and move some

business and services to cheaper delivery and management

platforms?’



In addition to the identification of gaps and duplicates the following analysis is performed for the purpose of

developing the information, application and technology profiles:

information domains by total spend

application domains by total spend

application total spend by value discipline

application total spend by line of business domain

technology domains by total spend.

Charts can be used to analyse classifications. A bar chart can be used for example to demonstrate the

domains by total spend. The X axis would represent the amount of spend and the Y axis would list the domain

names from the relevant classification framework that included classifications of the organisation’s assets. An

example chart is provided in the Applications planning document on page 6 that demonstrates application

spend by domain. Similar charts can be used to analyse information and application spend by domain.

During development of the business, information, applications and technology profiles the various

classifications are assessed and interpreted to develop a course of action which may ultimately lead to

initiatives. These classifications are only preliminary indicators for the organisation in the development of the

investment plan.

It should be noted that actions resulting from analysis of business process and information domains may not

directly result in initiatives. Potential actions from these classifications are more likely to be considered as part

of business planning and organisational change.

Map

This section provides advice on general techniques for element alignment mappings. Although these

mappings are concerned with different elements, the approach for each of them is consistent and is therefore

presented in this section in a generic manner.

In each of the profile business, profile information, profile applications, and profile technology activities, one or

more mappings between elements are constructed. The purpose of these mappings is to allow an objective

assessment of the support that one element provides for another element in an organisation.

There are a number of possible mappings throughout the investment planning process. Each of the mappings

can be considered to be a relationship between a ‘parent’ and a ‘child’ element.

A number of elements are collected within the investment planning process. However, there is not always a

logical or valid combination between all elements. That is, not all possible mappings between the elements

gathered will yield a result which is useful for analysis.

The table below outlines all possible combinations of elements mapping within the Investment planning

methodology and an explanation as to their use or exclusion.

Investment planning methodology mappings

Activity Mapping Used Purpose

Profile

business

Business goal -

business strategy

Yes To validate which strategies will contribute to the achievement of

business goals

Business goal -

business objective

Yes To validate which business objectives will indicate the achievement

of business goals.

https://www.qgcio.qld.gov.au/products/investment-planning-techniques/application-planning




Business objective -

business strategy

Yes To validate which strategies will be measured by which business

objectives.

Business goal -

business process

Yes To validate the alignment of the activity (business processes) to the

strategic intent of the organisation.


business process

Yes To validate the alignment of activity (business processes) to the

achievement of business objectives.

Business strategy -

business process

Yes To validate which business processes are required to implement

business strategies.

Business goals -

information asset

Yes To validate information assets which underpin business goals. This

mapping is predominantly used for assessing information assets for

their future contribution to the business or to identify missing assets.

Profile

information


information asset

Yes To validate information assets support for the measurement of

business objectives.

Business strategy -

information asset

Yes To validate information assets which underpin business strategies.

This ensures that the information assets that ‘operationalise’ the

implementation of strategies are documented.

Business process -

information asset

Yes To validate information assets support for the consistent enactment

of business processes and to identify processes as either creators or

users of an information asset.

Business goal -

application

No Business goals are achieved through activity (business processes)

and underpinned by inputs and outputs (information). Business

processes and information assets are both mapped to business

goals. This highlights any gaps in the overall level of support for

business goals. Applications are subsequently mapped to business

processes and information assets. No additional value can be

determined by mapping applications to goals. For this reason this

mapping is no longer used. In previous versions of the methodology

this mapping was used as a proxy for information to goal.

Profile

application

Business strategy -

application

No Strategies are implemented through the implementation of business

processes and information assets. Both of these elements are

mapped to business strategies. Gaps are identified when

applications are mapped to information assets and applications. No

additional value can be determined by mapping applications to

strategies.


application

Yes To validate application support for achieving business objectives.

Objectives are achieved through activity (business processes).

Mapping applications to objectives only adds value if there is

insufficient information collected regarding business processes. This

can occur when the scope of the applications collected is broader

than the scope of the business processes collected.

Business process -

application

Yes To validate application support for business processes or identify

business processes that are not currently ICT enabled.




Information asset -

application

Yes To validate application support for information assets (in either a

Creates or Uses the information asset capacity) or identify

information assets that are not currently ICT enabled.

Technology - business

goal

No Goals are achieved through activity (business processes) and

underpinned by inputs and outputs (information). Technologies do

not have embedded business processes according to the definition of

a technology in the QGEA. This mapping therefore has no direct

relevance.

Profile

technology


strategy

No Strategies are implemented through the implementation of business

processes and information assets. Technologies do not have

embedded business processes according to the definition of a

technology in the QGEA. This mapping therefore has no direct

relevance.


objective

No Objectives are achieved through activity (business processes).

Technologies do not have embedded business processes according

to the definition of a technology in the QGEA. This mapping therefore

has no direct relevance.


process

No Technologies do not have embedded business processes according

to the definition of a technology in the QGEA. Technologies are

mapped to applications which do contain embedded business

processes or are configured to support business processes. Some

technologies however may support operational processes within the

organisation. These technologies will be highlighted in the mappings

between applications and technologies and will generally be

commodities, such as email and desktop productivity suites for

example.

Technology -

application

Yes To validate technology support for applications.

Technology -

information asset

No Information is only an asset when used in business processes or

applications that support business processes. No additional value is

derived from this mapping as any gaps identified will be between

information assets and business processes and information assets

and applications.

Technology -

technology

Yes To validate which technologies ‘run on’ or are ‘managed by’ other

technologies.

Technologies in the Desktop & Productivity, Application

Environments or Management & Control domains run on the

Operating Systems domain.

Technologies in the Operating Systems domain run on the Server

Hardware, Desktop Hardware, or General Purpose Mobile Devices

domains.

Any applicable technology managed by technologies in the

Management & Control domain.

Storage Devices managed by Storage Management Software.




There can be zero, one or more runs-on mappings for each

technology.

Within the Investment planning methodology the resulting relationships between two types of mapped

elements are classified as a gap, supported, hog, orphan, unique or mule. This is determined by the proportion

of mappings (zero, one to one or a one to many) and the nature of the relationship as either being a

‘supporting’ or ‘supported by’ relationship.

The significance of the gap, supported, hog, orphan, unique or mule relationship is described below.

Mapping relationship types

Classification Description Possible causes

Gap One element not supported

by any other element.

Depending on context, this may not be an issue but may indicate

missed elements in the data gathering activities.

Gaps may be genuine. In these circumstances new initiatives may

arise that include the implementation/development of new assets.

Supported One element supported by

only one other element.

In most cases this situation is considered to be acceptable.

Hog One element supported by

many other elements.

Depending on the context, this situation may be considered normal.

In some instances, this situation may indicate that some elements

have been defined at too low a level.

When hog mappings relate to assets, such as applications and

technologies, opportunities may exist to rationalise the portfolio of

assets.

Orphan One element not

supporting any other

element.

This mapping may indicate an oversight in the gathering activities or

may indicate elements that are no longer required. In these

circumstances, initiatives may arise that retire some assets and

rationalise the portfolio.

Unique One element supporting

one other element.

This is generally considered normal and acceptable but may indicate

a critical dependency on certain elements or a single point of risk

exposure that needs to be managed.

Mule One element supporting

many other elements.

This is considered normal but may indicate a significant dependency

on some elements depending on the context. This represents a

single point of risk exposure that needs to be managed.

Based on the elements being mapped and the type of mapping relationship, courses of action to be

considered in the investment planning process can be derived from the analysis of mapping relationships.

A simple two-dimensional matrix (on page 10) can capture the details of the mappings. This approach is used

as the basis for many of the activities in the methodology.



Mapping

Example

Gap

Hog

Supported

Orphan

Parent 1

Ch

ild 5

Ch

ild 4

Ch

ild 3

Ch

ild 2

Ch

ild 1

Parent 2

Parent 3

Parent 4

Parent 5

0

0

x x x 3

x x 2

x 1

0

1 3 1 1

Mule Unique

Two dimensional matrix

It should be noted that mappings are only preliminary indicators meant to provide ‘food for thought’ for the

organisation in the development of the Investment Plan.

Information asset, application and technology mapping broadly identifies apparent gaps and misalignments

between the business strategy and the information, application and technology portfolios which may indicate

that changes are required in the makeup of the portfolio as shown below.

Portfolio alignment strategies

Portfolio analysis

result

Interpretation Portfolio alignment

strategy

High proportion of

gaps

Not aligned - alignment is adjusted by new development and

implementation initiatives.

Implement/develop

High proportion of

supported

Alignment is good - does not require a significant shift in alignment.

Initiatives focused on maintaining the current state of the individual

assets may have more significance than initiatives expected to shift the

alignment.

Maintain

High proportion of

hogs

Not aligned - alignment is adjusted by initiatives that focus on the

rationalisation of the portfolio through reuse of assets and selective

retirement of competing assets. The identification of which assets is

dependent on a comparison of the individual assets and their

associated asset management strategies.

Rationalise



Portfolio analysis

result

Interpretation Portfolio alignment

strategy

High proportion of

orphans

Not aligned - alignment is adjusted by initiatives that focus on retirement

of redundant assets that no longer support the business direction.

Retire

High proportion of

unique

The portfolio may be well aligned. Initiatives focused on maintaining the

current state of the individual assets or that increase reuse of high or

future value assets may have more significance.

Leverage/re-use

High proportion of

mules

Alignment is good and does not require a significant shift in alignment.

Initiatives focused on maintaining the current state and reducing the risk

of dependencies of assets may have more significance than initiatives

expected to shift the alignment.

Maintain

During development of the business, information, applications and technology profiles the various mappings

are assessed and interpreted to develop a course of action which may ultimately lead to actions for individual

assets.

Assess

This section provides general techniques for assessing the business impact, future business value, condition

and scaled cost of information assets, applications, and technologies.

Within the context of the Investment planning methodology, these assessments are used to create grid

models. Depending on where the assets fall on a particular grid, specific strategies and actions can be

considered during planning in relation to the short and longer term management of the information, application

and technology portfolios.

Each assessment examines business, user, functional or technical aspects of an asset to measure the asset’s

potential to continue to deliver current and future benefit and satisfy business need. Assessment examines the

value to the organisation, performance, maintainability and the current level of investment in the asset.

Business impact, future business value, condition and scaled cost

There are four perspectives of assessment used in the Investment planning methodology. This is explained in

the table below.

Measurement using assessment

Assessment Definition

Business impact Business impact is the significance of the asset to the business in terms of the impact of failure,

scope of usage, coverage and support to the business in meeting its operational and service

delivery requirements.

Future business

value

Future business value refers to the capability of the asset to support future business strategies

and objectives of the organisation. The objective is to assess the potential of the asset to deliver

future benefits and contribute toward growth and improved service delivery.

Condition Condition is a measure of the health of an asset in terms of its performance, maintainability, and

alignment with the corporate architecture and best practices.



Assessment Definition

Scaled cost The annual estimated cost of operation is the recurrent cost plus any development costs which

are expected to be expended in the relevant financial period. Capital costs would normally not be

included as these are captured as depreciation for existing assets.

Annual estimated cost of operation will have been calculated as part of the profile information,

profile applications and profile technologies activities. Refer to the gather, classify and map

sections with the information, application and technology profiles Investment planning

methodology for details relating to cost collection.

The assessments of business impact, future business value and condition are made using a similar approach

which evaluates a number of dimensions relevant to business impact, future business value and condition on a

simple 0-5 rating scale and combines the results to produce a final 0-5 figure. This approach is less subjective

than simply asking a business or ICT staff member to rate an application or technology out of 5, but can still be

completed relatively quickly. The dimensions used and the rating guidelines are also designed to be readily

understood by both technical and business people alike. In most cases, it is best to have business people rate

some dimensions, and technical people others.

The table below outlines the approach for assessing the business impact, future business value or condition of

assets.

Assessment approach

Evaluation

category

0 1 2 3 4 5 Score

Dimension 1 [Text] [Text] [Text] [Text] [Text] [Text] 3




The final score = sum (dimension ratings)/(number of evaluation categories). The guideline text is used to

obtain the ratings.

To use: read the guideline text for the dimension, and consider which description is closest to describing the

asset being evaluated. Note that it is not unusual to have many assets achieving similar ratings in some

dimensions, whilst varying on others. The unique set of guideline text has been provided for both business

impact and condition for each asset type.

Presume an application is being assessed. Application X is assessed as having a score of 3 in dimension 1, 4

in dimension 2, 2 in dimension 3 and 5 in dimension 4. The final result is calculated as (3 + 4 + 2 + 5)/(4) = 3.5.

Scalable cost assessment provides a simple means of turning a cost of operation dollar amount into a rating

from 0 to 5. By indicating a high annual estimated cost of operation (unique to the organisation) representing a

scaled cost of (5), it is possible to calculate ranges of values that would result in a scaled cost ratings of

between (1) and (5). Based on the table below, the high annual estimated cost of operation for the

organisation would be $250,000.



Example scaled cost ranges

TCO range Integer rating

$2,500 to $7,900 1

$7,900 to $25,000 2

$25,000 to $79,000 3

$79,000 to $250,000 4

$250,000 and above 5

Using the table above as an example, an asset with an annual estimated cost of operation of $30,000 would

be given a scaled cost assessment of 3. This enables comparisons to be made more easily between the cost

of assets in the same portfolio as well as the cost of similar assets across organisations in the sector.

The ICT planning methodology workbook is available to automatically calculate scaled cost.

Assessments are best conducted using surveys, interviews or workshops with representatives from the

business as well as application and information asset experts and support staff.

Using grid models

The Investment planning methodology applies grid models to determine the actions to be undertaken by the

organisation in relation to its asset portfolios. The grid models are a visual mechanism for understanding the

current and future positioning of information assets, applications and technologies and applying an objective

process for planning the future evolution of these assets based on recommended management strategies.

Each grid model captures information about an organisation’s assets according to a combination of

characteristics of business impact, future business value, condition and scaled cost.

Three different grid models are used to assess the current and future position of assets in relation to the rest of

the portfolio. The grid models developed to assess the current and future position of assets include:

Business exposure (business impact vs. condition)

Operational performance (business impact vs. scaled cost)

Attractiveness (future business value vs. condition).

The business exposure and operational performance grid models provide an indication of the present position

of the asset. In order to determine the future management strategies for each asset in the portfolio, it is

necessary to include the analysis of future business value. Future business value represents the ability of an

asset to deliver future benefits, realise business strategies and objectives and streamline the delivery of

products and services.

When the X and Y value combinations are plotted in each grid model, the chart can be divided into four

quadrants and a consistent interpretation drawn from the quadrant that the asset falls into. Depending on the

quadrant, recommended planning actions are indicated for the organisation to consider in relation to each

asset.

https://www.qgcio.qld.gov.au/products/qgea-documents/570-workflow/3348-ict-planning-methodology-workbook



For business impact, future business value, condition and scaled cost, the rating (between 0 and 5, where 0 is

the lowest and 5 is the highest) assigned to each asset during the business impact, future business value,

condition assessment and the scaled cost assessments are used to plot each asset on the respective grids.

Assess business exposure

The business exposure grid model (shown below) assesses the current risk of each asset to the business

based on the business impact and condition of the asset. The business impact can be used to indicate the

consequences to the business should the asset fail or not be available. The condition of the asset can be

interpreted as a measure of the likelihood of failure. Assets in poor condition may have a higher likelihood of

failure.

Extreme High

Medium Low

Low High

Hig

h

Bu

sin

es

s

imp

ac

t

Condition

Business exposure

Lo

w

Example business exposure grid

The significance of each of the quadrants in the business exposure grid is described below.

Example business exposure grid descriptions

Quadrant Rating Description

Extreme High business

impact/low condition

These assets are significant to the organisation in terms of scope

of use, frequency of use and business consequences of failure.

These assets are also less stable due to poor condition which

may result in an increased likelihood of failure.

High High business

impact/high condition


of use, frequency of use and the business consequences of

failure. However, these assets are less likely to fail as the

condition of these assets is higher.




Medium Low business

impact/low condition

The consequences resulting from the failure of these assets is

less. However, the condition of these assets is also poor. There

may be an increased likelihood that these assets will fail,

however the impact to the business is considered to be

noticeable but not catastrophic.

Low Low business

impact/high condition

These assets are perceived as having the lowest risk of all

assets in the portfolio. The business impact of failure to the

organisation is low and the risk of failure is also low due to the

higher condition of these assets.

Assess operational performance

This grid model below assesses the performance of individual assets in a portfolio based on the importance to

the business in terms of scope of use, frequency of and the consequences to the business should the asset

fail versus the total cost of delivering and maintaining the asset. This in turn gives an indication of the

‘reasonableness’ of the overall cost.

Maintain Reengineer

Tolerate Eliminate

Low High

Hig

h

Bu

sin

es

s

imp

ac

t

Annual estimated

cost of operation

Operational performance

Lo

w

Example operational performance grid

The significance of each of the quadrants in the operational performance grid is described below.



Example operational performance grid descriptions


Maintain High business

impact/low annual

estimated cost of

operation

These assets are significant to the organisation in terms of their

scope of use, frequency of use and business consequences of

failure. These assets are delivered at a low cost of operation and

current investment in the asset should be maintained to ensure

that the asset is stable and the low cost of operation is

sustained.

Reengineer High business

impact/high annual

estimated cost of

operation


of use, frequency of use and the business consequences of

failure however these assets are delivered at a high cost. The

cost of delivering these assets needs to be rationalised and

these assets may need to be reengineered so that they can be

delivered using more cost effective methods and platforms.

Tolerate Low business

impact/low annual

estimated cost of

operation

The significance of these assets to the business is low. However,

these assets are delivered at a relatively low cost. The current

investment in these minimal use assets can usually be tolerated

due to the lower cost of delivery. Organisations should avoid

having a large number of these assets.

Eliminate Low business

impact/high annual

estimated cost of

operation

These assets are perceived as having lower importance to the

operation of the organisation. However, the cost of delivering

these assets is high. Based on the current performance, these

assets may be considered for elimination (or retirement) provided

the supporting business activity can be migrated to other delivery

mechanisms.

Assess attractiveness

In order to effectively plan for the future investment in individual assets, it is necessary to look at the potential

for each asset to deliver future benefit. The attractiveness grid model assesses the contribution the asset will

make to the strategic priorities and objectives of the organisation by comparing the capability of the asset to

deliver future benefits and business changes against its current condition. When combined with the analysis

from the risk and operational performance grid models, recommended strategies for the future management of

individual assets in the portfolio can be considered during planning.



Streamline Nurture

Retire Leverage

Low High

Hig

h

Fu

ture

bu

sin

es

s

va

lue

Condition

Attractiveness

Lo

w

Example attractiveness grid

The significance of each of the quadrants within the attractiveness grid is as described below.

Example attractiveness grid descriptions


Streamline High future

business value/low

condition

These assets are of high future business value, but have low

condition. Organisations should plan to improve the condition of

these assets. Extending the asset’s use can also be investigated.

Nurture High future

business

value/high

condition

These assets are of high future business value to the organisation

and the condition is high. These are generally flagship assets and

future investment should focus on ensuring that the condition is

maintained, so that continued business value can be delivered.

Retire

Low future

business value/low

condition

These assets provide low value and are of low condition. These

assets would generally be considered for decommissioning once

any existing business dependencies on these assets have been

migrated to alternative solutions.

Leverage Low future

business

value/high

condition

These assets are of low future business value, however their

condition is high. Organisations should investigate opportunities to

maximise additional business value from these assets. However,

these assets should only be retained if additional value can be

realised, otherwise business dependencies on these assets may

need to be migrated to alternative solutions so the asset can be

retired. In some cases the high condition may allow for the sale or

divestiture of the asset either, as is, or in the form of its intellectual

property value.



Derive asset management actions

Based on the position of each asset on each of the three grids, a number of generic asset management strategies can be considered.

Asset management strategies

Business

exposure

Operational

performance

Attractiveness Generic asset management actions

Extreme Maintain Streamline Upgrade to address condition of the asset to support

current and future needs.

Optimise

Extreme Maintain Retire Undertake interim actions to address condition and

stabilise asset. Maintain in the medium term and

decommission after business dependencies are

migrated to alternative solution.

Replace

Extreme Reengineer Streamline Upgrade to address condition and rationalise cost.

Alternatively, consider migration of functions to low

cost alternatives.

Rationalise

Extreme Reengineer Retire Undertake interim actions to address condition and

stabilise asset. Short term decommission after

business dependencies are migrated to alternative

solution or consider alternative delivery of services.

Replace

High Maintain Nurture Represents a current flagship asset. Ensure sufficient

budget to maintain condition into the future and

promote reuse of this asset.

Enhance

High Maintain Leverage No immediate action required. Identify if additional

business value from the asset exists. Alternatively

consider divestiture of asset.

Research/explore

High Reengineer Nurture Asset meets needs, but requires cost rationalisation

to support current and future needs. If costs are

addressed, asset could become a future flagship

asset.

Optimise

High Reengineer Leverage Asset meets needs, but requires cost rationalisation

to support current needs. Identify if additional

business value from the asset exists. Alternatively,

consider divestiture of asset.

Optimise

Medium Tolerate Streamline Over the medium term, improve condition prior to

expansion of use with the goal of creating a flagship

asset.

Optimise

Medium Tolerate Retire Consider decommissioning in the short term. Decommission

Medium Eliminate Streamline Over the short term, improve condition and cost

rationalisation to support current and future needs.

Expand use with the goal of creating a flagship asset.

Optimise



Business

exposure

Operational

performance

Attractiveness Generic asset management actions

Medium Eliminate Retire Represents an extremely poor asset. Consider

immediate decommissioning.

Decommission

Low Tolerate Nurture Asset meets needs. Asset could become a future

flagship asset. Continue to contain costs and exploit

for future business benefit.

Optimise

Low Tolerate Leverage Identify if additional business value from the asset

exists. Alternatively, consider divestiture or

decommissioning of asset.

Research/explore

Low Eliminate Nurture Asset meets needs, but requires cost rationalisation

to support future needs.

Optimise

Low Eliminate Leverage Asset meets needs. Identify if additional business

value from the asset exists. If so, requires cost

rationalisation to support future needs. Alternatively,

consider decommissioning of asset.

Research/explore

Envisioning

This section provides techniques for envisioning, where it is being undertaken as part of the organisation’s

investment planning process.

Envisioning provides the business with an opportunity to think about and envision the future state of the

business, information, application and technology portfolios.

Whilst some information can be gathered from the organisation’s existing business plans, the most effective

approach is to gather information from key stakeholders. This could take the form of (or a combination of):

workshops

interviews

surveys.

Whilst the approach itself is not critical, the organisation needs adopt the most appropriate approach taking

into consideration the nature/personality of stakeholders and ensure any workshops and/or interviews are

carefully planned and effectively facilitated to ensure the most optimal outputs is gathered from the

stakeholders.

These stakeholder ideas take the form of ‘opportunities’. While opportunities are similar to goals, objectives

and strategies they are less top down. Instead, the ideal set of opportunities should include responses to

forces beyond merely the organisation’s internal direction. Indeed, often the opportunities developed at this

stage may (along with business drivers and other environmental analysis) be used as input into determination

of goals, objectives and strategies of future planning activities.

An example register, complete with domains and attractiveness and achievability scores is shown on page 20.



Example opportunities register

Opportunity Proposed action Business

driver/problem * Domains * Who When

Att

rac

tiv

en

es

s *

Ac

hie

vab

ilit

y *

Improved

reporting

Implement a

standard reporting

component which

provides the

ability to develop

and deliver

reports with

minimal effort and

expertise.

Current reporting

processes are

time consuming,

and differ

between business

units.

SL-2.3 Fiscal and

Monetary Services

BP-10.3 Report

information

I-1.2 Financial

A-6.5 Financial

Management

Director,

Finance

30 Apr 20xx 4 3

Better

information

provision for

customers

Provide more up-

to-date online

information

through web-

based delivery

channel,

integrated with a

web content

management

system

Online information

is out dated,

posing a risk to

both patients and

practitioners

SL-1.9.1 Consumer Health

BP-6.3.1 Provide customer

access to service

BP-9.4.2 Establish

information repositories

(databases)

I-9.1.2 Person

I-11.3.4 Registration

A-1.6 Information Provision

T-1.2.3 Content

management

Director,

Health

Services

30 Jun 20xx 5 4

Better

information

provision for

staff

Self-service

reporting to

improve financial

information

access.

Long delays

experienced in

obtaining

information from

the SAP

environment

SL-2.3 Fiscal and

Monetary Services

BP-9.4.7 Enable retrieval

of information

BP-10.3 Report

information

I-1.2 Financial

A-6.5 Financial

Management

Director,

Finance

30 Jun 20xx 3 4

Consolidation Implement a

migration from

Lotus Notes to

Microsoft

Exchange

Consolidate email

platform to

Microsoft

Exchange

T-1.2.1 Email and

Calendaring

Director,

Information

Services

Directorate

31 Dec 5 3

Reduce number

of versions of

technologies

Plan migration off

older redundant

versions of

technologies

Risk of service

delivery if these

unsupported

versions stop

working

T ….

T….

T….

Director,

Information

Services

Directorate

31 Dec 5 3



Opportunity Proposed action Business

driver/problem * Domains * Who When

Att

rac

tiv

en

es

s *

Ac

hie

vab

ilit

y *

Reduce

redundancy in

applications

None identified None identified A …

A …

A …

Director,

Information

Services

Directorate

31 Dec 5 3

* The identification and confirmation of drivers, domains and assessment of attractiveness and achievability should be

done in the Rationalise envisioning opportunities section (see page 24).

The business, information, application and technology ‘opportunities’ captured within the opportunities register

should be short, actionable statements that provide details of ‘what’ the organisation could do in response to a

preferred organisational need, state or desire.

Example envisioning workshop approach

A variety of approaches can be used to collect opportunities, and the following provides an example of one

style of approach. During a workshop the facilitator can address each of the following perspectives, using a

variety of questions.

Example workshop perspectives and questions

Perspective Questions

Finances How could we improve the use, control or reporting of funds?

Where could we be more cost efficient?

Customers (clients/

constituents)

How would you like to improve the client experience?

If you were a client, how would you like to interact with this organisation?

Processes How could existing processes be improved?

Staff What would you like to help you do your job, or others in the organisation to do their job?

Information How can your systems better support your information needs?

What reporting would you like to be able to do?

What data is missing?

What new data needs can you foresee?

Technology What new technologies could you use?

How could you apply emerging technologies?



Perspective Questions

Partners/providers How can you improve your business relationships and their experience of you?

Do you need to introduce partnerships?

Do you need to remove then?

Are you doing non-core functions that could be better served by a provider?

As most workshops take on a brainstorming type approach, the responses initially captured should then be

individually reviewed to ensure the core opportunity to improve the business is identified.

When conducting this style of session it is sometimes simpler for participants to think of the issues or problems

within each of these areas and derive the opportunity from there. In this case use the following guidelines to

help get the most from the attendees:

Ensure the statements describe what needs to change, not how.

If there is too much ‘how’ try asking ‘why do you think that approach will solve the problem?’

If there is doubt or ambiguity surrounding an item try asking ‘what is it you would need to do, or will be

able to do if this problem is solved?’

If there is a lack of responsiveness ask the participants to think in terms of ‘gaps’ and ‘overlaps’.

Remember gaps can be in various forms such as place gaps, time gaps, requirements gap. For example,

you could ask about time gaps for information by saying ‘Is there any information that is not available

when needed?’

Alternative approaches to the above include:

a combination of PEST (political, economic, social and technological) and SWOT (strengths, weakness,

opportunities and threats) analysis to generate requirements

arrange the questions around a balanced scorecard

arrange the questions around the (BTOPP) business, technology, organisation, process and people

model.

The key aspect is to assist the participants to identify problems and then define what their response would be.

Remember, ultimately these will be used to guide actions to be taken within the work plan. Example business,

information, application and technology opportunities are located within the example opportunities register

(page 20).

Due to the scope of stakeholders required, it is recommended that envisioning is broken into:

business and information envisioning

application and technology envisioning.



Business and information envisioning

This activity provides the business with an opportunity to think about and envision future business models,

business approaches, new processes, and/or new information. Business and information envisioning should

be conducted first as the ideas generated can be used to inform and identify future needs and derive solution

characteristics (applications and technologies).

The following stakeholders/participants are relevant for this activity:

Chief Information Officer (CIO)

Business manager

Enterprise architects

Business analysts

Business planning representatives

Project managers

Project officers

Information management representatives.

Application and technology envisioning

This activity provides the application and technology experts an opportunity to think about and envision future

uses for, and delivery of ICT which may impact on service delivery, business delivery, business models and

approaches for the organisation. Specifically the aim is to identify opportunities:

for technology to improve the business of the organisation i.e. business opportunities for the use of ICT

to improve ICT service delivery within the organisation i.e. the business of ICT within the organisation or

ICT service opportunities.

The opportunities generated by this activity should provide direction when considering the future of ICT

delivery, existing ICT, the needs of the business in the future, and possibilities for new applications or

technologies. Importantly, capturing the vision of the application and technology environment allows the

architectural characteristics for the organisation to be derived.

The envisioning process, unlike the process for business and information, should concentrate mainly on the

business processes of the ICT providers within the organisation. As a result it is useful to hold envisioning

activities after the application and technology portfolios have been created so that all participants are aware of

the current environment during the discussion.

The following stakeholders/participants are relevant for this activity:

Chief Information Officer (CIO)

Enterprise architects

Application and technology architects/experts

System analysts

ICT managers

ICT infrastructure managers

ICT support staff

At the beginning of the application and technology workshops, a review of the business and information

opportunities captured should first be conducted.

This provides a means for the ICT staff within the organisation to input into how ICT may be able to support

organisational activity. Often, through exposure to various projects ICT staff can identify these business



opportunities, but may not always put them to the business sponsors. This step is intended to formalise this

activity and provide ICT practitioner input to business opportunities.

Remember the workshop should centre on the current applications and technologies, their strengths,

weaknesses and opportunities, and possible future applications/technologies which the organisation may be

able to use to its advantage in the coming 3-5 years.

Rationalise envisioning opportunities

Following the business, information, application and technology workshops, the organisation should now have

a list of all ideas captured within the ‘opportunities register’. Depending on the number of opportunities

gathered, it may be necessary to consolidate and rationalise a large number of these opportunities into a more

manageable list. This can be achieved by:

Identifying current organisational drivers, and allocated to each ‘opportunity’ where applicable.

Identification of current organisations drivers will be used as input when assessing opportunity attractiveness. Current

organisational drivers can be gathered from:

whole-of-government direction (e.g. current government strategies, and QGEA policies)

organisational/business strategies

organisational target architectures.

Classifying each ‘opportunity’ to the relevant domains using a standard classification framework.

Classifying opportunities to a standard classification framework (e.g. the Queensland Government classification

frameworks) can:

enable ‘opportunities’ to be assessed in terms of coverage, gaps and duplicates

allow opportunities to be easily sorted so they can be utilised during the later Information, application and

technology profiling stages.

Assessing the opportunities by rating them at a high level using standard attractiveness and achievability

criteria.

Attractiveness is defined as the contribution the opportunity will make to strategic priorities and objectives’ while

achievability is defined as ‘ensuring there is sufficient capability and capacity to capitalise on the opportunity.

Other useful portfolio management techniques to introduce more structure into the prioritisation process can be found

in Deliver investment plan – Portfolio management extensions (page 27).

Each opportunity should be rated using a scale, which will assist to determine the amount of weight each

opportunity carries when used during the analysis activities.

Deliver investment plan – Portfolio management extensions (page 27) use a rating scale from 0 – 5, where 0 is a low

level (or no) attractiveness or poor achievability, while 5 is highly attractively or extremely achievable.

Workshop facilitators may which to use a simpler 1 to 3 scale if participants are finding it difficult or time consuming

with the 0-5 scale.

https://www.qgcio.qld.gov.au/products/qgea-documents/qgea-classification-frameworks

https://www.qgcio.qld.gov.au/products/qgea-documents/qgea-classification-frameworks

https://www.qgcio.qld.gov.au/products/investment-planning-techniques/general-investment-planning-techniques




Exclude any opportunities which have a combined low attractiveness and low achievability ratings (e.g. a

minimum of 2 for attractiveness and 2 for achievability when using a 0-5 scale).

Depending on whether further consolidation is necessary (e.g. too many opportunities still exist), the organisation may

also want to exclude those opportunities that have low attractiveness and high achievability, as they may be considered

a distraction (whilst easy to do they offer little benefit to the organisation).

Please note that these opportunities will later be combined with actions and recommendations from the

business, information, application and technology profiling stages and will be further assessed and

consolidated in the Deliver investment plan stage.

Licence

This document is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0

International Licence. For permissions beyond the scope of this licence, contact [email protected].

To attribute this material, cite the Queensland Government Chief Information Office.


http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

mailto:[email protected]

general planning techniques - queensland government chief ... · general planning techniques gather...

Documents