portfolio selection and analytics using microsoft project

8/12/2019 Portfolio Selection and Analytics Using Microsoft Project

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/portfolio-selection-and-analytics-using-microsoft-project 1/22

Portf

In uncert

or mainta

of effecti

organizat

selection

priorities

availabilit

projects t

Aligning s

structure

consisten

structure

addition,

first‐serv

Adopting

following

Defin

and h

actiobusin

by de

Drive strat

portf

organ

organ

Obje

comp

Priori

finan

for cr

Ident

budg

daun

ROI.

lio Sel

in economic

in budgets is

ely identifyi

ion’s busines

techniques p

and maximiz

y. Together,

o undertake,

pending with

techniques

tly evaluate

process en

ensures that

d” basis.

structured p

:

e and comm

igh‐level stra

able, measu

ess strategy i

partments th

executive cgy and drivi

lio. Executiv

ization’s stra

izations mor

tively prioriteting project

tizing project

ial value, an

eating a com

ify the optimt cuts or wit

ing task for

dditional va

ection

times, many

driving shar

g, selecting,

s strategy an

rovide a han

ing ROI—and

they help pro

but to forec

business str

for defining,

ach competi

orces a ratio

projects are

rtfolio selec

unicate the tegic objecti

rable, and

di

n actionable

roughout th

nsensus arog executive

es from diffe

tegic prioriti

e effectively

ize competi

requests co

s by

using

a

risk—provi

mon currenc

al portfolio h a wish list

MOs to reco

iables, such

nd An

executives a

er scrutiny o

and deliveri

that maxim

shake betw

resource uti

ject manage

st when pro

ategy can be

prioritizing,

ng initiative

al rather th

unded base

tion process

usiness straes. Few of t

crete busine

terms provid

organizatio

nd businessonsensus is

rent function

s. Overcomi

ssess comp

g projects fring in, it ca

ariety of

val

es a framew

with which

nder varyinf requests th

mmend a po

s inter‐proj

lytics

re being ask

f discretiona

g project po

ize return‐o

en value op

ization, or u

ment offices

ects can be

very subjecti

nd commun

hat contribu

n emotional

on business

s and techni

egy. Many oem, howeve

ss drivers.

D

es a blueprin

.

driver priorine of the m

al areas natu

ng these disc

ting initiativ

om multiple quickly bec

e measurem

ork for asses

to make com

budget andat exceeds t

rtfolio that al

ct dependen

d to do mor

ry spending,

rtfolios that

‐investment

imization—t

derstanding

(PMOs) reco

elivered.

ve. It is mad

icating busin

tes to strate

approach to

priorities ra

ques helps o

rganizations

r, break dow

fining and

e

t that can be

ties. Objectiost importan

rally will hav

repancies an

es and select

dimensions. me difficult

ents—for ex

sing request

parisons.

portfolio coe allocated

ligns with bu

cies and reg

with less. P

and increase

est align wit

(ROI). Best‐p

hat is, alignm

resource ca

mmend not

less so if or

ess imperativ

ic priorities.

decision ma

her than on

ganizations

publish missi

n their strate

fectively co

understood

ely prioritizi

t steps in sel

e different o

d driving con

the optimal

With potenti

to see the fo

ample, strat

from multip

nstraints. Wudget, it ca

siness strate

latory requi

essure to re

s the import

h an

ractice portf

ent with bus

abilities and

nly which

anizations a

es, and

Adopting a

ing, and in

a “first‐come

ccomplish t

on statemen

gy into

municating

and implem

g the busin

cting the

inions on th

sensus help

portfolio.

ally hundred

rest for the t

gic value,

le dimension

en faced wi

become a

y and maxim

ements, can

uce

nce

olio

iness

dopt

,

e

ts

the

nted

ss

e

s of

ees.

s and

h

izes



furth

identi

Effec

compproje

com

resul

Maxi

the fi

resou

proje

for e

New port

between

on alignm

Project S

Objec

Score

Run

Comp

Front

Asseshoriz

Run a

Project S

Project P

push dat

consisten

Project S

it even ea

rather th

the align

Portf Project S

select pro

r compound

fy the right p

ively comm

liance requir

ct portfolios.

unicate trad

ing portfolio

ize resourcst half of th

rces in the s

cts based on

ample—to

olio selectio

alue optimi

ent with bus

rver 2010 h

tively define

and assess c

hat‐if analys

are and cont

ier modeling.

s capacity

an

n.

nd model he

rver 2010 in

rtfolio Serve

between Pr

t Microsoft®

rver 2010 in

sier to identi

n emotional

ent of spen

lio Optirver 2010 in

ject portfoli

the problem

rojects for a

nicate tradeements

are

a

Being able t

eoffs to the

.

e utilization. year, resulti

cond half of

resource ava

aximize reso

n and analyti

ation and re

iness strateg

lps organizat

communica

ompeting re

is optimizati

rast portfoli

d adjust

proj

adcount scen

orporates th

r 2007, elimi

ject Portfoli

harePoint® u

uitively step

fy and select

approach to

ing with str

mizatioludes a best

s that best a

, making it c

organizatio

offs. Budget,ll factors

tha

effectively i

xecutive tea

In an annual

ng in an imm

the year. Usi

ilability and

urce utilizati

cal capabiliti

ource utiliza

and resour

ions do the f

e, and priori

uests from

n scenarios

s and gain in

ect schedule

arios.

e best‐in‐cla

nating the ne

Server 200

ser interface

s PMOs thro

the right pro

portfolio sel

tegy by maxi

and Cpractice–ba

lign with thei

allenging to

to underta

available re

can

potenti

dentify and b

m and enhan

planning cyc

ediate overa

ng capacity p

odel headc

n and to ide

s in Microso

tion to help

e capability.

ollowing:

tize business

ultiple dime

under variou

sight throug

to

maximiz

ss portfolio

ed for Proje

and Micros

across the s

gh embedd

ject portfolio

ction and

pr

mizing resou

pacity ed methodo

r business st

effectively m

e. ources, dep

ally affect

th

reak these c

ce the poten

le, projects a

llocation of r

lanning tech

unt scenari

ntify the opt

ft® Project Se

rganization

strategy.

nsions.

s budgetary

advanced a

resource

ut

anagement

t Server Gat

oft® Project S

lution. The i

d portfolio s

s. Project Se

ovides a stru

rce utilizatio

lanninglogy that hel

rategy.

odel scenari

ndencies, pe

overall

valu

nstraints he

tial value gai

re sometime

esources and

niques, analy

s—hiring ver

imal release

rver 2010 bu

select proje

onstraints.

nalysis such

ilization acro

techniques o

way (which

erver 2007),

mproved an

election met

rver 2010 su

ctured proce

n.

s organizati

s that will h

t projects, a

e of

selected

lps PMOs

ned from the

s front‐loade

a surplus of

sts can resch

sus outsourc

oadmap.

ild a bridge

t portfolios

s Efficient

s the

planni

f Microsoft®

as required

and providin

lysis wizard i

odology, m

ports a ratio

ss for

measu

ns identify a

lp

d

d in

edule

ing,

ased

g

ffice

to

g a

n

king

nal

ring

nd



In the foll

planning.

Busin

Proje

Portf

Capa

ClearlThe first

and uniq

PMOs ca

organizat

select

betoo broad

Using the

defined b

it is easy

Drive

can b

Depa

to im

freed

Proje

contr

devel

indic

proje

the t

perfo

owing sectio

ess driver de

ct portfolio p

lio optimiza

ity Planning:

Define tep in alignin

e business d

facilitate a

ion’s objecti

ween

six

an to be effect

Project Serv

y the executi

or PMOs to

r name and etter commu

rtments. Beclement thro

om to

associ

ct impact staibution of ea

opment. Org

te the impac

ct impact sta

reshold of e

rmance indic

ns, we walk t

inition and p

rioritization

ion: cost con

Resource co

nd Priorig spending

rivers that cl

orkshop wit

es into actio

twelve

busive, and mor

r 2010 Drive

ve team. Usi

ublish driver

escription. nicate the in

ause the solu

ughout the o

te specific

s

tements. Ultch competin

anizations ca

t that compe

tements to e

ch impact ra

ators (KPIs) u

hrough four

rioritization

straint analy

nstraint anal

tize Busiith business

arly commu

h executives

able terms.

ess

drivers.

than twelve

r Library, PM

g the New B

s. The New

y capturing

ent of each

tion is flexibl

rganization.

ts of

drivers

imately, orga

initiative by

n use the val

ting request

sure the obj

ting. Project

sed to meas

ey phases o

sis and optim

sis and utiliz

ess Strastrategy is to

nicate the in

to define bu

A rough rule

ewer

than

s results in dr

Os can capt

usiness Driv

usiness Driv

name and d

river and re

e, organizati

t the same

with multipl

nizations us

deriving a st

ues Extreme,

have on on

ectivity of th

impact state

re each busi

portfolio op

ization

ation

egy define a set

ent of the or

iness driver

of thumb is t

ix

drivers

usuiver overlap

re and com

r form in Pr

r form capt

escription fo

uce ambigu

ons can have

ime, the sol

departmen

business dri

rategic value

Strong, Mod

or more bu

is assessmen

ments are de

ness driver.

timization an

of actionabl

ganization’s

and to trans

hat an organ

ally

results

ind redunda

unicate busi

ject Server 2

res the follo

r each busin

ity.

a single set

tion gives or

ts.

vers to asses

score during

erate, Low,

iness drivers

t and to clea

rived from t

d capacity

, measurabl

business stra

late the

ization shoul

drivers

that

cy.

ness drivers

010 (see Fig

ing metada

ss driver, an

f business d

ganizations t

s the strateg

business cas

r None to

. PMOs use

ly communi

e key

,

tegy.

d

are

re 1),

ta:

alysts

ivers

he

ic

e

ate



Figure 1. Pr

After defi

and impa

the Proje

value sco

oject Server 201

ning busines

ct statement

t Strategic I

e—for comp

0 – New Busine

drivers and

s populate th

pact form t

eting reques

s Driver form specifying de

e Project Str

collect the i

ts.

partmental

tegic Impact

mpact rating

ssociations,

form (see Fi

s to derive a

the driver na

gure 2). The

common cur

me, descripti

rganization

rency—a str

on,

uses

tegic



Figure 2. Pr

When str

and to dri

Project S

business

organizat

enterpris

Project S

prioritizin

driver pri

displayinthe right

the impo

ambiguit

compare

to the ne

oject Server 201

tegy has

be

ve consensu

rver 2010 to

river to prio

ional hierarc

, but also pr

rver 2010 in

g, the busine

ritization pr

a

single

busolumn (see

tance of eac

. For exampl

to “Improv

t driver, the

0 – Project Stran defined,

t

within the e

support a w

ritize strateg

y. For exam

ioritize busin

ludes a pair

ss drivers. Th

ocess. The d

iness

driver

iigure 3). Thi

h business dr

e, “Expand in

product qu

analyst simp

egic Impact for

e next

step

i

xecutive tea

rkshop in w

. The organi

le, it can de

ess drivers in

ise compari

e Compare

sign makes i

the

left

col intuitive vie

iver pairing a

to new mark

lity.” To step

ly clicks the

n the

proces

. PMOs can

ich executiv

zation can pr

ine a standa

dependently

son techniqu

rivers table

easy for the

mn,

importaw ensures th

nd clearly re

ets and seg

through the

ext Driver b

is

to

objecti

use the new

es openly dis

ioritize busin

d set of busi

by line‐of ‐b

e for compar

uides execu

team to co

nce

ratings

iat executive

iew driver d

ents” is mor

pairwise co

utton.

vely prioritiz

driver priori

cuss the imp

ess drivers a

ness drivers

siness (LOB)

ing the impo

tives through

plete the as

the

center,

can frankly

escriptions t

e or less imp

parison ass

business

dr

tization mod

ortance of e

any level in

cross the

or departme

rtance of, an

the busines

essment by

and

the

drivdiscuss and a

mitigate

rtant when

ssment and

ivers

le in

ch

the

nt.

d

rs

in

ssess

move



Figure 3. Pr

Using the

score for

relative i

scale to p

relative s

portfolio

In additio

team’s re

indicates

assessme

inconsist

might ind

Drive

Drive

Drive

oject Server 201

input from t

business driv

portance of

roportionall

ore is a cruc

aligns with th

n, Project Se

sponses wer

inconsistenci

nt to improv

ncy can be i

ependently c

r 1 is AS IMP

r 1 is AS IMP

r 2 is MORE I

0 – Compare Dr

he pairwise c

ers (see Figu

each busine

measure inv

ial step to be

e organizati

ver 2010 pro

in

the

pair

es and sugge

the consist

troduced du

ome to the f

RTANT as D

RTANT as D

MPORTANT t

ivers table omparison a

e 4). The tea

s driver. In a

estment alig

ing able to a

n’s business

vides a consi

ise assessm

sts that the

ncy of respo

ring the asse

llowing con

iver 2.

iver 3.

han Driver 3.

sessment, P

m can then

ddition, a no

ment with s

curately me

strategy.

stency ratio

nt (see

Figur

nalyst shoul

nses. The fol

ssment and r

lusions, whi

roject Server

se the norm

rmalized sco

trategic prio

sure how cl

score that in

e 4).

A

score

work with t

lowing exam

esult in a lo

h considere

2010 derive

alized score t

e provides t

ities. Objecti

sely a resulti

icates how c

lower than

7

he team to r

ple demonstr

consistency

collectively,

a relative pr

o assess the

e team with

vely deriving

ng project

onsistent a

5 percent

fine the pai

ates how

ratio. The te

are inconsis

iority

a

this

wise

am

tent:



Figure 4. Pr

The pair

However,

As menti

about the

organizat

discussio

importan

useful ap

executive

divergenc

focus on

A BettAfter eng

next step

varying c

oject Server 201

ise comparis

Project Serv

ned earlier,

organizatio

ions more ef

that occurs

ce of each bu

roach is to p

. The PMO c

e of opinion

he areas of

r Experiaging the ex

s are to prior

st and resou

0 – Business Dri

on techniqu

er 2010 also

executives fr

’s strategic p

ectively asse

when undert

siness driver

rioritize busi

n then comp

ahead of a d

iscrepancy d

nce witcutive team

itize competi

rce constrain

ver Priority Scor

helps

organ

ffers the fle

m various f

riorities. Ove

ss competin

aking the pai

pairing, and

ness drivers

are and cont

iver prioritiz

uring the ses

the Intto better und

ng requests

ts.

e and Consisten

izations obje

xibility to ass

nctional are

rcoming this

initiatives a

rwise compa

to drive cons

y using the

rast driver p

tion worksh

sion to drive

itive Anerstand and

nd to select

cy Ratio ctively

priori

ign manual p

as naturally

discrepancy

d compile t

rison is an ef

ensus across

airwise tech

iorities for e

op, which w

consensus a

lysis Wizcommunicat

the optimal

ize their

busi

riorities to b

ill have diffe

and driving c

e optimal po

fective way t

the executiv

nique indep

ach executiv

uld include

ross the tea

ard

e its strategi

ortfolio of p

ness strateg

siness drive

rent opinion

onsensus he

rtfolio. The

o debate the

e team. Ano

ndently with

, identify

ll executives

.

priorities, t

rojects unde

.

s.

s

lps

pen

her

each

, and

e



Project S

portfolio

move thr

Ribbon.

Tanalysts c

An analys

offers the

include in

horizon f

Figure 5. Pr

The follo

constrain

rver 2010 in

selection me

ugh the ana

he

simplicity

an quickly d

t uses the N

flexibility to

the analysis;

r the capaci

oject Server 201

ing sections

t analysis, an

ludes an int

thodology (s

lysis steps by

and

intuitivemonstrate v

w Portfolio

run the anal

and to speci

y planning a

0 – New Portfoli

provide an o

d resource c

itive wizard

e Figure 5).

clicking the

nature

of

thilue derived

nalysis form

sis at the en

fy the priorit

sessment.

o Analysis form

verview of t

nstraint anal

that guides a

sing the Ne

ext button,

s

wizard

redrom the sol

to define th

terprise level

ization criteri

e Project Se

ysis capabilit

nalysts thro

Portfolio A

or by selecti

ces

training

tion.

properties f

or by depar

ia, primary c

ver 2010 pr

ies.

gh the Proje

nalysis wizar

g a sequenti

costs

and

en

or a new ana

ment; to filt

st constrain

ject prioritiz

ct Server 201

, analysts si

al step in th

sures

that

lysis. The for

r projects to

s, and the ti

tion, cost

0

ply

m

e



ObjectWith pot

common

Using Pro

(see Figur

custom fi

and Total

compare

After defi

impact o

Strategic

business

values—f

Impact fo

analysts c

Figure 6. Pr

ively Printially hund

scoring criter

ject Server 2

e 5). An anal

elds that incl

Cost. The re

and contrast

ning the Ne

business dri

Impact matri

rivers (in co

or example,

rm (included

an make cha

oject Server 201

ritize Coeds of proje

ia is essentia

10, analysts

st can choo

de other pri

ainder of th

competing i

Portfolio An

vers. In the R

x (see Figure

lumns) defin

xtreme, Stro

in the busin

nges to the i

0 – Project Stra

peting ts competin

l to effectivel

can select th

e to prioritiz

oritization m

is section wi

vestments.

alysis proper

ibbon, click t

6). This heat

d by the exe

ng, Moderat

ss case; see

pact matrix

egic Impact vie

Requests for the sam

y prioritizing

e prioritizati

e requests b

etrics—for e

l focus on de

ties, the nex

he Prioritize map shows

cutive team.

e, Low, or No

Figure 6). Be

by selecting

e limited bu

and evaluati

n criteria th

sed on their

ample, net

riving a strat

step is to pr

Projects but

ow competi

This matrix i

ne—capture

ause this an

the appropri

get and reso

ng investme

at will drive

strategic val

resent value

egic value sc

ioritize proje

ton to displa

ng projects (i

s prepopulat

d in the Proj

alysis is cond

ate rating for

urces, formu

t requests.

ortfolio anal

e or to crea

(NPV), ROI,

re to effecti

cts based on

the Project

n rows) supp

d with the

ct Strategic

ucted offline

each cell.

lating

ysis

e

isk,

vely

their

ort



The prim

When clic

priority s

project w

provides

interpret

strategic

section.

Figure 7. Pr

PortfoFor most

managem

economic

becomes

analysts

ry purpose

king the Rev

ore for com

ill deliver ba

common cu

this score is

alue of the

oject Server 201

lio

Optimorganization

ent often ex

environmen

even more c

odel differe

f the matrix

iew Prioritieeting projec

ed on its con

rrency for co

hat completi

ortfolio. The

0 – Review Prio

ization

a, scarcity is a

ceeds the or

t, the import

itical. Projec

nt scenarios

is to derive a

button, Proj

s (see Figure

tribution to

mparing diff

ng all project

importance

ities view

nd

Cost

reality, and

anization’s b

ance of reco

t Server 2010

o identify th

priority scor

ect Server 2

7). The scor

rioritized bu

rent types o

s in the port

of this persp

onstrainthe number

udget and re

mending a

includes a p

e optimal pr

for compet

10 automati

measures t

siness driver

f projects. A

olio would d

ctive will be

t

Analysif project re

source const

d selecting t

ortfolio opti

ject portfoli

ing requests.

cally derives

he strategic

s. The strate

other impor

eliver 100 pe

come eviden

uests receiv

raints. In an

he right proj

ization engi

under vario

a normalized

alue that ea

ic value scor

tant way to

rcent of the

t in the follo

d by

npredictabl

cts to under

ne that helps

us constrain

h

e

ing

take

s.



After suc

analyst m

8). This p

practices

and busin

committe

charts ar

analyst c

additiona

Figure 8. Pr

When co

be used i

priority o

projects i

organizat

baseline

subseque

essfully prio

oves forwar

werful what

to

help

execess constrai

es with a sin

embedded i

n configure

l clarity.

oject Server 201

figuring a n

the scenari

der (based o

the portfoli

ion can gain

cenario is pl

nt scenarios

itizing comp

in the portf

‐if analysis to

tives

quicklyts. In Project

le decision‐

n the Cost C

iews that in

0 – Cost Constr

w portfolio a

. The Cost C

n their strat

o. Project Se

00 percent

tted on the

(see Figure 9

ting project

lio selection

ol uses soph

determine

t Server 2010

aking porta

nstraint Ana

lude custom

int Analysis vienalysis, the

nstraint An

gic value), a

ver 2010 au

f the portfol

fficient Fron

.

requests as

wizard to th

isticated opti

e

optimal

pthe Cost Con

l. For exampl

lysis view to

fields—type,

nalyst is req

lysis view di

d indicates t

omatically c

io value if it f

tier chart an

utlined in th

e Cost Const

mization alg

oject

portfolstraint Anal

e, Efficient F

provide valu

phase, risk,

ired to spec

plays compe

he total cost

eates a base

unds every p

d used as a b

e preceding

aint Analysis

rithms and

io

under

a

vasis view pro

ontier and S

ble insight. I

and so on—t

ify a primary

ting project

estimate to

line scenario

roject on the

enchmark to

ection, the

view (see Fi

mbedded b

riety

of

budides steerin

rategic Align

n addition, t

o provide

cost constrai

equests in

omplete all

that shows t

ir wish list. T

compare all

ure

st

et

ment

e

nt to

he

his



Figure 9. Pr

The Effici

under var

example,

represen

represen

million b

y‐axis).

Organizat

1. To iindic

2. To bsele

In reality,

investme

and work

oject Server 201

nt Frontier

ious constrai

strategic val

s a different

s the most b

dget (the x‐

ions can use

entify the pates

that

yoenchmark thted portfoli

because of c

ts, most por

toward rem

0 – Efficient Fro

elps analyst

nt threshold

e—and cost

bundle of pr

ang for the b

xis) it can ac

the Efficient

int of dimin

are

paying

e selected p in relation t

onstraints lik

tfolios are su

ving these c

tier chart identify the

. The

Efficie

on the x‐axis

jects from t

ck, or highe

ieve approx

Frontier char

ishing returnore

to

achirtfolio agai the line tha

e interdepen

boptimal an

nstraints to

project port

t Frontier

ch

(see Figure

e proposed

st ROI. For e

imately 79 p

t in two way

. Find the po

ve

a

dispropst the Efficiet represents

dencies, proj

fall below t

move closer

olio that will

art includes

). Each poin

portfolio. Th

ample, Figur

rcent of the

:

int where th

ortionately

lnt Frontier. the Efficient

ect alternati

e Efficient F

to the Efficie

deliver the

alue criteria

on the Effici

Efficient Fr

e 9 shows th

portfolio’s st

curve begin

wer

amountompare the

Frontier.

es, and man

rontier. Anal

nt Frontier.

aximum val

on the

y‐axi

ent Frontier

ntier line

t for a $10

rategic value

s to flatten,

of

strategic

position of t

datory

sts can iden

e

—for

line

(the

hich

alue.

he

tify



Next, the

recomme

maximize

project

dgroup, an

analyst c

scenario

Figure 10. PUsing Pro

further re

Out optio

automati

portfolio

who wan

enhanced

why a pro

analyst simp

nds the opti

s the value g

pendencies.

d initiatives t

n immediate

gainst the E

roject Server 20

ject Server 2

fining cost c

ns help ensu

ally include

if they repre

s to see the

in Project S

ject is being

ly enters a co

al project p

ined from t

The

recommhat were exc

ly see how m

ficient Fronti

10 – Selected Pr

10 what‐if a

nstraints or

re that analy

in or exclud

ent complia

undertaken

rver 2010 so

included in o

st constraint

rtfolio. The

e portfolio u

ended

portf luded are list

uch value th

er.

ojects and Unse

nalysis capab

by forcing pr

ts can overri

d from the

ce initiatives

(“pet” proje

that analyst

r excluded fr

, clicks the R

ophisticated

nder the indi

lio

of

projeced in the Un

e selected po

lected Projects

ilities, analy

jects in or o

de the algori

ortfolio. Pro

or are even

cts). Force In

can select a

om the proje

calculate bu

Project Serv

cated cost c

ts

is

displayeselected Proj

rtfolio will d

ts can easily

ut of the por

thm and spe

ect requests

projects spo

and Force O

descriptive

ct portfolio (

tton, and Pr

er 2010 opti

nstraint, an

d

in

the

Selecects group (s

eliver and vis

model differ

tfolio. The Fo

ify projects

are often “f

sored by a s

ut options h

alue to bett

see Figure 11

ject Server 2

ization algo

considers in

ted

Projects

ee Figure 10)

ually assess t

ent scenario

rce In and Fo

hat should b

rced into” a

pecific execu

ve been

r communic

).

010

rithm

ter‐

. The

he

by

rce

e

tive

te



Figure 11. PAnalysts

saved sce

displays a

were incl

the overa

Figure 12. PThe Strat

organizat

Executive

investme

concern,

prioritize

and priori

roject Server 20

an save cost

narios can b

ll saved scen

ded or exclu

ll portfolio v

roject Server 20

gic Alignme

ions dynamic

s can quickly

t in a select

o that execu

business dr

tizing busine

10 – Force In an

constraint a

assessed in

arios side by

ded, and to

lue, and the

10 – Compare Pt chart (see

ally assess

h

visualize the

d project po

tives can ass

ivers. This as

ss drivers.

d Force Out opt

alyses to pr

the Compare

side, so it is

eview key m

cost constrai

ortfolio Selectio

Figure 13) in

w well

the

s

correlation

rtfolio. The S

ess whether

essment wo

ons vide an audi

Portfolio Sel

asy to comp

etrics—for e

nt applied (s

n Scenarios vieluded in the

lected portf

etween busi

trategic Alig

they are ove

uld be almos

table record

ection Scena

are and cont

ample, the

e Figure 12)

Cost Constra

olio aligns

wi

ness driver p

ment chart

investing or

t impossible

of all portfoli

rios view. Th

rast, to see

umber of pr

.

int Analysis

th business

s

riorities and

ighlights pot

underinvesti

ithout obje

o scenarios.

is intuitive vi

hich project

jects select

iew helps

trategy.

the organizat

ential areas

g in each of

tively defini

he

ew

d,

ion’s

f

the

g



Figure 13. PAfter ide

2010, an

workflow

resource

MaxiLeading p

by cost c

Selecting

organizat

Availabili

common

projects

resources

Performi

maximize

Project S

that work

utilizatio

deficits a

roject Server 20

tifying the o

lysts can eit

—for exampl

constraint an

ize Resoortfolio man

nstraint anal

project portf

ion has the ri

y and utiliza

problem tha

re front‐load

in the first h

g capacity pl

resource uti

rver 2010 in

s in conjunct

. The power

the skill lev

10 – Strategic Aptimal projec

er commit t

e, the progre

alysis.

rce Utiliagement solu

ysis—and re

olios based o

ght mix of re

ion of resour

many organ

ed on the pl

alf of the yea

anning analy

lization acros

ludes a new

ion with cost

ul resource‐

l—for exam

lignment chart

t portfolio, u

the scenari

ss of all sele

zation witions provid

ource utiliza

n ROI or valu

sources or a

ces has a dir

izations face

nning horizo

r and under

sis can help

s the entire

capacity pla

constraint a

entric analys

le, the statu

sing the tool

, which auto

ted projects

th Capac a handshak

tion—deter

e optimizati

ailable resou

ct effect on

during an an

n. This can p

tilization of

MOs proacti

lanning peri

ning feature

alysis to con

is helps PM

of all generi

and techniq

matically up

in the life cy

ity Planne between v

ined by res

n only does

rces to actu

how and wh

nual plannin

otentially res

esources in

vely assess d

d.

for conducti

nect value o

s identify th

c resources.

ues provided

ates the go

le—or move

ing lue optimiza

urce constra

not guarante

lly deliver pr

en work is co

cycle is that

ult in overall

he second h

emand versu

ng resource

ptimization

organizatio

This helps th

by Project S

ernance

forward wit

tion—deter

int analysis.

e that the

ojects as pla

mpleted. A

prospective

ocation of

lf of the yea

s supply and

onstraint an

ith resource

’s surplus a

e organizatio

erver

ined

ned.

r.

alysis

d

n



schedule

organizat

After suc

budget, t

button (s

forward t

priority o

resources

grouping

displayed

Figure 14. PTo avoid

resources

compare

horizon (

shows ge

resource

projects to b

ion can effec

essfully iden

e analyst m

e Figure 14)

o the next st

der and use

, the system

of selected p

in a Not sele

roject Server 20

ront‐loading

in the secon

supply and d

ee Figure 15

eric resourc

requirement

etter utilize a

tively staff, e

tifying the pr

ves forward

. The project

p in the por

a Gantt cha

dynamically

rojects. Proje

cted section

10 – Resource C

the schedule

d period, an

emand data

). The Requir

e availability

(at the skill

vailable reso

ecute, and r

oject portfoli

in the portfo

selected in

folio selectio

t to visually

etermines

cts that cann

of the projec

onstraint Analy

in the first h

lysts can use

nd to better

ments Detai

by skill for th

level) for eac

urces, and to

ealize value f

o that delive

lio selection

he cost cons

n analysis. T

epict their p

hich project

ot be fully st

t list.

is view alf of the ye

the Require

visualize the

ls view is bro

e selected pl

h project incl

model head

rom the sele

rs the maxim

wizard by cli

traint analysi

e intuitive v

roposed star

s can be fully

affed becaus

r and subse

ments Detail

resource co

ken into two

anning horiz

uded in the

count scenar

cted portfoli

um value for

king the An

is are autom

iew displays

t dates. Base

staffed and

e of a resour

uent underu

s view in Proj

tours across

sections: th

n; the botto

nalysis. The

ios to ensure

.

the availabl

lyze Resourtically carrie

he projects i

d on availabl

isplays the

ce shortfall a

tilization of

ect Server 2

the plannin

top section

m section di

resource

the

es

d

n

e

in a

re

10 to

plays



requirem

view. The

be fully st

for

the

prcannot b

Figure 15. PSelect th

shows ti

This featu

resource

determin

based on

organizat

on the pl

ents entered

projects are

affed based

ojects

that

a fully staffed

roject Server 20

Highlight De periods fo

re helps ana

overutilizatio

that the re

an example

ion could mo

nning horizo

during the b

again displa

n resource

e

not

selecte.

10 – Requireme

ficit check b

r which there

ysts assess r

n and under

ources are u

rganization

re fully utiliz

n (see Figure

siness case

ed in groups

vailability. A

d

with

the

o

nts Details view

ox in the righ

are not eno

source avail

tilization. In

nderutilized i

hat operate

resources b

16).

evelopment

of selected a

nalysts can si

erall

resour

t corner of t

gh resource

ability over t

the followin

n the second

on a fiscal y

y moving so

phase are a

nd not selec

mply compa

e

availabilit

e Resource

s to complet

e entire pla

example, th

half of the y

ear of July to

e of the uns

tomatically i

ed to denote

e the resour

to

see

why

t

vailability p

all of the pr

ning period

e analyst can

ear (note tha

June) and th

elected proj

ncluded in t

whether th

ce requirem

he

initiatives

ne, the view

oposed proj

to quickly id

quickly

t Figure 15 i

erefore the

cts to start l

is

y can

nts

cts.

ntify

ter



Figure 16. PWith an u

planning

unselecte

Project S

be fully st

in the

gro

B cannot

schedule

roject Server 20

nderstandin

orizon by sp

d projects (s

rver 2010 au

affed based

up of

selecte

start until Pr

helps analyst

10 – Requireme

of the reso

ecifying a ne

e Figure 17),

tomatically

n their new

d projects.

T

ject A is co

s maximize r

nts Details view rce availabili

w start date i

and then by

oves the pr

start dates. I

e system

m

pleted—and

source utiliz

with the Highli

ty contours,

n the Projec

clicking the

jects in the

they can be

intains sche

business de

ation across

ht Deficit chec

analysts can

Server 2010

ecalculate

chedule and

fully staffed,

uling depen

endencies.

the organiza

box selected easily move

Gantt Chart

utton on the

then determ

the projects

dencies—for

oving proje

tion.

rojects on t

view for

Analysis tab

ines if they c

will be displ

example, Pr

cts within th

e

.

an

yed

ject



Figure 17. PAs in the

the analy

ahead of

After ide

analysts c

time equi

pane (see

Figure 18. PProject S

specified

analyst c

moved in

roject Server 20

cost constrai

is. This is es

higher‐value

tifying an op

an run head

valent (FTE)

Figure 18),

roject Server 20

rver 2010 au

by the analy

n immediate

to the Select

10 – Modeling ct analysis, a

ecially usefu

discretionar

timal release

count scenar

alue or a mo

nd then

click

10 – Metrics tatomatically r

t, to fully sta

ly assess the

d group. By

hanges to proje

alysts can o

l to ensure t

projects.

schedule fo

ios to staff th

netary value

the

Recalcul

le ecommends

ff as many of

impact of th

running the

ct start dates erride the al

at lower‐val

the project

e remaining

—for exampl

ate button

t

the appropri

the remaini

increased h

ired Resour

lgorithm and

ue complian

portfolio bas

unselected p

e, two peopl

run

the

sce

ate skills to b

g unselecte

ead count b

es Report (s

force projec

e projects ar

ed on resour

rojects. Simp

e or $200,00

nario.

e hired, up t

projects as

seeing whic

ee Figure 19)

s into and o

e fully resou

e availabilit

ly enter a ful

0—in the Me

the value

ossible. The

h projects w

, the analyst

t of

ced

,

l‐

trics

re

can



quickly d

the total

Figure 19. PThe

head

whether

and to sel

Analysts

record of

Compare

side, so it

review ke

the portf

phase in

termine the

ost of each

roject Server 20

count model

o hire additi

ect an appro

an quickly a

all portfolio

Project Selec

is easy to co

y metrics su

lio selection

he workflow

skills that ne

esource.

10 – Resource C

ing feature

i

nal full‐time

priate cost r

d easily save

cenarios. Th

tion view. Th

mpare and c

h as the num

, the analyst

.

ed to be hire

onstraint Analy

Project

Ser

employees (

te.

the analyse

e saved scen

is intuitive vi

ntrast, to se

ber of proje

imply clicks

d for each of

is Hired Resour

er 2010

pro

internal reso

they have c

rios can be

ew (see Figu

e which proj

ts selected,

the Commit

the projects,

ces Report ides

analyst

urces) or con

nducted, w

isually asses

re 20) displa

cts were inc

heir value, a

utton to mo

the required

with

the

fle

tract staff (e

ich become

sed in the Pr

s all saved sc

luded or excl

nd their cost.

ve the proje

start date, a

ibility to

spe

xternal resou

an auditable

ject Server

enarios side

uded, and to

After finalizi

ts to the ne

nd

cify

rces),

010

by

ng

t



Figure 20. P

roject Server 2010 – Compare Project Selection view



AddiFor expan

2010 and

To learn

links:

Produc

MSDN Pr

Project 2

Project T

Interac

Project 2

Enterpris

Project D

Microsoft

Project

Downloa

Hosted Vi

IT Prof

Project S

SharePoi

Project A

Develo

Project

SharePoi

Program

Additio

Project 2

ional Rded help, st

the Microso

ore about P

informati

ject 2010 B

10 Blog

am Blog

ive conte

10 Video Sh

Project Ma

veloper Cen

Office Proje

Professio

rtual Lab

ssional rel

rver

t

ministration

er relate

t

ability blog

nal questi

10

esourcp‐by‐step gu

t EPM

Soluti

roject 2010 a

on

ta

t ‐Videos

wcase

agement Mi

ter

t TechNet

al 2010 a

lated – Te

Blog

‐ Develo

ns? Proje

s ides, and vid

n, visit

Micr

nd the Micro

&

Session

crosoft Even

d Project

h Center

er center

ct 2010 Fo

eo training o

osoft Project

soft EPM Sol

s &

Webc

s

Server 20

t TechNe

at MSDN

rums!

n how to get

.

ution, refer t

ast

10 Demo I

the most of

o the followi

mage:

roject Serve

ng list of rela

r

ted

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/office/ee695847.aspx



http://www.microsoft.com/project/en/us/blogs.aspx



http://blogs.msdn.com/project/



http://www.microsoft.com/global/project/2010/en/us/RichMedia/secondary/video_showcase.html



http://www.microsoft.com/events/series/epm.aspx

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/office/aa905469.aspx



http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/office/bb736739.aspx

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=8e709e2e-c9a1-4c7e-90d6-a52bcc8e5daf&displaylang=en

https://cmg.vlabcenter.com/default.aspx?moduleid=2a6249b4-12f3-456d-a6ab-a92249241108



http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/projectserver/default.aspx



http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sharepoint/default.aspx

http://blogs.technet.com/projectadministration/





http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/sharepoint/default.aspx

http://blogs.msdn.com/project_programmability/

http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/category/projectserver2010,projectprofessional2010/


































































http://www.microsoft.com/project/en/us/default.aspx


























portfolio selection and analytics using microsoft project

Documents