Earned Value InformationUse the EV fields to track work performance to account for cost and schedule variances. The following earned value data fields are included and can be displayed on list pages and portlets:
ACWP
Read-only. Displays the system-calculated value of Actual Cost Of Work Performed (ACWP), which is the total direct and indirect cost incurred in performing work during a given period of time based on posted actuals.
Calculations are made based on the level at which the calculation is being made. ACWP is calculated at the following levels:
Detail-task. The calculation is based on the following formula:
ACWP = Actuals Work Units * Billing Rate
Summary-task. The calculation is based on the following formula:
ACWP = Sum of ACWP for all detail tasks in project
Project. The calculation is based on the following formula:
ACWP = Sum of ACWP for all WBS Level 1 tasks in project
BAC
Read-only. Displays the system-calculated value of Budget at Completion (BAC), which is the budgeted total cost at the time of the baseline, based on the following formula:
((Actuals + Remaining Work) x Billing Rate) taken at time of baseline
BCWP
Displays the system-calculated value of Budgeted Cost of Work Performed (BCWP). This value is calculated and recorded when you baseline your project or when you update earned value totals and is based on the cost and rate matrices associated at the project level. BCWP is also referred to as the earned value (EV).
Calculations are made based on the level at which the calculation is being made. BCWP is calculated at the following levels:
Task. BCWP is based on the selected EV calculation method.
Project. BCWP is the sum of BCWP for all WBS Level 1 tasks in the project.
BCWS
Read-only. Displays the system-calculated value of Budgeted Cost of Work Scheduled (BCWS), which is the budgeted amount to be spent on the project in a given period of time. This point is either the project's as of date or the system date if the project's as of date is not defined. BCWS is also referred to as the planned value (PV).
The BCWS is calculated based on the following formula:
BCWS = Sum of BAC through a point in time
CPI
Displays the system-calculated value of Cost Performance Index (CPI), which is an efficiency rating for work accomplished, based on the following formula:
CPI = BCWP / ACWP
Note: A value greater than one indicates the costs are running over budget.
CV
Displays the system-calculated value of Cost Variance (CV), which is the value of what has been accomplished to date versus what has been spent to date, based on the following formula:
CV = BCWP - ACWP
EAC
Read-only. Displays the system-calculated value of estimate at completion (EAC), which is the total cost of all actual work completed to date plus the predicted cost finishing the remaining work, based on the following formula:
EAC = ACWP + ((BAC - BCWP)/CPIc)
EAC (T)
Read-only. Displays the system-calculated value of estimate at completion (EAC). This calculation is most often used when current variances are seen as typical of future variances, and is based on the following formula:
EAC (T) = ACWP + ETC
EAC (AT)
Read-only. Displays the system-calculated value of estimate at completion (EAC). This calculation is most often used when current variances are seen as atypical and the project management team expectations are that similar variances will not occur in the future. This value is calculated based on the following formula:
EAC (AT) = (ACWP + (BAC - BCWP))
ETC (Cost)
Read-only. Displays the system-calculated value of estimate at completion (ETC). This value is calculated based on the following formula:
ETC (Cost) = remaining labor cost + remaining non-labor cost
ETC (T)
Read-only. Displays the system-calculated value of estimate at completion (ETC) using earned value data. This calculation is most often used when current variances are seen as typical of future variances. This value is calculated based on the following formula:
ETC (T) = ((BAC – BCWPc)/CPIc
ETC (AT)
Read-only. Displays the system-calculated value of estimate at completion (ETC) using earned value data. This calculation is most often used when current variances are seen as atypical and the project management team expectations are that similar variances will not occur in the future. This value is calculated based on the following formula:
ETC (AT) = BAC – BCWPc
SPI
Displays the system-calculated value of Schedule Performance Index (CPI), which is the ratio of work performed to work scheduled, based on the following formula:
SPI = BCWP / BCWS
Note: A value less than one indicates the work is behind schedule.
SV
Displays the system-calculated value of Schedule Variance (CV), which is the value of what has been scheduled to date versus what has been performed to date, based on the following formula:
CV = BCWP - BCWS
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Monday, October 26, 2009
Risk and Issue - Thoughts
Schedule Creation
Schedule, resources, and product definition have all been dictated by the customer or upper management and are not in balance.
Schedule is optimistic, "best case," rather than realistic, "expected case."
Schedule omits necessary tasks.
Schedule was based on the use of specific team members, but those team members were not available.
Cannot build a product of the size specified in the time allocated.
Product is larger than estimated (in lines of code, function points, or percentage of previous project’s size).
Effort is greater than estimated (per line of code, function point, module, etc.).
Re-estimation in response to schedule slips is overly optimistic or ignores project history
Excessive schedule pressure reduces productivity.
Target date is moved up with no corresponding adjustment to the product scope or available resources.
A delay in one task causes cascading delays in dependent tasks.
Unfamiliar areas of the product take more time than expected to design and implement.
Organization and Management
Project lacks an effective top-management sponsor.
Project languishes too long in fuzzy front end.
Layoffs and cutbacks reduce team’s capacity.
Management or marketing insists on technical decisions that lengthen the schedule.
Inefficient team structure reduces productivity.
Management review/decision cycle is slower than expected.
Budget cuts upset project plans.
Management makes decisions that reduce the development team’s motivation.
Non-technical third-party tasks take longer than expected (budget approval, equipment purchase approval, legal reviews, security clearances, etc.).
Planning is too poor to support the desired development speed.
Project plans are abandoned under pressure, resulting in chaotic, inefficient development.
Management places more emphasis on heroics than accurate status reporting, which undercuts its ability to detect and correct problems.
Development Environment
Facilities are not available on time.
Facilities are available but inadequate (e.g., no telephone, network wiring, furniture, office supplies, etc.)
Facilities are crowded, noisy, or disruptive.
Development tools are not in place by the desired time.
Development tools do not work as expected; developers need time to create workarounds or to switch to new tools.
Development tools are not chosen based on their technical merits, and do not provide the planned productivity.
End Users
End user insists on new requirements.
End user ultimately finds product to be unsatisfactory, requiring redesign and rework.
End user does not buy into the project and consequently does not provide needed support.
End user input is not solicited, so product ultimately fails to meet user expectations and must be reworked.
Customer
Customer insists on new requirements.
Customer review/decision cycles for plans, prototypes, and specifications are slower than expected.
Customer will not participate in review cycles for plans, prototypes, and specifications or is incapable of doing so—resulting in unstable requirements and time-consuming changes.
Customer communication time (e.g., time to answer requirements-clarification questions) is slower than expected.
Customer insists on technical decisions that lengthen the schedule.
Customer micro-manages the development process, resulting in slower progress than planned.
Customer-furnished components are a poor match for the product under development, resulting in extra design and integration work.
Customer-furnished components are poor quality, resulting in extra testing, design, and integration work and in extra customer-relationship management.
Customer-mandated support tools and environments are incompatible, have poor performance, or have inadequate functionality, resulting in reduced productivity.
Customer will not accept the software as delivered even though it meets all specifications.
Customer has expectations for development speed that developers cannot meet.
Contractors
Contractor does not deliver components when promised.
Contractor delivers components of unacceptably low quality, and time must be added to improve quality.
Contractor does not buy into the project and consequently does not provide the level of performance needed.
Requirements
Requirements have been base lined but continue to change.
Requirements are poorly defined, and further definition expands the scope of the project.
Additional requirements are added.
Vaguely specified areas of the product are more time-consuming than expected.
Product
Error-prone modules require more testing, design, and implementation work than expected.
Unacceptably low quality requires more testing, design, and implementation work to correct than expected.
Development of the wrong software functions requires redesign and implementation.
Development of the wrong user interface results in redesign and implementation.
Development of extra software functions that are not required (gold plating) extends the schedule.
Meeting product’s size or speed constraints requires more time than expected, including time for redesign and re-implementation.
Strict requirements for compatibility with existing system require more testing, design, and implementation than expected.
Requirements for interfacing with other systems, other complex systems, or other systems that are not under the team’s control result in unforeseen design, implementation, and testing.
Pushing the computer science state-of-the-art lengthens the schedule unpredictably.
Requirement to operate under multiple operating systems takes longer to satisfy than expected.
Operation in an unfamiliar or unproved software environment causes unforeseen problems.
Operation in an unfamiliar or unproved hardware environment causes unforeseen problems.
Development of a kind of component that is brand new to the organization takes longer than expected.
Dependency on a technology that is still under development lengthens the schedule.
External Environment
Product depends on government regulations, which change unexpectedly.
Product depends on draft technical standards, which change unexpectedly.
Personnel
Hiring takes longer than expected.
Task prerequisites (e.g., training, completion of other projects, acquisition of work permit) cannot be completed on time.
Poor relationships between developers and management slow decision-making and follow through.
Team members do not buy into the project and consequently does not provide the level of performance needed.
Low motivation and morale reduce productivity.
Lack of needed specialization increases defects and rework.
Personnel need extra time to learn unfamiliar software tools or environment.
Personnel need extra time to learn unfamiliar hardware environment.
Personnel need extra time to learn unfamiliar programming language.
Contract personnel leave before project is complete.
Permanent employees leave before project is complete.
New development personnel are added late in the project and additional training and communications overhead reduces existing team members’ effectiveness.
Team members do not work together efficiently.
Conflicts among team members result in poor communication, poor designs, interface errors and extra rework.
Problem team members are not removed from the team, damaging overall team motivation.
The personnel most qualified to work on the project are not available for the project.
The personnel most qualified to work on the project are available for the project but are not used for political or other reasons.
Personnel with critical skills needed for the project cannot be found.
Key personnel are available only part time.
Not enough personnel are available for the project.
People’s assignments do not match their strengths.
Personnel work slower than expected.
Sabotage by project management results in inefficient scheduling and ineffective planning.
Sabotage by technical personnel results in lost work or poor quality and requires rework.
Design and Implementation
Overly simple design fails to address major issues and leads to redesign and re-implementation.
Overly complicated design requires unnecessary and unproductive implementation overhead.
Inappropriate design leads to redesign and re-implementation.
Use of unfamiliar methodology results in extra training time and in rework to fix first-time misuses of the methodology.
Product is implemented in a low-level language (e.g., assembler), and productivity is lower than expected.
Necessary functionality cannot be implemented using the selected code or class libraries; developers must switch to new libraries or custom-build the necessary functionality.
Code or class libraries have poor quality, causing extra testing, defect correction and rework.
Schedule savings from productivity enhancing tools are overestimated.
Components developed separately cannot be integrated easily, requiring redesign and rework.
Process
Amount of paperwork results in slower progress than expected.
Inaccurate progress tracking results in not knowing the project is behind schedule until late in the project.
Upstream quality-assurance activities are shortchanged, resulting in time-consuming rework downstream.
Inaccurate quality tracking results in not knowing about quality problems that affect the schedule until late in the project.
Too little formality (lack of adherence to software policies and standards) results in miscommunications, quality problems, and rework).
Too much formality (bureaucratic adherence to software policies and standards) results in unnecessary, time-consuming overhead).
Management-level progress reporting takes more developer time than expected.
Half-hearted risk management fails to detect major project risks.
Software project risk management takes more time than expected.
Project Management
I. Are the cost/benefits clearly defined with a documented write-up?
1. Yes, a cost/benefit analysis has been performed by a qualified, experienced resource
2. Yes, a cost/benefit analysis has been performed by an entity not necessarily having experience
3. Cost/benefits have been informally derived but not clearly documented
4. No cost/benefit analysis has been performed yet
II. Have metrics been established to verify the successful completion of each project phase?
1. Metrics have been established for each phase of the project
2. Metrics have been established for the first phase of the project
3. Metrics to determine the success of the total project have been established but not specific to a phase
4. No metrics have been established to ensure successful project completion
III. Have scope changes occurred which appear to exert pressure on schedule demands?
1. No scope changes have occurred
2. Yes, but only small changes have been made and have been well documented
3. Yes, significant scope changes have been made and have been well documented
4. Yes, significant changes have been made and have not been clearly documented
IV. How clearly are the expected project outcomes defined?
1. Expected outcomes are well defined
2. Expected outcomes are minimally defined
3. Overall project outcomes are broadly defined
4. Outcomes are not clearly defined or contain little detail
V. How is the training plan being developed?
1. Training plan is being developed with comprehensive input from stakeholder and vendor experts
2. Training planning is being developed with limited input from stakeholder and vendor experts
3. Training planning is being developed based upon prior experiences but no formal methodology
4. Training planning has not yet been completed
VI. How is the testing plan being developed?
1. Test planning is being developed with comprehensive input from stakeholder and vendor experts
2. Test planning is being developed with limited input from stakeholder and vendor experts
3. Test planning is being developed based upon prior experiences but no formal methodology
4. Test planning has not yet been completed
VII. How much control does IT have over the schedule?
1. Start/end dates are flexible & established by project plan
2. Start/end dates established mutually by vendor & BHS IT
3. Start/end dates established mutually by vendor & BHS IT
4. Start/end dates set by vendor; penalty clauses exist
VIII. How much input did BHS IT have in developing the deliverables?
1. We developed the deliverables for the shareholder
2. We guided the shareholder in developing deliverables
3. We were asked for comments after deliverables were developed
4. We had no involvement in developing deliverables
IX. Is the project required before other projects can proceed?
1. Not at all
2. Indirectly
3. Directly at < 50% units or departments
4. Directly at >50% units or departments
X. Is there a plan for ensuring that deliverables meet the need of the users?
1. There is a plan to ensure that the needs of the users are thoroughly met
2. The plan for verification of user deliverables is nearly complete
3. The plan for ensuring user deliverables is in the conceptual phase
4. There is no plan for ensuring that deliverables meet users needs
XI. What are the IT and Technical project coordinators' overall opinion of project risk?
1. Risk is minimal
2. Risk is moderate
3. Risk is significant
4. Risk is major
XII. To what degree are changes to the current business processes being managed?
1. There is a well-documented plan in place for the redesign of the changed processes with a detailed rollout schedule
2. There is a well-documented plan in place for the redesign of the changed processes but a detailed rollout schedule has not yet been developed
3. New process changes have been considered but are not clearly defined and documented
4. Process changes have not yet been considered
XIII. To what degree are changes to the current IT processes being managed?
1. There is a well-documented plan in place for the redesign of the changed processes with a detailed rollout schedule
2. There is a well-documented plan in place for the redesign of the changed processes but a detailed rollout schedule has not yet been developed
3. New process changes have been considered but are not clearly defined and documented
4. Process changes have not yet been considered
XIV. To what degree are changes to the current patient care processes being managed?
1. There is a well-documented plan in place for the redesign of the changed processes with a detailed rollout schedule
2. There is a well-documented plan in place for the redesign of the changed processes but a detailed rollout schedule has not yet been developed
3. New process changes have been considered but are not clearly defined and documented
4. Process changes have not yet been considered
XV. To what degree are the project team and stakeholder skill requirements well defined?
1. Skill requirements with corresponding time frame requirements have been clearly documented for all phases of the project
2. Skill requirements have been clearly documented for all phases of the project but do not include corresponding time frame requirements
3. Skill requirements are loosely defined for the project
4. Skill requirements are vague or not well defined for the project
XVI. To what degree have critical milestones been established for this project?
1. Clearly measurable and achievable milestones with firm dates have been created throughout the entire project lifecycle
2. Milestones, although not clearly measurable, with firm dates have been set for part of the project
3. Milestones have been created for the project but dates are not firmly set
4. No milestones exist at this time
XVII. To what degree have 'open issues' been tracked and included as part of ongoing management processes?
1. There is proven method of issue tracking and resolution currently in place and is widely used by all parties
2. There is a method of issue tracking and resolution currently in place and is generally used by all parties
3. Open issues are dealt with on an item by item basis and are not tracked using a standard method
4. There is no clear issue tracking or resolution approach in use on the project
XVIII. To what extent has a project plan been developed for the entire project lifecycle?
1. A detailed project plan has been created using an industry accepted methodology and experience from projects of similar size and scope
2. A project plan has been created using detailed project estimates; but not based on a comparable project
3. A project plan has been created using general areas of the project lifecycle, but there is not a clear understanding yet of the needed resources
4. No project plan exists at this time.
Project Resources
I. Does the project management team have relevant experience?
1. Members of the project management team have experience leading projects of similar size and complexity
2. Members of the project management team have had exposure to projects of similar size and complexity but not in lead roles
3. Members of the project management team have had limited exposure to projects of similar size and complexity and generally lack detailed knowledge
4. Members of the project management team have no experience with projects of similar size and complexity
II. How complex is coordination of internal resources?
1. Internal project - no hospital resources
2. Small project - internal and few hospital resources
3. Medium project - internal and multiple hospital resources
4. Large project - significant internal and hospital resources
III. Is the project team organized and deployed to a single location?
1. All team members are together with daily interactions with the users
2. All team members are located together but have limited user contact
3. Team members are in multiple locations but meet regularly
4. Team is located off site and rarely gets together as a whole
Project Size and Duration
I. How severe would be the result of late delivery?
1. No noticeable disruption of the business
2. Some disruption to limited, non-critical areas of the business
3. Some disruption to critical, time-valued areas of the business
4. Major disruption to the business because the new system is critical to the core business functions
II. What are the number of affected stakeholders per facility?
1. <10
2. >10 and < 50
3. > 50 and < 100
4. > 100
III. What is the Project Priority?
1. Minimal
2. Moderate
3. Significant
4. Major
IV. What is the amount of time the SPO can spend on the project?
1. 50% or greater
2. <50% and > 35%
3. < 35% and > 25%
4. < 25%
V. What is the impact of Go Live date(s) on other projects?
1. No projects are affected
2. A minimum number of projects and related resources are affected
3. A minimum number of projects are affected, but there are resource allocation conflicts
4. There are conflicts with other projects and resource allocations
VI. What is the number of affected facilities?
1. 1
2. 2 to 3
3. 3 to 4
4. All
VII. What is the total elapsed time of the project from start to finish?
1. < 3 months
2. > 3 months and < 6 months
3. > 6 months and < 1 year
4. One year or more
VIII. Will multiple business units be affected by the new system?
1. There will only be one business unit affected
2. Multiple business units within the same hospital will be affected
3. One business unit (each) in several hospitals will be affected
4. Multiple business units in several hospitals will be affected
IX. Will multiple patient care units be affected by the new system?
1. There will only be one patient care unit affected
2. Multiple patient care units within the same hospital will be affected
3. One patient care unit (each) in several hospitals will be affected
4. Multiple patient care units in several hospitals will be affected
Project Stakeholders
I. Are affected stakeholders willing to accept change created by this project?
1. Stakeholders are well informed about the change and show strong enthusiasm
2. Probably, stakeholders seems enthusiastic but there has been no formal evaluation of their enthusiasm or detailed knowledge of the change
3. Unclear, only limited or informal feedback from stakeholders have been received
4. No, firsthand feedback clearly indicates reluctance to the change
II. How committed is the hospital to the project?
1. All affected hospitals have assigned people and budgeted time
2. All affected hospitals have assigned people but has not budgeted time
3. More than half of affected hospitals have assigned people and budgeted time
4. Less than half of affected hospitals have assigned people and budgeted time
III. How does the project affect financial systems?
1. Not at all
2. Indirectly
3. Directly at < 50% units or departments
4. Directly at > 50% units or departments
IV. How does the project affect human resource systems?
1. Not at all
2. Indirectly
3. Directly at < 50% units or departments
4. Directly at > 50% units or departments
V. How does the project affect patient care systems?
1. Not at all
2. Indirectly
3. Directly at < 50% units or departments
4. Directly at > 50% units or departments
VI. What is the level of stakeholders involvement in the project?
1. The stakeholders are involved and have a permanent representative presence on the project team
2. The stakeholders are available for consultation and to provide functional advice
3. The stakeholders are minimally engaged on the project and clarification of requirements is difficult
4. The stakeholders are not involved in the project
VII. What will be the magnitude of change that the new system will impose upon the business stakeholders?
1. The new system will impose very little change, if any, upon the stakeholders
2. The new system will change slightly the current daily operations of the stakeholders
3. The new system will require significant changes by the stakeholders and will require training
4. The new system will present an entirely new way for the stakeholders to complete daily operations
VIII. What will be the magnitude of change that the new system will impose upon the patient care stakeholders?
1. The new system will impose very little change, if any, upon the stakeholders
2. The new system will change slightly the current daily operations of the stakeholders
3. The new system will require significant changes by the stakeholders and will require training
4. The new system will present an entirely new way for the stakeholders to complete daily operations
IX. Will staff numbers be reduced as a result of implementing the system?
1. There will not be a reduction in staff as a result of the new system
2. A small number of reductions are expected to isolated areas of the organization
3. Numerous reductions are expected to several levels of the organization
4. Staffing projections have not been completed
Project Support
I. Is the current Client Server and Operating Systems structure prepared to support the new system?
1. C/S and OS have significant experience in managing similar environments and will require little or no training
2. C/S and OS have experience with similar environments, but will probably require some degree of training
3. C/S and OS have limited or no experience with the environment and will require extensive training to be effective
4. C/S and OS does not have the expertise required to manage the operations and new resources will have to be hired or contracted
II. Is the current Clinical Support structure prepared to support the new system?
1. Clinical Support has significant experience in managing similar environments and will require little or no training
2. Clinical Support has experience with similar environments, but will probably require some degree of training
3. Clinical Support has limited or no experience with the environment and will require extensive training to be effective
4. Clinical Support does not have the expertise required to manage the operations and new resources will have to be hired or contracted
III. Is the current Data Base & Integration structure prepared to support the new system?
1. Data Base & Integration has significant experience in managing similar environments and will require little or no training
2. Data Base & Integration has experience with similar environments, but will probably require some degree of training
3. Data Base & Integration has limited or no experience with the environment and will require extensive training to be effective
4. Data Base & Integration does not have the expertise required to manage the operations and new resources will have to be hired or contracted
IV. Is the current Financial Support structure prepared to support the new system?
1. Financial Support has significant experience in managing similar environments and will require little or no training
2. Financial Support has experience with similar environments, but will probably require some degree of training
3. Financial Support has limited or no experience with the environment and will require extensive training to be effective
4. Financial Support does not have the expertise required to manage the operations and new resources will have to be hired or contracted
V. Is the current Help Desk structure prepared to support the new system?
1. The Help Desk has significant experience in managing similar environments and will require little or no training
2. The Help Desk has experience with similar environments, but will probably require some degree of training
3. The Help Desk has limited or no experience with the environment and will require extensive training to be effective
4. The Help Desk does not have the expertise required to manage the operations and new resources will have to be hired or contracted
VI. Is the current Networking and Telecom structure prepared to support the new system?
1. Networking has significant experience in managing similar environments and will require little or no training
2. Networking has experience with similar environments, but will probably require some degree of training
3. Networking has limited or no experience with the environment and will require extensive training to be effective
4. Networking does not have the expertise required to manage the operations and new resources will have to be hired or contracted
VII. Is the current Operations structure prepared to support the new system?
1. Operations has significant experience in managing similar environments and will require little or no training
2. Operations has experience with similar environments, but will probably require some degree of training
3. Operations has limited or no experience with the environment and will require extensive training to be effective
4. Operations does not have the expertise required to manage the operations and new resources will have to be hired or contracted
VIII. Is the current Web Development structure prepared to support the new system?
1. Web Development has significant experience in managing similar environments and will require little or no training
2. Web Development has experience with similar environments, but will probably require some degree of training
3. Web Development has limited or no experience with the environment and will require extensive training to be effective
4. Web Development does not have the expertise required to manage the operations and new resources will have to be hired or contracted
Technological
I. Do the key technologies appear to be the appropriate foundation given the system design?
1. There is every reason to believe that the proposed technology represents a solid foundation for the foreseeable future.
2. Certain components may reach the end of their lifecycle before the system does, but there is a high probability that there will be an upgrade path for replacement
3. Certain components may reach the end of their lifecycle before the system does and there does not appear to be a logical upgrade path
4. Various components appear to have reached the end of their lifecycle and more advanced technology exists in the market or technology foundation has yet to be determined
II. Does the project replace current system hardware?
1. No
2. Unknown
3. Yes
III. Does the project require conversions of current data systems?
1. No
2. Unknown
3. Yes
IV. Does the project’s technology (software, hardware, etc.) conflict with current BHS technology?
1. No
2. Unknown
3. Yes
V. Has (or will) the functionality of software be tested?
1. No
2. Unknown
3. Yes
VI. How clearly defined are the system operating procedures (backups, restart/recovery, etc.)?
1. Well defined with easy, well-documented, legible procedures
2. Maintenance procedures exist and some documentation exists
3. Maintenance procedures exist but documentation is limited
4. System maintenance procedures are not clearly defined or documented
VII. How many existing computer systems must the project system interact with?
1. A limited number of interfaces
2. A moderate number of interfaces
3. A large number of interfaces
4. The number of interfaces is not known
VIII. How mature are the technologies & products in this project?
1. All technologies/products are mature
2. Few technologies/products are new
3. Many (30-69%) of technologies/products are new
4. Most (70% or more) technologies/products are new
IX. How severely would business be impacted by a system failure?
1. Minimal impact-system is not critical to daily patient care or business functions
2. Moderate impact-system is critical to patient care or business, but a well-documented, automated contingency approach exists
3. Significant impact-system is critical to patient care or business and contingency plan relies on work-around
4. Severe impact-system is critical to patient care or business and there is no well-documented contingency plan
X. How thoroughly have the technology options been evaluated?
1. Experienced technical specialists performed a comprehensive evaluation of options using a proven methodology
2. Experienced technical specialists made recommendations based on prior experiences
3. Key functional personnel made recommendations for the options
4. A detailed evaluation has not yet been performed
XI. Is the project required to update old technology?
1. No
2. Unknown
3. Yes
XII. Is the proposed hardware/software environment in production already within the organization? (i.e. mainframe, client server, middleware, etc.)
1. The environment is in production and well established
2. The environment is currently in use in production but not well-established and subject to changes
3. The environment is currently in use for development efforts but has not yet been established in production
4. Hardware/software environment is not currently in use
XIII. Is there a system load test or other measures to ensure good system performance (i.e. measures to test response time, system efficiency, etc.)?
1. There is a load test for system performance in accordance with accepted industry standards
2. There is a methodology for load testing but some phases are not complete
3. The load testing plans have been discussed, but are not in place at this time
4. There are no plans for load testing the system.
XIV. To what extent will the new system enable de-installation of the existing system?
1. The new system will completely replace an existing system or an existing system does not exist
2. The new system will be a new layer that will lead to the eventual replacement of an existing system
3. The new system will be a new layer and there is not a business case for the elimination of any existing systems
4. The new system will be run in parallel to an existing system
XV. What knowledge level does the Technical project team members have for the proposed technology environment?
1. The proposed platform is well understood by the project team and any technical difficulties that emerge are likely to be handled in-house
2. There are parts of the platform that are very clearly understood, however, aspects of the new platform will be seen for the first time.
3. The platform is not well known to the project team but specialized expertise is readily available from vendors
4. The platform is not well know to the project team and specialized expertise is not easily available
Project Vendors
I. Does the vendor project management team have relevant experience?
1. Members of the vendor project management team have experience leading projects of similar size and complexity
2. Members of the vendor project management team have had exposure to projects of similar size and complexity but not in lead roles
3. Members of the vendor project management team have had limited exposure to projects of similar size and complexity and generally lack detailed knowledge
4. Members of the vendor project management team have no experience with projects of similar size and complexity
II. How complex is coordination of external resources?
1. No subcontractors or vendors to manage
2. One or two subcontractors / vendors to manage
3. Three to five subcontractors / vendors to manage
4. Six or more subcontractors / vendors to manage
III. Is the vendor well established in the business community with a strong financial background?
1. The vendor is well established and in good financial condition
2. The vendor is well established, but financial condition is unknown
3. The vendor has been established for less than two years
4. The vendor is a startup business with little financial history
IV. What is the vendor's ability to implement the technology?
1. The vendor has successfully completed a number of previous implementations
2. The vendor has successfully completed some previous implementations (1 3)
3. The vendor has limited experience with this technology
4. The vendor has not previously implemented this technology
Financial Opportinity
I. How many components of the IT Strategic Plan does the project support?
1. Project objectives have been clearly documented and can be linked to specific components of the IT Strategic Plan
2. The project direction is consistent with the IT Strategic Plan but the relationship has not been clearly documented
3. Project objectives are not clearly related to the IT Strategic Plan
4. Some or all project objectives may be in conflict with the IT Strategic Plan
II. Is the project required to meet regulatory or legal requirements?
1. Not at all
2. Indirectly
3. Directly at < 50% of units or departments
4. Directly at >50% of units or departments
III. How will project impact utilization of resources?
1. Will pull significant resources of other projects
2. Will pull some resources of other projects
3. Will have a normal impact on resources
4 . Will put currently under-utilized resources to work
IV. To what extent are senior management committed to the project and its outcomes?
1. The consensus of senior management is that the project is not warranted
2. Senior management does not have a consensus regarding the project
3. Senior management agree with the need for the project, but it does not represent their highest priority
4. Senior management is fully committed and have openly endorsed the project
V. Will the project improve skills or provide new experience?
1. Little improvement is expected in existing skills
2. Significant improvement expected in existing skills
3. Little improvement in existing skills but some new skills will be developed
4. Significant improvement in existing and new skills will be developed as well
VI. Will Clinical Outcomes be improved by this project?
1. Not at all
2. Little change
3. Directly at < 50% of units or departments
4. Directly at >50% of units or departments
VII. Will customer service be improved by this project?
1. Not at all
2. Little change
3. Increased customer service to patients, or stakeholders, or physicians
4. Increased customer service to patients, and/or stakeholders, and/or physicians
VIII. Will Delivery of Services be improved by this project?
1. Not at all
2. Little change
3. Directly at < 50% of units or departments
4. Directly at >50% of units or departments
IX. Will productivity be improved by this project?
1. Not at all
2. Little change
3. Increased productivity for stakeholders, or physicians
4. Increased productivity for stakeholders and physicians
X. What are the IT and Technical project coordinators' opinion of the need to win this opportunity?
1. There is no compelling need to win this project
2. The need to win this project is low
3. The need to win this project is moderate
4. This project is vital; we must win it
XI. What is the project's political visibility?
1. Major
2. Significant
3. Moderate
4. Minimal
XII. How do margins compare to annual company goals?
1. Negative margins or breakeven
2. Margins up to 50% of company plan
3. Margins > 50% but < 100% of company plan
4. Margins equal or exceed company plan
XIII. How likely is future business as a result of this project?
1. Project has little or no bearing on future business
2. Future business is possible
3. Future business is likely
4. Future business is assured
XIV. Is there a clearly defined payback for this system?
1. There is neither a payback period nor apparent justification on the basis of patient safety
2. There is a payback period but it is not clearly defined
3. There is not a clearly defined payback but the system is necessary regardless (i.e.for patient safety)
4. There is a clearly defined payback and it is fully justified
XV. What is the estimated revenue for this project?
1. < $500,000
2. > $500,000 and < $2.5 million
3. > $2.5 million and < $5 million
4. > $5 million
XVI. What is the payback time for the project?
1. The payback period has not been quantified
2. The payback period will be greater than 4 years
3. The payback period exceeds 2 years but less than 4 years
4. The payback period is within 2 years
XVII. To what degree have existing expenditures met budgeted amounts?
1. Existing expenditures have consistently exceeded budget amounts or clear budgets have not yet been established
2. Some significant expenditures have exceeded budget amounts with others remaining within budget
3. Most expenditures have been within the budget amounts with a small percentage exceeding budget amounts
4. Existing expenditures have consistently been within budget amounts
XVIII. What is the end-to-end expenditure that this project will require?
1. > $2 Million
2. < $2 Million and > $500,000
3. < $500,000 and > $50,000
4. < $50,000
Here are some more potential sources of risk
1. Use Project Initiation and Requirements documents
2. If you have access to a Risk Assessment list…use it
3. Turn the WBS into a Risk Breakdown Schedule (RBS) and review Project Schedule for:
a. Tasks which your team has no expertise
b. Duration and cost estimates that are aggressive
c. Tasks with numerous or constrained resources
d. Tasks with several predecessors or long durations
4. Brainstorm and talk with the experts
5. Historical Information
a. Project Files (Risk Management Plans from previous projects)
b. Published Information
Schedule, resources, and product definition have all been dictated by the customer or upper management and are not in balance.
Schedule is optimistic, "best case," rather than realistic, "expected case."
Schedule omits necessary tasks.
Schedule was based on the use of specific team members, but those team members were not available.
Cannot build a product of the size specified in the time allocated.
Product is larger than estimated (in lines of code, function points, or percentage of previous project’s size).
Effort is greater than estimated (per line of code, function point, module, etc.).
Re-estimation in response to schedule slips is overly optimistic or ignores project history
Excessive schedule pressure reduces productivity.
Target date is moved up with no corresponding adjustment to the product scope or available resources.
A delay in one task causes cascading delays in dependent tasks.
Unfamiliar areas of the product take more time than expected to design and implement.
Organization and Management
Project lacks an effective top-management sponsor.
Project languishes too long in fuzzy front end.
Layoffs and cutbacks reduce team’s capacity.
Management or marketing insists on technical decisions that lengthen the schedule.
Inefficient team structure reduces productivity.
Management review/decision cycle is slower than expected.
Budget cuts upset project plans.
Management makes decisions that reduce the development team’s motivation.
Non-technical third-party tasks take longer than expected (budget approval, equipment purchase approval, legal reviews, security clearances, etc.).
Planning is too poor to support the desired development speed.
Project plans are abandoned under pressure, resulting in chaotic, inefficient development.
Management places more emphasis on heroics than accurate status reporting, which undercuts its ability to detect and correct problems.
Development Environment
Facilities are not available on time.
Facilities are available but inadequate (e.g., no telephone, network wiring, furniture, office supplies, etc.)
Facilities are crowded, noisy, or disruptive.
Development tools are not in place by the desired time.
Development tools do not work as expected; developers need time to create workarounds or to switch to new tools.
Development tools are not chosen based on their technical merits, and do not provide the planned productivity.
End Users
End user insists on new requirements.
End user ultimately finds product to be unsatisfactory, requiring redesign and rework.
End user does not buy into the project and consequently does not provide needed support.
End user input is not solicited, so product ultimately fails to meet user expectations and must be reworked.
Customer
Customer insists on new requirements.
Customer review/decision cycles for plans, prototypes, and specifications are slower than expected.
Customer will not participate in review cycles for plans, prototypes, and specifications or is incapable of doing so—resulting in unstable requirements and time-consuming changes.
Customer communication time (e.g., time to answer requirements-clarification questions) is slower than expected.
Customer insists on technical decisions that lengthen the schedule.
Customer micro-manages the development process, resulting in slower progress than planned.
Customer-furnished components are a poor match for the product under development, resulting in extra design and integration work.
Customer-furnished components are poor quality, resulting in extra testing, design, and integration work and in extra customer-relationship management.
Customer-mandated support tools and environments are incompatible, have poor performance, or have inadequate functionality, resulting in reduced productivity.
Customer will not accept the software as delivered even though it meets all specifications.
Customer has expectations for development speed that developers cannot meet.
Contractors
Contractor does not deliver components when promised.
Contractor delivers components of unacceptably low quality, and time must be added to improve quality.
Contractor does not buy into the project and consequently does not provide the level of performance needed.
Requirements
Requirements have been base lined but continue to change.
Requirements are poorly defined, and further definition expands the scope of the project.
Additional requirements are added.
Vaguely specified areas of the product are more time-consuming than expected.
Product
Error-prone modules require more testing, design, and implementation work than expected.
Unacceptably low quality requires more testing, design, and implementation work to correct than expected.
Development of the wrong software functions requires redesign and implementation.
Development of the wrong user interface results in redesign and implementation.
Development of extra software functions that are not required (gold plating) extends the schedule.
Meeting product’s size or speed constraints requires more time than expected, including time for redesign and re-implementation.
Strict requirements for compatibility with existing system require more testing, design, and implementation than expected.
Requirements for interfacing with other systems, other complex systems, or other systems that are not under the team’s control result in unforeseen design, implementation, and testing.
Pushing the computer science state-of-the-art lengthens the schedule unpredictably.
Requirement to operate under multiple operating systems takes longer to satisfy than expected.
Operation in an unfamiliar or unproved software environment causes unforeseen problems.
Operation in an unfamiliar or unproved hardware environment causes unforeseen problems.
Development of a kind of component that is brand new to the organization takes longer than expected.
Dependency on a technology that is still under development lengthens the schedule.
External Environment
Product depends on government regulations, which change unexpectedly.
Product depends on draft technical standards, which change unexpectedly.
Personnel
Hiring takes longer than expected.
Task prerequisites (e.g., training, completion of other projects, acquisition of work permit) cannot be completed on time.
Poor relationships between developers and management slow decision-making and follow through.
Team members do not buy into the project and consequently does not provide the level of performance needed.
Low motivation and morale reduce productivity.
Lack of needed specialization increases defects and rework.
Personnel need extra time to learn unfamiliar software tools or environment.
Personnel need extra time to learn unfamiliar hardware environment.
Personnel need extra time to learn unfamiliar programming language.
Contract personnel leave before project is complete.
Permanent employees leave before project is complete.
New development personnel are added late in the project and additional training and communications overhead reduces existing team members’ effectiveness.
Team members do not work together efficiently.
Conflicts among team members result in poor communication, poor designs, interface errors and extra rework.
Problem team members are not removed from the team, damaging overall team motivation.
The personnel most qualified to work on the project are not available for the project.
The personnel most qualified to work on the project are available for the project but are not used for political or other reasons.
Personnel with critical skills needed for the project cannot be found.
Key personnel are available only part time.
Not enough personnel are available for the project.
People’s assignments do not match their strengths.
Personnel work slower than expected.
Sabotage by project management results in inefficient scheduling and ineffective planning.
Sabotage by technical personnel results in lost work or poor quality and requires rework.
Design and Implementation
Overly simple design fails to address major issues and leads to redesign and re-implementation.
Overly complicated design requires unnecessary and unproductive implementation overhead.
Inappropriate design leads to redesign and re-implementation.
Use of unfamiliar methodology results in extra training time and in rework to fix first-time misuses of the methodology.
Product is implemented in a low-level language (e.g., assembler), and productivity is lower than expected.
Necessary functionality cannot be implemented using the selected code or class libraries; developers must switch to new libraries or custom-build the necessary functionality.
Code or class libraries have poor quality, causing extra testing, defect correction and rework.
Schedule savings from productivity enhancing tools are overestimated.
Components developed separately cannot be integrated easily, requiring redesign and rework.
Process
Amount of paperwork results in slower progress than expected.
Inaccurate progress tracking results in not knowing the project is behind schedule until late in the project.
Upstream quality-assurance activities are shortchanged, resulting in time-consuming rework downstream.
Inaccurate quality tracking results in not knowing about quality problems that affect the schedule until late in the project.
Too little formality (lack of adherence to software policies and standards) results in miscommunications, quality problems, and rework).
Too much formality (bureaucratic adherence to software policies and standards) results in unnecessary, time-consuming overhead).
Management-level progress reporting takes more developer time than expected.
Half-hearted risk management fails to detect major project risks.
Software project risk management takes more time than expected.
Project Management
I. Are the cost/benefits clearly defined with a documented write-up?
1. Yes, a cost/benefit analysis has been performed by a qualified, experienced resource
2. Yes, a cost/benefit analysis has been performed by an entity not necessarily having experience
3. Cost/benefits have been informally derived but not clearly documented
4. No cost/benefit analysis has been performed yet
II. Have metrics been established to verify the successful completion of each project phase?
1. Metrics have been established for each phase of the project
2. Metrics have been established for the first phase of the project
3. Metrics to determine the success of the total project have been established but not specific to a phase
4. No metrics have been established to ensure successful project completion
III. Have scope changes occurred which appear to exert pressure on schedule demands?
1. No scope changes have occurred
2. Yes, but only small changes have been made and have been well documented
3. Yes, significant scope changes have been made and have been well documented
4. Yes, significant changes have been made and have not been clearly documented
IV. How clearly are the expected project outcomes defined?
1. Expected outcomes are well defined
2. Expected outcomes are minimally defined
3. Overall project outcomes are broadly defined
4. Outcomes are not clearly defined or contain little detail
V. How is the training plan being developed?
1. Training plan is being developed with comprehensive input from stakeholder and vendor experts
2. Training planning is being developed with limited input from stakeholder and vendor experts
3. Training planning is being developed based upon prior experiences but no formal methodology
4. Training planning has not yet been completed
VI. How is the testing plan being developed?
1. Test planning is being developed with comprehensive input from stakeholder and vendor experts
2. Test planning is being developed with limited input from stakeholder and vendor experts
3. Test planning is being developed based upon prior experiences but no formal methodology
4. Test planning has not yet been completed
VII. How much control does IT have over the schedule?
1. Start/end dates are flexible & established by project plan
2. Start/end dates established mutually by vendor & BHS IT
3. Start/end dates established mutually by vendor & BHS IT
4. Start/end dates set by vendor; penalty clauses exist
VIII. How much input did BHS IT have in developing the deliverables?
1. We developed the deliverables for the shareholder
2. We guided the shareholder in developing deliverables
3. We were asked for comments after deliverables were developed
4. We had no involvement in developing deliverables
IX. Is the project required before other projects can proceed?
1. Not at all
2. Indirectly
3. Directly at < 50% units or departments
4. Directly at >50% units or departments
X. Is there a plan for ensuring that deliverables meet the need of the users?
1. There is a plan to ensure that the needs of the users are thoroughly met
2. The plan for verification of user deliverables is nearly complete
3. The plan for ensuring user deliverables is in the conceptual phase
4. There is no plan for ensuring that deliverables meet users needs
XI. What are the IT and Technical project coordinators' overall opinion of project risk?
1. Risk is minimal
2. Risk is moderate
3. Risk is significant
4. Risk is major
XII. To what degree are changes to the current business processes being managed?
1. There is a well-documented plan in place for the redesign of the changed processes with a detailed rollout schedule
2. There is a well-documented plan in place for the redesign of the changed processes but a detailed rollout schedule has not yet been developed
3. New process changes have been considered but are not clearly defined and documented
4. Process changes have not yet been considered
XIII. To what degree are changes to the current IT processes being managed?
1. There is a well-documented plan in place for the redesign of the changed processes with a detailed rollout schedule
2. There is a well-documented plan in place for the redesign of the changed processes but a detailed rollout schedule has not yet been developed
3. New process changes have been considered but are not clearly defined and documented
4. Process changes have not yet been considered
XIV. To what degree are changes to the current patient care processes being managed?
1. There is a well-documented plan in place for the redesign of the changed processes with a detailed rollout schedule
2. There is a well-documented plan in place for the redesign of the changed processes but a detailed rollout schedule has not yet been developed
3. New process changes have been considered but are not clearly defined and documented
4. Process changes have not yet been considered
XV. To what degree are the project team and stakeholder skill requirements well defined?
1. Skill requirements with corresponding time frame requirements have been clearly documented for all phases of the project
2. Skill requirements have been clearly documented for all phases of the project but do not include corresponding time frame requirements
3. Skill requirements are loosely defined for the project
4. Skill requirements are vague or not well defined for the project
XVI. To what degree have critical milestones been established for this project?
1. Clearly measurable and achievable milestones with firm dates have been created throughout the entire project lifecycle
2. Milestones, although not clearly measurable, with firm dates have been set for part of the project
3. Milestones have been created for the project but dates are not firmly set
4. No milestones exist at this time
XVII. To what degree have 'open issues' been tracked and included as part of ongoing management processes?
1. There is proven method of issue tracking and resolution currently in place and is widely used by all parties
2. There is a method of issue tracking and resolution currently in place and is generally used by all parties
3. Open issues are dealt with on an item by item basis and are not tracked using a standard method
4. There is no clear issue tracking or resolution approach in use on the project
XVIII. To what extent has a project plan been developed for the entire project lifecycle?
1. A detailed project plan has been created using an industry accepted methodology and experience from projects of similar size and scope
2. A project plan has been created using detailed project estimates; but not based on a comparable project
3. A project plan has been created using general areas of the project lifecycle, but there is not a clear understanding yet of the needed resources
4. No project plan exists at this time.
Project Resources
I. Does the project management team have relevant experience?
1. Members of the project management team have experience leading projects of similar size and complexity
2. Members of the project management team have had exposure to projects of similar size and complexity but not in lead roles
3. Members of the project management team have had limited exposure to projects of similar size and complexity and generally lack detailed knowledge
4. Members of the project management team have no experience with projects of similar size and complexity
II. How complex is coordination of internal resources?
1. Internal project - no hospital resources
2. Small project - internal and few hospital resources
3. Medium project - internal and multiple hospital resources
4. Large project - significant internal and hospital resources
III. Is the project team organized and deployed to a single location?
1. All team members are together with daily interactions with the users
2. All team members are located together but have limited user contact
3. Team members are in multiple locations but meet regularly
4. Team is located off site and rarely gets together as a whole
Project Size and Duration
I. How severe would be the result of late delivery?
1. No noticeable disruption of the business
2. Some disruption to limited, non-critical areas of the business
3. Some disruption to critical, time-valued areas of the business
4. Major disruption to the business because the new system is critical to the core business functions
II. What are the number of affected stakeholders per facility?
1. <10
2. >10 and < 50
3. > 50 and < 100
4. > 100
III. What is the Project Priority?
1. Minimal
2. Moderate
3. Significant
4. Major
IV. What is the amount of time the SPO can spend on the project?
1. 50% or greater
2. <50% and > 35%
3. < 35% and > 25%
4. < 25%
V. What is the impact of Go Live date(s) on other projects?
1. No projects are affected
2. A minimum number of projects and related resources are affected
3. A minimum number of projects are affected, but there are resource allocation conflicts
4. There are conflicts with other projects and resource allocations
VI. What is the number of affected facilities?
1. 1
2. 2 to 3
3. 3 to 4
4. All
VII. What is the total elapsed time of the project from start to finish?
1. < 3 months
2. > 3 months and < 6 months
3. > 6 months and < 1 year
4. One year or more
VIII. Will multiple business units be affected by the new system?
1. There will only be one business unit affected
2. Multiple business units within the same hospital will be affected
3. One business unit (each) in several hospitals will be affected
4. Multiple business units in several hospitals will be affected
IX. Will multiple patient care units be affected by the new system?
1. There will only be one patient care unit affected
2. Multiple patient care units within the same hospital will be affected
3. One patient care unit (each) in several hospitals will be affected
4. Multiple patient care units in several hospitals will be affected
Project Stakeholders
I. Are affected stakeholders willing to accept change created by this project?
1. Stakeholders are well informed about the change and show strong enthusiasm
2. Probably, stakeholders seems enthusiastic but there has been no formal evaluation of their enthusiasm or detailed knowledge of the change
3. Unclear, only limited or informal feedback from stakeholders have been received
4. No, firsthand feedback clearly indicates reluctance to the change
II. How committed is the hospital to the project?
1. All affected hospitals have assigned people and budgeted time
2. All affected hospitals have assigned people but has not budgeted time
3. More than half of affected hospitals have assigned people and budgeted time
4. Less than half of affected hospitals have assigned people and budgeted time
III. How does the project affect financial systems?
1. Not at all
2. Indirectly
3. Directly at < 50% units or departments
4. Directly at > 50% units or departments
IV. How does the project affect human resource systems?
1. Not at all
2. Indirectly
3. Directly at < 50% units or departments
4. Directly at > 50% units or departments
V. How does the project affect patient care systems?
1. Not at all
2. Indirectly
3. Directly at < 50% units or departments
4. Directly at > 50% units or departments
VI. What is the level of stakeholders involvement in the project?
1. The stakeholders are involved and have a permanent representative presence on the project team
2. The stakeholders are available for consultation and to provide functional advice
3. The stakeholders are minimally engaged on the project and clarification of requirements is difficult
4. The stakeholders are not involved in the project
VII. What will be the magnitude of change that the new system will impose upon the business stakeholders?
1. The new system will impose very little change, if any, upon the stakeholders
2. The new system will change slightly the current daily operations of the stakeholders
3. The new system will require significant changes by the stakeholders and will require training
4. The new system will present an entirely new way for the stakeholders to complete daily operations
VIII. What will be the magnitude of change that the new system will impose upon the patient care stakeholders?
1. The new system will impose very little change, if any, upon the stakeholders
2. The new system will change slightly the current daily operations of the stakeholders
3. The new system will require significant changes by the stakeholders and will require training
4. The new system will present an entirely new way for the stakeholders to complete daily operations
IX. Will staff numbers be reduced as a result of implementing the system?
1. There will not be a reduction in staff as a result of the new system
2. A small number of reductions are expected to isolated areas of the organization
3. Numerous reductions are expected to several levels of the organization
4. Staffing projections have not been completed
Project Support
I. Is the current Client Server and Operating Systems structure prepared to support the new system?
1. C/S and OS have significant experience in managing similar environments and will require little or no training
2. C/S and OS have experience with similar environments, but will probably require some degree of training
3. C/S and OS have limited or no experience with the environment and will require extensive training to be effective
4. C/S and OS does not have the expertise required to manage the operations and new resources will have to be hired or contracted
II. Is the current Clinical Support structure prepared to support the new system?
1. Clinical Support has significant experience in managing similar environments and will require little or no training
2. Clinical Support has experience with similar environments, but will probably require some degree of training
3. Clinical Support has limited or no experience with the environment and will require extensive training to be effective
4. Clinical Support does not have the expertise required to manage the operations and new resources will have to be hired or contracted
III. Is the current Data Base & Integration structure prepared to support the new system?
1. Data Base & Integration has significant experience in managing similar environments and will require little or no training
2. Data Base & Integration has experience with similar environments, but will probably require some degree of training
3. Data Base & Integration has limited or no experience with the environment and will require extensive training to be effective
4. Data Base & Integration does not have the expertise required to manage the operations and new resources will have to be hired or contracted
IV. Is the current Financial Support structure prepared to support the new system?
1. Financial Support has significant experience in managing similar environments and will require little or no training
2. Financial Support has experience with similar environments, but will probably require some degree of training
3. Financial Support has limited or no experience with the environment and will require extensive training to be effective
4. Financial Support does not have the expertise required to manage the operations and new resources will have to be hired or contracted
V. Is the current Help Desk structure prepared to support the new system?
1. The Help Desk has significant experience in managing similar environments and will require little or no training
2. The Help Desk has experience with similar environments, but will probably require some degree of training
3. The Help Desk has limited or no experience with the environment and will require extensive training to be effective
4. The Help Desk does not have the expertise required to manage the operations and new resources will have to be hired or contracted
VI. Is the current Networking and Telecom structure prepared to support the new system?
1. Networking has significant experience in managing similar environments and will require little or no training
2. Networking has experience with similar environments, but will probably require some degree of training
3. Networking has limited or no experience with the environment and will require extensive training to be effective
4. Networking does not have the expertise required to manage the operations and new resources will have to be hired or contracted
VII. Is the current Operations structure prepared to support the new system?
1. Operations has significant experience in managing similar environments and will require little or no training
2. Operations has experience with similar environments, but will probably require some degree of training
3. Operations has limited or no experience with the environment and will require extensive training to be effective
4. Operations does not have the expertise required to manage the operations and new resources will have to be hired or contracted
VIII. Is the current Web Development structure prepared to support the new system?
1. Web Development has significant experience in managing similar environments and will require little or no training
2. Web Development has experience with similar environments, but will probably require some degree of training
3. Web Development has limited or no experience with the environment and will require extensive training to be effective
4. Web Development does not have the expertise required to manage the operations and new resources will have to be hired or contracted
Technological
I. Do the key technologies appear to be the appropriate foundation given the system design?
1. There is every reason to believe that the proposed technology represents a solid foundation for the foreseeable future.
2. Certain components may reach the end of their lifecycle before the system does, but there is a high probability that there will be an upgrade path for replacement
3. Certain components may reach the end of their lifecycle before the system does and there does not appear to be a logical upgrade path
4. Various components appear to have reached the end of their lifecycle and more advanced technology exists in the market or technology foundation has yet to be determined
II. Does the project replace current system hardware?
1. No
2. Unknown
3. Yes
III. Does the project require conversions of current data systems?
1. No
2. Unknown
3. Yes
IV. Does the project’s technology (software, hardware, etc.) conflict with current BHS technology?
1. No
2. Unknown
3. Yes
V. Has (or will) the functionality of software be tested?
1. No
2. Unknown
3. Yes
VI. How clearly defined are the system operating procedures (backups, restart/recovery, etc.)?
1. Well defined with easy, well-documented, legible procedures
2. Maintenance procedures exist and some documentation exists
3. Maintenance procedures exist but documentation is limited
4. System maintenance procedures are not clearly defined or documented
VII. How many existing computer systems must the project system interact with?
1. A limited number of interfaces
2. A moderate number of interfaces
3. A large number of interfaces
4. The number of interfaces is not known
VIII. How mature are the technologies & products in this project?
1. All technologies/products are mature
2. Few technologies/products are new
3. Many (30-69%) of technologies/products are new
4. Most (70% or more) technologies/products are new
IX. How severely would business be impacted by a system failure?
1. Minimal impact-system is not critical to daily patient care or business functions
2. Moderate impact-system is critical to patient care or business, but a well-documented, automated contingency approach exists
3. Significant impact-system is critical to patient care or business and contingency plan relies on work-around
4. Severe impact-system is critical to patient care or business and there is no well-documented contingency plan
X. How thoroughly have the technology options been evaluated?
1. Experienced technical specialists performed a comprehensive evaluation of options using a proven methodology
2. Experienced technical specialists made recommendations based on prior experiences
3. Key functional personnel made recommendations for the options
4. A detailed evaluation has not yet been performed
XI. Is the project required to update old technology?
1. No
2. Unknown
3. Yes
XII. Is the proposed hardware/software environment in production already within the organization? (i.e. mainframe, client server, middleware, etc.)
1. The environment is in production and well established
2. The environment is currently in use in production but not well-established and subject to changes
3. The environment is currently in use for development efforts but has not yet been established in production
4. Hardware/software environment is not currently in use
XIII. Is there a system load test or other measures to ensure good system performance (i.e. measures to test response time, system efficiency, etc.)?
1. There is a load test for system performance in accordance with accepted industry standards
2. There is a methodology for load testing but some phases are not complete
3. The load testing plans have been discussed, but are not in place at this time
4. There are no plans for load testing the system.
XIV. To what extent will the new system enable de-installation of the existing system?
1. The new system will completely replace an existing system or an existing system does not exist
2. The new system will be a new layer that will lead to the eventual replacement of an existing system
3. The new system will be a new layer and there is not a business case for the elimination of any existing systems
4. The new system will be run in parallel to an existing system
XV. What knowledge level does the Technical project team members have for the proposed technology environment?
1. The proposed platform is well understood by the project team and any technical difficulties that emerge are likely to be handled in-house
2. There are parts of the platform that are very clearly understood, however, aspects of the new platform will be seen for the first time.
3. The platform is not well known to the project team but specialized expertise is readily available from vendors
4. The platform is not well know to the project team and specialized expertise is not easily available
Project Vendors
I. Does the vendor project management team have relevant experience?
1. Members of the vendor project management team have experience leading projects of similar size and complexity
2. Members of the vendor project management team have had exposure to projects of similar size and complexity but not in lead roles
3. Members of the vendor project management team have had limited exposure to projects of similar size and complexity and generally lack detailed knowledge
4. Members of the vendor project management team have no experience with projects of similar size and complexity
II. How complex is coordination of external resources?
1. No subcontractors or vendors to manage
2. One or two subcontractors / vendors to manage
3. Three to five subcontractors / vendors to manage
4. Six or more subcontractors / vendors to manage
III. Is the vendor well established in the business community with a strong financial background?
1. The vendor is well established and in good financial condition
2. The vendor is well established, but financial condition is unknown
3. The vendor has been established for less than two years
4. The vendor is a startup business with little financial history
IV. What is the vendor's ability to implement the technology?
1. The vendor has successfully completed a number of previous implementations
2. The vendor has successfully completed some previous implementations (1 3)
3. The vendor has limited experience with this technology
4. The vendor has not previously implemented this technology
Financial Opportinity
I. How many components of the IT Strategic Plan does the project support?
1. Project objectives have been clearly documented and can be linked to specific components of the IT Strategic Plan
2. The project direction is consistent with the IT Strategic Plan but the relationship has not been clearly documented
3. Project objectives are not clearly related to the IT Strategic Plan
4. Some or all project objectives may be in conflict with the IT Strategic Plan
II. Is the project required to meet regulatory or legal requirements?
1. Not at all
2. Indirectly
3. Directly at < 50% of units or departments
4. Directly at >50% of units or departments
III. How will project impact utilization of resources?
1. Will pull significant resources of other projects
2. Will pull some resources of other projects
3. Will have a normal impact on resources
4 . Will put currently under-utilized resources to work
IV. To what extent are senior management committed to the project and its outcomes?
1. The consensus of senior management is that the project is not warranted
2. Senior management does not have a consensus regarding the project
3. Senior management agree with the need for the project, but it does not represent their highest priority
4. Senior management is fully committed and have openly endorsed the project
V. Will the project improve skills or provide new experience?
1. Little improvement is expected in existing skills
2. Significant improvement expected in existing skills
3. Little improvement in existing skills but some new skills will be developed
4. Significant improvement in existing and new skills will be developed as well
VI. Will Clinical Outcomes be improved by this project?
1. Not at all
2. Little change
3. Directly at < 50% of units or departments
4. Directly at >50% of units or departments
VII. Will customer service be improved by this project?
1. Not at all
2. Little change
3. Increased customer service to patients, or stakeholders, or physicians
4. Increased customer service to patients, and/or stakeholders, and/or physicians
VIII. Will Delivery of Services be improved by this project?
1. Not at all
2. Little change
3. Directly at < 50% of units or departments
4. Directly at >50% of units or departments
IX. Will productivity be improved by this project?
1. Not at all
2. Little change
3. Increased productivity for stakeholders, or physicians
4. Increased productivity for stakeholders and physicians
X. What are the IT and Technical project coordinators' opinion of the need to win this opportunity?
1. There is no compelling need to win this project
2. The need to win this project is low
3. The need to win this project is moderate
4. This project is vital; we must win it
XI. What is the project's political visibility?
1. Major
2. Significant
3. Moderate
4. Minimal
XII. How do margins compare to annual company goals?
1. Negative margins or breakeven
2. Margins up to 50% of company plan
3. Margins > 50% but < 100% of company plan
4. Margins equal or exceed company plan
XIII. How likely is future business as a result of this project?
1. Project has little or no bearing on future business
2. Future business is possible
3. Future business is likely
4. Future business is assured
XIV. Is there a clearly defined payback for this system?
1. There is neither a payback period nor apparent justification on the basis of patient safety
2. There is a payback period but it is not clearly defined
3. There is not a clearly defined payback but the system is necessary regardless (i.e.for patient safety)
4. There is a clearly defined payback and it is fully justified
XV. What is the estimated revenue for this project?
1. < $500,000
2. > $500,000 and < $2.5 million
3. > $2.5 million and < $5 million
4. > $5 million
XVI. What is the payback time for the project?
1. The payback period has not been quantified
2. The payback period will be greater than 4 years
3. The payback period exceeds 2 years but less than 4 years
4. The payback period is within 2 years
XVII. To what degree have existing expenditures met budgeted amounts?
1. Existing expenditures have consistently exceeded budget amounts or clear budgets have not yet been established
2. Some significant expenditures have exceeded budget amounts with others remaining within budget
3. Most expenditures have been within the budget amounts with a small percentage exceeding budget amounts
4. Existing expenditures have consistently been within budget amounts
XVIII. What is the end-to-end expenditure that this project will require?
1. > $2 Million
2. < $2 Million and > $500,000
3. < $500,000 and > $50,000
4. < $50,000
Here are some more potential sources of risk
1. Use Project Initiation and Requirements documents
2. If you have access to a Risk Assessment list…use it
3. Turn the WBS into a Risk Breakdown Schedule (RBS) and review Project Schedule for:
a. Tasks which your team has no expertise
b. Duration and cost estimates that are aggressive
c. Tasks with numerous or constrained resources
d. Tasks with several predecessors or long durations
4. Brainstorm and talk with the experts
5. Historical Information
a. Project Files (Risk Management Plans from previous projects)
b. Published Information
Risk Options
For negative risks:
• Avoid
• Transfer
• Mitigate
• Accept
For positive risks:
• Exploit
• Share
• Enhance
• Accept
• Avoid
• Transfer
• Mitigate
• Accept
For positive risks:
• Exploit
• Share
• Enhance
• Accept
Monday, October 19, 2009
Biz - Good One
Return on Execution (RoX) = Net Gain from Improved Execution / Net Execution Investment
Need to choose right passengers in the Bus (organization), Important thing to this aspect having right people on the right seat. Eg: Having the driver to drive the bus. Passenger knowing where to go and knowing what they are supposed to do in the bus. Aligning Strategy and Execution.
Sports analogy - "the manager can only put players on the field, But the players have to execute" Manager gets to define the strategy, Players will be executing strategy provided the manager and players align together for common cause bounded the organizations objectives, goals, mission and vision for success.
Have X Resources spending Y% of time towards completing Z% of task.
Need to choose right passengers in the Bus (organization), Important thing to this aspect having right people on the right seat. Eg: Having the driver to drive the bus. Passenger knowing where to go and knowing what they are supposed to do in the bus. Aligning Strategy and Execution.
Sports analogy - "the manager can only put players on the field, But the players have to execute" Manager gets to define the strategy, Players will be executing strategy provided the manager and players align together for common cause bounded the organizations objectives, goals, mission and vision for success.
Have X Resources spending Y% of time towards completing Z% of task.
Monday, October 5, 2009
ROI
“Marketing ROI is NOT an increase in market share, click-throughs to your web site or even revenue generated from your marketing communications. ROI is the profits generated over and above the initial investment and expressed as a percent of the investment. There’s a formula, but you really need to understand the nuances of how ROI is calculated in your company because there are multiple ways to interpret concepts like gross margin, net present value or discount rate, just for starters. You need to know your own company’s standards.”
GROSS PROFIT MARGIN
From About: The Gross Profit Margin is a measurement of a company’s manufacturing and distribution efficiency during the production process. The gross profit tells an investor the percentage of revenue/sales left after subtracting the cost of goods sold. A company that boasts a higher gross profit margin than its competitors and industry is more efficient.
From InvestorWords: Gross Profit Margins reveal how much a company earns taking into consideration the costs that it incurs for producing its products and/or services.
It can be expressed in absolute terms:
Gross Profit = Revenue − Cost of Sales
$89,250.00 = $109,250.00 – $20,000
Gross margin is expressed in the form of a percentage:
Gross Margin % = Gross Profit / Revenue
81.69% = $89,250.00 / $109,250.00
Note: Gross Margins of 82% rarely exist. The example does not take into consideration costs that are continually increasing to pay for overhead and marketing, thus lowering Gross Profit Margin.
As example, a company makes 100 widgets in their first year and sells them for $1,000 each. With tax of 9.25% the Revenue or Net Sales is $109,250.00, which is the amount generated after the deduction of returns, allowances for damaged or missing goods, any discounts allowed, freight, and any other expenses (in this case, $0).
The Cost of Sales or Cost of Goods Sold (COGS) is $200 each or $20,000. COGS is the beginning inventory, in this case $0, plus the Cost of Goods Purchased during some period, $20,000, minus the ending inventory, $0, in this case. Gross Profit or Gross Income then is $89,250.00.
RETURN ON INVESTMENT
Now that we have the Gross Margin, we can generate the ROI in the first year (it typically is done on an annual basis).
ROI = ((Revenue – Expenses*) / Investment)
*namely, business, depreciation, interest, and taxes
To get the figure in percentage format, multiply ROI by 100%.
To further the example, when the company went into the widget-making business, they spent $5,000 as their initial investment in setup costs, plus $200 for every widget produced ($20,000), plus $9,250 in taxes. On a sale of 1,000 widgets their ROI is 300%
300% = ($109,250.00 – $34,250) / $25,000
It would be wise to calculate how many widgets they had to sell at pre-tax $1,000 to break even. According to my calculations, when they sold widget #22 they broke even on their current plus future investments.
Furthermore, the investment of $25,000 is likely a loan. If the company borrowed this amount on a 3 year plan at a rate of 20%, by my calculations it would cost them $33,447.24 if compounded annually. Monthly payments, therefore, would be $929.09. As we are just talking about the first year of operations, the first year amount due would be $11,149.08 with the remaining $32,050.92 due in years 2 and 3. Total first year expenses also increase by $2,815.75, which is one third the total interest: $33,447.24 – $25,000 = $8,447.24
Realized Gross Profit (first year): $78,100.92 = $89,250.00 – $11,149.08
Realized Gross Margin (first year): 71.48% = $78,100.92 / $109,250.00
Realized ROI (first year): 289% = ($109,250.00 – $37,065.75) / $25,000
From these results, we can conclude that it would not be a bad investment. However, as more and more details of the reality of costs are added into the equation, profit, margin and ROI will all decrease.
NET PRESENT VALUE
The good business person will then decide if making widgets has the best ROI for the outlay of $25,000 or if some other opportunity – including an investment in financial markets – may yield a higher return. To evaluate this, calculate the Net Present Value, which takes a look at the current value and timing of cash flows, comparing it to the discount rate – the rate of return that could be earned in the financial markets – currently 0.75% as of September 20, 2009. Another name for discount rate is the IRR rate (Internal Rate of Return).
SUMMARY
When we talk about marketing ROI we’re often looking at things like the results of a campaign (purchases, new subscribers, click-throughs), but we have to keep in mind that those results roll up into the real ROI, which calculates return on an overall investment. To do this, we have to calculate three things: Gross Profit, Gross Profit Margin, and ROI.
Gross Profit = Total Revenue minus Cost of Sales or Cost of Goods Sold, which is inventory plus the Cost of Goods Purchased during some period minus the ending inventory.
Gross Profit Margin % = Gross Profit divided by Revenue or Net Sales, which is the amount generated after the deduction of returns, allowances for damaged or missing goods, any discounts allowed, freight, and any other expenses.
ROI = Total Revenue minus Total Expenses, divided by the Total Investment. The result can be calculated across different scenarios and it can then be decided where the investment can be best spent, taking into consider the Net Present Value of the differing cash flows that are created.
GROSS PROFIT MARGIN
From About: The Gross Profit Margin is a measurement of a company’s manufacturing and distribution efficiency during the production process. The gross profit tells an investor the percentage of revenue/sales left after subtracting the cost of goods sold. A company that boasts a higher gross profit margin than its competitors and industry is more efficient.
From InvestorWords: Gross Profit Margins reveal how much a company earns taking into consideration the costs that it incurs for producing its products and/or services.
It can be expressed in absolute terms:
Gross Profit = Revenue − Cost of Sales
$89,250.00 = $109,250.00 – $20,000
Gross margin is expressed in the form of a percentage:
Gross Margin % = Gross Profit / Revenue
81.69% = $89,250.00 / $109,250.00
Note: Gross Margins of 82% rarely exist. The example does not take into consideration costs that are continually increasing to pay for overhead and marketing, thus lowering Gross Profit Margin.
As example, a company makes 100 widgets in their first year and sells them for $1,000 each. With tax of 9.25% the Revenue or Net Sales is $109,250.00, which is the amount generated after the deduction of returns, allowances for damaged or missing goods, any discounts allowed, freight, and any other expenses (in this case, $0).
The Cost of Sales or Cost of Goods Sold (COGS) is $200 each or $20,000. COGS is the beginning inventory, in this case $0, plus the Cost of Goods Purchased during some period, $20,000, minus the ending inventory, $0, in this case. Gross Profit or Gross Income then is $89,250.00.
RETURN ON INVESTMENT
Now that we have the Gross Margin, we can generate the ROI in the first year (it typically is done on an annual basis).
ROI = ((Revenue – Expenses*) / Investment)
*namely, business, depreciation, interest, and taxes
To get the figure in percentage format, multiply ROI by 100%.
To further the example, when the company went into the widget-making business, they spent $5,000 as their initial investment in setup costs, plus $200 for every widget produced ($20,000), plus $9,250 in taxes. On a sale of 1,000 widgets their ROI is 300%
300% = ($109,250.00 – $34,250) / $25,000
It would be wise to calculate how many widgets they had to sell at pre-tax $1,000 to break even. According to my calculations, when they sold widget #22 they broke even on their current plus future investments.
Furthermore, the investment of $25,000 is likely a loan. If the company borrowed this amount on a 3 year plan at a rate of 20%, by my calculations it would cost them $33,447.24 if compounded annually. Monthly payments, therefore, would be $929.09. As we are just talking about the first year of operations, the first year amount due would be $11,149.08 with the remaining $32,050.92 due in years 2 and 3. Total first year expenses also increase by $2,815.75, which is one third the total interest: $33,447.24 – $25,000 = $8,447.24
Realized Gross Profit (first year): $78,100.92 = $89,250.00 – $11,149.08
Realized Gross Margin (first year): 71.48% = $78,100.92 / $109,250.00
Realized ROI (first year): 289% = ($109,250.00 – $37,065.75) / $25,000
From these results, we can conclude that it would not be a bad investment. However, as more and more details of the reality of costs are added into the equation, profit, margin and ROI will all decrease.
NET PRESENT VALUE
The good business person will then decide if making widgets has the best ROI for the outlay of $25,000 or if some other opportunity – including an investment in financial markets – may yield a higher return. To evaluate this, calculate the Net Present Value, which takes a look at the current value and timing of cash flows, comparing it to the discount rate – the rate of return that could be earned in the financial markets – currently 0.75% as of September 20, 2009. Another name for discount rate is the IRR rate (Internal Rate of Return).
SUMMARY
When we talk about marketing ROI we’re often looking at things like the results of a campaign (purchases, new subscribers, click-throughs), but we have to keep in mind that those results roll up into the real ROI, which calculates return on an overall investment. To do this, we have to calculate three things: Gross Profit, Gross Profit Margin, and ROI.
Gross Profit = Total Revenue minus Cost of Sales or Cost of Goods Sold, which is inventory plus the Cost of Goods Purchased during some period minus the ending inventory.
Gross Profit Margin % = Gross Profit divided by Revenue or Net Sales, which is the amount generated after the deduction of returns, allowances for damaged or missing goods, any discounts allowed, freight, and any other expenses.
ROI = Total Revenue minus Total Expenses, divided by the Total Investment. The result can be calculated across different scenarios and it can then be decided where the investment can be best spent, taking into consider the Net Present Value of the differing cash flows that are created.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)