Download Close-Ended Complexity Assessment

Close-Ended
Complexity
Assessment
CEB PMO Leadership Council
A Framework for Member Conversations
The mission of CEB Inc. and its affiliates is to unlock the potential of organizations and leaders by advancing the science and practice of management. When we bring leaders together, it is
crucial that our discussions neither restrict competition nor improperly share inside information. All other conversations are welcomed and encouraged.
Confidentiality and Intellectual Property
These materials have been prepared by CEB Inc. for the exclusive and individual use of our member companies. These materials contain valuable confidential and proprietary information
belonging to CEB, and they may not be shared with any third party (including independent contractors and consultants) without the prior approval of CEB. CEB retains any and all
intellectual property rights in these materials and requires retention of the copyright mark on all pages reproduced.
Legal Caveat
CEB Inc. is not able to guarantee the accuracy of the information or analysis contained in these materials. Furthermore, CEB is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting, or any other
professional services. CEB specifically disclaims liability for any damages, claims, or losses that may arise from a) any errors or omissions in these materials, whether caused by CEB or its
sources, or b) reliance upon any recommendation made by CEB.
CLOSE-ENDED COMPLEXITY ASSESSMENT
OVERVIEW
BMO applies an up-front complexity filter to determine the appropriate project management deliverables and
governance for each project. The first stage is to assess project risk profiles and steer projects into one of two parallel
governance tracks—with lightweight and full methodology.
EXECUTIVE TEACHING
Most organizations err on the side of process rigor to avoid risk. By using process discipline as a risk management
tool, BMO tailors the methodology to the level of project risk, leading to improved project delivery predictability
and stakeholder engagement.
COMPONENT TEACHING
■■
Component 1: Up-Front Complexity Filter—Perform initial assessment of project risk based on the two basic
parameters: project size and complexity.
■■
Component 2: Detailed Risk Assessment Calculator—Conduct comprehensive risk assessments for high-risk projects.
■■
Component 3: Tiered Project Methodology—Calibrate project methodology based on the level of project risk.
COMPANY SNAPSHOT
BMO Financial Group
Industry:
Financial Services
2005 Sales:
US$12.9 Billion
2005 Employees: 34,000
The Bank of Montreal, Canada’s oldest and fifth-largest bank, has
approximately 1,000 branches serving individuals, government agencies,
institutions, and large and small businesses, at home and abroad. The
company, which is known as BMO Financial Group, provides mortgages,
insurance, asset management services, and mutual funds in addition
to banking services. BMO is a leading commercial player in chosen U.S.
markets through Harris Bank in the Chicago area and Harris Nesbitt’s
well-entrenched mid-market client base in the Midwest.
© 2015 CEB. All rights reserved. PMOEC4344015SYN
1
Structure an objective
risk assessment scorecard
that all project staff
and stakeholders across
the organization can
consistently apply.
■■
■■
Lack of clear and consistent
risk criteria prevents
project stakeholders from
understanding each others’
project risks.
This not only leads to troubled
or failed projects but also
prevents accurate diagnosis of
the failure’s root causes.
DEVELOP A COMMON LANGUAGE FOR RISK
Problem: Different Stakeholders Understand
Project Risks Differently
BMO’s Solution: Develop a Standard
Adaptable Risk Assessment Approach
Detailed Risk
Assessment
Calculator
Architects
Project
Manager
Business
Sponsor
Programmer
Project C
Project B
Project A
Up-Front
Complexity
Filter
Light
Methodology
Execution
Business
Analyst
End Users
Full
Methodology
Execution
Component 1
Component 2
Component 2
Up-Front Complexity Filter:
Measure project delivery risk
using clear criteria and closeended questions before project
initiation.
Detailed Risk Assessment
Calculator: Conduct a detailed
assessment of identified high-risk
projects.
Tiered Project Methodology:
Adopt a light or full methodology
based on the project risk profile.
Source:BMO Financial Group; CEB analysis.
INTRODUCTION
UP-FRONT
COMPLEXITY
FILTER
DETAILED RISK
ASSESSMENT
CALCULATOR
TIERED PROJECT
METHODOLOGY
RESULTS
APPENDIX
© 2015 CEB. All rights reserved. PMOEC4344015SYN
2
Develop clear criteria,
close-ended questions, and
defined scoring guidelines
for initial project risk
assessment.
■■
■■
Most organizations use project
size as the sole criterion for
determining a project’s overall
risk profile.
BMO evaluates two
parameters—project size and
project complexity—in the initial
risk assessment phase.
“If projects are
categorized only by size,
you overlook the risk of
smaller, more complex projects
that can have an impact on
multiple systems or multiple
business units.”
Robin Dhillon
Senior Manager, IT Best Practices
BMO Financial Group
DETERMINE RISK BEFORE PROJECT INITIATION
Project Size
Criteria
Small
Medium
Large
1. Work Months
< 24
24–170
> 170
2. Budget $XXXs
< 500
500–1,000
> 1,000
3. Elapsed Project Duration (Months)
≤4
5–12
> 12
4. Project Team Size
≤4
5–12
> 15
Source:BMO Financial Group; CEB analysis.
Project Complexity
Criteria
Low
Intermediate
High
1. Requirements
Complexity
Straightforward and well
understood by project team
Complex and well understood
by project team
Complex and not well articulated
2. N
umber of Projects
Impacted
0
1
≥2
3. Interfaces to Existing
Systems
0
1–3
> 3 or external
4. Internal/External
Groups to Coordinate
1
2–4
>4
5. ProcessingType
N/A or batch processing only
Simple online query and update
Complex processing—Internet/
distributed systems
6. Data
Complexity
N/A or < 50 entities
50–100 entities
> 100 entities
7. Online
Response Time
> 7 seconds
3–7 seconds
≤ 2 seconds
8. System
Availability
N/A or less than/equal to 95%
98%
Greater than 99%
9. N
umber of Daily
Transactions
≤ 1,000
1,000–50,000
> 50,000
10. Business Criticality
< 30 days outage tolerable
1 week outage tolerable
1 day outage tolerable
11. D
ata Quality
and Conversion
N/A, good quality, simple
to convert or automatable
Fair complexity, average
complexity, average to convert
Poor quality, very complex,
difficult to convert
Source:BMO Financial Group; CEB analysis.
INTRODUCTION
UP-FRONT
COMPLEXITY
FILTER
DETAILED RISK
ASSESSMENT
CALCULATOR
TIERED PROJECT
METHODOLOGY
RESULTS
APPENDIX
© 2015 CEB. All rights reserved. PMOEC4344015SYN
3
Consider a comprehensive
set of factors to assess a
project’s overall risk profile.
■■
The detailed assessment
results guide the selection of
deliverables in project execution
methodology.
CONDUCT DETAILED RISK ASSESSMENT
FOR HIGH-RISK PROJECTS
BMO Financial Group’s Project Risk Assessment Scorecard
Illustrative
1. Project Size
■■
■■
6. Project Definition
Geographic impact
Physical sites affected
■■
■■
■■
■■
2. Project Complexity
■■
■■
■■
7. Internal/External Effect
Project interdependencies
Interface to existing systems
Complexity of requirements
3. Sponsorship
■■
■■
■■
■■
Clarity of project team roles
and responsibilities
Business partner commitment
Alignment to business strategy
■■
■■
■■
■■
Risk
Low
Most
Medium
Half
High
Almost none
Risk
Business partner
personnel responsible
for providing business/
application knowledge
on the project are:
Low
Able to articulate
business requirements
and have experience
with IT projects.
Medium
Able to articulate
business requirements
but have no experience
with IT projects.
High
Unable to articulate
business requirements.
Customer reliance on system
Impact on bank’s marketspace
Impact on computer operations
Development and testing
product availability
9. Data Security
Experience level of user groups
Number of vendors and
consultants
5. Effect on User Groups
■■
■■
8. Technology
4. Project Resourcing
■■
Availability of documentation
Stability of requirements
Business knowledge of project
team
User knowledge of business
requirements
Number of project
team members who are
knowledgeable about
or have experience in
the business area:
Changes to organizational
strategy staffing levels
User training on system/
process
■■
■■
Data privacy
Data quality
10. Risk of Not Doing Project
■■
Competitive customer service
advantage
Source:BMO Financial Group; CEB analysis.
See pages 8 to 14 for the full
Business Risk Assessment
Calculator.
INTRODUCTION
UP-FRONT
COMPLEXITY
FILTER
DETAILED RISK
ASSESSMENT
CALCULATOR
TIERED PROJECT
METHODOLOGY
RESULTS
APPENDIX
© 2015 CEB. All rights reserved. PMOEC4344015SYN
4
Use full methodology for
high-risk projects and light
methodology for low-risk
projects.
■■
■■
Tailor project management
deliverables and governance
in each methodology track to
match project risk.
Determine the scope of
corporate audit involvement
based on a detailed risk
assessment scorecard.
ADAPT METHODOLOGY BASED ON PROJECT
RISK
Approach for Deliverables and Governable Tiering
Percentage of Projects
Detailed
Risk
Assessment
(70 Questions)
Up-Front
Complexity
Filter
Mandatory Deliverables (9)
1. Letter of Engagement
2. Seed Funding
3. Project Charter
4. Detailed Risk Assessment
5. Project Status Report
6. Activity Network Diagram
7. Risk Tracking Worksheet
8. Client Satisfaction Survey
9. Post Implementation Review
(PIR)
20%
High Risk
(15 Questions)
Full
Methodology
80%
Low Risk
Additional Deliverables (20)
1. Stakeholder Participation
Form
2. Funding Documents
3. Project Management Plans
.
.
.
20. Application Support
Documents
Corporate Audit Involvement
Corporate Audit reviews the detailed risk assessment
to determine involvement during the project lifecycle.
Light
Methodology
Mandatory Deliverables (2)
1. Letter of Engagement
2. Project Charter
Processes and Guidelines
Projects for low business unit–
specific guidelines
Local Project Management
Corporate Audit Involvement
None
Source:BMO Financial Group; CEB analysis.
See pages 15 for the complete
list of deliverables.
INTRODUCTION
UP-FRONT
COMPLEXITY
FILTER
DETAILED RISK
ASSESSMENT
CALCULATOR
TIERED PROJECT
METHODOLOGY
RESULTS
APPENDIX
© 2015 CEB. All rights reserved. PMOEC4344015SYN
5
Dual-stage risk assessment
led to an increase in the use
of light methodology, better
compliance, and improved
project delivery.
RESULTS
Projects Following Full and Light Methodologies
Adherence to Methodology
Indexed
Percentage of Projects
Full Methodology
■■
BMO also reported a noticeable
improvement in productivity
and more focused senior
management oversight.
Light Methodology
100%
100%
100%
30%
20%
2000
“Since implementing
the adaptable risk
assessment approach,
only 20% of the projects in the
portfolio go through a detailed
risk assessment. This has led to an
increased success rate of projects
as the management oversight can
now be more focused. It has also
reduced the cycle time for
projects resulting in freed-up
resources; we have seen a
noticeable improvement in
productivity, although we have
not quantified the results yet.”
Jesse Hanspal
Director, Development Technology
Services
BMO Financial Group
2006
2000
2006
n = 500.
n = 500.
Source:BMO Financial Group; CEB analysis.
Source:BMO Financial Group; CEB analysis.
Project Delivery on Time, Within Budget
Percentage of Projects
80%
30%
2000
2006
n = 500.
Source:BMO Financial Group; CEB analysis.
INTRODUCTION
UP-FRONT
COMPLEXITY
FILTER
DETAILED RISK
ASSESSMENT
CALCULATOR
TIERED PROJECT
METHODOLOGY
RESULTS
APPENDIX
© 2015 CEB. All rights reserved. PMOEC4344015SYN
6
Appendix
Detailed Risk Assessment Calculator 8–14
Project Deliverables (Full Methodology) 15
© 2015 CEB. All rights reserved. PMOEC4344015SYN
7
DETAILED RISK ASSESSMENT CALCULATOR
Project Size
Criteria
Explanation
Low
Medium
High
1. Work Hours
Total estimated work hours
2,832 (24 WM) or less
2,883–20,000
(24 WM–170 WM)
More than 20,000
2.Calendar Time
Before Completion
4 months or less
5–12 months
More than 12 months
3. Project
Team Size
4 or fewer members
5–15 members
More than 15 members
4.Sites
The number of different physical
locations affected (i.e., one bank
branch is one site.)
1 site
1–3 sites
More than 3 sites
5. Geography
The geographic locations of
sites that will access/operate
the production system or project
deliverable
Locally
In North America
Global
6.Implementation
Extent
The scope of implementation
delivered by this project
Feasibility or design prototype
Pilot (partial production)
Full production
7.Amount of Change on
Existing System/Process
The amount of change the project
delivers on an existing system/
process
N/A or less than 5%
20% or less
More than 20%
8.Requirements
The functionality of the system/
process/product
Straightforward and well
understood by project participants
Complex and well
understood by participants
Complex and not well articulated
9.Interdependence with
Other Projects
The number of projects impacting
or affected by this project
0
1
2 or more
10.Interfaces to Existing
Systems
The number of existing automated
application systems with which the
new system must interface
0 or N/A
1 to 3
More than 3 or external
11. Groups to Coordinate
The number of internal and external
groups involved with the project
1
1 to 4
More than 4
12.Type of Processing
Processing the system requires
N/A or batch processing only
Simple online
query and update
Complex process
(e.g., distributed systems)
Project Complexity
Source:BMO Financial Group; CEB analysis.
INTRODUCTION
UP-FRONT
COMPLEXITY FILTER
DETAILED RISK
ASSESSMENT
CALCULATOR
TIERED PROJECT
METHODOLOGY
RESULTS
APPENDIX
© 2015 CEB. All rights reserved. PMOEC4344015SYN
8
DETAILED RISK ASSESSMENT CALCULATOR (CONTINUED)
Project Complexity (Continued)
Criteria
Explanation
Low
Medium
High
13. Data Complexity
The level of complexity of the data
used by the new system, measured
by the number of entites and the
relationships between them
N/A or not complex (less than
50 entities plus relationships)
Moderately complex
(50–100 entities)
Very complex
(more than 100 entities)
14. Response
Time as a
Critical Requirement
The system-required
online response time of
N/A or greater than
7 seconds, 90% of the time
3–7 seconds, 90% of the time
2 seconds or less, 90% of the time
15. R
equirements for System
Availability
The system availability (i.e.,
percentage of time usable) must
be (Look at your dependencies.)
N/A or less than/equal to 95%
98%
Greater than 99%
16. Transaction Volume
The number of daily business
transactions to be processed
1,000 or less
1,000–50,000
More than 50,000
17. C
ontingency and Disaster
Recovery
The ability of the business
to operate without the system
or process
System or process rated “Optional/
Desirable” or “Optional—
Discretionary” (30 days or longer
outage tolerable)
System/process rates
“Necessary” (1 week outage
tolerable)
System/Process rated
“Critical” (1 day outage tolerable)
18. Data Conversion
The quality of data and impact
on conversion process
N/A, or simple to convert,
or good quality automatable
Average complexity or of fair
quality, significant work effort
to convert
Very complex or of poor quality,
difficult conversion process
19. P
roject Scope and
Deliverables
The project scope,
deliverables, and objectives are
Well defined
Defined in name but not
content
Not defined
20. User Knowledge
Business partner personnel
responsible for providing business/
application knowledge on the project
are
Able to articulate business
requirements and have had
experience with IT projects
Able to articulate business
requirements and have had
no experience with IT projects
Unable to articulate business
requirements
21. B
usiness Knowledge
of Project Team
Amount of project team members
who are knowledgeable about or
have experience in the business area
Most
Half
None
22. A
vailability of
Documentation
The status of the relevant
documentation in the user area is
Complete and current
75–99%
Less than 75% or outdated
23. Stability of Requirements
The requirements to be implemented
by the project are
Stable
Subject to moderate
recoverable change
Frequently changing
Project Definition
Source:BMO Financial Group; CEB analysis.
INTRODUCTION
UP-FRONT
COMPLEXITY FILTER
DETAILED RISK
ASSESSMENT
CALCULATOR
TIERED PROJECT
METHODOLOGY
RESULTS
APPENDIX
© 2015 CEB. All rights reserved. PMOEC4344015SYN
9
DETAILED RISK ASSESSMENT CALCULATOR (CONTINUED)
Sponsorship
Criteria
Explanation
Low
Medium
High
24. Roles and
Responsibilities
Project participant roles
and responsibilities
Are defined, communicated,
and accepted
Are not clearly defined and
communicated, but also not
understood
Are understood and not agreed to
25. Project Sponsorship
The project sponsor
Has signed the RFA/SRA
Has not signed the RFA/SRA
or there are multiple sponsors
Is unclear (i.e., who is the sponsor?)
26. C
ommitment of Involved
Parties
The general attitude of business
partner, external, and OPS personnel
or other participants required for
project success
All understand the
value and are supportive
Some are not supportive
Some are resistant
27. Benefits of Project
The benefits of the project are
Well defined, quantified,
or of strategic importance
Defined in general,
not quantified
Not well defined or unclear
28. Business Alignment
The alignment of the project/system
to the business vision, strategic, or
tactical plans
Is consistent
Deviates from plans but
satisfies an urgent need
(EG statutory or mandatory)
or highly profitable
opportunity
Deviates from plans,
and benefits are unclear
29. Extent of User Impact
The number of different end-user
groups/organizations/departments
implementing the process/system
One group only
Less than or equal to 4
More than 4
30. R
eplacement to New
System Process
The system/process
Is an upgrade or replaces an
existing, primarily automated
system
Replaces an existing, primarily
manual system/process
Is a totally new system/process
31. Procedural/Policy
Changes Imposed
by the New System
Procedural/policy changes required
to support the new system/process
None or little change
Moderate change
Extensive change
32. C
hanges to
Organizational
Structure/Staffing Levels
Organizational changes required
to support the new system/process
None or little change
Change (relocation
or < 20% displacement)
Change (> 20% displacement
or entirely new business)
33. User Training
User training required to use/operate
the system/process
None or little training
Moderate training
Extensive training
Effect on User Groups
Source:BMO Financial Group; CEB analysis.
INTRODUCTION
UP-FRONT
COMPLEXITY FILTER
DETAILED RISK
ASSESSMENT
CALCULATOR
TIERED PROJECT
METHODOLOGY
RESULTS
APPENDIX
© 2015 CEB. All rights reserved. PMOEC4344015SYN
10
DETAILED RISK ASSESSMENT CALCULATOR (CONTINUED)
Project Resourcing
Criteria
Explanation
Low
Medium
High
34. P
roject Manager
Experience
PM’s experience level
3 or more prior projects
of similar size and nature
1 or 2 prior projects
of similar nature
No prior projects of similar nature
35. P
roject Team Experience
Project team’s experience
level (for most of the core team)
2 or more prior projects
of similar size and nature
1 prior project of similar nature
No prior projects of similar nature
36. S
upport Group
Experience
Support group experience
level (for most of the core team)
2 or more prior projects
of similar size and nature
1 prior project of similar nature
No prior projects of similar nature
37. Business Partners
User groups’ (those required for
project success) experience level
2 or more prior projects
of similar size and nature or N/A
1 prior project of similar nature
No prior projects of similar nature
38. P
roject Manager
Availability
The project manager manages this
project
Full time
Full time, plus minor projects
elsewhere
Plus one or more projects
or responsibilities
39. Project Team Focus
The project team is
Assigned to the project full time
At least half of the team
is assigned full time.
Less than half of the team
is assigned full time.
40. Experience as a Team
The experience
of team members as a team
All have worked together before.
Some have worked together
before.
Team members are strangers.
41. Participant Availability
Participation in the project by
business partners and other essential
participants
Reps identified and actively
participating
Reps identified and sometimes
unavailable
Reps not identified or not
participating as required
42. Team Location
The physical location of the project
team (including business partners)
Team is located together.
Most of the team
is located together.
Team is located at several sites.
43. Participant Continuity
Turnover in the project team or key
business partner staff is
None
Some, less than 30%
More than 30%
44. Number of Vendor/
Consultant/Contractor
or Other External
Organizations
The number of external (outside the
bank) project participant groups
involved in delivering the project
None
1 or 2%
More than 2
45. P
rior Experience with
External Organizations
The number of times the bank
has worked successfully with this
external organization before
N/A or more than 2
1 or 2
None or prior
unsatisfactory experience
Source:BMO Financial Group; CEB analysis.
INTRODUCTION
UP-FRONT
COMPLEXITY FILTER
DETAILED RISK
ASSESSMENT
CALCULATOR
TIERED PROJECT
METHODOLOGY
RESULTS
APPENDIX
© 2015 CEB. All rights reserved. PMOEC4344015SYN
11
DETAILED RISK ASSESSMENT CALCULATOR (CONTINUED)
Internal/External Effect
Criteria
Explanation
Low
Medium
High
46. S
ize of Business: Balance
Sheet
The profit contribution (p. 2 of an
RFA) of the system/project
$1 million or less
Greater than 1 and
less than $3 million
Greater than or equal to $3 million
47. Total Cost
The total cost (p. 2 of an RFA) of
the system/project
$500,000 or less
$500,001 to $999,999
Greater than or equal to $1 million
48. Strategic Impact
The impact of the implementation
on the bank’s marketplaces
Slight influence/no influence
Material influence
Key vision business
49. Public Relations
Visibility to the customer/external
client
Errors/problems would
not be visible to the customer
Errors/problems would be
visible to a limited customer
group
Errors/problems would
be newspaper headlines
50. Customer Reliance
The extent to which customers/
external parties would rely on the
systems/processes
No reliance by customer/external
part or output reviewed prior to
customer receipt
Output not reviewed prior
to customer/external party
Customers/external parties
directly interface with the
system (e.g., telebanking)
51. Technology Mix
Number of hardware/software
products (system and application) to
be integrated from different vendors
that implementation requires
1 or 2
3
4 or more
52. H
ardware or System
Software
The hardware or system software
being used is
Well established in the bank
Established in the industry, but
new for the bank
New in the industry
53. Programming Language
The programming language being
used is
Well established in the bank
Established in the industry, but
new for the bank
New in the industry
54. Database
Management System
The project will use
a DBMS that is
Well established in the bank
Established in the industry, but
new for the bank
New in the industry
55. T
ools, Techniques,
and Methodology
The development tools/
techniques/methods used
by the project team will be
Well established in the bank
Established in the industry, but
new for the bank
New in the industry
56. Package Software
Any software application packages
being used will require
Basic installation,
no code customization
20% or less code
customization involving “core”
code
Greater than 20% code customization
involving “core” code
Technology
Source:BMO Financial Group; CEB analysis.
INTRODUCTION
UP-FRONT
COMPLEXITY FILTER
DETAILED RISK
ASSESSMENT
CALCULATOR
TIERED PROJECT
METHODOLOGY
RESULTS
APPENDIX
© 2015 CEB. All rights reserved. PMOEC4344015SYN
12
DETAILED RISK ASSESSMENT CALCULATOR (CONTINUED)
Technology (Continued)
Criteria
Explanation
Low
Medium
High
57. A
vailability of Products
for Development and
Testing
Availability of hardware/software for
development and testing
Guaranteed availability
Reasonable assurance of
availability
No assurance of availability
58. E
ffect on Computer
Operations/Support
Groups
The effect of the implementation
on the computer operations support
groups involved in the production
support
Little change (e.g., new procedures
and schedules)
Moderate change (more
people, new hardware)
Extensive change (e.g.,
entirely new processes, facilities)
59. A
lignment to Bank
Technology Architecture
Guidelines
The new system/environment is
Consistent with technology
architecture vision and strategies
Deviates from plans but
satisfies an urgent need (e.g.,
statutory of mandatory) or
highly profitable opportunity
Deviates from plans,
and benefits are unclear
60. Privacy
The data in the system/process is
Public
Sensitive bank information
Confidential client information
61. Financial Impact
The potential average
loss from one lost transaction
N/A or less than $1,000
$1,001 to $99,999
Greater than $100,000
62. Data Security
Application/data
security is provided by
A proven security package/process
meeting the bank’s security
standards and user requirements
An internal (to the application)
mechanism or process that
may not meet all needs or
standards
A new mechanism/process
that must be designed and built
63. Security Administration
The security administration for the
application/process is controlled by
A unit/person devoted
to this job function
A unit/person somewhat
familiar with and part time
on this responsibility
A unit/person new to the
responsibility
64. Distributed Processing
The application and
data can be accessed from
N/A or stand-alone machine
A file server in a stand-alone
LAN
A file server in a LAN
connected to the CWAN
65. Support Access
The application/process
is being run and supported
Internally
By a reputable vendor/service
bureau familiar to the bank
with proven adequate controls
By a vendor/service
bureau unfamiliar to the bank
Data Security
Source:BMO Financial Group; CEB analysis.
INTRODUCTION
UP-FRONT
COMPLEXITY FILTER
DETAILED RISK
ASSESSMENT
CALCULATOR
TIERED PROJECT
METHODOLOGY
RESULTS
APPENDIX
© 2015 CEB. All rights reserved. PMOEC4344015SYN
13
DETAILED RISK ASSESSMENT CALCULATOR (CONTINUED)
Risk of Not Doing Project
Criteria
Explanation
Low
Medium
High
66. Strategic Match
The project’s direct or indirect
relationships to the achievement of
stated bank corporate or operations
group strategic goals
None, but will achieve improved
operational efficiencies
None, but is a prerequisite/
precursor to or part of a goal
The project directly
achieves a goal or part of a goal.
67. C
ompetitive Customer
Service Advantage
The project’s delivery of customer
service, competitive uniqueness or
advantage, or value-add perceived
by the customer
N/A or none, but improves overall
competitiveness by improving
operating efficiencies
Provides some and moderately
or substantially improves
the competitive position
of the bank by providing a
level of service beyond most
competitor’s
Provides a significant amount and
greatly improves the competitive
position of the bank by providing
a level of service unmatched by
competitors
68. Management Information
Regarding the delivery of
management information
on core bank activities
The project is not related to the
need for management information
on core bank activities.
The project is not specifically
to deliver MI but provides MI
largely at the operational level
on core bank activities.
The project provides essential
MI on core bank activities.
69. Competitive Response
The effect on the bank’s competitive
position if the project is postponed
by 12 months
Does not affect competitive
position or existing systems, and
procedures can compensate with
minimal escalation in labor costs
Does not affect competitive
position because existing
or new systems/processes
can compensate but with
substantial increased costs
May result in further competitive
disadvantage or in a loss of
competitive opportunity, or existing
successful activities must or may be
curtailed because of the lack of the
proposed project
70. Regulatory
Requirements
Regarding the role the project/
system will have in ensuring the bank
complies with applicable laws or
regulations
No or limited laws and regulations
apply, and the possibility of or
losses from noncompliance are
remote
Major laws and regulations
apply and some possibility or
fines of restriction exists but
would have minimal effect on
the corporation.
Major laws/regulations apply and
are difficult to comply with or could
result/position needs to be developed
(e.g., understanding and correctly
interpreting what constitutes
compliance to cross border
regulations).
Source:BMO Financial Group; CEB analysis.
INTRODUCTION
UP-FRONT
COMPLEXITY FILTER
DETAILED RISK
ASSESSMENT
CALCULATOR
TIERED PROJECT
METHODOLOGY
RESULTS
APPENDIX
© 2015 CEB. All rights reserved. PMOEC4344015SYN
14
PROJECT DELIVERABLES (FULL METHODOLOGY)
Mandatory Deliverables
Additional Deliverables
1. Letter of Engagement
2. Seed Funding Document
3. Project Charter
4. Detailed Risk Assessment
5. Project Status Report
6. Activity Network Diagram
7. Risk Tracking Worksheet
8. Client Satisfaction Survey
9. Post Implementation Review (PIR)
1. Stakeholder Participation Form
2. Funding Documents
3. Project Management Plans
Deliverables for Software Development Projects
4. Requirements Management Plan
5. High-Level Requirements Document
6. Detailed Requirements Specification
7. Systems Development Plan
8. Design Options
9. High-Level System Design
10. Detailed System Design
11. Logical Data Model
12. Physical Database Design
13. Environment Document
14. Test Strategy
15. Test Plan
16. Test Design
17. Plans (Conversion, Implementation, etc.)
18. Operations/User Acceptance
19. Final SLA
20. Application Support Documents (User, Operator,
etc.)
Source:BMO Financial Group; CEB analysis.
INTRODUCTION
UP-FRONT
COMPLEXITY FILTER
DETAILED RISK
ASSESSMENT
CALCULATOR
TIERED PROJECT
METHODOLOGY
RESULTS
APPENDIX
© 2015 CEB. All rights reserved. PMOEC4344015SYN
15
Contact CEB to Learn More:
Phone: +1-866-913-8101
Web: cebglobal.com/pmo
E-mail: [email protected]
© 2015 CEB. All rights reserved. PMOEC4344015SYN
16