IT Employment

General discussion


Project Rankings

By LarryJG ·
I have worked with several clients (IT Managers, CIOs) that have maintained a list of their top projects in order to provide direction to their organizations and to report up to their senior management. I have repeatedly seen these managers use duplicate values when ranking their projects i.e. Project A=1, Project B=2, Project C=2, Project D=3, etc. My perspective is that if the intent is to truly provide direction and to validate to upper management the appropriate alignment of effort to strategic objectives, then a ranking of projects should not have duplicate values. The IT Manager/CIO should be specific and rank in a priority sequence aligned and agreed to within the organization; Project A=1, Project B=2, Project C=3, Project D=4, etc.


This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Evil Grin - more complex

by JamesRL In reply to Project Rankings

There is an art to project portfolio management.

I took an existing model and modified it to our own purposes in order to properly score projects.

The catagories to score each project:
revenue retention (protecting existing revenue)
new revenue generation
customer satisfaction
reduction in operation costs
improving supportability/support productivity
infrastructure (cost of doing business)

I would ask the senior team to rank each project on a 1-5 scale. I would also have once a year created a weighting for each of the criteria above. Mulitple the score per catagory by the weighting, and add them up for a numeric score.

Then add two factors into the equation - Effort(labour) on a High/Medium/Low scale and risk on a High/Medium/Low scale. Then you can take your numbers, assess effort and risk and come up with a real prioritization.

If you still have a tie after all of that, then I don't have a good system.....


Collapse -

by LarryJG In reply to Evil Grin - more complex

I agree with the application of scoring factors and have introduced this to my clients. What still happens is they have the objective information but still apply a subjective ranking and thus have the difficulty of differentiating between projects. I will continue to propose this type of scoring strategy.

My intent in posting this subject is to gain a consensus and validate that there cannot be "ties", or, here justification for "ties".

Collapse -

Group, Don't Rank

by Wayne M. In reply to Project Rankings

My recommendation would be to use a small number of groupings rather than individual rankings.

Try either a 2 level grouping, for example, key and normal, or a 3 level grouping, for example, high, medium, and low. I do not think there is a reliable way to rank individual projects that has any meaning or provides any guidance. If a key project is behind schedule, it really doesn't matter if it is number 1 or number 5, it is a key project and it must be addressed.

My reading of the issue is that the clients are saying that there may be too many ranking levels, not too few. The rankings are going to be subjective, vary from individual to individual, and vary over time. General groupings are easier to define and are probably sufficient for appropriate management oversight.

Related Discussions

Related Forums