September 9, 2003ist.mit.edu/sites/default/files/migration/pmm/buscase... · Web viewIf none...
Transcript of September 9, 2003ist.mit.edu/sites/default/files/migration/pmm/buscase... · Web viewIf none...
_________________________________________________________________________________
Bubs
Prepared by:
Version Date (mm/dd/yyyy) Revision: (n)
Project NameBusiness Case Analysis
July 28, 2005
_________________________________________________________________________________
Document Revision History
Date Document Revision Author Major Changes
________________________________________________________________________________
Table of Contents
1. Executive Summary............................4
2. Project Background............................6
3. Project Description............................7
4. Project Assumptions..........................8
5. Alternatives and Recommendation.....9
6. Benefits Assessment........................10
7. Change Management Impacts...........11
8. Project Risk Assessment..................12
9. Peer Institution/Industry Analysis.....13
9. Technology Assessment...................14
10. Project Resources..........................15
11. Cost Analysis.................................16
12. Project Schedule............................18
13. Open Issues and Questions.............19
14. Review...........................................20
15. Approval Section............................21
16. Appendix.......................................22
A. Description of SMART Objectives........................22
B. Alternative Evaluation and Decision Matrix........23
C. Glossary of Terms..............................................27
3
________________________________________________________________________________
1. Executive Summary
Introduction:
Background:
Recommended Solution:
Project Timeline and Resources:
Project Duration (months):
Total Person months:
Total FTEs required:
Project Costs:
COST REPORT Range of Totals(in the millions)
Annual On-going Support for New System -
New Development (one-time) -
Annual Maintenance for Existing System -Total Project CostFUNDING REQUEST
One-Time Funding Request (non-base) -
Annual On-going Request for New System Support (base) - Or
4
________________________________________________________________________________
COST REPORT Range of Totals(in the millions)Internal Resources
External resources -
Total Resources -
Other Costs -Total Project Cost FUNDING REQUEST
One-Time Funding Request (non-base) -
Annual On-going Request for New System Support (base) -
Project Benefits
5
________________________________________________________________________________
2. Project Background
Description of Current Process:
High Level Business Process Flow:
Description of Problem:
6
________________________________________________________________________________
3. Project Description
Project Scope Statement:
Timeframe:
Department/Organization:
Functional Scope:
Technology:
Out of Scope:
Project Sponsors and Major Stakeholders:
Affected Parties Primary SecondarySponsors
Stakeholders - Internal
Stakeholders - External
7
________________________________________________________________________________
4. Project Assumptions
Assumptions:
8
________________________________________________________________________________
5. Alternatives and Recommendation
Alternative Solutions Considered:
Recommendation:
9
________________________________________________________________________________
6. Benefits Assessment
Breadth and Repeatability
Summary of Direct and Indirect Benefits & Cost Savings
10
________________________________________________________________________________
7. Change Management Impacts
Business and Operational Change Management Impacts:
Description of Impact Stakeholders Impacted
Impact Assessment (H,M,L)
Alternative 1 ImpactsImpact 1 – a description of impact 1
High
Impact 2 – a description of impact 2
Medium
Alternative 2 Impacts
High - indicates that the magnitude of impact is significant and stakeholder support and preparation is critical to the alternative’s successMedium - indicates that there is a manageable impact to the stakeholderLow - indicates the alternative will have a minor impact to the stakeholder
11
________________________________________________________________________________
8. Project Risk Assessment
Risk of Project and Viable Alternative (Not including Status Quo):
Project Risk AssessmentDescription of Risk Probability of Risk Impact of Risk Mitigation Strategy
Alternative 1Risk 1 – description High Medium Describe your planned actionRisk 2 – description Medium High Describe your planned action
Alternative 2Risk 1 – description High Medium Describe your planned actionRisk 2 – description Low High Describe your planned action
Probability of Risk:High indicates that the event is high likely to occur (>75%).Medium indicates that the event is likely to occur (approx. 50%).Low indicates that the event is not likely to occur (<25%).
Impact of Risk:High indicates that the event has a significant impact to the project.Medium indicates that the event has a moderate impact to the project.Low indicates that the impact is relatively minor to the project.
Risk of Not Proceeding with Project (Status Quo):
12
________________________________________________________________________________
9. Peer Institution/Industry Analysis
Peer Institution / Industry Analysis:
13
________________________________________________________________________________
10. Technology Assessment
Technology Introduction and Assessment:
14
________________________________________________________________________________
11. Project Resources
Project Resources:
Role FTE Internal/External
Est. Duration (range in months)
Range ofPerson-Months*
IS&TProject ManagerBusiness AnalystTech LeadDeveloperWeb DeveloperSystem AdminTraining & DocumentationData WarehousingQuality AssuranceCommunications
Business ResourcesProject ManagerChange ManagerSubject Matter ExpertsTotals
Total Person-Months
15
________________________________________________________________________________
12. Cost Analysis
Analysis:
Assumptions:
Summary of Cost Analysis:
Either use the table below or use the appendix if you are performing a ‘Full Cost Analysis’
RoleMonthly Rate
Range ofPerson-Months
Cost Range
IS&TProject ManagerBusiness AnalystDeveloperWeb DeveloperSystem Admin (SAP, dropbox, ITS) Training & DocumentationSoftware ReleaseServer Operations (OS, hardware, SAN)Data WarehousingQuality AssuranceCommunications SAP Technical Architect
Business ResourcesChange ManagerBusiness TestersTotal Internal Resources External ResourcesTotal External Resources Other CostsTrainingHardware
16
________________________________________________________________________________SoftwareMaintenanceResource backfillOthersTotal Project Cost
17
________________________________________________________________________________
13. Project Schedule
Project Phase Section:
Sample SAP ProjectPhase Estimated Duration (Range)Project PrepBlueprintRealizationFinal PrepGo Live &SupportTotal
Sample Custom DevelopmentPhase Estimated Duration (Range)Define - Requirements DefinitionDesign Develop - Software ConstructionTestDeploy
Documentation & Training Development
End User Testing Delivery
SupportTotal
Project Milestones and High-Level Tasks (Large Projects)
18
________________________________________________________________________________
14. Open Issues and Questions
. ScheduleOpen Issues and Questions:
19
________________________________________________________________________________
15. Review
List all Business Case Reviewers1) Reviewer12) Reviewer23) Reviewer3
20
________________________________________________________________________________
16. Approval Section
The following are the required approvers of this Business Case:
Approver Name Title
Reasons for rejection:
21
________________________________________________________________________________
17. Appendix
A. Description of SMART Objectives
SpecificSpecific in the context of developing objectives means that an observable action, behavior or achievement is described which is also linked to a rate, number, percentage or frequency. This latter point is extremely important - let me illustrate. 'Answer the
phone quickly' can be said to be a precise description of behavior, you can clearly see whether someone answers the phone or not, but there is no rate, number, percentage or frequency linked to it. So, if I state; 'Answer the phone within 3 rings' a rate has been
added and the behavior is now much more specific.
Summary: Is there a description of a precise or specific behavior / outcome, which is linked to a rate, number, percentage or frequency?
MeasurableThis is very simple. A system, method or procedure has to exist which allows the tracking and recording of the behavior or action
upon which the objective is focused. Setting an objective that requires phone calls to be answered in three rings is fine, provided a system exists which measures whether this can actually being achieved. If none exists, the manager must be prepared to set time
aside time to actually monitor the response rates to incoming phone calls. The only other alternative is to get the person with whom the objectives are being set to measure their own progress; in some cases and situations it may be acceptable to do this, in
others maybe not - use common sense to decide this.
Summary: Is there a reliable system in place to measure progress towards the achievement of the objective?
AchievableThe objectives that are set with people need to be capable of being reached, put most basically; there is a likelihood of success but
that does not mean easy or simple. The objectives need to be stretching and agreed by the parties involved. Setting targets that are plainly ridiculous does not motivate people; it merely confirms their opinion of you as an idiot. They will apply no energy or enthusiasm to a task that is futile. Consider sending a group of footballers out to play a game having told them the final score
already, and they have lost! What's the point? So don't do it. (Some people feel that Agreed should stand for the definition of A in SMART. But as this relates to the process of communicating and deciding the objective rather than a definition of the content, it
seems out of context in relation to the rest of the criteria and consequently I do not use it. I concur however that objectives should indeed be agreed between involved participants rather than enforced.)
Summary: With a reasonable amount of effort and application, can the objective be achieved?
RelevantThis means two things; that the goal or target being set with the individual is something they can actually affect upon or change and secondly it is also important to the organization. Example: Telling the cleaners that they 'have to increase market share over the next financial quarter' is not actually something they can do anything about - it's not relevant to them. However, asking them to reduce expenditure on cleaning materials by £50 over the next three months is entirely relevant to them. It's what they spend
their budget on every day. As to whether it's relevant to what the organization is trying to achieve, the manager has to decide this by considering the wider picture.
Summary: Can the people with whom the objective is set make an impact on the situation? Do they have the necessary knowledge, authority and skill?
Time BasedThis is probably the simplest of the lot. In the objective, somewhere there has to be a date (Day/Month/Year) for when the task has
to be started (if it's ongoing) and/or completed (if it's short term or project related). Simply: No date = No good.
Summary: Is there a finish and/or a start date clearly stated or defined?
22
________________________________________________________________________________
B. Alternative Evaluation and Decision Matrix
Decision CriteriaDetailed Description Weight
Alternative 1 – Score & Explanation Total Score
Alternative 2 – Score & Explanation
Total Score Comments
Functional Requirements Analysis R1 R2 R3 Rn
Ease of Use/Usability R1 R2 R3 Rn
System Extensibility - How functional is the system? Does it provide additional functionality not needed currently but in the future? F1 F2 F3
23
________________________________________________________________________________Fn
System Scalability - Does the system allow for future growth in users?
Configurability/Flexibility in design - How easily can you customize this solution or augment it? R1 R2 R3 Rn Vendor Evaluation Stability - Financial Product Maturity Vendor Support Vendor Reputation Vendor Risk Vendor R&D Other Security Evaluation S1 S2 S3
24
________________________________________________________________________________Sn
Interfaces/Middleware capabilities & requirements R1 R2 R3 Rn Training T1 T2 T3 Tn Technical Requirements HW Performance Other - skills
Implementation Timeline and Complexity install and set up Configuration
Support (headcount and skill set)
25
________________________________________________________________________________Implementation On-going Integration Assessment
IMPORTANCE (Weight) 1- Low………………………………………….10 - High SCORE 1= Needs Substantial Improvement 2 = Barely Adequate 3 = Adequate 4= Meets Requirements 5= Excellent
26
________________________________________________________________________________
C. Glossary of Terms
Term DefinitionVerification Process to manage and execute projects. Examples include
quality assurances reviews, project walkthroughs (proof of concept), audits, managing the project using a defined methodology, project sign-off activities etc.
Validation Technical execution of the project and with proving that the result will meet requirements and expectations. Examples included analysis, code reviews, and a broad range of testing activities
Impacts
27