INDUSTRY: Business Services
Project Portfolio Optimization is an extremely difficult problem to solve. There are an astronomical number of combinations to select and schedule projects optimally within the scarce and limited resources available.
In addition, there are several conflicting business objectives to be considered when creating a portfolio; consequently, there is a need to optimize the trade-offs between these conflicting objectives. Traditionally, “optimization” of a portfolio is a very manual and time-consuming process, typically producing sub-optimal results that lead to waste and delays in projects and processes.
The former Hewlett Packard Global IT organization used data from the HP-Software tool, called Project Portfolio Management (PPM) and spreadsheets. Many potentially useful portfolio scenarios were never considered due to the enormous complexity of manipulating the hundreds of projects involved, along with interlocking dependencies and resource requirements.
Typically, global IT organizations create a portfolio of IT projects for the next fiscal year three months in advance complying with the Project Management Institute’s (PMI) guidelines (see Figure 1). This process includes the following steps:
HP Global-IT had two tools to capture the data to create the IT Project Portfolio: The Business Value Proposition (BVP) tool captured estimates of the benefits, KPIs, non-labor costs, priorities, etc. and the Project Portfolio Management (PPM) tool captured IT project IDs and names, project duration estimates, project sponsor, investment area supported by projects, labor costs, and staffing profile.
Generating a portfolio of IT projects was challenging because there were many dimensions to consider: multiple IT organizations, multiple investment areas, and multiple executive sponsors. There were thousands of IT applications and there was a “many-to-many” relationship between IT applications and IT projects.
There were multiple objectives aligned with the company business strategy. These business objectives included: total Project Ranking maximization, total Project Score maximization, total Project Benefit (direct or indirect) maximization, and maximization of total project scores with respect to a specific Business Objective, such as Customer Satisfaction, Strategic Alignment, Technical Alignment, Capabilities Roadmap, Employee Satisfaction, Legal / Regulatory / Audit, etc. The final IT project portfolio was approved by the CEO and executive council, and, many times, interests of these decision makers were in conflict. An IT project portfolio was created once per year. Clearly, this manual process was highly inefficient and many times the portfolio generated was infeasible due to violations of business rules or project precedence constraints. In addition, due to uncertainty associated with changes in the business requirements and labor availability, the IT project portfolio became obsolete very quickly.
The problem to address was how to optimize the selection and scheduling of a portfolio of IT projects such that the trade-offs among various objectives are optimized, while satisfying resource constraints (e.g. labor availability and budgets) and other business constraints (e.g. project precedence constraints).
Hewlett Packard (HP) split/merged into four companies: HP Inc., Hewlett Packard Enterprise, DXC Technology, and Micro Focus.
A decision support tool, called Project Portfolio Optimization (PPO), was built to automate the number crunching processes during the creation and maintenance of a portfolio of IT projects. To address the uncertainty and ongoing flux of IT business conditions, the PPO tool offered “what-if-analysis” capabilities for business and IT planners to shape a project portfolio that optimizes the trade-offs of the various business objectives and satisfies resource and business constraints.
The key decision variables of the PPO model were the selection of IT projects to be included in the portfolio and the start times of the selected projects. The input data for the PPO model came from the BVP and PPM tools. The PPO model could handle a single business objective maximization problem or it could handle a problem with multiple business objectives using the lexicographical (hierarchical) method. The key output of the PPO tool is shown in Figure 2.
In a nutshell, the PPO model can be summarized as follows.
Maximize project portfolio business value
The PPO tool ran in the former HP-Cloud and supported multiple concurrent users with various roles and capabilities. The tool had a Staging Area Database to frequently refresh PPO data based on defined business rules. The front end of PPO performed incremental updates instead of full dataset load and managed new information in the staging area data base. The PPO tool had an optimization scenario queue manager which allowed the use of multiple Gurobi servers, hence solving multiple scenarios at the same time.
The PPO tool was used by former HP Global IT to create the FY2015 IT project portfolio. The PPO tool generated 90% of the portfolio benefit with 24% of the portfolio’s cost, while ensuring strategy alignment and execution ability.
The PPO tool was compared with the manual process previously discussed and it was calculated that the PPO tool constructed a portfolio that drove a $100 million financial benefit to the company versus the portfolio derived by the manual process.
In 2016, the PPO technology was transferred to the former HP-SW PPM R&D team.
Choose the evaluation license that fits you best, and start working with our Expert Team for technical guidance and support.
Request free trial hours, so you can see how quickly and easily a model can be solved on the cloud.