Specifically, 91% of all respondents have at least some system for prioritizing incoming work requests, By contrast, only 40% reported formal processes for actually launching projects.
Significantly, for most questions in the survey, roughly half the group gave themselves mediocre reviews, rating their performance in various IT management and governance tasks as somewhat effective.
For instance, 54% claimed clear views of the goals of their enterprise software portfolios. The same 54% also claimed some degree of effectiveness at developing rigorous project plans. Meanwhile, 52% rated themselves somewhat effective at planning staffing levels for projects. And 55% said they were somewhat effective at collecting the right data to make a go/no-go decsion regarding incoming project requests.
According to Branndon Stewart, director of product marketing for Borland’s project portfolio management offerings, IT organizations were more confident when it came to handling the short-term tactical decisions than they were about longer term strategic planning.
Consequently, while most felt confident about setting short-term goals, they felt lukewarm about their ability to manage projects, IT resources, or technology portfolios.
For instance, the results weren’t too bad when it came to tracking project progress, with half claiming they were somewhat effective while 28% rated themselves effective or very effective. But when it came to balancing portfolios, only 42% rated themselves somewhat effective, while only 20% considered themselves effective or highly effective.
Roughly half the sample tracked progress against plans, while just over 20% were more ambitious in also tracking cost and scope creep. But as to measuring the performance of overall project portfolios, half the group graded themselves as failing.
As to choosing which projects to fund, the results were quite varied. Forty percent claimed to have minimum cost/benefit criteria, another 33% said their decisions factored in risk/return, while 27% said that the only requirement was if the sponsoring department comes up with the funding.
But are IT teams adequately managing financial risk? Evidently, three quarters felt they had a handle on project costs, although that group was split roughly half and half in terms of distinguishing between capital costs and expenses attributed to projects.
If there is one question that is even more loaded than costs, it is compliance. Only a third gave themselves failing grades when it came to ensuring that audits captured compliance or regulatory issues.
Aside from the risk and compliance questions, most respondents gave their organizations C grades on their IT management and governance performance. In all likelihood, this reflected the fact that this sample group was probably more aware than average of the governance issues facing them, because they were either inquiring on Borland’s website, or were active sales prospects.
