Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Introduction to the Core P3M Data Model and Business Integrated (P3M) Governance

43 views

Published on

1. Introduction and overview.
Link to higher resolution copy here: https://1drv.ms/b/s!AscRj7Bfp6vQgo0dXpjt3OGJ8t7zxA?e=0NmVrt

The Core P3M Data Club was formed to create a data standard for portfolio, programme and project management. This enables us to more effectively deliver business integrated governance for Business as Usual and Change. This means our journey from Main Board objectives, targets and challenges can be delivered through portfolios, programmes and projects in the context of finance, management teams, support and assurance more easily and effectively. This will deliver more strategy outcomes, greater business agility, lower management overhead and efficiency benefits.

Using the backbone taken from APM Directing Change, this document outlines the 'why', provides a framework overview, and explains all of the components (uploaded elsewhere).

Find out more and collaborate here: https://www.linkedin.com/groups/13651399/

Published in: Leadership & Management
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Introduction to the Core P3M Data Model and Business Integrated (P3M) Governance

  1. 1. Page 1 This work is licensed under a Creative CommonsAttribution-ShareAlike 4.0InternationalLicense.
  2. 2. Page 2 Introduction to the Core P3M Data Model and Business Integrated (P3M) Governance Today’sorganisationsoperate differentlyacrossthe commercial,governmentand3rd sectors (i.e.voluntaryandcommunity),inmanyindustriesinmany ways,withinnovativeProcesses, Organisational structures, Technologyand Information(POTI) extendingourcapabilityoptions.We mustoperate efficientlyandchange toeither‘respondtocompetitive situations’or‘domore withless’.Change inanorganisationmight be focusedonmarketand customerrequirements,internal transformation,improvementstoBusinessas Usual (BAU) andinnovation. Insome sectors‘enterprises’orcomplex supply chainrelationshipsbetweenmanyorganisationsmayexisttodelivermajorsectororsocietal change. Giventhiscomplex environment,itcanbe difficulttocollate data,information,knowledge andwisdom(DIKW)forthe integrateddecisionmakingneeded for goodand effective strategydevelopment,governance,prioritisation,programme management,resource management,integratedcostandschedule control.Thisis neededtocontinuallyaligndeliberate andemergentstrategywithchangingthe organisation(througheffectiveportfoliomanagement, programme managementandprojectmanagement) togetherwithrunningthe organisation(throughcontinual productandservice improvement management). There are manyexampleswhere change projectsandportfolioshave failedtodeliverthe expectedoutcomesandcausedthe failure of the enterprise(s). While governance groups/bodiesdotheirbesttoimprove andexpandtheirperspectives,the whole picturemaynotbe trulyintegrated,asingle versionof the truth may notexist.Importantoversightdatamaynot be available tothe keydecisionmakersallowing‘comatose’oversighttotake root.An effective governance ecosystemneedstospanmanydomainsincludingleaders,teammembers,customersandbenefitownersnotnecessarily inthe same managementchains. There isoftena gap betweenwhatisreportedandwhatisneededbythe reportrecipientcharacterisedbythe followinganecdote: “ReportingSolutionsare characterisedbydeliveryteams pushingdata,ratherthan businesses pullingupinsight– so a PMO mayfeel like its reportsare not read, andthe execmayfeel thatitdoesn’tgetinsight,justdetailedprogress mumbojumboratherthan what are the options.” In the past we mayhave triedto make everyone use the same toolsandprocesstosimplifycoordinationandreporting - andfailedmiserably. Also,there has beenanoveremphasisontime spentrepresentingandreportingthe past(historyisnotcontrollable) ratherthanlooking forwardandforecasting outputsand outcomesandmakingdecisionstogetthe bestoutcome we can. Thiscan impact negativelyonmanystakeholdergroups(the followingare examples;the listisnotexhaustive):  Main Board – ‘flyingblind’ andlosingconfidence thatstrategicinstructions are effectively taskingthe business andthatprogressisbeingmade againstthe right priorities anddesiredoutcomes. A MainBoard withoutconfidence indelegatedauthority canbe swampedwithtactical escalations and ineffectiveforecastingleadingtodelaysinkeydecisionmakingandalack of awarenessof keyrisksandissues.
  3. 3. Page 3  Portfoliogroups - becomingdisconnected fromleadershipprioritychanges, therebyintroducingalackof alignmentbetweenstrategicobjectives. Projectoutputs, becomingfrustratedwithtaskorientated andhistorically focusedprogressfromprojectsandprogrammesmakingitdifficultto forecastobjective attainment.Lackof independentassurance tokeepthe teams‘honest’  Project and programme leaders- becomingfrustratedusingineffective methodsandtools.Strugglingtoacquire/retain resourcesatthe righttime. Carryinga painful administration overheadtocompileanimperfectpicture fromdisparate dataavailableinpre-defined‘one size fitsall’ templates. Feedingdataintodifferentreportsfordifferentstakeholders.  Sponsors – not beingable togetor compile confidentandclearanswersonthe forecastoutcomesof aprojectagainststrategicobjectives (that themselves maybe unclearandchange)  Managementteams - struggle tobalance BAUworkwithshifting(resourcing, productandservice) needsfromprojects.Theycanstruggle torealise benefitsfromchanges‘thrownoverthe wall’.They canlose the ‘love’ of usingprojectmanagementtodeliverascentrally imposedmethodsand toolsare justnotappropriate fortheirneeds.  Commercial and Finance Teams - findit difficulttosupportparochial performance models, toresource unpredictedfinance expertise needs, andto supporteffectiveinvestmentappraisal/outcomemeasurement  Assurance/Support function- strugglestoattaineffectiveness andefficiency withmultiple tools/operations andmaytry to force ‘one size fitsall’ whichmakeslogical sense butispractically unfeasible. Alsosometimesfocusingonthe wrongissues. These issuescanprove costly fororganisations (expense/inadequateagility, lackof asingle versionof the truthcausingwastefulduplicationof work). Thankfully, recentadvancesinmethod, governance, supportandtechnology have providedmeanstoaddressthese issuesmore easilythancouldhave beenachieved2-3yearsago. Hence, usingthe vastexperience fromavolunteergroupof clientorganisations,consultants,tool vendors,service providers,boardmembers,chairmen, data managers,portfolioandfinance specialists,the Core P3M Data Clubhas createda rich example model forBusinessIntegrated(P3M) Governance (BIG).It coversportfoliosof projectsandprogrammesandinterconnectingorganisationallayers.The modelisdesignedtobe used withMain Board, finance function,transformationandstrategyexecutionprofessionalsandresource andmanagementteamsleading BAUactivities. Ourinitiativesoughtto harmonise the informationflowsthatallowintegrationof BAUandP3M Governance. BIG is the Integrationof BusinessandGovernance. To followthe material the readerneedstoappreciate thatwe have assumedanexample organisation,derivedanoutline frameworkconsistingof AccountabilityNodes,capturedsomeassumptionsabout eachandcreatedan example businessagenda,imagineeredthe ManagementInformation(MI) neededtosupportit,collectedexamples andderivedoutof thatthe data implication - andsuperimposedthatontopof the Praxisimplieddatamodel.
  4. 4. Page 4 In eachof these nodes,youare notreadinga bestpractice statement,youare readinganexample whichyoucaneitheruse as a startingpointforyour own journeyonthis,or use as evidence thatthe datamodel example isbasedonamixture of goodpractice and goodsuggestionfromfellowprofessionals consultants,tool vendors. The BIG assetsare a frameworktoleverage yourexistinginvestmentsingoodpractice.Thisframeworkis intendedtobe usedalongside anymethodology and goodpractice.It focusesonthe keyinformationanddataneedstoenable goodgovernance. The model doesnotgointocapability,competenceor methodsrelatedtoportfolio,programme andprojectmanagementandit doesnotgo intodetailsof supportmodelsneededtoharmonise operations,but doesmake assumptionsaboutbusinesssupportprovided,andhasa node for Support/Assurance withinthe change domainforthe example scenario. A presentationelaboratingthis introductionisavailableandaricher discussionuponrequest.
  5. 5. Page 5 Framework Overview The core of BIG isa data model.The development of the datamodel wasfoundedonthe key governance picture inthe APMDirectingChange Publication. The Framework: - Recognises vision, mission, strategyandobjectives of anorganisation/enterprise - Acceptsthe separate butrelatedGovernance of ProjectManagementandoverall Portfolio/Project/ProgrammeGovernance - Interfaces withoperations(BAU) governanceforfinances, costperformance data, resources and benefitrealisation Additionally (anddrawnfromAPMDirectingChange) we have assumeda governance model thatprovides claritybetweenportfolios, programmes and projects.Itprovidescleardelineation betweenrolesfocussedon outcomes(sponsor) anddelivery (manager). We have alsorecognised that inlargerorganisations the collective oroverall portfoliomightbe brokendownintosub-portfolios thatare assignedtoeachkey organisational unitordepartment. From APMDirecting Change
  6. 6. Page 6 An example organisationstructure hasbeencreatedtoenablediscussions andto visualise stakeholdergroupsandrelationships. Itillustratesthe challengesfacedby organisationsdealingwithseveral distinctportfolios,fromTransformation,to CustomertoBAU (includingservices/products/assets) tolocal Innovation. Thisgenericstructure hasbeenfurtherdecomposed intoanetworkof ‘Accountability Nodes’. Note:A ‘Node’ = a personor committee actingthroughitschairwitha duty to make decisionsoveradefinedareaof businessactivity.Authoritymaybe delimitedby timeframe (e.g.financialyear) andorseniorityandorskill groupandor product line and or relationshipssuchascustomersor supplychain. Withvisualisationaclearmappingiscreatedthat makesiteasierto relate to our organisations intermsof sponsorship, delivery andbeneficiary –withoutwhichitisdifficulttohave confidence inobjective delivery, targetattainmentor challenge resolution. Accountability Nodesare pointsof accountability which,whenconstructed together,mapoutwhois leadingwhat.Eachisassumedtobe underpinned bya processbasedonan organisation’sstandardsforexample, forManagingProjects–whichare themselves basedongoodpractice.Itwill deliveragainst termsof reference/vision,operate monitoringandcontrols, andgovernance viaaccountabilities, rolesandresponsibilities underpinnedbypeople and process, usingdata.It will have connections tothe widerworldthroughwhichitlistensandevaluates, takesinputsanddeliversoutputs.Foreach AccountabilityNode,the modelcomeswithmaterialwhich: - Providesanoverviewandassumptionsonmattersthatshouldconcernthe leaderof thatNode - Offersan‘Agenda’forrelatedgovernance meetings –whichisa cross betweenresponsibilitydefinitionandameetingdefinition - Providesdefinitionsof MIwhichwouldsupporteachAgendaitem - Providesagenericdashboardof keymeasuresthatshouldbe available - Provideslinkstoexample MIfromconsultantsandsoftware vendors - Linksto furtherback uppresentationmaterial In the example, theyconstituteanoutline integratedgovernancemodel –fromMain Boardto portfoliotoprogramme toproject,offeringassumptionsfor finance involvement,managementteamsandassurance. Belowisa simplifiedlogical model whichiselaboratedinthe detailedBIGmaterials.
  7. 7. Page 7 It assumesa scenariowithaMain Board that delegateschange toaChange Sub-Groupandoperational matterstoan OperationsSub-Group. It isassumedthat eachChange Sub-GroupwouldtaskPortfolioDirectionGroups withdelegatedObjectivesfromthe MainBoard forchange.The OperationsSub- Group wouldlikewise taskManagementTeams(whichincludes finance) with Targetsfor operation.Bothmaybe taskedwithChallengestobe addressedcross functionally. In largerorganisationsthere maybe manyManagementTeamswithinthe business,setuptodeliverOperations –andcarry outthe role of Portfolio DirectionGroups.There maybe one per businessunit,buttheymaydrawfrom all overthe businessforcrossfunctional Objectives.Insmallerorganisationsthe rolesoutlinedabovemightbe undertakenbythe same groupof individuals wearingmultiple hats. Cruciallythisframeworkconsistsof several definedroles –eachorganisation mightalreadyhave similarroleswithdifferenttitlesand/orcombinedgroups. (Role mappingisanadoptiontask). The role of the PortfolioDirectionGroupisto ownthe delegatedstrategicobjectivesandprovideclearandupto date directiontothe deliveryof their change portfolioandforecastandtake accountabilityforthe realisationof the desiredstrategicbenefitsandoutcomesfrom change delivery. WorkingwithPortfolioDirectionGroupswouldbe PortfolioProgressGroupsthat(asthe name implies) focusondeliveryoversightandbenefits forecasting. In some organisationsthesetwobodiesmaybe one andthe same groupsof people. The model isnot prescriptive about P3Mpractice but offerssome assumptionsaroundthe governance operationforit viaan example.Likewise,the model isnot prescriptive aboutwhatManagement Teams,ora Commercial andFinance teamdeliverswithintheirtermsof reference,butitstatesassumptions and suggestsamodel forhowPortfolios,ProgrammesandProjectsworkeffectivelywithpartsof the finance operation(whichdeal withfinancing, expertise,costperformance andassurance),benefitdeliveryandresourcingoperationsinManagementTeams(deliveringBAUandcustomerprojects alongside transformationwork) - viaexamples.We note thatBusinessSupport(e.g.PMO) may provide some of theseasservices. It isassumedthat ManagementTeamshave performance targetstoachieve (including customerfacing),local change needs, andparticipationincorporate transformationinitiatives.These couldinduce aconflictof interestbetweenhittingbusinesstarget(level andtiming) and collaboratingwithstrategic imperatives.Hence,itisassumed thataresource allocationmodel ismaintainedtoassure effective visibleprioritisation –asit iswithresource allocation that priorityisimplemented.Itisthereforeimperativethatownersof resource (whomayexistinvaryinglevelsandinManagementorP3 Teams)
  8. 8. Page 8 understandtheircapacity/capability,demands,allocationagainstdemands,andtime spent –and can be accountable forallocationsmade. Supportand Assurance of thisprocesswill be vital. It isassumedthat Portfolios,ProgrammesandProjectsandbusinessoperationsare carriedoutwithinanorganisationthathasclearrolesand responsibilities,accountabilitiesanddomainauthority,operatinganddecision-makingprocesses.We furtherassumethere is businesssupporttoenable people tocarry out processwithtechnologyanddata(thisishoweveratoughassumptiontomeet). While governance maybe carriedoutad hoc, mostorganisationsoperate incyclestoenable acoherentpicture tobe assembled fromvariousperspectives at a momentintime. The BIGmappingdescribes the meetingsneededintermsof the ManagementInformation(dataflowsandanalysis) anddecision making. Descriptions are writtentoallow tool vendorstoeasily supportthe model’selements, consultantstoestablishthe businessprocesses and dashboardsto display reliablesingle source of truthstatusdata. An example of howthismaybe orchestratedaroundaquarterlyMainBoard Meetingisofferedbelow,showinganexample flowof decisionsacrossthe financial yearfromQ1 to Q4 witha quarterlycadence:  Assurance reviewtoconfirmprocessexecution,compliance reviewfordata compliance check.Thismaybe supportedbyfinance ora BusinessAssurance Activity  Finance Reviewtogoovernumbersfromwhichtoupdate projects, programmesandportfoliosoncostperformance  ProjectandProgrammesreview –workwitheach onstatus/forecast  TransformationPortfolio(s) review(doesitall addupwithPortfolio ProgressGroup)  Finance Operationsperformance review –these are not coveredinthe BIG model,butwe recognise withinorganisations thereare existingperformance operationslike: o OperationsProjectsandProgrammesreview –history,forecast,outlook(thismaybe inscope forP3M withinBusinessUnits) o CustomerSubPortfolio/OperationsSubPortfolio o OperatingBusinessPlanreview (includingall otheraccountabilitynodes –e.g.Support/Product/AssetManagementworkstreams  Finance Update basedonfeedback
  9. 9. Page 9  Corporate PortfolioReview(PortfolioDirectionGroupsreportingintoMainBoard)  Instructionstorebalance cascade outbasedon Main Board Decisions/Actions  Deliverycontinues The main elements of the BIGModel are therefore:  Main Board – expressed asassumptions, we outline how we wouldlikeaMain Boardto functionregardingchange sittingabove ourPortfolios. This isnot to dictate whattheydo, butto provide adiscussion tool toenable eachorganisationtoalign, andtherefore more easily define operationand enablingtools/dataanda single versionof the truthforBoard control  Managementteams – showinghow we canbalance Operational Service/BAUwork(whichforsome isprojects) withshiftingneedsfromChange projectsandcan embedbenefitrealisationfromchangesasBAU.They can regainthe benefitsof usingprojectmanagementtodeliverwithout centrally imposed inappropriate methodsandtools. ManagementTeamswouldtypically undertake aPortfolioDirectionand/orProgress/Delivery role  PortfolioLeadership(Progress/Delivery) –we offera model tohelpPortfolioleadershiptomore easily stayconnectedwithstrategicobjectives, leadership prioritychanges, focusuponbothoutcomes/benefitsaswell asdelivery outputs, becomebetterconnectedwithprogressfromprojects and programmes, focusonthe mostimportantinformationandstayaware of widerbusiness needs  Project and Programme Boards– showinghow we canseparate governance frommethodsandtools, offeramodel forhow toacquire/retain resources, focusonbenefitsandcarrya lesspainful administrationoverhead  Sponsors – (Notcoveredexplicitly,butimpliedinProjectandProgramme boardsabove) Providingbetterquality forecastandoutcome metricsand enablingthemtoprovide betterdirectiontoprojectsthroughkeyinformationthatsupportstheirstrategicrole (andintime maybe algorithmsthat enable anongoingindependentevidence-basedview of projectdelivery progress)  Finance – addressinganapproachto avoidunpredicted finance expertiseneeds, supporteffectiveinvestmentappraisal/outcome measurement and harmonise aroundcommonperformance modelswithlocal analysisontopof them  Assurance/Support function– to liftthe discussion above(buttoinclude) PMOtoenable the business tobe supported inbecomingandremaining integratedfromaGovernance Perspective  Data Model – the implicationof the example scenarios,withsurroundingdiscussionandexplanation Furthermaterial isavailable which - exploresthe issuesthathave ledtoderivationof the model,outlinesthe approachwe have taken - discussesthe needforcurrentstate assessmentforanorganisationlookingtoadoptit - offersa benefitmodel andapproachtoadoptionandbenefitrealisation
  10. 10. Page 10 - explainsthe modelcomponents,implicationsandunderpinningdatamodel - presentsavisionforoperation Derivationandconclusionworkonthe overall Governance Framework isavailableonrequest.
  11. 11. Page 11 Materials Overview The Core P3M Data Clubwascreatedto deliverV1of a ‘standard’data model tosupportportfolio,programme andprojectmanagementgovernance – recognisingthatmuchof the data neededwithinthe P3Mcommunityisgenerated/ownedoutside of it.We are notso presumptuousastosuggestwe can getthisright firsttime.Ourapproach recognisedthis.Hence,we tookanexample-basedapproach.We have: - assumedanexample organisation (tocoverpointsof principle we wanttomake) - derivedanoutline P3Mfocusedgovernance framework –to connectfrommainboard,through portfoliosintoprogrammesandprojects,inthe context of finance,managementteams(i.e.BAUdeliveryareas),supportandassurance - takeneach ‘AccountabilityNode’ inthe framework andcapturedassumptionsaboutit - made an example businessagenda–what businesswouldeachAccountabilityNode cover?Thisisnotan attempttodictate meetingagenda,more to thinkaboutwhat informationisreallyneeded - imagineeredthe ManagementInformation(MI) neededtosupportit– we did thisbasedonthe experienceof the core contributors - collectedexamples –frombusinesses,tool vendorsandevenconsultantsliterallypencillingwhattheybelieve MIshouldbe - selectedan‘opensource’P3Mframework – Praxis- and derivedfromita core data model impliedfromitsdocumentsandreportdefinitions - derivedadditional core MI data implicationsfromthe examplesabove - superimposed ontothe Praxisimplieddatamodel We have notattemptedtorewrite bestpractice,dictate methods/process,ordictate technologychoices,andwe believethatthe model infactallows organisationstoavoidinappropriateone size fitsall impositionswhichcancause huge difficultyinadoptionandsustainmentof goodpractice.Thiswork was done usingslidesasthe workingtool andwe have sharedthese materialsasbackground.Subsequently,we have writtenthemupintodocumentsto make themmore consumable/accessible. To be crystal clear– the Core P3M Data Clubhascreatedsome assetsinaddressingan‘example scenario’whichothersmyfinduseful inaddressing their ownscenario– to seedperceivedproblemstatements,toenable arealisticcurrentstate capture,andprepare a realisticvisionforwhat anorganisations portfolio,programme andprojectmanagementecosystemmightbe – doingthisinrespectof the enabling/supportingbusinessareasMainBoard,Finance, ManagementTeams,SupportandAssurance. We have inventedthe term‘AccountabilityNodes’sothatwe can refertoculminationsof accountabilityacrossBAUandChange workloads.These nodes are characterisedbyhavinga sponsor,output/outcome,benefits,costs/resources.Forexample–investmentgroup,aprogramme,productgroup,service team.All of these maybe at or withinkeypointswithinanorganisationhierarchyandhave aviable systemunderneaththem. In eachof the Nodeslistedbelow,youare notreadingabestpractice statement,youare readingan example whichyoucaneitheruse asa startingpoint for yourownjourneyonthis,or use as evidence thatthe datamodel exampleisbasedona mixture of goodpractice andgood suggestionfromfellow professionals,consultants, andtool vendors.
  12. 12. Page 12 For ease of reference,we are callingthe scenariowe have createdandthe principleswe promoteasBusinessIntegrated(P3M) Governance –abbreviated to BIG.The Chaptersinthe BIG knowledge base containprose, illustrationsandlinkstothe original workingmaterials(whichhave beensubjecttoless qualityreviewthanthe prose has).Eachhas a linktofurtherdiscussionandresources.These include:  Introduction – High level introductiontothe ‘problem’,simpleperspectivesfromkeystakeholdergroups,consequencesandoutlineof the Core P3M Data and BusinessIntegratedGovernance Model.Thisalsoincludesthe FrameworkOverview– basisof the Model,Accountability,the governance frameworkforaccountabilities,introductiontooperationusingthe Model,the importance of cadence andharmonisation,outline of ‘what’sinit forme?’ for keystakeholdergroups. - https://www.slideshare.net/djdunning/introduction-to-the-core-p3m-data-model-and-business- integrated-p3m-governance  Main Board – AssumptionsabouthowMainBoardsrelate to P3M, introductionof termstouse in a BusinessIntegrated(P3M) Governance Model, example businessagendaformattersrelatingtoP3Mfor boards,outline ManagementInformationdefinitions. https://www.slideshare.net/djdunning/core-p3m-data-model-and-business-integrated-p3m-governance-main-board  Portfolio– AssumptionsaboutPortfolioManagement,portfolioclassificationsusedinthe Model,the relationof PortfoliostoMainBoard,Portfolio LeadershipGroupsandManagementTeams.ForPortfolioDirectionandProgressGroups –outline of assumptionstakenfromgoodpractice, impliedbusinessagendaforportfolios,impliedManagementInformationdefinitions. https://www.slideshare.net/djdunning/core-portfolio- programme-and-project-management-data-model-and-business-integrated-p3m-governance-portfolio  Programme - Assumptions,anexampleofferedfromgoodpractice,impliedbusinessagenda,impliedMIdefinitions. https://www.slideshare.net/djdunning/core-p3m-data-model-and-business-integrated-p3m-governance-programme  Project - Assumptions,anexampleofferedfromgoodpractice in Agile andWaterfalldeliverymodels,impliedbusinessagenda,implied MI definitions. https://www.slideshare.net/djdunning/core-p3m-data-model-and-business-integrated-p3m-governance-project  Finance - Assumptionsaboutthe role of Commercial andFinance,Finance MattersrelatedtoProjectsandProgrammes,impliedbusinessagendato supportthe example scenario,impliedMIdefinitions. https://www.slideshare.net/djdunning/core-p3m-data-model-and-business-integrated-p3m- governance-finance  ManagementTeams - Assumptionsaboutthe role of ManagementTeamsasOperational Leads,Sponsorsof change,managersof resourcesand ownersof benefits.Impliedbusinessagendastosupportthe example scenario,implied MIdefinitions. https://www.slideshare.net/djdunning/core- p3m-data-model-and-business-integrated-p3m-governance-management-teams  BusinessSupport – Assumptionsaboutholisticorganisationof supportwithinorganisations,discussionof supportneededforthe Model. https://www.slideshare.net/djdunning/core-p3m-data-model-and-business-integrated-p3m-governance-business-support  Assurance – highlevel assumptions aboutassurance,anexampleassurance assignmentand‘playback’agenda,impliedMIneeds. https://www.slideshare.net/djdunning/core-p3m-data-model-and-business-integrated-p3m-governance-assurance
  13. 13. Page 13  Data Model – Introductiontodataintegration,needfordatainthe Model,Data Approachand the relationtothe complete/recurringMainBoard to DeliveryandBackagaincycles,data sources,model details,technologydiscussion. https://www.slideshare.net/djdunning/core-p3m-data- model-and-business-integrated-p3m-governance-data-model Findout more andcollaborate here: https://www.linkedin.com/groups/13651399/ This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0InternationalLicense.

×