Scope 1 focuses on supporting individual projects through project execution and financial management. The average PPM solution scored 67% for project execution processes like planning, controlling and closing projects. Budget management was well supported. However, risk management was only available in some solutions. Overall, Scope 1 provides centralization and reporting for basic project support and control.

1. Project Portfolio
Management Solutions
The Functional Perspective
cg_22290

2. | the way we see it

3. | the way we see it
Project Portfolio Management Solutions
The Functional Perspective
Authors:
Mark Stigter
(mark.stigter@capgemini.com)
Thomas van Schie
(thomas.van.schie@capgemini.com)
Erwin Dunnink
(erwin.dunnink@capgemini.com)
Capgemini Nederland B.V.
Utrecht, the Netherlands
Winter 2009

4. | the way we see it
ii

5. | the way we see it
Foreword
The future of organizations largely depends on successful projects. In times of
limited budgets and scarce talent, management needs tools to make the right
decisions and choices. Project-based management is nowadays the most applied
method of realizing and controlling complex objectives with constraints in time,
budget and resources. It has moved from an approach exceptionally used, to a
standard way of working. Choosing which projects to execute has become a
major part of managing a business. Organizations feel the need for an
automated support of these processes. This “automated support” has to improve
the overall governance by improving planning, monitoring and controlling
capabilities. So called Project Portfolio Management solutions offer this. We
define Project Portfolio Management (PPM) as the discipline focusing on the
strategic alignment, prioritization and governance of initiatives, projects and
programmes.
With pride we present the third independent study into functionality of Project
Portfolio Management (PPM) solutions offered by vendors in today‟s market. It
is a publication in Capgemini‟s Project Performance Improvement series that
sets out our point of view on project-based management and complements our
surveys in the market for PPM solutions of 2001 and 2005 and “PPM Solutions,
the user perspective” published in 2008. A global network of Project
Performance Improvement (PPI) departments within Capgemini offer skilled
support to organizations looking for ways to professionalize their PPM
processes.
This survey renews the insights in the available functionality within the PPM
tooling market and is based on requirements from user organizations. The
results are clustered into implementation approaches describing different
ambition levels to improve processes related to project-based management.
These implementation scopes are based on the Capgemini Process Reference
model for IT Governance.
We would like to thank the 33 vendors who participated in this survey and have
taken the time needed to complete the 450+ questionnaire: this was quite an
effort. The authors of this publication: Mark Stigter, Thomas van Schie and
Erwin Dunnink of Capgemini the Netherlands wishes to show their gratitude to
the following persons for contribution to this paper: Tjie-Jau Man, André
Scholte, George Veldman and Hendrik Zondag. Without their valuable
knowledge and input, this paper would not have been published.
We trust this publication stimulates thinking about functionality needed when
implementing a new, or extending the implementation of an existing PPM
solution to support project-based management in organizations.
Utrecht, winter 2009
Rudolf Laane
Vice President
iii

6. | the way we see it
iv

7. | the way we see it
Contents
1 There is a choice 2
1.1 Participants 3
1.2 PPM Process Reference Model for IT Governance 3
2 Ambition is the driver 8
2.1 Scope 1: Project Delivery 8
2.1.1 Project Execution Management 9
2.1.1 Financial Project Management 10
2.1.2 Business Intelligence Management 10
2.1.3 Workflow & Knowledge Management 11
2.2 Scope 2: Project and Resource Management 12
2.2.1 Resource Allocation Management 13
2.3 Scope 3: Project Based Working 14
2.3.1 Time & Expense Management 15
2.4 Scope 4: Project and Programme Governance 16
2.4.1 Programme Delivery Management 16
2.5 Scope 5: Project Portfolio Management 17
2.5.1 Ideas & Portfolio Management 18
2.6 Scope 6: All processes 19
2.6.1 Customer & Partner Management 20
2.6.1 Service Delivery Management 21
2.6.2 Financial Accounting Management 21
3 PPM supported well 24
4 Approach and Methodology 26
4.1 The questionnaire 26
4.2 Analysis approach 26
v

8. | the way we see it
1

9. | the way we see it
1 There is a choice
Management has a broad choice in PPM solutions. In general the PPM
market is a maturing market in which the competing solutions offer the
basic functionality you would expect of a PPM solution. At the same time
projects are carried out nearer to the core of the business and
requirements for PPM have to be defined in more detail. When taking a
more detailed look, difference is still there. For this reason we decided to
focus the survey on the more detailed aspects, relevant for situations we
encountered at our clients globally.
Differences We found that the participating solutions still scored the same average score on
are in the the processes in terms of percentage coverage, even with the more detailed
details requirements. In line with the urgent need for tighter project management,
Project Portfolio Management (PPM) solutions are maturing regarding the
availability of basic functionality. When taking a detailed look at the individual
scores of the solutions there is an important difference in functionality offered.
When selecting and implementing a PPM solution you can therefore ask for
far-reaching functionality addressing the longer term ambitions of the
organization and still have vendors to choose between as can be found in the
results of this survey.
The outcomes of the survey are clustered in implementation scopes. Each scope
covers an area of the PPM process reference model that was used for this
survey. These implementation scopes can be looked at as different starting
points or ambition levels when looking at PPM. The scores of the individual
solutions are available as scorecards in the appendix.
Three main outcomes of the survey are:
1. Market leaders offer broad support for PPM processes but solutions
specialized in certain areas outperform the market leaders
Main
The PPM market really took off in the 90‟s. Some of the vendors have
conclusions
evolved in the meantime to broad solutions offering support for all or most
of the PPM processes. New solutions appear in the market that focuses
primarily on a specific PPM process, for instance resource management or
portfolio management. These specialized solutions often outperform
broader solutions on these specific areas. Depending on the intended scope
of the implementation (based on the ambition for the next couple of years) a
lists of potential solutions can be created that includes solutions from
specialized vendors.
2. Functionality is still a distinguishing factor
Especially when looking into more sophisticated functionality a distinction
can still be made between solutions. The spread of how well the solutions
cover a certain functional area can sometimes range from 5% to 100%.
Experience shows that based on functionality a first selection can be made.
3. True point solutions do not exist since broader functional support is
always offered
Although some solutions focus on a specific PPM functional area they also
offer support for other related processes. This is logical since a process can
only be executed based on input from other processes. If an organization is
for instance primarily looking for a solution to support portfolio
2

10. | the way we see it
management and also wants to support project and resource management
processes but to a lesser detail a solution focusing on portfolio management
might be very interesting. This is also in line with a finding from a survey
published in spring 2008 into the user‟s perspective on PPM solutions1 that
showed that user organization were not particularly looking for broader
functional support but are looking for improvement in existing functionality
and usability.
1.1 Participants
We looked at the market of Project Portfolio Management vendors and
contacted vendors based on our knowledge of the market, combined with
33
Participants contacts found in openly available sources. In total 33 PPM vendors
participated in this survey offering a picture of the type of solutions available in
today‟s market. The participating vendors and their solutions can be found in
Appendix A: Scorecards participating PPM solutions PPM solutions.
Since our 2005 study the market has changed. Some vendors merged (for
instance Planview and Business Engine), others became part of a large IT
company‟s portfolio (for instance Niku Clarity to CA and Mercury ITG to HP)
and new solutions (like Principle Toolbox) entered the PPM market space.
1.2 PPM Process Reference Model for IT Governance
As a basis for the survey the PPI process reference model was used. This model
PPI Process describes the processes commonly found in an organization that deals with a
Reference combination of projects and services and which is continuously trying to
Model is the optimize the allocation of limited resources on these projects and services.
basis for the
survey
The Model was originally developed in 2000 when Capgemini encountered
a need from organizations to make clear, in a simplified way, what
processes need to be in place to run projects and programmes effectively.
The reference model is based on best practices of Capgemini PPI
consultants combined with Project/Programme Management
methodologies PMBOK, PRINCE2 and MSP. The model evolved over the
years and has recently been significantly updated, based on the latest
feedback from clients and consultants, to function again as the basis for
the vendor survey.
1
PPM Solutions for IT Governance – The User Perspective, 2008, by Erwin Dunnink and
Tjie-Jau Man
3

11. | the way we see it
By taking the Process Reference Model as the benchmark we ensured that the
information was structured according to the requirements of the primary
processes of project-centred organizations.
Figure 1: The Project Performance Improvement Process Reference Model
4

12. | the way we see it
As shown in Figure 1, the PPI Process Reference Model covers eleven
Eleven
functional areas. Each functional area consists of several processes. A short
Functional Areas
description of each functional area is given below.
 CPM Customer & Partner Management
This functional area deals with managing the interaction with the customers
(both internal and external) and other contacts in the value web in which the
organization operates.
 IPM Idea & Portfolio Management
An idea or new demand is captured and prioritized in combination with other
ideas and projects. Based on different scenarios a portfolio is determined and
managed.
 PDM Programme Delivery Management
This functional area describes the programme management processes from
starting up, governing and to end a programme.
 PEM Project Execution Management
This functional area covers the activities aimed at managing and controlling the
project: from setting up, running and ending a project.
 RAM Resource Allocation Management
This functional area is about levelling the supply and demand of resources and
optimizing the utilization of resources for the organization.
 TEM Time & Expense Management
This functional area describes the registration and approval of time and
expenses on projects, services and activities not related to projects.
 FPM Financial Project Management
To stress the importance of the financial aspects of project management,
aspects like forecasting and monitor budgets, work-in-progress, invoices and
accruals are combined in this functional area.
 SDM Service Delivery Management
Within IT Governance services have to be managed next to projects. This
functional area describes the definition of services, managing releases and
managing the SLA.
 WKM Workflow & Knowledge Management
This functional area deals with supporting the collaboration within and over
projects by sending action items, alerts and by sharing documents and other
configuration items.
 BIM Business Intelligence Management
BIM covers the means to inform and report on the data captured in the PPM
processes and possible combining with already existing information.
 FAM Financial Accounting Management
FAM is a discipline itself. It gives insights in the contribution of each project,
customer, department or professional towards the profit of the entire
organization.
5

13. | the way we see it
The average scores on these areas resulting from the survey are shown in
Figure 2.
Figure 2: Average score per functional area based on 33 participating PPM
solutions.
6

14. | the way we see it
7

15. | the way we see it
2 Ambition is the driver
The choice for a specific PPM solution highly depends on the local
situation, goals and ambitions. The present PPM market offers tools that
provide support for a range of aspects and processes within the projects.
When implementing a PPM solution a clear choice is needed which aspects
and processes will be supported. In this chapter the outcomes of the survey
are structured based on six implementation scopes. These implementation
scopes are based on logical combinations of processes. For each process the
average score of the participating solutions is mentioned.
The process reference model was used to indicate which functional areas and
processes should be taken into account in each of these implementation scopes.
 Scope 1: Project Delivery
Six
 Scope 2: Project and Resource Management
implementation
 Scope 3: Project Based Working
scopes
 Scope 4: Project and Programme Governance
 Scope 5: Project Portfolio Management
 Scope 6: All processes
Each scope builds upon the functional areas and processes of the previous
implementation scope, except for the project portfolio management scope. It is
possible to implement a tool to support Project Portfolio Management, before
processes like Project Management or Time Reporting are implemented.
Functional areas already discussed in previous implementation scopes will not
be discussed again.
2.1 Scope 1: Project Delivery
The ambition of the organization in scope 1 is to:
Focus on  implement a PPM tool to support the project management processes;
supporting  gather all relevant project information in one place and
individual  being able to report on individual projects from a central point.
projects
A centralized solution is implemented to enable control on multiple projects.
The focus however lies on optimizing the support for individual projects.
8

16. | the way we see it
The functional areas primarily looked at are Project Execution Management
and Financial Project Management. Besides these two areas also some
processes from Business Intelligence Management and Workflow &
Knowledge Management are taken into account.
2.1.1 Project Execution Management
Project Execution Management (PEM) covers the activities aimed at 'managing'
the project: from setting up a project, running the project to ending the project.
All participating solutions offer the basic functionality. Leaving the basics out
difference between the solutions are particularly found in controlling, planning
and scheduling, quality, risk and issues and change requests.
Figure 3: Project Execution Management process
The functional area of Project Execution Management was covered by all
Manage the
solutions, with an average score of 67%. Figure 3 shows the average score per
budget from a
process.
project
perspective is The lowest scoring process is Close the project. One of the low scoring
well supported questions in this process was if the solution can be set up in a way that a project
cannot be closed if invoices and commitments are still open. This would
prevent a misalignment between the project financial status in the PPM solution
and in the financial solution.
The basic information of projects can be kept in the solutions. When the data is
also used for portfolio management analyses, more data is needed. For instance
how the project contributes to the business goals. In 80% of the solutions
multiple business goals can be linked to a project. Next to that, some
intelligence in calculating a project priority based, for instance on ROI or
strategic alignment, are useful. This is only supported by 43% of the solutions.
Version control of a project plan is supported by 67% of the solutions. It is only
possible in 50% of the solutions to keep track of the changes made and undo
these if required. Typically a feature that would make the solution more user
friendly from a project manager‟s perspective.
Risk When looking at the area of controlling risks and issues we found low scores.
management not Of the participating solutions five do not support this area at all and another
available in all five very limited. A strange finding knowing that many project management
solutions methods look at risk management as one of the core aspects of project
management.
9

17. | the way we see it
Project 2.1.1 Financial Project Management
priorities are Financial Project Management (FPM) is mentioned as a separate functional
often not area to stress the importance of proper financial control in running projects.
calculated This functional area starts with capturing the expected benefits of a project and
forecasting the costs to charging back or invoicing the project.
Figure 4: Financial Project Management process
The functional area of Financial Project Management is covered by all
solutions, with an average score of 74%. Figure 4 shows the average score per
process.
Record purchases scores a high coverage of 91%. This shows that PPM
solutions recognize managing projects is not only about managing the time of
human resources. It is also important to keep track of costs for materials.
Overall the information to manage the budget from a project perspective is well
supported. Comparing the budget with actual money spent is possible in 90%
of the solutions. Two solutions score low on the process area with a score
below 30%.
2.1.2 Business Intelligence Management
Business Intelligence Management (BIM) is the process that delivers
management information and reports. PPM solutions gather a lot of information
useful not only to project- programme-, portfolio- and resource managers but to
management in general.
Figure 5: Business Intelligence Management
The functional area of Business Intelligence Management was covered by 32
out of 33 vendors, with an average score of 61 %.
PPM solutions can contain a lot of information. Getting the desired information
out of the system can be more difficult than one might expect. Remarks are
often made by users that the out-of-the box available reports are not fully
compliant with their needs. Looking at the scores it is clear that the information
we asked for is available. But perhaps information is not logically combined
from a user perspective on the standard reports. The processes Management
10

18. | the way we see it
Information for Portfolios and Resource and the ability to create ad hoc reports
are covered best.
Most solutions (64%) score between 80% and 100% on the process Portfolio
Management Information. In this area 75% of the solutions indicate it is
possible to print a highlight report of the portfolio(s). This highlight report
contains an overview of investments with aspects like contribution to business
goal(s), needed and allocated resources and requested and allocated budget.
The function to print a delta report for the portfolio(s) is available within 60%
of the solutions. A delta report contains new approved investments, completed
investments and investments that are put on hold.
A lot of
information is Reporting on service delivery scores low. This is not surprising since it is a
captured and relatively new functional area to PPM solutions. It is possible to show the
available through actual performance of a service compared to the service level agreement in
reports 35% of the solutions. Regarding organizational performance, within 47% of the
solutions it is possible to define, monitor and measure the service delivery
based on defined metrics and other benchmarks.
2.1.3 Workflow & Knowledge Management
Workflow & Knowledge Management (WKM) is a functional area that
supports all the other processes in the reference model.
 Workflow Management is the ability to control the primary business processes
in an integrated manner.
 Knowledge management is about managing the (re-)use and sharing of
information, often captured in documents.
Figure 6: Workflow & Knowledge Management process
The functional area Workflow & Knowledge Management was covered by all
Sharing solutions, with an average score of 61%. Figure 6 shows the average score per
documents well process area.
supported
All participating solutions provide support for workflow and knowledge
management. A great benefit within this functional area, as seen by many end
users2, is the ability to share documents (knowledge), to get automated alerts,
and to get automated notifications for example when the approval of an
2
PPM Solutions for IT Governance – The User Perspective, 2008 by Erwin Dunnink and
Tjie-Jau Man
11

19. | the way we see it
executive is needed. An interesting function within knowledge management is
a search option to go through all documents and/or data within the entire
solution. This option is available within 78% of the participating solutions.
A part of Knowledge Management is Configuration management.
Configuration Management has maybe one of the most unexpected outcomes.
More and more project oriented organizations are standardizing their way of
working by implementing for example PRINCE2, in which configuration
management is recognized as an important process. Only 44% of the
participating PPM solutions offer basic support for this process by offering
version control of configuration items. To support effective configuration
management, version control is an important functionality within the product-
development lifecycle. Lack of support for configuration management shows
that most PPM solutions refer to more specialized solutions to address this.
With the emphasis on governance and laws like Sarbanes-Oxley and the
Clinger-Cohen act it is becoming increasingly important for organizations to
comply with these laws. When looking at the scores on the process Manage
Audit Trails there is room for improvement. For instance tracking who entered
what in the system and when, is something that the participating solutions
cover for just 57%.
2.2 Scope 2: Project and Resource Management
In this scope additional project management processes and the functional area
Introducing the of resource management are added to scope 1. The ambition in this scope is to
alignment manage projects and to link this to the management of (limited) resources. This
between projects implementation scope introduces the element of aligning the need for resource
and resource from a project point of view with the capacity available in the standing
pools organisation. In most cases the role of a resource manager is introduced.
Two participating solutions came close to a 100 percent score (99% en 98%);
the average score within scope 2 is 62%.
12

20. | the way we see it
Within the functional area Project Execution Management, the processes
Request for Resources and Assign Resources are added in this implementation
scope. These two processes cover the role and responsibilities of the project
manager in the resource allocation process. First the required capacity is
indicated, based on effort estimations and criteria like required skills and
location. Once the resources have been provided to the project the project
manager indicates on which task the resources will be working (assigning them
to tasks). PPM solutions provide different ways to support project managers in
the resource allocation process. For instance views which show the remaining
availability of resources are available in almost every solution (93%). The
ability to assign and reassign resources to tasks is however poorly supported. It
should be easy for project managers to do this, for instance by dragging and
dropping resources to the specific tasks. This functionality is the lowest scoring
one of the aspects looked at for this process. Not even 47% of the solutions
provide this option.
In the functional area Business Intelligence Management the process
Management Information of resources is added, covering some specific reports
to control the resources allocation process. For example the ability for
resources to get information about remaining vacation or hours spend on non
project related tasks is available in about 50% of the solutions. Another
example is information about critical resources. The average score on the
overviews asked for is only 63%.
2.2.1 Resource Allocation Management
Resource Allocation Management (RAM) is about matching and planning
resources within a programme or project. Both capability and availability of
resources are taken into account in this process. Other processes often looked at
in this perspective are the analysis of capacity utilization, and the supply and
demand of external resources.
This functional area also includes more generic HR-processes, Recruit & Select
Personnel and Manage resource data. This data is often interfaced to the PPM
solution from the HR system.
Figure 7: Resource Allocation Management process
A distinction is made between searching for available resources and searching
for suitable resources. When a project needs to be staffed the best resource
(most suitable) might not be available.
Depending on the priorities of the projects an organization might decide to
make the resource available. This distinction is therefore important to make in
the resource selection process. Searching for available resources is pretty well
13

21. | the way we see it
supported with an average of 63%. When searching for available resources it is
convenient if the result list shows the current and future projects on which the
resources are allocated. This functionality is available within 84% of the
solutions. This is a must have functionality for effective Resource Allocation
Management.
Surprisingly in connection with looking for available resources is the much
Only 50% lower score of looking for suitable resources. Looking for the right people for
supports a search the job should be as important as looking for available resources. Yet this
for a suitable process only scores 50%, 13% lower than for an availability search. Especially
resource the functionality to use more than one criterion in the search criteria scored
low. Only a third of the solutions have the ability to use more than one search
criteria. Particularly when dealing with larger resource pools this is not
sufficient.
Some organisations work a lot with a limited set of preselected external
contractors. When they have a position available in a project these contractors
are contacted to offer candidates. Preferably the project based request can be
published automatically and external contractors can propose one or multiple
candidates to the request. Only five solutions offer the possibility to propose a
candidate without having to create a user in the system for each candidate.
2.3 Scope 3: Project Based Working
In scope 3, the functional area of Time and Expense Management is added to
Closing the loop scope 2. The additional ambition here is to get a grip on the hours spend on
between planning projects by resources. For accurate tracking of time and project budget spend,
and realisation time reporting is essential. This also gives the possibility to work with
Estimates and Time to Complete. This leads to more insights into the use of
resources and when they become available again for other projects. Since most
organizations focus on time first, the processes covering expenses have not
been taken into account in Scope 3.
Again, two solutions came close to a 100 percent match with 98% coverage of
scope 3. The average score on this implementation scope is 62%.
14

22. | the way we see it
2.3.1 Time & Expense Management
Time & Expense Management (TEM) covers the activities time recording (on
activity level) and validating & approving timesheets. Proper Time & Expense
Management gives a direct and accurate insight into the effort that is spent and
that remains to be done. Ideally this is integrated with the possibility for
resources to track expenses against the project or even better on activities in the
project.
Figure 8: Time & Expense Management process
The functional area of Time & Expense Management is covered by 32
solutions, with an average score of 63%. Figure 8 shows the average score per
process area.
As expected high scores are achieved on a must have functionality like the
ability to show an overview of total hours per day and total hours per period
(week).
It is striking that the process Record Time only scores 63%. This can be
explained by the details of the questions asked. It was taken for granted that
time can be registered. The questions on more advanced functionally scored
low. For instance the possibility to validate timesheets real time (50%), to
indicate if a resource is allowed to book more hours than planned on a project
(40%) and the ability to indicate the remaining duration (53%).
Being able to support the recording of time is one thing. Organisations want to
be able to check the submission of timesheets. This process often steers the
charge back or invoicing of the hours spend. In the questionnaire specific
questions were asked. The automated warning when timesheets are not
submitted in time is covered by 65%. Reminding resource they have to approve
time sheets is only supported by 56% of the solutions.
The least supported functionality related to time and expense management is
that of the ability to adjust or correct timesheets. This is needed when a mistake
was made, for instance by booking too many hours or booking on the wrong
project task. It is possible within the solutions to deal with corrections in a
closed time period by:
 Recording negative hours in a new time period: 44%
 Replacing the closed time period completely (with corrected items): 50%
 Other: 31% (e.g. re-open a timesheet, an interface to a financial system or even
a specific role/person like the project manager, timesheet approver or „invoice
manager‟ is approved to edit timesheets)
Overall this functional area is well supported. Offering support for what is
needed often in practice, the ability to be able to make changes to timesheet
already handed in, can be improved.
15

23. | the way we see it
2.4 Scope 4: Project and Programme Governance
In this implementation scope the functional area of Programme Delivery
Adding the
Management is added. In situations where an organization wants to achieve a
programme level
challenging strategic objective the organization structure of a programme can
be useful. In essence a new temporary department is created focusing on
achieving the strategic goal by executing projects that realize parts of it. In this
implementation scope this specific part of PPM is added to the ambition. The
areas of resource management, financial project management and time
reporting are included in this scope.
The process Management Information Programmes of the functional area
Business Intelligence Management is added.
2.4.1 Programme Delivery Management
Programme Delivery Management (PDM) covers the discipline program
management from starting up a programme, governing the programme to
closing the programme. A PPM solution should be capable of supporting
programmes.
Figure 9: Programme Delivery Management process
Linking multiple The functional area of Programme Delivery Management was covered by 31
goals to a solutions, with an average score of 60%. Figure 9 shows the average score per
programme only process.
supported by
53% In 80% of the solutions it is possible to distinct a programme from a project.
This means that in six solutions the concept of a programme is not available at
all. Some of these vendors have answered the questionnaire assuming a
“special” project can be used to act as a programme.
16

24. | the way we see it
Before starting a programme the programme-mandate has to be made. It should
be possible to register data elements from this mandate to be able to report on it.
Most solutions offer support for registering a programme in structured way.
Related to this is the ability to identify the programme and issue a programme
brief. Programmes are related to business goals that represent the reason for
executing the programme. Sometimes a programme supports two or more
business goals. Of the solutions 62% indicate that programmes can be linked to
multiple goals, but only 53% can support an indication of how much the
programme will support the different goals.
The basis functionality to distinct a programme from a project is available
within 81% of the solutions.
Worrying are the low scores on governing and closing programmes. To support
the governance of a programme questions were asked about the possibilities to
perform what-if scenarios. To accomplish the goal of the programme a
programme manager can choose between different initiatives. Calculating and
evaluating different scenarios can help in this. About half of the solutions
provided the possibilities to perform what-if scenarios within a program.
Within portfolio management 57% of the solutions provide this possibility.
This lower score is therefore surprising, because the techniques involved are
identical.
Closing the programme is another process with a surprisingly low score. Of
course it can be indicated that a programme is no longer active. However there
is no additional functionality available to support the programme manager in
running some final checks before deactivating a programme.
2.5 Scope 5: Project Portfolio Management
Project portfolio management depends on information of projects registered
during the idea phase and the subsequent phases of a project lifecycle. The
ambition in this scope is to support the decision-making in the project portfolio
process. The objective is that projects within the portfolio have the optimal
contribution to accomplishing the goals and strategy of the organization. Next
to project portfolios, application and service portfolios can exist in an
organization.
17

25. | the way we see it
Project portfolio management can be done stand alone (can be implemented
within an organization without implementing the other functional area‟s). This
means that the portfolio solution is not integrated with the solution for project
management.
Portfolio
management can Over the last couple of years several organizations choose to start their PPM
be implemented ambition from a top-down perspective and focused first on this area to be able
stand alone to better base their portfolio decisions. This is why project portfolio
management was identified as a separate implementation scope.
Important aspects for portfolio management are the goals and strategy of the
organization. These goals and strategy are translated into concrete criteria
which are input for the portfolio management process to score and rank projects
on. By applying weighting criteria to criteria the PPM solution can support in
determining the optimal project portfolio.
2.5.1 Ideas & Portfolio Management
Idea Management is input for the Portfolio Management process. What
possible new investments are being created? What is the business case for this
new investment? This information will be used in the Portfolio Management
process. Demand Management is answering the question how to do it all after
selecting which idea to include. Portfolio Management is the continuing
process of deciding which investments to start, continue, put on hold or stop. In
this way the projects being executed have the most optimal contribution to
accomplishing the company goals and strategy.
Figure 10: Ideas & Portfolio Management process
The functional area of Idea and Portfolio Management was covered by 29
solutions, with an average score of 63%. Figure 10 shows the average score per
process.
When updating the process reference model in preparing this survey it was
decided to put specific emphasis on Idea and Portfolio Management than was
A graphical view done in previous versions of the reference model by identifying a special
of the portfolio is functional area for this. Reporting options connected to portfolio management
available in are covered in the functional area of Business Intelligence Management.
almost all Manage the programme and project portfolio is the highest scoring process in
solutions this functional area; three out of four solutions support this process area with
80-100% coverage. When managing the portfolio it is important to have a
graphical overview of all projects in the portfolio. A Gantt Chart showing all
projects of the portfolio in one view is available in 93% of the solutions.
Another much desired functionality of organizations is to be able to drill down
from the portfolio into the underlying projects which is available in 80 % of the
solutions. The processes of managing the service portfolio and managing the
application portfolio are relatively new to PPM tools and are specific to IT
Governance. These processes score remarkably better than expected.
18

26. | the way we see it
This has to be seen in relation with the functional area of Service Delivery
Management. The lowest scoring functionality was the ability to see the
customer satisfaction of the services in the portfolio.
What is surprising is the low score of analyse the portfolio scenarios. An
essential part of the portfolio management process is the ability to perform
what-if scenarios to look at all projects from multiple directions to support
decision making of which portfolio supports the organization best. An
interesting point of view is for instance is to look at spread of the risks in the
portfolio. This, for instance, can be done by looking at how projects score when
comparing the type of risks to the return on investments. Within the
participating solutions there is 67% coverage. The weakness is in the ability to
compare different scenarios with each other and with the current portfolio.
What is well covered is the functionality to effectuate the consequences of
these scenarios on high level resource demand (63%). This is one of the most
important requirements by organizations in the portfolio process.
Support for the portfolio management process needs to be improvement to
increase the level of support for executive managers in prioritizing their
projects. Especially when looking at the ability to set goals for the portfolio by
indicating a desired risk profile or by setting the limits of the amount of the
budget that should be spend accomplishing a business goal. Finally it is of
course essential that the current portfolio and scenario can be compared to these
goals.
2.6 Scope 6: All processes
The final implementation scope covers all processes identified in the process
Adding non core reference model. Most functional areas have already been discussed in one of
areas the previous implementation scopes. In comparison with the previous
mentioned implementation scopes the functional areas of Customer & Partner
Management, Service Delivery Management and Financial Accounting
Management are added. The average score in this scope is 63%.
19

27. | the way we see it
2.6.1 Customer & Partner Management
Customer & Partner Management includes the processes that manage the
interaction with the customers (both internal and external), and with other
parties in the value web or eco system in which the company (or department)
operates. Details of the customer are recorded, their business needs are
identified and (if required) proposals are created. Of course it is important to
measure the quality of the services provided as experienced by the customer. In
a world where part of the organization is outsourced to other companies, where
system development or other functions are performed in countries such as India
and projects are partly staffed by free-lancers or consultancy companies,
managing these interactions is important.
Figure 11: Customer & Partner Management process
The functional area of Customer & Partner Management was covered by all
solutions, with an average score of 65%. Figure 11 shows the average scores.
Identify new business is scoring reasonable. But when we look at the spread of
the scores it shows that they either score really high (24 solutions score >80%)
or really low (9 solutions score <20%).
Check customer satisfaction scores low. For instance only 44% of the solutions
offer the possibility to link satisfaction criteria to a customer from a
configurable list. Satisfaction of the customer is maybe the most important
thing in making a project successful. By managing the expectations of a
customer the success of delivering a project which connects to the customers‟
needs can be increased. Keeping track of the expectations on a customer and
project level in the solution would in that perspective is very useful.
The process, “Exchange project & resource data”, scores lowest. Being able to
share and exchange data related to projects and resources is essential in the
global economy organisation operate in today. A reason for this low score is the
inability of most solutions (67%) to support the functionality where an external
vendor offers a resource for a request.
20

28. | the way we see it
2.6.1 Service Delivery Management
Service Delivery Management (SDM) covers the processes from defining the
service to managing new releases.
Figure 12: Service Delivery Management process
The functional area of Service Delivery Management was covered by 27
Release and solutions, with an average score of 53%. This area seems to be up to level with
portfolio planning the maturity of the market, or maybe even ahead of it. The best supported
poorly integrated process is defining the service. Of the participating solutions 72% is able to
make an overview of the available services and make it visible in a report. Of
the participating solutions 63% has the functionality to create a separate object
within the solution for the service; so it does not have to be defined as a project.
It looks like service management is becoming basic functionality for PPM
solutions with an IT governance focus. That there still is room for improvement
is made visible with the lowest score in the Service Delivery Management area
“Deliver new releases”. Only 50% of the solutions are able to plan new releases
within the service. Of these solutions, 45% who offer new-release planning are
able to make a connection between the release-planning and the portfolio
planning. There is a big difference between the tools. Of the solutions 30%
have a score in this process area of 80-100%, while 58% do not score more
than 60%. Functionality has to grow in this area.
2.6.2 Financial Accounting Management
Financial Accounting Management (FAM) gives insights in the contribution of
each project, customer, department and professional towards the financial
performance of the entire organization.
Figure 13: Financial Accounting Management process
The functional area of Financial Accounting Management was covered by 30
Financial
out of 33 solutions, with an average score of 49%. The most striking about the
management
results is the fact that there does not seem to be an in between, either solutions
supported by half
support the process within Financial Account Management very well or they
of the solutions
barely support it.
The two strongest functionalities of the process “Chargeback/invoice the
project” are the possibilities to see all the cost of a project in one view (88%)
and the possibilities to change the rate per resource per project (80%). Really
handy when resources work on different projects for different companies with
different pricing agreements. But also when a distinction is made between
working on own department projects and on projects of other departments.
21

29. | the way we see it
The process “Process Period Closure” contained a very important question
concerning time periods: “Is it possible to close time periods per part of the
organization instead of for the whole system at once (to support different time
zones)? Of the vendors which cover Financial Accounting Management, 82%
have answered no, this functionality is not available. This type of advanced
functionality is most often covered by an already present financial system, but
indicates the way Project Portfolio Management solutions are developing. It
shows that the PPM solutions are not completely ready yet for an enterprise
approach. Closing a month for a whole organization that operates
internationally at one moment in time is hard to do from a process point of
view.
Looking at the results for financial accounting management it is clear that it is
out of scope for most solutions. What is supported, are the functionalities
directly linked to projects and the time accounting done on them. The
information from the PPM solutions is either manually transferred or
automatically interfaced to the financial system used by an organization.
22

30. | the way we see it
23

31. | the way we see it
3 PPM supported well
The outcomes of the survey show that many PPM solutions available in the
market can offer broad and sufficient support for the processes identified
in the PPI process reference model. The outcomes also show that solutions
can be found for each scope an organization wants to cover in its
implementation.
Three main outcomes of the survey are:
1. Market leaders offer broad support for PPM processes but solutions specialized
in certain areas outperform the market leaders
2. Functionality is still a distinguishing factor
3. True point solutions do not exist since broader functional support is always
offered
Over 60% of the questions asked for each of the implementation scopes
identified are answered positively.
Average score per
implementation
scope
Figure 14: Average score per scenario
In some scopes there is a big difference in the offered functionality by the
different vendors. The scope “Project Portfolio Management” taking the crown
with a spread from 4% to a 100%. Some solutions that score low in this scope
are however one of the best solutions in another scope.
The individual scores of the participating solutions can be found in Appendix
A: Scorecards participating PPM solutions.
When an organization is thinking about implementing a PPM solution, this
survey clearly shows that there are a lot of potential solutions to look at. The
basics are well covered by all. Organizations should think about functionality
they really need to support their business processes now, and also what they
want supported in the near future.
24

32. | the way we see it
When creating the questionnaire for the survey it was clear that some of the
questions would be difficult to some of the solutions. On the other hand we
would have expected the solutions to perform better on some functional areas,
taking into account the number of times we encountered those situations at our
clients. Looking at the average figures this is particularly true for the next
functionalities which we think should be improved in the near future to become
core PPM functionality as well.
 A portfolio manager would like better support for:
o options to compare different portfolio scenarios (preferably in one screen)
o dealing with dependencies between projects in the portfolio
o playing with different risk profiles
o taking portfolio management to the corporate level.
 Support for project managers should be improved in:
o tracking and acting on risks and issues,
o keeping a clear view on the tolerances set for the project
o performing final checks when closing a project
o managing the business case
 For resource managers the support should be improved for:
o searching for suitable resources based on criteria set in the resource request
o being able to propose and manage a situation in which multiple candidates
are proposed for a request.
o managing resource reservations including probability and priorities,
o support for dealing with external resources proposed for a request.
 Resources could use better support for:
o Making adjustments on timesheets
o Real time validations of their timesheet
o Dragging and dropping options in the solution, for instance when dragging
a document to a task in the project.
In the end the ambition of the organization using the PPM solution determines
what is required. The outcomes of this survey clearly show that broad support
for PPM processes is available.
25

33. | the way we see it
4 Approach and Methodology
Vendors of PPM solutions were asked to fill in a 450+ questionnaire based
on the Project Performance Improvement (PPI) – Process Reference
Model. In this survey, the functional coverage of the offered solutions is
highlighted.
We invited over 100 PPM vendors to participate (searched on the internet and
gained from internal records). Of these vendors 33 have filled in the
questionnaire. Participating vendors range from multinationals that have been
around for a while, to companies just starting on the PPM market.
4.1 The questionnaire
The questionnaire is based on the PPI Process Reference Model, as was done in
the two previous surveys. The questionnaire was revised for two reasons: 1) to
keep the questionnaire manageable, and 2) to delete superfluous questions.
These questions are defined as basis functionality and are therefore used as a
starting point. The questions used are more complex to get insights in the
differences of the participating PPM solutions. Another objective of this study
is to be able to get an indication which tools perform best in a certain functional
area or process. As a result questions that did not contribute to making a
distinction between PPM solutions have been removed from the questionnaire.
The consequence of this is that solutions that do support a functional area very
well in basic functionality can score low within our survey. Vendors were
asked to answer the questions only for „out of the box‟ available functionality.
4.2 Analysis approach
The first approach to analyze the data has been to score the individual questions,
process areas and functional areas. This has been done made on the answered
questions with the following grading system:
Score = Questions answered „Yes‟ for the applicable area x weight assigned x100%
Total number of questions in the applicable area
Questions that were not answered are considered as not available. Tools that do
not support a functional area have been taken out the equation, so it will not
bring the average score for that functional area down. In the results paragraph
of each functional area will be stated how many of the participating vendors
cover this functional area. Within the individual scorecards, at the end of this
paper, it will be shown per vendor which functional area they support.
The second approach to analyze the answers is based on the eleven functional
areas as described within our process reference model. This gives a clear
indication on how the vendor-market is behaving on several functional aspects
of Project Portfolio Management.
26

34. | the way we see it
A third approach used to analyze the answers, was the use of scopes as
mentioned in chapter 2. The reference model is used by PPI consultants of
Capgemini to determine what functionality is desired by the customer to
implement. Based on these experiences, we have established a couple of basic
scopes we see when implementing PPM tools. Comparison is made how well
PPM tools support these scopes.
Two remarks have to be made: 1) not every sub process in the reference model
is used in the different scopes. And 2) in every sub process the asked
functionality will not cover the need by every organization looking to
implement a PPM tool for a certain scope.
Finally we have to mention that Capgemini did not validate the answers given
by the vendors. We can therefore take no responsibility for the answers given.
The outcomes of this survey can be a starting point for PPM tool selection
processes that has to be completed by a demonstration based on a specific
situation applicable for an organization. In line with the approach taken in this
survey these demonstrations should be focussed on the advanced,
distinguishing functionalities since the base functionality is covered by more or
less all PPM solutions available in today‟s market.
27

35. | the way we see it
5 Appendix A: Scorecards
participating PPM solutions
This appendix gives an overview of all the solutions which participated in the
survey. For each solution a scorecard is presented. We feel that choosing a
PPM solution is always a balancing act between several aspects.
The results are alphabetically ordered by the solutions name.
In the score cards, the following abbreviations are used in connection with the
spider diagrams:
CPM - Customer & Partner Management
IPM - Idea & Portfolio Management
PDM - Programme Delivery Management
PEM - Project Execution Management
RAM - Resource Allocation Management
TEM - Time & Expense Management
FPM - Financial Project Management
SDM - Service Delivery Management
WKM - Workflow & Knowledge Management
BIM - Business Intelligence Management
FAM - Financial Accounting Management
On the left the scores of the solutions per implementation scope are mentioned:
 Scope 1: Project Delivery
 Scope 2: Project and Resource Management
 Scope 3: Project Based Working
 Scope 4: Project and Programme Governance
 Scope 5: Project Portfolio Management
 Scope 6: All processes
On the right the overall score is represented as a spider diagram, comparing the
score of the solution to the average score of all 33 participating solutions.
The blue line represents the average score of the 33 participating vendors. The
red line represents the individual solutions score.
28

36. | the way we see it
Name Solution Vendor
@task AtTask Inc.
Artemis 7 version 7.2 Artemis International Solutions
Corporation, a Versata Company.
Augeo 5 version 5.3 Augeo Software
29

37. | the way we see it
Name Solution Vendor
Axxerion version 969 Axxerion B.V.
BB.Net 4.0 BusinessBase
Cardinis Suite version 4.3 Cardinis Solutions SpA
30

38. | the way we see it
Name Solution Vendor
Changepoint version 12 Compuware
CA Clarity PPM version 8 Computer Associates
Daptiv PPM Daptiv, Inc.
31

39. | the way we see it
Name Solution Vendor
Planview Enterprise 9.1 Planview, Inc.
Paradigm eServicesManager version 7.1 Paradigm Software Technologies Inc.
Telelogic’s Focal Point V6.1 Telelogic Netherlands, an IBM Company.
32

40. | the way we see it
Name Solution Vendor
GoEfficient version 2.1 MCH Information & Communication
solutions
InventX SP2M 4.5 Cranes Software International ltd.
Microsoft Office Enterprise Project Microsoft B.V.
Management (EPM) 2007
33

41. | the way we see it
Name Solution Vendor
Planisware 5 Planisware
PowerProject PowerProject
Primavera P6, version 6.0 Primavera
34

42. | the way we see it
Name Solution Vendor
Principal Toolbox version 4.1.6 Fortes Solutions B.V.
Project Insight Enterprise Project Metafuse, Inc.
Management Software
Rational Portfolio Manager IBM
35

43. | the way we see it
Name Solution Vendor
Resilient Project Portfolio Manager, Resilient
Version 4.0.314
Sagitta & Centurio, Astrea, Intelligence, Icorp B.V.
Blackberry & ServicesPlanning
PSNext version 2.5 SciForma
36

44. | the way we see it
Name Solution Vendor
ShareLock projectsoftware Dataleaf ICT
TaskTimer/Projectcontroller version 7 Mobipro
with MindManager Project Edition.
Borland Tempo 2007r2 Borland B.V.
37

45. | the way we see it
Name Solution Vendor
Timewax version 6 Timewax B.V.
Trias Relatiebeheer en Trias Digitaal
Projectmanagement
Unanet Project Portfolio version 9.0 Unanet Technologies
38

46. | the way we see it
Name Solution Vendor
Xiphers version 7.0 Matadex
SAP RPM (SAP Resource & Portfolio SAP
Management)
39

47. | the way we see it
6 Appendix B: About Capgemini
PPM Solutions
Capgemini‟s Project Portfolio Management Solutions (PPM) departments are
globally present in the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Austria, Sweden, the
UK, India and the US. These departments serve project-based organisations
with the professionalization of executing and governing projects, programmes
and portfolios. PPM is a full service provider in this market space: Consulting.
Technology. Outsourcing.
The main business issue addressed by PPM involves organisations that are not
in control of the execution of their projects, programmes and portfolios. We
offer services such as project managers‟ assessments, organisation assessments
(OPM3, CMMI), setting up or running Project Management Offices,
implementing PRINCE2, MSP and Project Portfolio management (PPM). We
also focus on optimising the project portfolio management processes in an
organisation with the support of the right tools. PPM Solutions has thorough
knowledge of the solutions available in the market. Finally the implementation
of these solutions is supported from an onshore centre in the Netherlands in
combination with offshore centres in India. The offshore centres focus mainly
on application management, but they also engage in report and interface
development, configuration solutions and application management based on a
Software-as-a-Service principle.
For more information on PPM Solutions see www.nl.capgemini.com/PPI (in
Dutch).
40

48. About Capgemini and the Collaborative Business Experience
Capgemini, one of the world‟s foremost providers of Consulting, Technology and
Outsourcing services, has a unique way of working with its clients, called the Collaborative
Business Experience.
Backed by over three decades of industry and service experience, the Collaborative Business
Experience is designed to help our clients achieve better, faster, more sustainable results
through seamless access to our network of world-leading technology partners and
collaboration-focused methods and tools. Through commitment to mutual success and the
achievement of tangible value, we help businesses implement growth strategies, leverage
technology and thrive through the power of collaboration. Capgemini employs
approximately 68,000 people worldwide and reported 2006 global revenues of €7.7 billion.
The Capgemini Group is headquartered in Paris.
www.capgemini.com
41

49. www.nl.capgemini.com
Capgemini Nederland B.V.
Papendorpseweg 100
Postbus 2575 - 3500 GN Utrecht
Tel. 030 689 00 00
Fax 030 689 99 99