Project prioritization

After calculating the three-domain assessment, the next step is to calculate the project prioritization. The importance weight of each domain is set up. For Archipharma, it is set that the weight for business, technology and financial domain respectively are 0.4, 0.3 and 0.3. Table 36 shows the summary of each domain assessment score and the project total score. The score in the business and technology domain (third and fourth column of Table 36) is calculated using equation 3.2, while the total score (sixth column of Table 36) using equation 3.3.

95

Table 36: Archipharma's Project score No Project Name Total

Business Total Technology Financial Assessment Total Score

1 Harmonize ordering process 64 -3 10500 3174.7

2 Choose, configure, test and install APM

applications 53 0 10000 3021.2

3 Develop integrated reporting 63 0 8000 2425.2

4 Migrate and eliminate identified applications 52 -1 7500 2270.5 5 Design enterprise-wide APM process 42 1 7000 2117.1 6 Develop real-time portfolio monitoring 67 0 6000 1826.8 7 Consolidate marketing applications 67 -2 5000 1526.2

8 Information harmonization 49 -1 5000 1519.3

9 Install enterprise-wide PPM approach 63 -1 4000 1224.9

10 Data mapping 45 1 2900 888.3

11 Harmonize process variants 51 -3 2600 799.5

12 Install application lifecycle management

approach 66 0 2500 776.4

13 Rationalize product portfolio 38 -2 2500 764.6 14 Consistent data model development 52 3 2300 711.7 15 Choose, develop and install enterprise-wide

PPM software 69 -2 2100 657

16 Develop real-time portfolio reporting 66 0 2000 626.4 17 Integrate marketing processes 63 -2 2000 624.6 18 Phase out New York billing applications 63 -5 2000 623.7 19 Install process for monitoring competitors 55 -4 2000 620.8 20 Install necessary applications for monitoring

competitors 54 -3 2000 620.7

21 Design and populate application portfolios 44 1 2000 617.9 22 Develop database authentication protocols 46 1 1800 558.7 23 Identify obsolete applications 45 1 1750 543.3 24 Phase out Amsterdam billing applications 63 -5 1700 533.7 25 Expand customer channels with internet 65 -2 1500 475.4 26 Phase out London billing applications 63 -5 1500 473.7

27 Valuate applications 56 -1 1500 472.1

28 Publish database information 49 2 1500 470.2

29 Data cleaning 45 1 1500 468.3

30 Harmonize local PPM approaches 55 0 1200 382 31 Develop application rationalization roadmap 52 1 1200 381.1 32 Analyze billing process variance 41 1 1200 376.7

96

33 Prepare and adapt databases 42 0 1100 346.8

34 Define valuation model 45 1 1000 318.3

35 Information cleaning 43 1 1000 317.5

36 Inventory applications 43 2 750 242.8

37 Design data architecture 42 3 750 242.7

38 Redesign portfolio into limited set of highly

configurable products 36 -4 700 223.2

39 Align marketing processes 52 -1 500 170.5

40 Identify products for termination, migration

and consolidation 50 1 500 170.3

41 Analyze current marketing processes 48 1 500 169.5

42 Analyze data sources 35 2 500 164.6

43 Analyze heterogeneous information sources 34 3 500 164.5 44 Analyze current product portfolio 33 1 500 163.5 45 Analyze heterogeneous data sources 34 3 450 149.5

46 Information mapping 46 3 400 139.3

47 Inventory all PPM processes 42 2 250 92.4

48 Install federated database management

system (FDMS) 43 -1 250 91.9

49 Install database authentication 48 -2 150 63.6 50 Choose, develop, test and run global financial

application 63 -2 -500 -125.4

From the result, it can be seen that ‘harmonize ordering process’ is the project with the highest score, while ‘choose, develop, test and run global financial application’ has the minimum project’s score. Archipharma needs to take a look at the project with the low score and analyze the condition that leads to the minimum score. In this case, project no 50 in Table 34 has the lowest financial assessment and is considered quite risky (negative score) in the technology domain. By applying the proposed method, Archipharma could analyze the proposed projects from various perspectives and utilize EA in the assessment process. In addition, Table 37 is given for the reader to easily interpret the final result. It shows the range of Project’s score that has a minimum score of -156,5 and the maximum score of 3185.

Table 37: Archipharma's project range score

Domain Archipharma's importance weight Min Score Max Score Total Score Min Max Business 0.4 -5 80 -156.5 3185 Technology 0.3 -15 10 Finance 0.3 -500 10500

97

From the project’s score, we could divide the list of the projects into three categories of prioritization. The first priority is the list of the projects with the total scores of more than 650. The second priority if the score range is between 300 and 650. For third priority if the projects have scored lower than 300.

1st Priority: >650 2nd Priority: 300- 650 3rd Priority: <300

We make three priorities to ease the decision maker if they want to analyze further the proposed projects. For example, they should pay more attention to the third priority during the execution / implementation phase of the project, or if there is a budget limitation, the last prioritized projects become the candidates to be eliminated.

4.6 Project Visualization

Figure 60 overviews all Archipharma’s project plotted in a bubble chart that is made using BizzDesign’s Architect tools. Most of the projects in the bubble chart are plotted in the ‘must have’ quadrant. It means that most of the proposed projects have a high score on its contribution to the business and technology domain. Generally, we could conclude that the proposed projects affect both business and technology performance to ultimately achieve their goals. However, Figure 60 shows too many overlaps between the data because of the number of the projects that should be plotted (50 projects). Therefore, in the following paragraph, we illustrate three more bubble charts based on the three priorities categories of the project.

98

Figure 60: Archipharma's projects overview

Another bubble chart is made to plot the projects that belong to the first priority (score > 650). Figure 61 shows most of the projects is plotted in the ‘must have’ quadrant. This picture summarizes a simple explanation for the decision maker that fifteen (15) projects are the top priority, have high score for both contributions to the business and technology domain, and also illustrates its benefit by the size of the circle.

99

Figure 61 : First Priority Project's Overview

For the second priority projects (score between 300 and 650), Figure 62 represents the position of the proposed projects in ‘Must have’ and ‘Should have’ quadrant. Generally, most of the projects here are still considered as a top priority. It is because some projects still have a lower score in the technology domain that could be caused by several reasons such as: the risk to implement it from the IT perspective, current technology in the company is not yet ready to support the projects or the alignment with IT strategy.

100

Figure 63 : Third Prioritize Project's Overview

The projects in the third Priority are mostly plotted in the ‘Must have’, ‘Could have’ and ‘Won’t have’ quadrant. Although the projects are belong to the third priority, but they still have relatively good position in the quadrant. The projects are considered desirable, but could be eliminated if another limitation, like budget limitation becomes an obstacle to execute it.

4.7 Summary

This chapter has discussed the use of an EA-based Investment Portfolio method on the ArchiPharma case study. All the following steps in the three domains of the proposed method is applied in the case. It shows that the proposed method could facilitate a decision making process in terms of giving suggestions on the prioritized projects that should be carried out by an organization. By applying the method, we demonstrate the concrete use of EA to evaluate the projects as well as to provide a room for the decision maker to give their own justification in the scoring process.

101