One of the most important things in a project office is the analysis of multiple projects, understanding which one we should choose in the midst of the scenario that unfolds day after day. But the choice is almost always subjective and the analysis can sometimes be left up to the manager, who without the right tools can be forced to make decisions that don't always coincide with the best expected result. One of the ways I like to perform this analysis is by using an adapted version of the GUT matrix.
I explain: there are methods that appeal to the subjectivity present in our subconscious, and create metrics on top of it. A well-known example in agile management is Planning Poker, which uses the Fibonacci sequence and the Delphi technique to build schedules more adherent to reality, and we can use the same notion in the GUT matrix.
The GUT matrix simply means a matrix of Severity vs Urgency vs Trend, the idea is to give a score for each point of severity, urgency, trend, the result of this multiplication gives you a notion of impact. But numbers don't always speak for themselves, and the numbers themselves can go into limbo if the scale used is not clear, so how to adapt? The example I show below was an adaptation of my own, which I call the Portfolio Matrix.
First: severity, urgency and trend may not be interesting parameters for the project, but Globality (or glebe), Utility and Tangibility may be more interesting parameters for a manager, and the expected result can be analyzed on a value parameter. The matrix below is an example of this explanation:
It is easy to classify the project when all the data is on the same line, but what about when we have multiple lines? What is the impact of a procedural project (such as total quality) applied nationally in the company, and which is already implemented? That is where mathematics comes into play.
We can use the Fibonacci sequence: 1,2,3,5,8 to realize the weights of each level. Why this sequence? Simply because our mind, subjectively, is more accustomed to this sequence, since its proportion is natural to biology, so we have:
In this way it is easier to identify where the project is, from the example given using the table, we have: a process project (tangibility = 2) applied at a national level in the company (globality = 3), and that is already implemented (usefulness = 5), we have then 2x3x5 = 30. Now it is up to the portfolio manager the rigor of the impact analysis. If we say that projects between 1 and 8 are projects that are still inaccessible, rather than projects that are already useful, then we are saying that the portfolio should not accept any personal level project whose tangibility is behavioral.
What would even make sense, that is, a project whose impact is only on a group of people and that involves their behavior may not be interesting to have in the portfolio management. For example, projects to create an on-boarding school for new employees.
The interesting thing about this analysis is the range of possibilities it offers, in the example given the impacts can have about 64 different results within the matrix. The projects can be grouped following an order from the highest impact to the lowest, and the manager can use the cost of each project as a tie-breaker for the case of those with the same score.
This way the management can have a better notion of how to choose the projects, having a more analytical vision and also more focused on the value of the project for the client.
댓글