Optimal resource allocation business process and tools

• US 20030083912A1
• Filed: 10/25/2001
• Published: 05/01/2003
• Est. Priority Date: 10/25/2001
• Status: Abandoned Application

• Current Assignee: International Business Machines Corporation
• Original Assignee: International Business Machines Corporation
• Inventors: Jamil, Mamnoon, Covington, Roy B. III, Fagley, Patricia E., Peters, Daniel J.
• Application Number:
  US09/999,866
• Publication Number:
  US 20030083912A1
• Time in Patent Office: Days
• US Class Current: 705/7
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 10/06 Resources, workflows, human or project management; Enterprise or organisation planning; Enterprise or organisation modelling
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 10/0631 Resource planning, allocation, distributing or scheduling for enterprises or organisations

Abstract

A disciplined and rigorous method and structure for optimally allocating resources to projects within a business unit is disclosed. The method evaluates current and future projects with associated tools. The method prepares a matrix of performance measurements, desired level of performance (synthesized business model) and management functions. The method assesses the matrix for consolidation of projects and the requirement for additional projects after consolidation. The method incorporates benchmarking process, and attribute listings to identify key process and performance gaps.

Claims

1. A method of evaluating projects comprising:

completing a project matrix by assigning projects to matrix elements;

consolidating selected projects within said matrix elements; and

identifying any additional projects necessary to supplement projects within said matrix elements based on matrix coverage after said consolidation process.

2. The method of claim 1, further comprising determining a sufficiency of resources to close benchmarking gaps between desired performance levels and actual performance levels.

3. The method in claim 1, wherein said process of completing said project matrix comprises:

establishing desired performance levels for each of said performance measures; and

determining actual performance levels achieved for a plurality of performance measures.

4. The method in claim 3, further comprising comparing said actual performance levels and said desired performance levels to identify said benchmarking gaps.

5. The method in claim 3, further comprising determining said actual performance levels achieved for management functions, wherein each of said performance measures includes a plurality of said management functions.

6. The method in claim 5, wherein said project matrix includes between 3 and 6 of said performance measures and between 3 and 6 of said management functions.

7. The method in claim 3, wherein:

said actual performance levels include;

inferior, comparable, superior, and world-class leadership, and

said desired performance levels include;

comparable, superior, and world-class leadership.

8. The method in claim 7, wherein one of said performance measures has a world-class leadership desired performance level, one of said performance measures has a superior desired performance level, and remaining ones of said performance measures have comparable desired performance levels.

9. The method in claim 1, wherein said consolidating process and said process of identifying additional projects limits a number of projects within each of said matrix elements to maintain management focus.

10. A method of evaluating projects comprising:

completing a project matrix by assigning projects to matrix elements, wherein said matrix elements comprise performance measures, each associated with a plurality of management functions;

establishing desired performance levels for said performance measures;

determining actual performance levels achieved for each of said management functions within each of said performance measures;

comparing said actual performance levels and said desired performance levels to identify benchmarking gaps; and

determining a sufficiency of resources to close said benchmarking gaps.

11. The method in claim 10, further comprising:

consolidating selected projects within said matrix elements; and

identifying any additional projects necessary to supplement projects within said matrix elements based on matrix coverage after said consolidation process.

12. The method in claim 11, wherein said consolidating process and said process of identifying additional projects limits a number of projects within each of said matrix elements to maintain management focus.

13. The method in claim 10, wherein each of said performance measures includes more than one of said management functions.

14. The method in claim 10, wherein said project matrix includes between 3 and 6 of said performance measures and between 3 and 6 of said management functions.

15. The method in claim 10, wherein:

said actual performance levels include;

inferior, comparable, superior, and world-class leadership, and

said desired performance levels include;

comparable, superior, and world-class leadership.

16. The method in claim 15, wherein one of said performance measures has a world-class leadership desired performance level, one of said performance measures has a superior desired performance level, and remaining ones of said performance measures have comparable desired performance levels.

17. A method of evaluating projects comprising:

completing a project matrix by assigning projects to matrix elements, wherein said matrix elements comprise performance measures, each associated with a plurality of management functions;

establishing desired performance levels for said performance measures, wherein one of said performance measures has a highest desired performance level, one of said performance measures has a second highest performance level and remaining ones of said performance measures have a third highest desired performance level;

determining actual performance levels achieved for each of said management functions within each of said performance measures;

comparing said actual performance levels and said desired performance levels to identify benchmarking gaps; and

determining a sufficiency of resources to close said benchmarking gaps.

18. The method in claim 17, further comprising:

consolidating selected projects within said matrix elements; and

identifying any additional projects necessary to supplement selected projects within said matrix elements based on matrix coverage after said consolidation process.

19. The method in claim 18, wherein said consolidating process and said process of identifying additional projects limits a number of projects within each of said matrix elements to maintain management focus.

20. The method in claim 17, wherein each of said performance measures includes more than one of said management functions.

21. The method in claim 17, wherein said project matrix includes between 3 and 6 of said performance measures and between 3 and 6 of said management functions.

22. The method in claim 17, wherein:

said actual performance levels include;

inferior, comparable, superior, and world-class leadership, and

said desired performance levels include;

comparable, superior, and world-class leadership.

23. The method in claim 22, wherein one of said performance measures has a world-class leadership desired performance level, one of said performance measures has a superior desired performance level and remaining ones of said performance measures have comparable desired performance levels.

24. A program storage device readable by machine, tangibly embodying a program of instructions executable by the machine to perform a method of evaluating projects comprising:

completing a project matrix by assigning projects to matrix elements;

consolidating selected projects within said matrix elements; and

identifying any additional projects necessary to supplement projects within said matrix elements based on matrix coverage after said consolidation process.

25. The method of claim 24, further comprising determining a sufficiency of resources to close benchmarking gaps between desired performance levels and actual performance levels.

26. The program storage device in claim 24, wherein said process of completing said project matrix comprises:

establishing desired performance levels for each of said performance measures; and

determining actual performance levels achieved for a plurality of performance measures.

27. The program storage device in claim 26, wherein said method further comprises comparing said actual performance levels and said desired performance levels to identify said benchmarking gaps.

28. The program storage device in claim 26, wherein said method further comprises determining said actual performance levels achieved for management functions, wherein each of said performance measures includes a plurality of said management functions.

29. The program storage device in claim 28, wherein said project matrix includes between 3 and 6 of said performance measures and between 3 and 6 of said management functions.

30. The program storage device in claim 24, wherein:

said actual performance levels include;

inferior, comparable, superior, and world-class leadership, and

said desired performance levels include;

comparable, superior, and world-class leadership.

31. The program storage device in claim 26, wherein one of said performance measures has a world-class leadership desired performance level, one of said performance measures has a superior desired performance level, and remaining ones of said performance measures have comparable desired performance levels.

32. The program storage device in claim 24, wherein said consolidating process and said process of identifying additional projects a number of projects within each of said matrix elements to maintain management focus.