WO2022108458A1

WO2022108458A1 - A project tool

Info

Publication number: WO2022108458A1
Application number: PCT/NZ2021/050204
Authority: WO
Inventors: Donald Ross Walker HORSBURGH
Original assignee: Ailteir Ltd
Current assignee: Ailteir Ltd
Priority date: 2020-11-19
Filing date: 2021-11-19
Publication date: 2022-05-27
Anticipated expiration: 2023-05-19

Abstract

Methods and systems for identifying issues with projects and project teams are described. Organisational data relating to one or more projects is received, along with survey data including answers to survey questions presented to project team members. The organisational data and the survey data are combined into a data model, and the data model analysed to identify data anomalies and/or performance trends. The results of the analysis are reported, along with remedial actions if deemed required.

Description

A PROJECT TOOL

STATEMENT OF CORRESPONDING APPLICATIONS

[0001] The present disclosure is based on the specification filed in relation to New Zealand Patent Application No. 770127, the entire contents of which are incorporated herein by reference.

TECHNICAL FIELD

[0002] The present disclosure relates in general to project portfolio evaluation tools and to the reporting mechanisms employed by traditional project portfolio management tools.

BACKGROUND

[0003] As used in this application, a 'project' is a task, typically an extensive series of tasks, undertaken by one or more people formed into a team for the duration of the execution of the tasks. A project often represents an important commercial or organizational venture and may exist either standalone, or as part of a broader programme of change comprised of multiple projects. These programmes are often then further grouped into portfolios. Success depends on the performance of the teams and the resources they are allocated to allow them to complete their tasks.

[0004] A project typically introduces significant change into the business or organisation. This change most often, though not always, relates to the way in which people, particularly employees, view and carry out their work tasks.

[0005] A project can be said to have been successful if, in the judgement of the sponsor and where appropriate stakeholders within the organisation, the project is deemed to have fulfilled its agreed objectives, delivered the planned benefits and to have done so within any targeted timeframes and budgets. This is generally achieved by reporting the key metrics of budget used, schedule met, and work completed. Although key to the success of a project is the sentiment and unity of the team delivering the work there is generally no process in current project management methodologies to measure this.

[0006] Being able to reliably predict the outcome of a project before or during implementation would be very beneficial because if success can be demonstrated as either uncertain or unlikely, then corrective or remedial measures could be taken to increase the likelihood of success. These measures generally include measures such as increased budgets, additional time to complete, reduction in scope etc. These measures rarely address any shortcomings in the team performance or unity.

[0007] Reporting of project performance has traditionally concentrated on a core set of metrics, budget, schedule and percentage of work completed. Despite these tools, projects continued to have a relatively high rate of failure especially those relating to information technology. Articles detailing records of this failure are numerous.

[0008] In recent years greater emphasis has been placed on the performance of the project team in terms of unity and culture. In the face of seemingly positive performance indicators it is sometimes difficult for the members of the governance group of a project to reconcile that with personal feedback that they receive through social interaction with other team members. No method exists in the prior art for easily predicting project outcomes in respect of both traditional project metrics and the performance and unity of the project team. A need accordingly exists for a tool for reliable early intervention to ensure project success.

[0009] Aspects of the technology of the present disclosure are directed to overcoming one or more of the problems discussed above. It is an object of the present invention to address one or more of the foregoing problems or at least to provide the public with a useful choice.

[0010] Further aspects and advantages of the present disclosure will become apparent from the ensuing description which is given by way of example only.

SUMMARY

[0011] In accordance with a preferred embodiment of the invention, a method and apparatus are provided for identifying issues with projects and project teams. Consequentially as a direct result of the hierarchal nature of projects to programmes and portfolios this increases the likelihood of success across an organisational entity.

[0012] Numerical values are assigned to a set of answers to questions asked of individual project team members. The questions are designed to identify the team member's perception of how the key constraints affecting the outcome of the project are interpreted. The values are assigned on a weighted basis according to the subjective evaluation of each question with respect to the project.

[0013] Survey takers are identified by their project roles (for example sponsor, project manager, stakeholder and team member) and the roles may be further identified and grouped for example as either governance (such as sponsor, project manager and stakeholder) and non-governance roles.

[0014] Individual answers are grouped by survey scores, by project and question theme. Answers to the questions by survey takers are rated such as using a Likert scale from 1 to 5 and the mode used to identify predominant attitude or common perception related to the questions.

[0015] Team by team variance across question themes and by project groupings are compared initially using a statistical technique such as ANOVA (Analysis of Variation). This comparison is used initially to establish the lack or presence of variation across groupings i.e. the level of data consistency across the survey takers and the grouping they are divided into.

[0016] Data is also obtained from the organisation regarding the budget remaining, scheduled time and work remaining of the projects along with the organisation's assessment of status. The status may be indicated as red, amber or green (RAG). Project data received from the client organisation is measured using at least two indicators, such as cost performance (CPI) and schedule performance (SPI). These indicators are documented and have been established by the Project Management Institute (PMI) (see "A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge" (PMBOK®Guide)).

[0017] The following provides rules for the earned value calculations used to determine the CPI and SPI.

[0018] The following are the formulas used for CPI and SPI:

• CPI (Cost Performance Index) = BCWP / ACWP

• SPI (Schedule Performance Index) = BCWP / BCWS

Where:

• BCWP (Budgeted Cost of Work Performed) = Activity Baseline Budgeted Cost x Physical % of Work Actually Completed

• ACWP (Actual Cost of Work Performed) = Actual Cost to Date

Where:

• BCWP (Budgeted Cost of Work Performed) = Task Baseline Budgeted Cost x Physical % of Work Actually Completed

• BCWS (Budgeted Cost of Work Scheduled) = Task Baseline Budgeted Cost x (Days Since Baseline Task Start/ Total Duration of the Task in Days

[0019] CPI and SPI calculations would both be considered optimal if resulting in an integer outcome of 1. The indicators tend to centre around 1, to represent this variation the system uses a set of calculations or ranges to arrive at a Red, Amber and Green value for each indicator.

[0020] For example, Schedule Performance Index (SPI) ranges may include:

• Green: 0.95 < SPI < 1.05

• Yellow: 0.90 < SPI < 0.95 or 1.05 < SPI < 1.10

• Red: SPI < 0.90 or SPI > 1.10

[0021] Cost Performance Index (CPI) ranges may include:

Green: 0.95 < CPI < 1.05 • Yellow: 0.90 < CPI < 0.95 or 1.05 < CPI < 1.10

• Red: CPI < 0.90 or CPI > 1.10

[0022] The two values are then added together for example using the following table to establish an overall marking for the organizational performance indicator.

[0023] The shortcomings of the prior art are overcome, and additional advantages are provided through the provision of a method of assessing a project. The method includes identifying multiple possible root causes of concern for a project and identifying question sets for the possible root causes of concern.

[0024] The method further includes providing a computer-implemented tool to evaluate answers to the question sets and provide guidance regarding possible existence of one or more root causes of concern for the project from the identified possible root causes of concern.

[0025] Further aspects of the method include evaluating project management processes employed for the project by comparison to identified, standard project management processes and methodologies. Systems and computer program products corresponding to the above-summarized methods are also described and claimed herein.

[0026] The evaluation applied to determine the probability of success of the project is based upon empirical benchmark data evaluated based on prior project scores and outcomes and from a range of sectors and industries. If desired, project changes can be implemented, and new values assigned to one or more factors to improve the score and increase the probability of success of the project. All calculations are subjected to trend and correlation analysis to identify insights gained from change over time in survey answers.

[0027] One advantage of this method is that it allows project planners to intervene early to increase the likelihood of project success. The method assists those involved in the project in identifying and understanding what factors significantly affect the outcome of the project, and in adjusting increase the probability of successful implementation.

[0028] Remediation advice, if necessary, is provided for a number of recognised scenarios. One example would be poor results across the entire project portfolio identified through inconsistent variance of answers identified by ANOVA technique, organisational performance indicator (a combination of CPI and SPI results) and weighted survey responses with an answer score of greater than 75%.

[0029] Weighting is used to avoid using extreme response categories (Central tendency bias) or agreeing with statements as presented (Acquiescence bias) or try to portray themselves or their organization in a more favourable light (Social desirability bias). This for example would require a review of current PPM processes and project resource management using a needs and gap analysis.

[0030] This done by assigning uniform weights to the grouping responses which will remain unchanged for all items based on the empirical probability of the response category occurring. In other words, weight for the response category is the ratio of total frequency of the category (over all items) and grand total of the item.

[0031] Another would be poor results with identified variation across groups and weighted score of less than 75% of the survey takers by a key theme area i.e. vision, cost etc. This would necessitate identification of the root cause and a resolution such as technical training to address the gap.

[0032] According to one aspect of the present technology there is provided a computer-implemented method for identifying issues with projects and project teams, the method including: utilizing at least one processor to execute computer code that performs the steps of: receiving organisational data relating to one or more projects; receiving survey data, the survey data including answers to survey questions presented to project team members; combining the organisational data and the survey data into a data model; analysing the data model to identify data anomalies and/or performance trends; and reporting the results of the analysis.

[0033] In examples, the method further includes determining at least one recommended remedial action based on the results of the analysis, and reporting the remedial action.

[0034] In examples, the method further includes generating at least one dashboard reporting the outcome of the analysis.

[0035] In examples, the survey data is weighted prior to combining with the organisational data.

[0036] In examples, the organisational data includes, for each of the one or more projects, one or more of: budget remaining, scheduled time, work remaining, and/or a subjective assessment of status.

[0037] In examples, the method includes generating one or more performance indicators for the organisational data.

[0038] According to one aspect of the present technology there is provided a system for identifying issues with projects and project teams, the system including: at least one processor; and a computer readable storage medium having computer readable program code embodied therewith and executable by the at least one processor, the computer readable program code including: computer readable program code that receives organisational data relating to one or more projects; computer readable program code that receives survey data, the survey data including answers to survey questions presented to project team members; computer readable program code that combines the organisational data and the survey data into a data model; computer readable program code that analyses the data model to identify data anomalies and/or performance trends; and computer readable program code that reports the results of the analysis.

[0039] According to one aspect of the present technology there is provided a computer program product for identifying issues with projects and project teams, the computer program product including a computer readable storage medium having computer readable program code embodied therewith, the computer readable program code including: computer readable program code that receives organisational data relating to one or more projects; computer readable program code that receives survey data, the survey data including answers to survey questions presented to project team members; computer readable program code that combines the organisational data and the survey data into a data model; computer readable program code that analyses the data model to identify data anomalies and/or performance trends; and computer readable program code that reports the results of the analysis.

[0040] The above and other features will become apparent from the following description and the attached drawings.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

[0041] Further aspects of the present disclosure will become apparent from the following description which is given by way of example only and with reference to the accompanying drawings in which: [0042] FIG. 1 is a block diagram of one embodiment of a process for receiving organisational data in accordance with one aspect of the present technology.

[0043] FIG. 2 is a block diagram of one embodiment of a process for receiving survey data in accordance with one aspect of the present technology

[0044] FIG. 3 is an exemplary question set used by team members to ascertain team unity and sentiment. [0045] FIG. 4 is a block diagram of an embodiment of a process for receiving survey data in accordance with one aspect of the present technology.

[0046] FIG. 5 is a block diagram of the reporting entities used in aspects of the present technology.

[0047] FIG. 6 describes the makeup of roles within project teams it also highlights which roles are part of the governance and non-governance groups within the project teams.

[0048] FIG. 7 is a block diagram of the process for identifying remedial action in accordance with one aspect of the present technology.

[0049] FIG. 8 illustrates an exemplary generated dashboard page, according to one aspect of the present technology.

[0050] FIG. 9 is a system diagram of the project tool system in accordance with one aspect of the present technology.

[0051] FIG. 10 is a block diagram illustrating one embodiment of an enterprise business intelligence system with a configurable business intelligence dashboard and a business intelligence dashboard assembly tool in accordance with one aspect of the present technology.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

[0052] The project assessment tool and process described herein allows the system to quickly identify issues and concerns with projects using data sets collected from traditional project management methodology metrics and team unity/sentiment. It allows for identification of the adequacy of the implementation project management methodology best practices and highlights anomalous team performance in regard to unity and sentiment by team role.

[0053] The project assessment tool uses a combination of project data and 360 degree analysis of stakeholders or those involved to assess the project status and uncover the full picture of what is happening with the project. The tool measures the team alignment providing key insights into team unity and sentiment. The tool also identifies performance trends using key project data to identify projects in need of attention.

[0054] The tool and the process to apply the tool to an assessment, establishes discipline in organizing the review, collection of the project management performance metrics and identifying the project team members to survey. Answers to the survey question are scored and allow the tool to identify the significance of the evidence regarding the existence of a particular cause of concern. The questions determine whether a particular root cause exists and form a core that the subsequent analysis is built around.

[0055] In one aspect, the assessment process requires that the project management system also be evaluated. Using the standard project process structure advocated by the Project Management Institute (PMI), the PRINCE2 framework and Agile project management approaches as widely recognized best practices, the assessment tool and process provides the recipient of the analysis the means to understand the application of best practices to the particular project or group of projects in a programme or portfolio. [0056] The tool and process recognize that individual project management performance should be considered to conclude whether or not it is being effectively implemented. The tool/process includes an automated scoring mechanism that aggregates the metrics regarding budget (cost), time (schedule) and work (tasks completed) into a score which is then used as a comparative measure for projects.

[0057] The combination of the two views— the root cause view computed based on scored question answers and the project view computed based on the core metrics provide the system with data to identify and rank insights into what is wrong with a project or group of projects and which processes and team members or roles contribute most to a potential failure. This allows the system to quickly develop recommendations for corrective action, if needed.

[0058] During analysis, for each potential problem area, the system looks for trends and correlations between current performance and areas of constraint. Problem areas are mapped to the common constraints referenced generically in project management processes/frameworks established by the Project Management Institute (PMI), PRINCE2 and AgilePM: Vision; Scope; Time; Cost; Risk; Quality; and Benefits.

[0059] The system conducts further analysis, based on indications of the possible failure to properly implement these best practice processes and nurture team performance.

[0060] Interaction between the client computer and the survey web server largely proceeds along the flow diagram illustrated in FIG. 1. From the start box 10, the client connects to the system tool web site. At 10, it is determined if the client is already a registered customer with the survey web site. If the client is not a registered member of the service, then access is prohibited. If the client is already registered then client is permitted to upload the organisational data on customer's portfolios, programmes and projects by means of a spreadsheet template. Once notification has been received that the data has been uploaded the data is then checked and loaded into the project tool system at 20. The remaining task at 30 is to apply the project data weighting.

[0061] Once the data has been received then the process diagrammed in FIG. 2 is followed. This begins at 40 where the project tool survey is sent to project team members, a list of which was provided with the organisation data at 10. At 50 surveys are receipted and an acknowledgment is sent to the survey taker. The survey data is loaded into the data source in the project tool system at 60, the remaining task of applying the answer weighting is executed at 70. FIG. 3 shows the associated question set used by team members to ascertain team unity and sentiment.

[0062] FIG. 4 is a block diagram of an embodiment of a process for receiving survey data. The process begins by combining the organisational data and the survey data collected via surveys at 80 and 75 into a single data model. That data model which is consistent with all other customer instances is analysed at 85 to identify data anomalies and performance trends. Once that has been completed then a series of templated dashboards are created at 90. Last step is to create the remediation dashboard for consumption by customer at 95.

[0063] FIG. 5 is a diagram of the reporting entities used in the invention. It describes the relationship between portfolios, programmes and projects which are hierarchical in nature with projects the lowest unit. It also highlights the two key pieces of organisational data they are consumed by the invention i.e. cost and time.

[0064] FIG. 6 describes the makeup of roles within project teams it also highlights which roles are part of the governance and non-governance groups within the project teams.

[0065] FIG. 7 is a block diagram of the process for identifying remedial action. The process begins with a check using the statistical function ANOVA with the overall responses to the question themes at 200. In addition, the organisational performance indicator (OPI) is recorded and team unity indicator (TUI). If the ANOVA function returns no anomalies and the operational performance indicator is green and the team unity indicator is greater than 75 then the survey is given as a clean bill of health. At 210 this is reported back to the customer. Should any of these conditions not be met then a second test is done at 220 where if the OPI it was red and TUI is less than 75% then remedial action is identified and reported back to the client.

[0066] The decision tree process continues on to 240 to begin checking each reporting segment for anomalies. The project tool system checks the ANOVA results for project portfolios, roles, governance and lastly question themes at 250A, 250B, 250C and 250D. If the results are negative then the project tool system checks to see if outliers in each of the segments can be identified at steps 260A, 260B, 260C, 260D, dependent on the result then customer is provided with remedial action to take in respect of each of these segments. The remedial action is delivered via a separate dashboard.

[0067] FIG. 8 shows an exemplary wire form diagram modelled from a deployed dashboard, according to one aspect of the present technology. This example illustrates a page demonstrating the ability of the technology to highlight anomalies from the survey responses. For example, the information presented in the upper middle pane indicates the ranking of projects by survey response markings based on the pareto principle. This however is at odds with the information contained in the lower right-hand pane. The blockchain project has the largest variation in markings whereas it has the second largest overall marking from the survey data. Information contained in the lower centre pane provides the insight achieved using the present technology. Whilst the overall marking for the blockchain project is high there is a considerable variation between the marking of the project team members and that of the governance group, i.e. the sponsor, project manager and key stakeholders. These and other insights garnered from the other dashboards and the data analysis help visually inform the users of the technology.

[0068] FIG. 9 is a system diagram of the project tool system, in accordance with an embodiment of the invention. The network 104 represents the communication pathways between the User 103, the administrator 103 and the project tool system 106. In one embodiment, the network is the Internet. The network can also utilize dedicated or private communication links (e.g., WAN, MAN, or LAN) that are not necessarily part of the Internet. The network uses standard communications technologies and/or protocols.

[0069] The web server 105 presents web pages or other web content, which form the basic interface to the user and administrator clients 101, 103. The user and administrator use respective client devices 101, 103 to access one or more web pages, and provide data to the project tool system 106. In the context of this application, "data" is understood to include information about a project or responses to surveys. For example, for information related to a project, the data can include information such as cost, schedule.

[0070] A user is one type of operator of the project tool system 106. The user provides data to the project tool system 106 by answering a set of questions in a survey using a user client device 101. The project tool system 106 then provides several dashboards for operation by the user.

[0071] The administrator is another type of user of the project tool system 106. The administrator provides dashboards through the project tool system 106 based on a data supplied by the user client device 103. The project tool system 106 lists the insights along with the recommendations.

[0072] In one embodiment, the client devices 101, 103 are used by the user and hosts for interacting with the project tool system 106. A client device can be any device that is or incorporates a computer such as a personal Project tool system.

[0073] The project tool system 106 may include other modules not described herein that are known to those skilled in the art. In addition, standard elements, such as firewalls, authentication systems, payment processing systems, network management tools, load balancers, and so forth, are not shown as they are not relevant to the invention. The system 106 would be implemented on a network of cloud-based computers. Computer programs installed in computer storage and executed by processors can be used to control the operations of the described system 106. For data access and retrieval, the various stores (e.g., data sources 118A, 118B, 118N, etc.) are implemented with computer-readable storage devices and appropriate database management systems. Other hardware elements necessary to perform the operations described here include network interfaces and protocols, input devices for data entry, and output devices for displaying, printing, or presenting data.

[0074] FIG. 10 depicts additional detail for cloud-based Business Intelligence (Bl) system 113 and how it may be used to generate reports that may then be available to Bl dashboard assembly tool 110 as resource content elements to potentially add to Bl dashboard 109. Any icon, widget, or other user interface element that represents, provides data from, or links to any type of resource, such as a Bl report, a software application, a database, a spreadsheet, a data structure, a flat file, Extensible Markup Language ("XML") data, a data stream, unorganized text or data, or other type of file or resource, may be generically referred to as a "resource content element".

[0075] As depicted in FIG. 10, cloud-based business intelligence system 113 is implemented in accordance with a three-tier architecture: (1) one or more web servers 113A that provide web applications 114 with user interface functions; (2) one or more application servers 113B that provide an operating environment for cloud-based software applications 115 and a data access service 116; and (3) database servers 113C that provide one or more data sources 113C. The data sources 113C may include two-dimensional databases and/or multidimensional databases, i.e. cubes. The data sources may be implemented using a variety of vendor platforms and may be distributed throughout the cloud-based system. As one example, the data sources 113C may be multidimensional databases configured for Online Analytical Processing (OLAP). As another example, the data sources 113C may be multidimensional databases configured to receive and execute Multidimensional Expression (MDX) queries of some arbitrary level of complexity. Yet another example, the data sources 113C may be two-dimensional relational databases configured to receive and execute SQL queries, also with an arbitrary level of complexity.

[0076] The applications 111 on computing device 107 may issue business queries to cloud-based business intelligence system 113 to build reports. Cloud-based business intelligence system 113 includes a data access service 116 that provides a logical interface to the data sources 113C. Computing device 107 may transmit query requests through cloud-based network 112 to data access service 116. Data access service 116 may, for example, execute on the application servers intermediate to the cloud-based applications

115 and the underlying data sources 113C. Data access service 116 retrieves a query result set from the underlying data sources, in accordance with query specifications. Data access service 116 intercepts or receives queries, e.g., by way of an API presented to cloud-based applications 115. Data access service

116 may then return this result set to cloud-based applications 115, 111 as Bl reports that are made available to Bl dashboard assembly tool 110 on computing device 16A.

[0077] For a firmware and/or software (also known as a computer program) implementation, the techniques of the present disclosure may be implemented as instructions (for example, procedures, functions, and so on) that perform the functions described. It should be appreciated that the present disclosure is not described with reference to any particular programming languages, and that a variety of programming languages could be used to implement the present invention. The firmware and/or software codes may be stored in a memory, or embodied in any other processor readable medium, and executed by a processor or processors. The memory may be implemented within the processor or external to the processor. A general purpose processor may be a microprocessor, but in the alternative, the processor may be any processor, controller, microcontroller, or state machine. A processor may also be implemented as a combination of computing devices, for example, a combination of a digital signal processor (DSP) and a microprocessor, a plurality of microprocessors, one or more microprocessors in conjunction with a DSP core, or any other such configuration. The processors may function in conjunction with servers, whether cloud based or dedicated, and network connections as known in the art.

[0078] The steps of a method, process, or algorithm described in connection with the present disclosure may be embodied directly in hardware, in a software module executed by one or more processors, or in a combination of the two. The various steps or acts in a method or process may be performed in the order shown, or may be performed in another order. Additionally, one or more process or method steps may be omitted or one or more process or method steps may be added to the methods and processes. An additional step, block, or action may be added in the beginning, end, or intervening existing elements of the methods and processes.

[0079] The illustrated embodiments of the disclosure will be best understood by reference to the figures. The foregoing description is intended only by way of example and simply illustrates certain selected exemplary embodiments of the disclosure. It should be noted that the flowchart and block diagrams in the figures illustrate the architecture, functionality, and operation of possible implementations of systems, apparatuses, methods and computer program products according to various embodiments of the disclosure. In this regard, each block in the flowchart or block diagrams may represent a module, segment, or portion of code, which includes at least one executable instruction for implementing the specified logical function(s). It should also be noted that, in some alternative implementations, the functions noted in the block may occur out of the order noted in the figures. For example, two blocks shown in succession may, in fact, be executed substantially concurrently, or the blocks may sometimes be executed in the reverse order, depending upon the functionality involved. It will also be noted that each block of the block diagrams and/or flowchart illustration, and combinations of blocks in the block diagrams and/or flowchart illustration, can be implemented by special purpose hardware-based systems that perform the specified functions or acts, or combinations of special purpose hardware and computer instructions.

[0080] The entire disclosures of all applications, patents and publications cited above and below, if any, are herein incorporated by reference. Reference to any prior art in this specification is not, and should not be taken as, an acknowledgement or any form of suggestion that the prior art forms part of the common general knowledge in the field of endeavour in any country in the world.

[0081] The invention(s) of the present disclosure may also be said broadly to consist in the parts, elements and features referred to or indicated in the specification of the application, individually or collectively, in any or all combinations of two or more of said parts, elements or features. Where in the foregoing description reference has been made to integers or components having known equivalents thereof, those integers are herein incorporated as if individually set forth.

[0082] Furthermore, the described features, structures, or characteristics may be combined in any suitable manner in at least one embodiment. In the foregoing description, numerous specific details are provided to give a thorough understanding of the exemplary embodiments. One skilled in the relevant art may well recognize, however, that embodiments of the disclosure can be practiced without at least one of the specific details thereof, or can be practiced with other methods, components, materials, et cetera. In other instances, well-known structures, materials, or operations are not shown or described in detail to avoid obscuring aspects of the invention.

[0083] Throughout this specification, the word "comprise" or "include", or variations thereof such as "comprises", "includes", "comprising" or "including" will be understood to imply the inclusion of a stated element, integer or step, or group of elements integers or steps, but not the exclusion of any other element, integer or step, or group of elements, integers or steps, that is to say, in the sense of "including, but not limited to".

[0084] Aspects of the present disclosure have been described by way of example only and it should be appreciated that modifications and additions may be made thereto without departing from the scope thereof.

Claims

1. A method for identifying issues with projects and project teams, the method including: utilizing at least one processor to execute computer code that performs the steps of: receiving organisational data relating to one or more projects; receiving survey data, the survey data including answers to survey questions presented to project team members; combining the organisational data and the survey data into a data model; analysing the data model to identify data anomalies and/or performance trends; and reporting the results of the analysis.

2. The method of claim 1, further including determining at least one recommended remedial action based on the results of the analysis, and reporting the remedial action.

3. The method of claim 1 or claim 2, further including generating at least one dashboard reporting the outcome of the analysis.

4. The method of claim 1 or claim 3, wherein the survey data is weighted prior to combining with the organisational data.

5. The method of any one of claims 1 to 4, wherein the organisational data includes, for each of the one or more projects, one or more of: budget remaining, scheduled time, work remaining, and/or a subjective assessment of status.

6. The method of any one of claims 1 to 5, including generating one or more performance indicators for the organisational data.

7. A system for identifying issues with projects and project teams, the system including: at least one processor; and a computer readable storage medium having computer readable program code embodied therewith and executable by the at least one processor, the computer readable program code including: computer readable program code that receives organisational data relating to one or more projects; computer readable program code that receives survey data, the survey data including answers to survey questions presented to project team members; computer readable program code that combines the organisational data and the survey data into a data model; computer readable program code that analyses the data model to identify data anomalies and/or performance trends; and computer readable program code that reports the results of the analysis.

8. A computer program product for identifying issues with projects and project teams, the computer program product including a computer readable storage medium having computer readable program code embodied therewith, the computer readable program code including: computer readable program code that receives organisational data relating to one or more projects; computer readable program code that receives survey data, the survey data including answers to survey questions presented to project team members; computer readable program code that combines the organisational data and the survey data into a data model; computer readable program code that analyses the data model to identify data anomalies and/or performance trends; and computer readable program code that reports the results of the analysis.