While complete objectivity is difficult to achieve, the project scorecard process is intended to be as close to reflecting common and agreed upon assessment criteria as possible. The 1 to 5 ranking values provides a set of common criteria in a number of key areas. The project score should not be confused with the project's priority. Priority is an indication of which projects should be worked on first, while the scorecard offers a hint as to the probable success of the project. Sometimes a project will have a high score but will not be scheduled because other more important projects need to be completed first. In each of the following categories, a rank of zero through five is possible. Zero indicates that no value was provided. The rankings of one through five are defined as follows: | Table plus |
|---|
| columnStyles | width:25px,width:800px |
|---|
| | Anchor |
|---|
| scorecard_strategic_value |
|---|
| scorecard_strategic_value |
|---|
|
Strategic Value
An indication of how the project addresses the goals of the entire University, UCI campus, or requesting unit. 1 | The project addresses no specific strategic goals at any organizational level. |
|---|
| 2 | Strategic goals are defined but the project does not support them. |
|---|
| 3 | Project supports strategic goals for the functional unit. |
|---|
| 4 | Project supports campus wide strategic goals. |
|---|
| 5 | Project supports campus wide and UC system wide strategic goals. |
|---|
|
| Table plus |
|---|
| columnStyles | width:25px,width:800px |
|---|
| User Priority & Commitment | | Anchor |
|---|
| scorecard_user_priority |
|---|
| scorecard_user_priority |
|---|
|
User Priority & Commitment
An indication of how critical the project is to a department and the project's benefit to to constituents. Includes a measure of the functional unit's engagement and resource allocation for leadership, planning, analysis, testing, etc. 1 | Functional unit is not ready to commit required resources to implement the project. |
|---|
| 2 | Functional unit is generally aware of resource requirements but has not yet identified resources required to implement. |
|---|
| 3 | Functional unit fully understands the resource requirements but is not yet able to commit resources. |
|---|
| 4 | Functional unit is ready to implement and has identified required resources but is not yet able to commit due to other priorities. |
|---|
| 5 | Project is one of the functional unit's highest priorities. Unit is committed to implementing the project and resources have been identified. |
|---|
|
| Table plus |
|---|
| columnStyles | width:25px,width:800px |
|---|
| Criticality| Anchor |
|---|
| scorecard_criticality |
|---|
| scorecard_criticality |
|---|
|
CriticalityA value representing the overall criticality of the project to campus mission. Legal requirements and mandates can drive criticality since these are often accompanied by penalties for noncompliance. 1 | Project is not critical to business functions. |
|---|
| 2 | Work arounds exist, making this project less critical to business. |
|---|
| 3 | If project is not done, high financial costs will be incurred but business can still be conducted with alternative solutions or manual work arounds. |
|---|
| 4 | If project is not done, other high value projects will slip or will need to be cancelled, or an interruption of service will occur. |
|---|
| 5 | If project is not done, the campus will be at risk of litigation, out of compliance with mandates, or incur high financial penalties. |
|---|
|
| Table plus |
|---|
| columnStyles | width:25px,width:800px |
|---|
| Risk Mitigation| Anchor |
|---|
| scorecard_risk_mitigation |
|---|
| scorecard_risk_mitigation |
|---|
|
Risk Mitigation
A value representing the overall impact on mitigation of risk factors. When determining risk avoidance, the probability of threats, the vulnerability of the system to those threats, and the impact if the threat occurs, should all be considered. 1 | No obvious reduction of risk. |
|---|
| 2 | Minor, but measurable reduction of risk. |
|---|
| 3 | Moderate reduction of risk. |
|---|
| 4 | Significant reduction of risk. |
|---|
| 5 | Nearly complete elimination of risk. |
|---|
|
| Table plus |
|---|
| columnStyles | width:25px,width:800px |
|---|
| Impact & Visibility | | Anchor |
|---|
| scorecard_impact |
|---|
| scorecard_impact |
|---|
|
Impact & Visibility
The relative size of the population that will be impacted by the project. When counting users, students, faculty, and staff are all included. 1 | 1 to 25 users will be impacted slightly with minor or no improvements to operations. |
|---|
| 2 | 1 to 25 users ill be impacted but with significant improvements to operations. |
|---|
| 3 | 25 to 1,000 users will be impacted. |
|---|
| 4 | 1,000 to 5,000 users impacted. |
|---|
| 5 | 5,000 or more users impacted. |
|---|
|
| Table plus |
|---|
| columnStyles | width:25px,width:800px |
|---|
| Savings & Efficiency | | Anchor |
|---|
| scorecard_savings |
|---|
| scorecard_savings |
|---|
|
Savings & Efficiency
The relative value of the project in terms of actual revenue or indirect costs in the form of staff work hours or other efficiencies. 1 | No measurable cost savings or revenue gains, or the project will result in additional costs that will not be offset. |
|---|
| 2 | Cost savings or efficiencies are possible but difficult to quantify and not included in proposal. |
|---|
| 3 | Project clearly creates savings, improves efficiencies or increases revenue but only down the line and measures may not be very accurate. |
|---|
| 4 | Project saves significant monies, creates measurable efficiencies, or generates revenue for a functional unit. |
|---|
| 5 | Project saves significant monies, creates measurable efficiencies, or generates revenue for the campus or university. |
|---|
|
| Table plus |
|---|
| columnStyles | width:25px,width:800px |
|---|
| Readiness to Move Forward | | Anchor |
|---|
| scorecard_readiness |
|---|
| scorecard_readiness |
|---|
|
Readiness to Move Forward
The readiness of OIT and the functional unit in terms of active project leadership, available in-house technical expertise, momentum, support, community buy-in, project plan completeness, potential for success, etc. 1 | Project cannot be scheduled due to poorly understood requirements or missing specifications. |
|---|
| 2 | All technical issues are understood but planning is not complete and resource requirements are unknown. |
|---|
| 3 | Planning is complete and project could be scheduled but funding or staff have not yet been identified in either OIT or the functional unit. |
|---|
| 4 | All resources are available but the project cannot be started for other reasons. |
|---|
| 5 | All required resources are available in OIT and the functional unit and the project is ready to proceed. |
|---|
|
|