Debates exist on the best way to measure value of IT investment. As pointed out by Jeffery and Leliveld (2004) , companies have spent billions of dollars into IT investment and yet the headlines of mis-spent money are not uncommon. Nicholas Carr (2003) has caused significant controversy in IT industry and academia by positioning IT as an expense similar to utilities such as electricity.
IT portfolio management started with a project-centric bias, but is evolving to include steady-state portfolio entries such as application maintenance and support, which consume the bulk of IT spending. The challenge for including application maintenance and support in portfolios is that IT budgets tend not to track these efforts at a sufficient level of granularity for effective financial tracking.
The concept is analogous to financial portfolio management, but there are significant differences. IT investments are not liquid, like stocks and bonds (although investment portfolios may also include illiquid assets), and are measured using both financial and non-financial yardsticks (for example, a balanced scorecard approach); a purely financial view is not sufficient.
Financial portfolio assets typically have consistent measurement information (enabling accurate and objective comparisons), and this is at the base of the concept’s usefulness in application to IT. However, achieving such universality of measurement is going to take considerable effort in the IT industry. (See Val IT.)
IT Portfolio management is distinct from IT financial management in that it has an explicitly directive, strategic goal in determining what to continue investing in versus what to divest from.
At its most mature, IT Portfolio management is accomplished through the creation of three portfolios:
Information Technology portfolio management as a systematic discipline is more applicable to larger IT organizations; in smaller organizations its concerns might be generalized into IT planning and governance as a whole.
Jeffery and Leliveld (2004) have listed several benefits of applying IT portfolio management approach for IT investments. They argue that agility of portfolio management is its biggest advantage over investment approaches and methods. Other benefits include central oversight of budget, risk management, strategic alignment of IT investments, demand and investment management along with standardization of investment procedure, rules and plans.
Jeffery and Leliveld (2004) have pointed out a number of hurdles and success factors that CIOs might face while attempting to implement IT portfolio management approach. To overcome these hurdles, simple methods such as proposed by Pisello (2001) can be used.
-Plan-- -- -build retire- -- -Maintain
Other implementation methods include (1) risk profile analysis (figure out what needs to be measured and what risks are associated with it), (2) Decide on the Diversification of projects, infrastructure and technologies (it is an important tool that IT portfolio management provides to judge the level of investments on the basis of how investments should be made in various elements of the portfolio), (3) Continuous Alignment with business goals (highest levels of organizations should have a buy-in in the portfolio) and (4) Continuous Improvement (lessons learned and investment adjustments).
There is no single best way to implement IT portfolio approach and therefore variety of approaches can applied. Obviously the methods are not set in stone and will need altering depending upon the individual circumstances of different organizations.
McFarlan is considered to be the first to propose portfolio management approach to IT assets and investments. Further contributions have been made by Weill and Broadbent,, Aitken, Kaplan, and Benson, Bugnitz, and Walton. The ITIL version 2 Business Perspective and Application Management volumes and the ITIL v3 Service Strategy volume also cover it in depth.
Various vendors have offerings explicitly branded as "IT Portfolio Management" solutions.
ISACA's Val IT framework is perhaps the first attempt at standardization of IT portfolio management principles.
In peer-reviewed research, Christopher Verhoef has found that IT portfolios statistically behave more akin to biological populations than financial portfolios.
Verhoef was general chair of the first convening of the new IEEE conference, "IEEE Equity," March 2007, which focuses on "quantitative methods for measuring, predicting, and understanding the relationship between IT and value."
High ^ |---------------------------------------------------------------| |strategic | Turnaround | Impact |---------------------------------------------------------------| of IS/IT |Critical to achieving |May be critical to | applications |future business strategy. |achieving future | on future | (Developer) |business success | industry | | (Entrepreneur) | competitiveness |Central Planning | | | |Leading Edge/Free Market | |---------------------------------------------------------------| |Critical to existing business |Valuable but not critical | |operations |to success | | (Controller) | (Caretaker) | | | | |Monopoly |Scarce Resource | |_______________________________|_______________________________| |Factory | Support | |<---------------------------------------------------------------Low High Value to the business of existing applications.