A.2. System portfolio review report

Objective

The system portfolio review report communicates the main recommendations from the annual review to the IT decision makers.

When produced

The report is produced during the annual review

Roles

The report is produced by the system governance manager, with guidance as necessary from the system governance sponsor.

The report is circulated to the IT decision makers, for their consideration.

The report is circulated to the system governance committee, for information only.

Notes

This is the most significant output from system governance, and it requires significant care and effort.

The content of the report depends largely on the terms of reference. The terms of reference sets out what analyses should be included in the system portfolio review report, for example whether notional values should be calculated for improvements. It also sets out conditions by which systems should be considered excellent, or considered candidates for improvement.

See Section B.2, Example system portfolio review report for an example system portfolio review report.

Preparation of the report requires some consideration:

Be positive. The report is as much about celebrating excellence and success as it is about highlighting weaknesses.
Having no room for improvement is a good thing. If scores have not improved because they are already excellent, or if there is no value in improvement because there are no improvements that can be made, explain that this is good.
Be definite about recommendations, to reflect the effort and care that has gone into the assessment and analysis. Phrases like “there may perhaps be a case for considering improvement” convey a lack of confidence in the process.
Conversely, do not to misrepresent system governance. It is limited by the objectives set for it, which do not cover every pressure and issue on the organisation. The notional values are a rational estimate, not a guaranteed return.
The report must be sufficiently concise to be usable.
Conversely, the report must be sufficiently detailed to be believable.
The report must interpret the raw numbers, explain the background to issues, and make insightful recommendations.
Conversely, the report must not speculate, and must be able to back up everything that it claims with information from the assessments.

Discuss these considerations with the system governance sponsor.

The report produced as part of the first annual review may be challenging: there is no previous report to base it on; it is based on a terms of reference that has not been revised in the light of experience; there is no previous year to refer to. Consider circulating a draft to a limited group and then revising the report based on their feedback.

You may need to modify the structure of the report to meet the needs of your organisation.

Template

Management summary

Summarise in a short paragraph or two the findings and main recommendations from the report.

List key statistics.

List systems that have met conditions for excellence.

List recommendations, and the notional value of addressing them.
Introduction

Explain that the report is a summary of the system governance annual review, and that more detail is available.

Explain important caveats about the report, such as the limitations of the notional values.
System governance objectives

Summarise information from the terms of reference.

Give an overview of how the system governance objectives are translated into criteria.

Explain the basis for notional value calculations.

Describe what analyses are provided.

Describe under what conditions systems and criteria are considered excellent, or candidates for improvement.
Summary of results

Provide summary results. The contents will depend on the terms of reference, but could include:
- Summary of numbers and sizes of system.
- Summary scores, broken down to reflect management interests. (Overall, like-for-like, new compared with old, outsourced compared with in-house).
- Results for systems:
  
  Size
  
  Score
  
  Change in score
  
  Notional value of improvement
  
  Number of issues, broken down by priority
- Results for criteria:
  
  Weighting
  
  Score
  
  Change in score
  
  Notional value of improvement
  
  Number of issues, broken down by priority
Excellence

List the systems and criteria that are considered excellent, and why they are considered excellent.
Candidates for improvement

List the systems and criteria that have met conditions to be candidates for improvement. Provide an explanation of why each needs to be considered. Provide recommendations, and a notional value for the improvement that the recommendations could bring.

Previous: A.1. Terms of reference | Next: A.3. Iterative review report | Up | Contents