GCU Enterprise Project Portfolio Executive Summary
| Project | Sponsor | Oversight | Project's Risk | Budget | Schedule Rating | Scope Rating | Resource Rating | Risk and Issues Rating | Actual Cost | Budget |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| COE Tracking Priorities | Julianne Brett | COE |  |  | | | | | N/A | N/A |
| Lenel Expansion Project | John Kalua | Campus Tech |  | | | | | | N/A | N/A |
| Canyon Promotions | Garron Hale | Campus Tech | | | | | | | ||
| SDS-Simplicity | Beth Jamison | SDS |  | | | | | | N/A | N/A |
| CampusGroups Project | Garron Hale | Campus Tech | | | | | | | N/A | N/A |
| CampusPress | Garron Hale | Campus Tech | | | | | | | N/A | N/A |
| Igloo Contract | Cat Lena | College of Doctoral Studies | | | | | | | N/A | N/A |
| Research Support Application | Scott Greenberger | Research |  | | | | | | N/A | N/A |
| Honors College - DPA Upgrade | Breanna Naegeli | Honors College | | | | | | | N/A | N/A |
| StarRez Migration Project | Sarah Castro | Office of Dean of Students | | | | | | | N/A | N/A |
| Medicat Migration | Christine Pemberton | Office of Student Care | | | | | | | N/A | N/A |
| Application Inventory Project | Garron Hale | Campus Technology | | | | | | | N/A | N/A |
Project Health Key
| * Project Health Key | * Project Health Key Description |
|---|---|
| Project is on time within defined scope and with minimal issues. Overall Risk Rating of 5-10 is Green |
| Changes to scope or resources have placed project at some risk. Project has the potential for delays or scope changes. Overall Risk Rating of 11-17 is Yellow |
| Major changes to scope or resources have placed project at critical risk. One or more of the following must change in order to proceed: project schedule, resources, scope. Overall Risk Rating of 18-25 is Red |
| Project is complete. |
| Project has been placed on hold, or cancelled |
IT Project Risk Ratings (Summed to Calculate Overall Project Health Rating)
| Current Risk Rating | Descriptions and Scores |
|---|---|
| Budget, Schedule, Scope | The scales below are used to rate current performance on Budget, Schedule, and Scope 1 = Performing better than project plan; ahead by 5% or more (Schedule and Scope only) 2 = Performance is on plan 3 = Behind plan, but within 5% of original targets. For Budget, over or under spending within 5% of plan 4 = Behind plan between 6% to 10%. For Budget, over or under spending by 6-10%, and likely to use/using contingency 5 = Greater than 10% behind plan. For Budget, over or under spending by > 10%, and more than half of contingency is projected to be used |
| Resources | People with the necessary expertise are.... 1 = In place, or high likelihood of being available as specified in the Resourcing Plan 2 = There are some minor gaps in resourcing, but can be overcome with minor alternations of Resourcing Plan, with no significant impact on schedule, budget or deliverables. 3 = Somewhat in place, or struggling to perform, with moderate risk to schedule, budget or deliverables. 4 = There are gaps in resourcing, with moderately high risk to schedule, budget or deliverables. Mitigation plans in place, or will be soon. 5 = Not in place, or low likelihood of being available per the Resource Plan. Significant impact on schedule, budget or deliverables, without mitigation plans in place. |
| Issues, Risks & Project Dependencies | The scale below is used to rate current impact of Issues and other factors relevant to the project 1 = No risks or issues identified at this time 2 = Some identified but minor, no impacts anticipated 3 = Some that could impact the project are being managed, with minimal impact anticipated 4 = Significant risks/issues/other factors identified but not yet managed 5 = Risks/issues being managed but will have significant impact (greater than 10%) on project budget, schedule and/or scope |