The Core P3M Data Club was formed to create a data standard for portfolio, programme and project management. This enables us to more effectively deliver business integrated governance for Business as Usual and Change. This means our journey from Main Board objectives, targets and challenges can be delivered through portfolios, programmes and projects in the context of finance, management teams, support and assurance more easily and effectively. This will deliver more strategy outcomes, greater business agility, lower management overhead and efficiency benefits. This document provides an introduction to harmonious data integration for business as usual and change governance, the need for data in the Model, Data Approach and the relation to the complete / recurring Main board to Delivery and Back again cycles, data sources, model details, technology discussion. It also provides links to the data model and overview materials. These will not make sense unless the related materials covering the governance models from Main Board, to Portfolio, Programme, and Project alongside Management Teams, Commercial and Finance, Support and Assurance have also been read. For a high res version click here: - Document - https://1drv.ms/w/s!AscRj7Bfp6vQgokKDmV7ecqfmQiUnw?e=oS2AjR - PowerPoint - https://1drv.ms/p/s!AscRj7Bfp6vQgZVXlg8GjXcI6Sb0Ow?e=fjA4dY - Spreadsheet - https://1drv.ms/x/s!AscRj7Bfp6vQgZVWdcLMZoIJwCt15g?e=qNeGKc Find out more and collaborate here: https://www.linkedin.com/groups/13651399/

1. Page 1
This work is licensed under a Creative CommonsAttribution-ShareAlike 4.0InternationalLicense.

2. Page 2
Core P3M Data Model
Introduction
Data, information,knowledgeandwisdom(DIKW) are neededtoprovide the
ManagementInformation tosupportintegrateddecisionmakingneededforthe
AccountabilityNodesdescribedinthe BusinessIntegratedGovernance model.
Please note – this documentwill not make sense unless the related materials
coveringthe IntroductionandFramework Overview andgovernance models(from
MainBoard, to Portfolio,Programme,andProject alongsideManagementTeams,
Commercial andFinance,Supportand Assurance) have alsobeen read.
It iseither:
- collatedmanuallyfromlocal datasources,whichistime consuming,expensive,questionablyreliable andinflexible.Thisleadsinevitablytopoor
decisionmakingasinformationisplainwrong,or tono decisiontakenatall.
or
- derivedfromERP/ PPMsolutions whichdeliveralevel of efficiency.
Unfortunately,PPMtools are notalways fullyeffective due tolackof
sponsorship, adoptionsupportandpoorconnectiontothe organisation’s
governance operation –andin manycases– no connectionbackto the
originatingOpportunities, Threats, ImperativesandGoals(OTIGs) facedat Main
Board level.Itisoftenthe case thatPPMsolutionsare usedasa pivotforall P3M
data and mayhave data importsprovidedtocollate the largerpicture,butdon’t
alwayscontainthe “whole picture”,andsome are notalwaysfunctional or
reliable.
Data CollationChoices
If the data isto be compiledfromseveral sources,the choice is(simplistically) toset
up and manage or utilise anexistingservice bus(SOA)toallowdatato transition betweentool APIsorfromdata store APIsintoa single datastore such as
Data Warehouses(DWH).The choice of tool APIintegrationtocapture tool data intoa single DWH isdrivenbythe outcome of the requirements.If a

3. Page 3
central place isneededforreportingonlythanusingaSOA to capture data fromAPItoolsintoa single DWH andthenprovisionreportsandbusiness
intelligence onthissingle source of data.If the requirementsforanoperational integration-basedoutcome,i.e.datafromone tool isneededoperationally
by anothertool to provide the outcome,thenaprovisionof tool APItotool APIviaa SOA is required.Ineithercase bothgenerate asingle placeof datathat
can be usedtobuilda centraliseddataplatform.There are manyoptionsfor howtoachieve this,includingtool APItotool API(viaaSOA tool) whichcopies
data betweentoolsandtherefore providingnearreal-time synchronisedoperationaldata.Orcapturingdata fromtool APIintoa centraliseddatalake or
data mart whichcan drive a single DWH.Data lakescan be usedto capture the operational dataandshouldbe consideredif the dataisverylarge and
frequentlychanged:
Source
Source
Source
Source
System
Process
Experience
Orchestration
Engine
Tool
Tool
Tool
Tool
Joining- connectedthroughintegration SOA –to maintaina picture
of the source data. Thispresentsanattractive option,butthere isa
sustainmentimplicationinthatthe connectionsneedtobe setupand
presentedthroughanAPIexperiencelayerandnotto use the out of
the box systemAPI’s.Done correctlythiswill allowchangesof tools
withminimal disruptiontodata.
The diagram to the leftillustratesthisdatacanbe providedto
Artificial Intelligence,businessintelligence and management
informationsystems,andcanalsobe supportedatthe tool level with
machine learning.Thismakesavery contemporarylogical solution.

4. Page 4
Source
Source
Source
Source
System
Orchestration
Engine
Data Lake
Collectingdataviatool APIintoa centraliseddatamartor data lake to
provide anintegratedpicture canprovide anearreal-time datastore
that can be usedto generate asingle DWH.This will utilise the same
API’sas the ‘tool APIlinkedoperationalmodel’butinsteadcapturesthe
data intoa central data lake/mart.Ruleswill needtobe understood
and writtenif identical dataisstoredinmultiple tools.
A discussionof Data- Virtual collectionorData harvesting isavailable onrequest.

5. Page 5
Enterprise Tools
It ispossible inlargerorganisationsthatkeycomponentsof the overall datamodel are aFinance system, PPMorAgile deliverytools. If the strategyistouse
a data model toaggregate data rather thantakinga one size fitsall approachto solutions, itshouldbe reasonableforareastooperate theirowntoolsets
(shouldthatbe realisticoperationally).Requirements(forexample) inareasthatdeliver
customerprojectsmayrequire contractmanagementcapability,while thosedelivering
integrationsneedeffective dependencymanagement,andagile productdelivery
requiresfocusonbacklogandsprinting.
Data Transformation
Oftendatais summarisedoraggregatedbutdata underpinningportfoliosoftenneedsto
be transformedorconnectedtoother data too.For example,aroundthe portfolios:
- Translationof Main Board Opportunities,Threats,ImperativesandGoals(OTIGs)
intoObjectivesandTargetsandChallenges(OTCs)
- Translationof portfolioObjectivesintoroadmapitemsandenablingprojectsand
programmes
- Aggregationof projectandprogramme datato enable compliance checking,dependencymanagement,assurance andcrossbusinessanalysis
- Relationof resource modelsmaintainedlocallywithinprojects/programmes(e.g.demand) toresource modelsmaintainedwithinManagementTeams
(e.g.competingdemands,benefitdeliverydemandsandBAU)
- Planning,ownershipdelegationanddeliveryof benefits,andrelatedperformancedata
- Integrationof finance,actualsandcostprojectionsbetweenfinance andportfolioprogrammeandprojectmanagementteams.
- Ongoingintegrationof MainBoardOTIGs to OTCs,and progress/ attainmentreportedbackagainstthese from (changing) portfoliosprogrammesand
projects.

6. Page 6
It can alsobe imaginedthatevolutionwill supportmore
integrateddatasolutionsforexample todeliversolutionsfor
jointventures,andlargermulti organisationcollaborations.
Overtime,capabilitycanbe developedasillustratedhere.
Data Approach
The approach to definingdataneedsshouldbe determinedby
whatinformationistobe derivedfromit.The approach to this
insome organisations canbe
- to ask userswhatreportsthey wantand collate
implications fromthere
- to engage the processownersandaskwhat theirprocess
implies
- to ask userswhatdata they currently keep
- to imagine whatinformationneeded
- to take the standard setof reportsfroma vendoranduse the vendordataset
Clearly – eachof these approacheshasitsplace andaskingpeople whatthey wantmay not lead
to whatthey needfor a givenAccountability Node.Hence the approachtakenwiththe Core
P3M Data club isto start withdefining/askingwhatisneeded tooperate the governance
framework toenable goodcontrol andoversight.
There were 2 reasonsfor doingthis.Itiscritical to identify suchkeyrequirements and
anecdotally, delivery focusedownersof (forexample) PPMsolutions configure theirtoolsetsand
reportingforoperational purposesnotnecessarily strategicpurposes. There remainsagapin
manyorganisations betweenthe focusfromexecutive andthatof delivery. The anecdotethat
the PMO complains "noone readswhat I produce"andthe executive complains"why dothey
give me all thisbabble"are bothstill smiledatwryly.
Therefore, foreachAccountability Node, the Core DataClubaskedwhatis the genericbusiness oroperations theyshouldbe performing?Forexample -
while the contentsof aprojectboard mayvary, the structure and operation are productionisable- andthe core supportingMIderived.

7. Page 7
We alsoexploredwhetherthere are cyclesthatthe business needstocoordinate aroundsuchthatit can rely on integratedpicturesof progress, costand
projectionata commonmomentintime.Inour example, itwasdeterminedthere wouldbe Change cyclesandOperational cyclesbroughttogetherwith
Financial cycles. If we operate tocycles, we canstill allow use of local toolsdataand reportingforreal time analysis–butthat isdifferenttothe governance
requirement(whichshouldnotbe detailedoperational,anddoesnothave tobe real time – justintegratedandrelevant).
We can thenalsoorchestrate business support, informationqualitymanagement, assurance anddecisionsupporttobe availableinpeaksandtroughsin
our cycles.
Therefore, if we canconnectinthe toolswe use withcommondata classifications we organise ourselves touse dataeffectively andenable“golden
threads”thoughthe organisation- ratherthan tolerate business unitboundary levelmeaningbeinglostfromthe data.
For example, itbecomespossibletotrack a ‘Threat’in
whichMain Board isinterested toaStrategicObjective
giventoa portfoliodelivery team.ThisenablesThreat
prioritytobe recognised, enableseasy decomposition into
variousroadmapitemsfora programme, so thatthe
projectcan pickup clearrelateddeliverables.The Sub
PortfolioPPG(whichmaybe a ManagementTeam) can
thenallocate resource toit,Finance can track cost against
it,and the PPG/ManagementTeamcan show benefit
locally (andthe portfolioisreducingthe Threat).
More importantly –the business (viathe PDG) can adjustif
the Threat diminishes inimportance, asthe itemsclaiming
priorityforworkto addressthe Threat can easily be seen
and re-allocatedasneededrealisingresource efficiency.
Development and Evolution of the Data Model
Havingarrivedat whatthe Core MI needsare foreach Accountability Node, itbecomespossible toclarifywhatthe datamodel underneathneedstobe.
The Core P3M Data Clubstartedwitha core data model impliedoutof the APMand PraxisFramework (Documents andReports).Thiswasmergedwitha
core planningdatamodel (typically usedinplanningtoolslike MicrosoftProject).We thensuperimposed ontothatthe dataneedsimpliedoutof the Core
MI implications beingcareful todistinguishbetweenCore data(e.g. TaskID) andmetadatalikely tobe organisation specific(e.g. Location).

8. Page 8
Hence it ishopedthatthe investmentsinmethodsandtoolsthatan organisationhasmade inlocal areas can therefore be exploitedratherthandiscarded
as failedparochial solutions andeliminatesconflictbetweenincompatiblepeerdomains.
It ismost likely thatthe firstdelivery of core datacapability thatanorganisation makeswill be forpartof the organisationandforpartof the data set.Not
onlywill the datamodel needtochange withlearning, butitwill needtobe extended. Clearlythe businessneedwillhave todrive whatgetsaddressed, but
the IT designforthe underpinningdatacapability hastobe addressed upfront, and itmay make sense tolookat the entire datavisionaroundP3Mto avoid
short termismindesign. Questions likethese will undoubtedly appear:
- what is our MI / Data strategy? Sometimes, if anorganisationhasnotdeliveredadatasolution before, itmaynothave anMI / Data strategy(or isa
formatthat can be easily articulated).Thiscanbe a problem, asthe requirementmayappear“toohard”. Withouta strategy, parochial solutionsmay
emerge,whichmayseemsimple atthe time, butthiscan alsocause laterintegrationissues(andpossible completereplacement)
Example:The visionfora client organisation requireddataintegration.IT didnot have a data/ MI strategy. A project was started for a datawarehouse
for one project. Designdecisionswere taken parochiallyforthat project. Later requirements prove problematic.New IT leads not impressedwithearlier
work – reputationsdamaged.All because there wasno data / MI strategy.
- where are the sourcesfor this data? If we are to take feedsintoadata model, where willthisdatacome from?Are there connectors toit?
Example:A clientorganisation useda deliverytool withinits technologyfunctionforagiledelivery. The same tool was used in variousareas.It was
assumedthat the tool was managedandused commonly/ consistently.It emerged that there was no standard,meaningintegrationofthe toolingwith
a core datamodel wouldprove problematic.
- what are the enterprise reference dataitems - and where are they?For example - code schemesandmetadata- where isitmastered, andhow isthis
sharedcross-systems?
Example:Client organisation hasatimesheet system that collectstime spent againstprojects intotime classification codes.Thesecodes are nothingto
do withprojects. Projects use Work Packages/ Costcodes, but there isno way of relatingtime spent to relevant areas forproject control. Convoluted
apportioning calculationsensue…
- what isthe current quality of data and what assurance / support isin place to enable the necessary data quality?

9. Page 9
Example:client organisation has23 major projects, noneof whichare plannedwithresource assignments.Resourcenegotiationdoneoutsideof formal
toolsand inlocal spreadsheetscausingadmineffortand allocationissues.Agreementmade to take resource demandsform project plansandaggregate
them. First cut shows4x as muchresource demandas available.
- what isthe strategy to assemble data? Manual copy and paste?Data Warehouse?SystemsIntegration?
Example:client organisation hasastandardtool for dataintegrationand insistsonusingit for integratingdatabetween Tool A and Tool B. Mapping
never reallyworked, toolingunreliablebecauseIT instructedto program aroundbusinessmatters that wouldnotbe resolved.
Once we are clearon what data isneeded(tostartwithat least- and to supportgovernance andoperation- notjustoperation), andthe capability is
enabled- the business canstartto run itsgovernance meetings off the Core P3Mdataset, safe inthe knowledge itcanextenditsdatasources, serve its
regularand ad hoc MI needsandmostimportantly - enable more informeddecisionmakingthroughoutthe portfolio.
Data Sources and Enterprise Reference data
If an organisationistouse a core data model,thenclearlyitmustworkouthowto source information, addressthe necessitytofocusoncommon
reference dataandto use that throughoutall componentsystems.A keyimplicationof thisisthatas an organisation,we canidentifyandsupplyourcore
‘Enterprise ReferenceData’.Forour portfolios,thiscaninclude simplethingslike projectcode,Resource IDbutalsolocal specificdatalike Location,
BusinessUnitetc.If we can collate andmaintainthe collationof thisreference data,thenourcomponenttoolsetsanddatastorescanbe configuredtouse
these code schemestoenable integrationof datafromothersystems.Forexample,if we refertoaresource witha differentcode inPPMsystem,HR
systemandfinance,we will struggletoconnecttheirdata.
Model Details
Thismaterial can supportthe AccountabilityNodesandexample MIneedsreferencedabove.Itisexpectedtodevelopasusage examplesemerge.
The linksbelowprovideanoutline of the componentsandreferencetothe details –plandata, finance data,resource data,controlsdata,but alsodiscusses
usingEnterprise Reference data,permissionsandreferencingbetweendataobjects.Howtoestablishthese linksif theyare notcontainedwithinone
systemisTBD!
Linksto the model detailsare giveninthe material index.

10. Page 10
The followingtable outlinesthe dataelementsthe clubhasdefined:
Table Outline
Key Document Links This page defines where key documents arestored in relation to the portfolio.Exampletypes aregiven (from Praxis)
Core fields These are fields included in every table in the Dataset
Core Metadata
These are the fields and tables thatan organisation may need to import from its existingbusinessdata to enable classification,aggregation
and connection of data from various sources
Actions Simple Action list
Approval Simple record of approval of an item
Assignment Resource to task
Assumption Simple assumption
Benefit Simple Benefit
Breakdown
Structures Similar to Metadata - these arethe code hierarchies thatwe want to use in the whole solution
Brief Set of entity data related to initiatingproject
Business Case Developed set of data relatingto a projectviability,may be based on a closed Brief
Cash Input Record of funds set asidefor an entity, or received from (usable) revenue
Change Change items
Cost Item Record of expenditure item againstan entity
Compliance
Summary Link to a narrative
Communications Link to a comms - likeCompliance
Decision Simple Decision record.(May be an Approval)
Dependency Cross projectlogical dependency. May need more thought for risk outcome, benefit, scopeand business change
Entity An item for which someone has accountability. Portfolio,Portfolio Item(project / programme), team, department….
Features Developed set of data relatingto a project
Issue Simple Issuedefinition
Metadata items Relates metadata to data items - e.g. relates a risk to a risk categorisation
Lesson Simple Lesson definition
Metric All the metrics in use. This would saveaddingmetrics to specific tables

11. Page 11
Objective
Given definition/attributeof a future state. E.g. Reduce sales cycletime,50% carbon emission,attain 15%profit level.May be hierarchy
associated to objectives.Consistof business goals,businessimperatives,operational targets
Portfolio Item Simple description
Product Simple Productdefinition.May be comprised of features, part of a Solution,in response to a Requirement
Related to To enablelinkingof entities - e.g. Actions from a Risk,Issuefrom a Risk,benefit from a product etc.
Requirement Simple Statement of need that an entity is set up to respond to
Resource Capability with this to carry out tasks to deliver features / products
Risk Simple Risk Definition for project/ programme, but also corporatethreat / opportunity
Roles &
Responsibility Classification of servicedelivered by a resource - e.g. Project Manager, Programme Manager. Specific by portfolio item
Solution Items in response to a Requirement. Decomposed into Products / Features
Stakeholder Resource with a given interest in the entity. Classified,and may be given roles
Task Activity to achieveprogress on an entity / products / features, may be carried outby a resource
User Story For agiledelivery
TechnologyDiscussion
ThisModel is notprescriptive abouttechnologyandtalksinlogical terms.Itprovidesastartingpointandneedsadaptionbefore adoption.However,the
Core P3M Data Clubmembersare experiencedtoknowthatsimple technologycandeliverclearrequirementswhereascomplex technologycannotdeliver
unclearrequirements.
The OperatingModel probablyrequiresatechnologybackbone (inlargerscale scenarios),perhapsonlytojoinupenterprisecapabilitythatalreadyexists.
There are some useful capabilitydefinitionsforStrategyExecutionManagementtoolswhichcanassistwiththe processof strategyexecutioninmanyof
the followingways:
1. Enablingvisualisationof the organisation’sObjectives,TargetsandChallengesintermsof Metrics,People,PortfolioItems,Service levels,Products
and otherAssets
2. Prioritisingupcomingandin-flightinvestmentsrelativestoObjectives,TargetsandChallengessupportingstrategicintent.
3. Continuousplanningandre prioritisationbasedonresourcesavailabilityandcapability
4. Reportingstrategicexecutionattainmentandattainmentexpectedthroughthe Portfolios

12. Page 12
5. Formalisingascenarioplanningprocessperiodicallyandwhenevernecessary(changeinopportunity,threat,imperativesandgoals,reassessment
of strengthsandweaknessesinrelationtoenvironment
6. Managing the outcomestobusinessimpactsandbenefits
7. Providingcontinuousportfolioitemperformance management
Withthe emergence of cloudtechnology,the marketplace forP3Mtoolshas expanded –withchoice of vendorandoptionsforfeaturesintoolsetsbroad
and deep.Beinginthe cloud,manyservicesdon’trequire internal ITsupporttosetup or supportthem(save forsecurity review/accreditation).Runninga
single projectorprogramme,itiseasiertobe parochial,andeasilyactivate apparentlygoodsolutions.However,ITfunctionsare notjustaboutproviding
technical people theyalsohave capabilityinbusinessanalysis,solutionarchitectureandlookafterthe widerneedsof the business –and perhapshave a
strategyinplace to enable abusinesstoexploitandsustaincapability.AsITbecomesmore integral toourbusiness,andthe IToperationbecomesmore
complex,there maybe compromisesnecessarybetweenwhatabusinessunit‘needs’andwhatanIT function‘wishes’.
An example of thistensioncanbe foundinorganisationswhosebusinesseshave mature P3Mprocessesandtoolsbutare developingfuture capabilityusing
agile methodsandtools.Businessunitscanaccessonline toolsetsveryeasilyandaddresslocal needs.The coalface canbe veryhappy.However,aproblem
arisesif enterprise level dataneedsare drivenoff the mature toolsetswhichare becominglessandlessreliedupon.Whatcan an IT function – or the
businessasa whole do?
1. Fightthe adoptionof newtoolsets?No,notif the capabilityprovidesutility.
2. Allow2 toolsetsbutrequire the datainthe corporate toolsettocontaina usable image of the source data. People resentthissortof admin
overhead,anditprovesunreliable.
3. Try to work outa bi-directionalinterface –to keepdatainsync inboth systems?Experiencetellsusthisisnotsimple,especiallyif datamodelsare
different.
4. Work out howto share the data in a Core P3M Dataset,and workwithall realisticsolutionstosupportcommongovernance processeswhile
allowinglocal toolsandprocessestomanage details.(whichisthe core P3M data clubpreferredapproach.)
It can be the case that a businesswill journeythroughall 4steps – whichispainful,costlyandtime consuming.So,the bestapproachistospot the issue
brewinginthe firstplace andmake good strategiccallsat the earliestopportunity(whichcanof course be difficultif there isaconflictinprogress).
Anotherexampleof the tensioncanbe foundinorganisationsthatwanttoforce one processandtool on theirorganisationas theirculture is‘command
and control’.Inone example of this,the tool configurationbecame complexandhardto use,andthe compromisesleftsome businessareasreticenttouse
the tool.Otherimplicationswere thattoagree a common processthe language wasleftsovague as to meanbusinessunitshad tointerpretitandwould
therefore operate effectivelydifferentprocessesanyway.

13. Page 13
We believe the answer is to focuson informationneededfor governance, to offer commontoolsand process, and to supportbusinessunitsmeeting their
own needs to ensure adoptionandoperational success. This meansaccepting enablingtechnologiesaroundacore technology – whether that isone
system or a data model – that is a matter of interpretationof circumstancesandvisiondesign.This isa very differentapproachto some taken in the past
when the objective hasbeen one tool and one process – but times (technologyandmethods) have changed.
It islikelyanorganisationhasafinance systemthatcontainsthe core Enterprise Reference Data andcost tracking /revenue collectioncomponents.
It may have an HR solutionwhichcontainspeople definitionsandskillsets,
headcountdataetc. There maybe one / several PlanningTools (Primavera,
MicrosoftProject,Planview,Jira…) - perhapsindifferentdepartmentswith
differentneeds(i.e.projectplanning,developmentplanning,construction
planning,innovationplanning,strategyplanning,manufacturingplanning,
maintenance planningetc.)
An organisationmayhave atechnologysolutionformasterdatamanagement,and
an IntegrationSolution to pull together/connectrelateddata.
There may be a preference foraData Platform(Amazon,Azure,Oracle…)
It may have a preference fortechnologytosupport BusinessIntelligence
dashboards/ reports forsupportability(PowerBI,Tableau…)
To deliverinformation/knowledge tosupportthe governance operation,forbestresultsthese needtobe coordinated,else therewillbe overhead in
manuallycontrivingacomplete datapicture (if evenattempted). Everyoneowningacomponentneedstounderstandthe constraintstheycanworkwithin.
Platforms/capability –Azure,Oracle,PowerBI,Portalsetc. TechnologyDiscussion sare available uponrequest.
Furtherdiscussionsonthe place of technologyinportfolioprogramme andprojectmanagementcanbe foundinavideo here.