Established Member..
Established Member..

Question on customizing PPM Risk & Value Domains & Criterion


Our customer is overwhelmed by the number of criterion options for the Risk and Value domains (and the list of values for each).  We have the OOTB criterion and what looks like the OOTB selection options.  The intent was to use the OOTB domains and criterion. In fact the selection of these is required on both the proposal and project request types. But being overwhelmed customer users were putting in anything to meet the required field rules. 

The data has been entered for almost two years now and we're quite sure most of it is garbage.

Now my customer is interested in Risk and Value but would like to make them more meaningful to their business.

1.) The question came up, what if we only wanted to use three criterion for Risk and Value instead of the six OOTB?

2.) Is it possible to remove criterion?  While it appears we can add and remove selection options for each criterion, I do not see where I can remove a criterion.

3.) If it is possible to remove OOTB criterion, what is the impact to the existing proposals and projects that still show the OOTB values?

4.) Is there an impact to the OOTB portfolio functionality (scenarios?) if we change these?

Thank you in advance for your feedback.


1 Reply
Established Member..
Established Member..

Dear cABany,

technically the scoring system can be adjusted on multiple levels up to complete replacement. The Portfolio Management Configuration Guide Chapter 6 gives you some information. If you look deeper you find that the OOTB is implemented on the basis of standard PPM means like validations, request header field groups, request rules, so things you can change and customize.

What counts in the end for scenario comparisons are the values stored in the field group field for the portfolio elements proposal, project and asset, e.g. KCRT_FG_PPM_ASSET.VALUE_RATING.. (This should  answer your question 4)

You can reduce scoring criteria., but it requires planning and configuration work beyond HTML GUI. You could hide the fields in proposal/project/asset and change the validation for the critera. In addition you might consider changing the request rules that implement the formulas that calculate the VALUE_RATING and RISK_RATING. You could even need create and run an administrative DB script to establish consistency with the new scoring system. (This should give you hints on your other questions.)  If you establish a more complicated scoring system it can be that you need to hide the menu entry to access to the ConfigureScoringKeys.jsp.

While technically possible, there should be a very very strong alignment with business if this is really to be taken serious.. The customer needs to set up a robust scoring system that fits his business purposes. This scoring system is the foundation for strategic decisions, so in the best case orporate strategy consultants are involved to introduce the necessary business processes and design an appropriate scoring system by looking at and evaluating retrospective material and business figures. The OOTB scoring system and criteria is something that you will find in many places in a very similar manner as they describe typical dimensions of a strategic evaluation.. (What PPM OOTB is missing are mandatory free text fields where the evaluator must add the reasoning for his judgements. So even more  fields to fill.)

So in the end it is a matter of business process. PPM is a tool which can help to make decisions that are better aligned to strategy. But a tool is garbage in / garbage out, too. The "too many fields" sounds to me like your customer should be investing into strategy consulting to lay the business foundation for portfolio management first, train the evaluators and then supoort the resulting scoring system in PPM (and PPM is for sure flexible enough to get it implemented.).

Best regards


The opinions expressed above are the personal opinions of the authors, not of Micro Focus. By using this site, you accept the Terms of Use and Rules of Participation. Certain versions of content ("Material") accessible here may contain branding from Hewlett-Packard Company (now HP Inc.) and Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company. As of September 1, 2017, the Material is now offered by Micro Focus, a separately owned and operated company. Any reference to the HP and Hewlett Packard Enterprise/HPE marks is historical in nature, and the HP and Hewlett Packard Enterprise/HPE marks are the property of their respective owners.