Roll up work from Azure DevOps, Jira, Microsoft Project, Planner, Smartsheet and monday.com across clinical systems, revenue cycle, infrastructure, security and digital, so EHR optimization sits beside everything competing with it rather than in a governance meeting of its own.
Score proposals against weighted clinical, financial, risk and compliance criteria with published value ranges, keeping budget, forecast, benefits and impact in view. A mandatory interoperability change, a throughput initiative and a service-line request stop being argued on urgency alone.
Model funding scenarios against one ceiling and check the selected work against availability in hours or % FTE. Where several initiatives depend on the same EHR build, integration or informatics capacity, the conflict is visible while it is still a choice.
A mandatory interoperability change, a sepsis-alerting project, an ambulatory expansion and a security remediation can all be urgent and still compete for the same people. Score each one against explicit criteria, then test the selected portfolio against real capacity before the build calendar is set.
Every project, person and dollar in one live view.
Integrations
The analysts and informaticists every initiative depends on.
Product
Test the portfolio against capacity before the build calendar is set.
Product
Last updated 20 August 2026
Healthcare IT portfolio management, answered.
Managing every technology initiative across the organization as one funded portfolio rather than as separate department request lists. That covers EHR optimization, clinical systems, integration, revenue cycle, infrastructure, security and digital patient experience — scored on one model, funded from one ceiling, and delivered by the same constrained analyst teams.
One scoring model with published value ranges, applied to every site. Each hospital will argue its context is unique and each is partly right, which is exactly why the weights belong to the governance committee rather than to whoever is presenting. Sites keep their own request lists; the comparison happens on one scale.
Run-the-business keeps clinical systems available, interfaces flowing and claims going out. Change-the-business is investment in doing those things differently: EHR optimization, new service-line capability, automation, digital access. Both consume the same analysts, which is why separating them in the budget but not in the capacity plan is how health systems over-commit.
The program runs a configurable process of phases and stages with gates between them, and you pick which gates need approval. Assigned approvers review in the Approval Center, and the decision is recorded against the program rather than in a meeting minute nobody can find eighteen months later.
Put it in the same portfolio as everything else, scored on the same model, drawing from the same capacity pool. Health systems often govern the EHR program separately because of its size, which is precisely why its claim on shared analysts stays invisible until the build calendar collides with everything else.
Fairness comes from the scale, not the ranking. When clinical, financial, risk and compliance factors carry published value ranges, a 3 from cardiology means what a 3 from the lab means, and the committee argues about weights once rather than about scores every cycle.
Re-test the portfolio at each funding cycle instead of treating the original approval as settled. Baselines set at the initial decision stay available, so the board can see what has moved since — and what it cost to let it move.
Allocation shows against calculated capacity in hours, percent or FTE, with over-allocation flagged before anyone commits. In practice this surfaces the shared EHR build, interface and informatics specialists who quietly appear in several plans at once.
Yes. Resources can be filtered by role, department or skill, and utilization displays in hours, percent, FTE or chart view. Capacity is calculated from each person’s work week and calendar exceptions rather than from an assumed eight-hour day.
Yes. Project Online connects directly. For plans built in the Microsoft Project Desktop client, PPM Express Project Publisher is an add-in that publishes them into the portfolio, so the PMO keeps the scheduling tool it knows while the portfolio still sees the work.
Track them in the program’s forecast rather than as an operating line somewhere else. Budget, forecast, benefits and impact sit against the initiative and are baselined at the decision, so the cost of running both systems is part of the program’s number instead of a surprise in the operating budget.
The retained decision history shows which scenario was selected, on which model, with which numbers at that moment. Models already scoring live work have to be cloned before they can be changed, so the basis of a past decision cannot be quietly rewritten after the fact.
No, and waiting gets the order backwards. PPM Express connects to the tools teams already use, so the portfolio view assembles from current delivery activity whatever platform work is under way. The visibility matters most while the large program is still competing with everything else, not after it has finished doing so.
.svg){kind=small}
