For architecture and engineering firms with several parallel projects, in addition to project-related controlling, reliable multi-project and portfolio management is required. In Projo, deployment budgets can currently only be evaluated on a project-by-project basis. However, there is no time-related aggregation of planned working hours across all projects for operational and strategic management at office level.

Specifically, there is a need for a global evaluation that answers how high the planned deployment budget of all ongoing projects is in a defined period of time, for example per month or quarter, and how these budgets are distributed over time. Without such a view, capacity bottlenecks usually only become apparent once they have already occurred.

It should be noted that projects are not linear over their entire duration. Rest periods are typical, in particular between work phases 4 and 5 and between planning (LP 1—5) and construction supervision (LP 6—9). In addition, these phases are often worked on by different teams. A purely linear distribution of deployment budgets over the entire project duration does not reflect this reality and falsifies the capacity view.

Unfortunately, detailed resource planning at employee level is often maintained inconsistently and is therefore not suitable as the sole basis for forecasting office management. Portfolio management therefore requires an evaluation that is primarily based on deployment budgets and project or phase runtimes and is not necessarily based on individual employee planning.

An evaluation option at office level is desired, ideally under “Office - Evaluations - Projects”, with which deployment budgets can be presented over time across all projects in an aggregated manner. The period should be freely selectable (month, quarter, year), with a summary of all projects. In addition, filters based on project status and an optional separation between work phases or project phases, such as planning versus construction supervision, would be desirable.

Currently, this control requirement is often reflected through exports and manual evaluations in Excel. This workaround is functional, but contradicts the claim to use Projo as a central tool not only for project controlling but also for portfolio management.

Such an expansion would significantly strengthen Projo, particularly for medium-sized and larger offices, as it supports management early on in making decisions on project prioritization, capacity management and staffing requirements and consistently positions the software as an industry-specific solution beyond the individual project.