AI insight
Every active project in the portfolio is on track
No project is off track or critical; the weakest health dimension is “Resources” at 72.
Confidence78%
Portfolio · PF-INS
Institutional Excellence & Capability Portfolio
On track
The strategy’s operational plans, performance measurement and risk management, the entrepreneurship fast track and the e-learning platform.
- Approved budget
- SAR 2M
- Actual spend
- SAR 878K
- EAC
- SAR 1.5M−23.8%
- Expected value
- SAR 4.3M
- Health score
- 84+2
incl. SAR 475K unallocated reserve
44% of budget
Estimate at completion
40% realised
was 82 in May
Manager
Dr. Noura M. Al-Otaibi
Director, Project Management Office
Owner
Sarah A. Al-Qarni
Assistant Secretary-General, Support Services
Weighted portfolio progress
Σ each project’s relative weight × its actual progress, under the approved project weight model
What each project adds to portfolio progress
The project’s weight from the model, its relative weight among the portfolio’s counted projects, and what it adds
| Project | Project weight | Relative weight | Actual progress | Weight × progress |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Operational Plans & Scorecards for the 2025–2030 Strategy | 65.0 | 23.8% | 70% | 16.7% |
| Entrepreneurship Fast Track Platform | 56.0 | 20.5% | 63% | 12.9% |
| Training Centre e-Learning Platform | 54.0 | 19.8% | 4% | 0.8% |
| Institutional Performance Measurement & Power BI Dashboards | 50.0 | 18.3% | 76% | 13.9% |
| Enterprise Risk & Business Continuity Framework | 48.0 | 17.6% | 100% | 17.6% |
| Portfolio progress | 61.9% | |||
How it is computed
61.9%
Portfolio progress = Σ (project relative weight × actual progress). Relative weight = the project’s weight ÷ the weights of the counted projects, so they add up to 100%.
- · Proposed and cancelled projects never count.
- · Left out of this portfolio now: 0
- · For comparison: weighting by budget alone gives 57.8%
Portfolio health & performance
The health score from eight weighted dimensions, and the schedule and cost indices over six months.
Health-score breakdown
Score × weight = points
84On track
| Dimension | Score | Weight | Points |
|---|---|---|---|
| Schedule | 86 | 20% | 17.2 |
| Cost | 94 | 20% | 18.8 |
| Risk | 82 | 15% | 12.3 |
| Scope | 80 | 10% | 8.0 |
| Quality | 84 | 10% | 8.4 |
| Resources | 72 | 10% | 7.2 |
| Stakeholders | 86 | 5% | 4.3 |
| Benefits | 78 | 10% | 7.8 |
| Total | 84 | ||
Health-score trend
May – October 2026
Financial & schedule performance
May – October 2026
0.98
On track
Schedule performance index
Progress 62% / Planned 63%
1.00
On track
Cost performance index
Actual spend SAR 878K
Both indices over time
- Schedule performance index
- Cost performance index
Portfolio project map
risk across, strategic value up, bubble size by budget. Click a bubble for a quick look at the project.
Portfolio project map
- On track
- At risk
Funding priority order
Rank the projects for funding; your order is kept and goes to the 2027 planning cycle.
- 1Operational Plans & Scorecards for the 2025–2030 StrategyPRJ-2026-028·Priority score 82On track
- 2Institutional Performance Measurement & Power BI DashboardsPRJ-2026-012·Priority score 70On track
- 3Enterprise Risk & Business Continuity FrameworkPRJ-2026-030·Priority score 63On track
- 4Entrepreneurship Fast Track PlatformPRJ-2026-027·Priority score 60At risk
- 5Training Centre e-Learning PlatformPRJ-2026-029·Priority score 55On track
Portfolio priorities 2026–2027
- Approve the operational plans of the chamber’s 2025–2030 strategy before year endIt feeds the 2027 portfolio planning cycle.
- Raise PMO maturity to 3.53.2 today.
- Launch the Training Centre’s e-learning platformFirst cohort in Q1 2027.
Objectives & KPIs
Why the portfolio exists: the strategic objectives it serves and the KPIs its projects move.
Objectives the portfolio serves
76% achieved of a 85% target2 projects contribute
85% achieved of a 90% target3 projects contribute
82% achieved of a 85% target1 project contribute
Projects compliant with the delivery methodology
84%
+2
Target 90%93%
PMO maturity index
3.2out of 5
0
Target 3.591%
Trainees on the training centre’s programmes (cumulative)
1,810trainees
+230
Target 2,40075%
Start-ups served by the Entrepreneurship Fast Track (cumulative)
185businesses
+20
Target 20093%
Budget & value
Where the budget goes, why the forecast differs from it, and the value it returns.
From approved budget to estimate at completion
Each programme’s gap between its projects’ budget and their forecast
- Total
- Increase
- Decrease
| Category | Change | Running total |
|---|---|---|
| Approved budget | SAR 2M | SAR 2M |
| Unallocated reserve | −SAR 475K | SAR 1.5M |
| Institutional Excellence & Capability Programme | +SAR 7,000 | SAR 1.5M |
| Projects outside a programme | −SAR 7,000 | SAR 1.5M |
| Estimate at completion | SAR 1.5M | SAR 1.5M |
Budget use
878K/ 2M475Kprojected saving(23.8%)
- Actual spend
- 878K
- Committed
- 1.1M
- Approved budget
- 2M
- Estimate at completion
- 1.5M
Expected-value mix
SAR 4.3M
Expected value
- ProductivitySAR 2.2M52%
- Cost savingSAR 1.2M28%
- Beneficiary satisfactionSAR 850K20%
| Category | Value | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Productivity | SAR 2.2M | 52% |
| Cost saving | SAR 1.2M | 28% |
| Beneficiary satisfaction | SAR 850K | 20% |
| Total | SAR 4.3M | 100% |
40%
Value realised
SAR 1.7M
Expected value SAR 4.3M
108% of what was planned by today
Programmes & projects
A programme’s performance is computed from its projects. Click a project for a quick look.
5 results
Display options
| Institutional Performance Measurement & Power BI DashboardsPRJ-2026-012 | PG-10 | 4Execution | On track | 76% | 18.3% | P2P2 · High priority — score 70 of 100 | 490K | 490K0.0% | 1.01Schedule performance index · 1.01 | 1.00Cost performance index · 1.00 | Risk score · Excellent |
| Training Centre e-Learning PlatformPRJ-2026-029 | PG-10 | 3Planning | On track | 4% | 19.8% | P3P3 · Medium priority — score 55 of 100 | 375K | 375K0.0% | 1.00Schedule performance index · 1.00 | 1.00Cost performance index · 1.00 | Risk score · Excellent |
| Entrepreneurship Fast Track PlatformPRJ-2026-027 | PG-10 | 4Execution | At risk | 63% | 20.5% | P2P2 · High priority — score 60 of 100 | 320K | 327K+2.2% | 0.88Schedule performance index · 0.88 | 0.98Cost performance index · 0.98 | Risk score · Good |
| Enterprise Risk & Business Continuity FrameworkPRJ-2026-030 | — | 5Closure | On track | 100% | 17.6% | P2P2 · High priority — score 63 of 100 | 180K | 173K−3.9% | 1.00Schedule performance index · 1.00 | 1.04Cost performance index · 1.04 | Risk score · Excellent |
| Operational Plans & Scorecards for the 2025–2030 StrategyPRJ-2026-028 | PG-10 | 4Execution | On track | 70% | 23.8% | P1P1 · Top priority — score 82 of 100 | 160K | 160K0.0% | 1.03Schedule performance index · 1.03 | 1.00Cost performance index · 1.00 | Risk score · Excellent |
| Total · 5 | 1.5M | 1.5M |
1–5 of 5
Portfolio risks
Open threats across the portfolio’s projects. Click a cell on the map to filter the list.
Open-risk heat map
1 risk
- Critical0
- High0
- Medium1
- Low0
- Risks 1
Probability
5
4
3
2
1
12345Impact
| Probability \ Impact | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5 | 0 · Low | 0 · Medium | 0 · High | 0 · Critical | 0 · Critical |
| 4 | 0 · Low | 0 · Medium | 0 · Medium | 0 · High | 0 · Critical |
| 3 | 0 · Low | 0 · Low | 1 · Medium | 0 · Medium | 0 · High |
| 2 | 0 · Low | 0 · Low | 0 · Low | 0 · Medium | 0 · Medium |
| 1 | 0 · Low | 0 · Low | 0 · Low | 0 · Low | 0 · Low |
Latest on this portfolio
20 October 2026
Approval: Executive Committee Noted DEC-2026-039First draft of the 2025–2030 operational plans reviewed
2026-10-20 10:00