PortfolioDesk pilot requirements for agency reviewers
This guide describes possible requirements for a separately approved public-sector project portfolio pilot. PortfolioDesk currently provides an illustrative website preview using fictional sample data. It is not a deployed portfolio application, operational agency system, or existing integration.
1. What is available today
The public website includes an illustrative project-status preview and published proposed pilot pricing. Sample project names, budgets, dates, percentages, and status messages are fictional examples, not customer records or measured outcomes.
Any agency-connected application, operational project workflow, reporting tool, data exchange, security control, or future AI feature would need a separately agreed scope, agency approval, implementation, and independent verification.
2. Potential source records to scope
Agency reviewers decide which existing records, if any, could be considered for an approved pilot:
- Existing project lists or department-maintained trackers.
- Agency-approved budget, schedule, and project status records.
- Authorized leadership reporting formats and review schedules.
- Project owners, decision-makers, and required approval documentation.
Any proposed access, file format, field mapping, transfer method, connection, hosting, or reporting implementation must be separately reviewed, implemented, and verified. No working connector or source-system integration is claimed.
3. Illustrative sample fields
The following example is fictional. It illustrates questions an agency might evaluate while defining an approved pilot scope, not an implemented import specification or available production feature.
| Potential field | Scoping question |
|---|---|
project_identifier | What identifier does the agency already use for an authorized project record? |
project_name | Which existing agency source provides the approved project name? |
approved_budget | Which agency-approved source records a project budget? |
reported_status | Who reviews and approves the project status used for leadership reporting? |
schedule_update | What reporting period and schedule information does the agency need? |
No existing feed, available system connection, automatic validation, or deployed project data store is represented.
4. Agency-owned project review criteria
Authorized agency staff determine which prioritization criteria, budget values, schedule comparisons, and escalation requirements apply. Any proposed scoring rule, project classification, reporting calculation, or review record requires separate implementation and agency verification.
- Identify the decision-makers authorized to review project priorities.
- Agree which source records and reporting periods are relevant.
- Define how project decisions and leadership reports should be reviewed.
- Confirm that purchasing, security, data handling, and operational approvals remain with the agency.
5. Human decisions and potential future AI
No operational AI feature, model-based scoring, automatic project summary, automated risk detection, or board-report generator is currently represented as deployed.
If an agency requests future AI-assisted functionality, its proposed provider, data access, allowed uses, model-training terms, retention, human review, and security controls must be separately documented, approved, implemented, and verified.
6. Security and data-handling requirements
Agency security staff determine which controls must be demonstrated before any real project or financial data is used. Potential review topics include:
- Permitted project fields and agency-approved data minimization.
- Any required authentication, authorized users, and access permissions.
- Required protection for approved data in transit or storage.
- Any agency-defined decision records, monitoring, or retention requirements.
- Documented data ownership, permitted uses, export, and deletion terms.
- Agency review of hosting, service providers, and implementation boundaries.
These are proposed requirements only. No third-party security certification, completed security assessment, existing production control, hosting arrangement, audit log, or agency data-processing environment is claimed.
7. Proposed fixed-price pilot scope
The published proposed pilot is $6,500 for a separately agreed 60-day scope for one department or capital program. Its scope, records, implementation requirements, timeline, purchasing process, security review, and approvals must be agreed with the agency.
- Define. Identify the agency's project-review question and authorized decision-makers.
- Scope. Agree which project records, reporting needs, and review boundaries are appropriate.
- Approve. Complete the agency's own purchasing, security, data-handling, and approval process.
- Verify. Independently validate any separately agreed implementation before agency data is used.
Any follow-on service or production implementation requires its own agency review and purchasing authorization.
8. Agency reviewer questions
Is an operational PortfolioDesk application available?
No. The public site provides an illustrative fictional preview and describes a proposed pilot. It does not represent a production agency application.
Are finance-system, project-tracker, or reporting connections already implemented?
No existing connector or operational data connection is represented. Any access and implementation require separate scoping, agency approval, and verification.
Is an AI reporting or scoring feature already available?
No. Any future AI feature would require a separately defined scope, explicit agency approval, documented data terms, and independent implementation verification.
Who decides the purchasing and security requirements?
The agency does. Its purchasing process, required documentation, security review, data permissions, and approvals always apply.
Where should we discuss agency-specific requirements?
Use the pilot scoping call, review the Trust Center, or read the pilot purchasing guide.