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
Planning, Statistics & Capability Portfolio
On track
Preparing the medium-term and governorate plans, ministries performance follow-up, the national risk framework, the digital crop survey and e-learning in Raqqa schools.
- Approved budget
- SYP 1B
- Actual spend
- SYP 439.1M
- EAC
- SYP 762.3M−23.8%
- Expected value
- SYP 2.1B
- Health score
- 84+2
incl. SYP 237.5M unallocated reserve
44% of budget
Estimate at completion
40% realised
was 82 in May
Manager
Dr. Reem Al-Qabbani
Director, National Project Management Office
Owner
Salma Al-Zaim
Deputy President, Finance, Administration & the Investment Plan
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Preparing the 2026–2028 Medium-Term Plan & Governorate Plans | 65.0 | 23.8% | 70% | 16.7% |
| Hasakah Wheat Digital Crop Survey | 56.0 | 20.5% | 63% | 12.9% |
| e-Learning Platform & Computer Labs for Raqqa Schools | 54.0 | 19.8% | 4% | 0.8% |
| Ministries Performance Follow-up & National Dashboards | 50.0 | 18.3% | 76% | 13.9% |
| National Project Risk & 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 SYP 439.1M
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.
- 1Preparing the 2026–2028 Medium-Term Plan & Governorate PlansPRJ-2026-028·Priority score 82On track
- 2Ministries Performance Follow-up & National DashboardsPRJ-2026-012·Priority score 70On track
- 3National Project Risk & Continuity FrameworkPRJ-2026-030·Priority score 63On track
- 4Hasakah Wheat Digital Crop SurveyPRJ-2026-027·Priority score 60At risk
- 5e-Learning Platform & Computer Labs for Raqqa SchoolsPRJ-2026-029·Priority score 55On track
Portfolio priorities 2026–2027
- Approve the 2026–2028 medium-term plan and the governorate plans before year endIt feeds the 2027 portfolio planning cycle.
- Raise national PMO maturity to 3.53.2 today.
- Launch the e-learning platform for Raqqa schoolsFirst 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
79% achieved of a 85% target1 project contribute
85% achieved of a 90% target2 projects contribute
70% achieved of a 80% target1 project contribute
Projects following the national delivery methodology
84%
+2
Target 90%93%
Statistical bulletins and reports published (cumulative)
8bulletins
+1
Target 1267%
Monthly visits to the national indicators portal
14.1thousand visits
+1
Target 15.094%
Schools rehabilitated and equipped (cumulative)
185schools
+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 | SYP 1B | SYP 1B |
| Unallocated reserve | −SYP 237.5M | SYP 762.5M |
| Planning, Statistics & Capability Programme | +SYP 3.3M | SYP 765.8M |
| Projects outside a programme | −SYP 3.5M | SYP 762.3M |
| Estimate at completion | SYP 762.3M | SYP 762.3M |
Budget use
SYP439.1M/ SYP1BSYP237.7Mprojected saving(23.8%)
- Actual spend
- SYP439.1M
- Committed
- SYP537.5M
- Approved budget
- SYP1B
- Estimate at completion
- SYP762.3M
Expected-value mix
SYP 2.1B
Expected value
- ProductivitySYP 1.1B52%
- Cost savingSYP 595M28%
- Beneficiary satisfactionSYP 425M20%
| Category | Value | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Productivity | SYP 1.1B | 52% |
| Cost saving | SYP 595M | 28% |
| Beneficiary satisfaction | SYP 425M | 20% |
| Total | SYP 2.1B | 100% |
40%
Value realised
SYP 840M
Expected value SYP 2.1B
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
| Ministries Performance Follow-up & National DashboardsPRJ-2026-012 | PG-10 | 4Execution | On track | 76% | 18.3% | P2P2 · High priority — score 70 of 100 | SYP245M | SYP245M0.0% | 1.01Schedule performance index · 1.01 | 1.00Cost performance index · 1.00 | Risk score · Excellent |
| e-Learning Platform & Computer Labs for Raqqa SchoolsPRJ-2026-029 | PG-10 | 3Planning | On track | 4% | 19.8% | P3P3 · Medium priority — score 55 of 100 | SYP187.5M | SYP187.5M0.0% | 1.00Schedule performance index · 1.00 | 1.00Cost performance index · 1.00 | Risk score · Excellent |
| Hasakah Wheat Digital Crop SurveyPRJ-2026-027 | PG-10 | 4Execution | At risk | 63% | 20.5% | P2P2 · High priority — score 60 of 100 | SYP160M | SYP163.3M+2.0% | 0.88Schedule performance index · 0.88 | 0.98Cost performance index · 0.98 | Risk score · Good |
| National Project Risk & Continuity FrameworkPRJ-2026-030 | — | 5Closure | On track | 100% | 17.6% | P2P2 · High priority — score 63 of 100 | SYP90M | SYP86.5M−3.8% | 1.00Schedule performance index · 1.00 | 1.04Cost performance index · 1.04 | Risk score · Excellent |
| Preparing the 2026–2028 Medium-Term Plan & Governorate PlansPRJ-2026-028 | PG-10 | 4Execution | On track | 70% | 23.8% | P1P1 · Top priority — score 82 of 100 | SYP80M | SYP80M0.0% | 1.03Schedule performance index · 1.03 | 1.00Cost performance index · 1.00 | Risk score · Excellent |
| Total · 5 | SYP762.5M | SYP762.3M |
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: Authority Executive Council Noted DEC-2026-039First draft of the 2026–2028 medium-term plan noted
2026-10-20 10:00