This study presents a quantifying risk management process and its application on a software organization in terms of risk items mitigated, exposures covered, costs, and expected exposures covered. Risk management is defined as setting forth a discipline and environment of proactive decisions and actions to assess continuously what can go wrong (risks), to determine what risks are important to deal with, and to implement strategies to deal with those risks. Risk management can be applied in all of the business areas. In the literature, there are sources for risk management. Some of them are qualitative, and some of them are quantitative. However, there is no much source about the application study of a quantifying risk management process on a software organization. In order to obtain insight about this issue, this study presents a quantifying risk management system to the literature and also compares the quantifying risk management policies on the data set of a software organization by finding out and analyzing their performance with respect to designated decision parameters and preference profiles for risk items mitigated, exposures covered, costs, and expected exposures covered. At the end of this study, suitable quantifying risk management policies for each profile are recommended by considering the analysis of the data set as base.

Prioritering av systemkrav är en viktig fråga vid utnyttjandet av resurserna på systemutvecklingsavdelningar. Problem uppstår när antalet krav som ska prioriteras är fler än de systemutvecklingsresurser som finns tillgängliga. Således måste de systemkrav som företag vill få utfört av sin systemutvecklingsavdelning prioriteras på ett strukturerat sätt. För att göra det strukturerat behövs stöd i form av regelverk, ramverk och metoder för prioriteringsarbetet. Problemet är att det finns inga ramverk som ger detta stöd idag. Examensarbetsrapporten utforskar vilka beståndsdelar ett ramverk ska bestå av för att stödja prioritering av systemkrav. Syftet är att skapa ett ramverk för att införa ett strukturerat beslutsstöd med prioriteringsmetoder. En väl utformad forskningsstrategi tillämpas innehållande tre olika forskningsfaser: utforskande, utformande och utvärderande. Forskningsfaserna vägleder arbetet i rätt riktning och ser till att motverka validitetshot som riskerar uppstå. Forskningsmetoden är av kvalitativ och induktiv karaktär. Fakta inhämtas genom litteraturstudier, intervjuer och förstudie, som analyserades ur vilket en första version av ramverkets beståndsdelar utformas. Utvärderingsintervjuer görs med respondenter som har mångårig erfarenhet av prioritering inom systemutveckling. Intervjuerna visar på att företag, oavsett bransch, har liknande förutsättningar och strukturer för att applicera ramverket. Det framtagna ramverkets första version valideras som relevant, lämpligt samt funktionellt för prioritering av systemkrav med mindre justering. Efter en analys av utvärderingen skapades en slutgiltig version av ramverket för prioritering av krav i systemutvecklingsprojekt benämnt PaKS. Resultatet från utvärderingen visar att PaKS är lämpligt, fullständigt och användbart i sin generella utformning där respondenterna bidragit med förslag för ytterligare utformning. / Prioritizing system requirements is an important issue for utilizing resources in system development departments. Issues arise when the number of requirements to prioritize are more than there are resources available in the system development department. Thus, the system requirements that a company want carried out by the system development department must prioritized in a structured way. To make prioritization structured, support is required in the form of regulations, framework and methods for prioritizations. Today there are no frameworks that provide this support. This study explores which components a framework should consist of to support the prioritization of system requirements. The aim is to create a framework for implementing structured decision support with prioritization methods. A well designed research strategy containing three different research phases is used: exploration, design and evaluation. The research phases guide the work in the right direction and aim to counteract validity threats that may occur. The research method is of a qualitative and inductive nature. Facts are obtained through literature studies, interviews and preliminary studies, which were analyzed from which a first version of the framework's components is designed. Evaluation interviews are conducted with respondents who have many years of experience of prioritization in system development. The evaluation show that companies, regardless of industry, have similar conditions and structures to apply the framework. The first version of the framework is validated as relevant, appropriate and functional for prioritizing system requirements with minor adjustments. Following an analysis of the evaluation, a final version of the framework for prioritization of requirements in system development projects, called PaKS, was created. The outcome of the evaluation shows that PaKS is useful in its overall design, in which respondents contributed proposals for further design.

The focus of strategy research has long revolved around strategy formulation rather thanstrategy implementation, despite the evidence indicating that intended strategies are rarelyachieved. Project portfolio management, PPM, assumes a crucial role in enabling strategyimplementation and can be regarded as a representation of the organization's actual pursuedstrategy. Existing research on PPM has predominantly centered around portfolios in the contextof new product development, NPD, and research and development, R&D. However, there hasbeen relatively less exploration of PPM within internal development departments, warrantingfurther investigation. To contribute to the understanding on strategy implementation throughPPM and its conditional factors, this qualitative case study expands the existing research bystudying the PPM process within an internal development department. The study wasconducted at the Business Improvement department, which oversees improvement projects forthe service branch of EnergyComp, a company specializing in the development of complexenergy solutions. Using an abductive research approach, a literature review was conducted inparallel with data collection and analysis. The empirical data was mainly collected throughsemi-structured interviews at the company, but also through meetings and companydocumentation. The results of the study show that PPM actions connected to projects, portfolio and resourceallocation are undertaken to effectively implement the organization's strategy within theinternal development department. Common to all areas is the importance of accurate andavailable information that effects the decisions connected to strategy implementation. On aproject level, Insufficient information poses challenges in accurately assessing project success,resulting in measurements that fail to cover all strategic objectives. In the context of theportfolio, the absence of project information and uncertainties can lead to a misalignmentbetween the actual prioritization criteria employed in the selection process and the strategicobjectives of the organization. Additionally, it may contribute to a less detailed and formalstrategic plan. Furthermore, the cost associated with adjusting the portfolio is directly linked tothe effort and expenses involved in obtaining project information. Regarding resources,insufficient information on supply and demand creates challenges in considering projectdependencies and synergies during the evaluation of project groups. Moreover, limitedtransparency across functional boundaries within the organization leads to a system wheredecision rules cannot be established at the portfolio level. Instead, it encourages bottom-uppriority decisions. Furthermore, a biased assessment by stakeholders in the functionaldepartments may result in an inadequate screening process, leading to an increased workloadin the portfolio structuring process. Finally, the large variation in project types, coupled withdiverse impact targets spanning individual and multiple functions, makes it difficult to createrelevant project categories for budgeting and portfolio structuring.