Assess portfolio status, risks and dependencies from your PMO documents
PugID examines Project Management Office (PMO) documents saved in Google Drive or SharePoint. A team member selects a PMO-specific question. PugID locates the relevant files and delivers a structured result based on those documents. The PMO can then compare that result against source files and governed project systems before applying it to a portfolio, stage-gate or steering decision.
Portfolio reviews rarely start and finish in a single report
A portfolio review can rely on project status packs, RAID logs, milestone plans, budget notes, change requests, resource forecasts and steering minutes. Each document may be up to date in isolation while the portfolio picture is already shifting. By the time those threads are brought together, the reporting window may have begun to close.
PugID operates at this document layer. It takes a selected PMO question to pinpoint relevant files in connected Google Drive or SharePoint folders and produce a structured result. It does not replace project portfolio management, scheduling, finance, resource, issue-tracking or live BI systems. Approved baselines, actuals, ownership and status should still be verified in their governed systems.
Ask the question that aligns with the governance decision
The supplied PMO catalogue covers portfolio, schedule, resource, change, risk, dependency and stage-gate questions. These eight examples copy the catalogue wording.
Go from approved folders to a reviewable result
Connect approved folders.
Link the Google Drive or SharePoint locations that hold the portfolio and project documents relevant to the review.
Select one PMO question.
Pick the prompt that matches the portfolio, milestone, risk, resource, change or governance decision under review.
Examine the structured result.
Compare it against source documents and governed systems, resolve conflicts and assign an accountable owner before acting.
Keep baselines, definitions and ownership in view
A project can show green in a status deck while its critical path is tightening elsewhere. RAG definitions can vary between programmes. A change request can win approval in minutes yet stay absent from the latest forecast. A structured result can reveal these differences, but it cannot determine which baseline, status rule or approval record is authoritative.
Set the reporting date, approved folders, portfolio scope, reviewer and acceptance criteria before testing. Measure whether the result makes missing evidence, conflicting status and unowned actions easier to spot. The goal is not to polish the portfolio picture; it is to expose the seams before a steering decision depends on it.
Keep access and data handling within scope
PugID states that connections are encrypted, credentials are not saved, and documents and results are not kept permanently. It also states that temporary analysis data is erased automatically after eight hours.
Before connecting commercial forecasts, supplier material, personal data, contracts or steering records, verify folder permissions, contractual terms, processing details and internal policy. Minimise personal data and use synthetic content in public screenshots.
Run one portfolio review with a controlled document set
Start with a bounded question such as milestones due, dependency conflicts or stage-gate completeness. Compare the result against the underlying documents and governed project systems. Record coverage gaps, conflicting records and reviewer corrections before widening the evaluation.