Portfolio decisions are the responsibility of senior management in most organi- zations and because of their multifactorial nature, the role is often discharged through a team or committee representative of the various constituencies. These will include heads of functions and heads of project areas, with the balance of power reflecting the underlying culture of the organization (Fig. 9).
For those involved in supporting the portfolio management process, under- standing your organization culture and how the process operates are important initial steps toward knowing how to provide valuable input. Whatever the balance, the portfolio management group are the typical consumers of information pre- sented to support portfolio decisions. They have the difficult task of determining the scale and shape of a portfolio that they deem most likely to deliver sustainable value to the business. It is most important that the information provided meets their needs and expectations and is consistent with and supportive of their operating
Strategic Project Management at the Portfolio Level 51 style. No matter how strongly the project teams and portfolio analysts, who are the usual providers of the information, feel that the process could be done more effectively, such a crusading attitude is almost certainly doomed to failure. The reality is that the “customers” in this context will be experienced practitioners with preferred ways of working and there would be the added complication that preferences will not necessarily be uniform for the whole group. The strong recom- mendation is to spend time understanding what these customers require (or think they require) to improve performance of the portfolio management process. Try to develop approaches and methods that support these perceived needs and even address individual rather than group requirements. For example, certain people will respond better to numerical information whereas others may prefer graphical displays. If some people are contributing less than others, is it because they are not receiving information in a format that they find useful? Ask them and see what can be done.
An overly quantitative approach to portfolio management, exemplified at its extreme by attempts to reduce a complex assessment to a single number, often attracts criticism from those who believe that experience, judgment, and intuition need to be captured in some way. Subjective opinions will always be a factor in decision-making but there needs to be a way of sharing the basis of such opinions so that others can make an input. A dissenting opinion should not automatically be overruled by the majority view—it may be based on knowledge or insight that has not been made generally available and could be a decisive factor. Alternatively, it may be based on erroneous assumptions or prejudices. Either way, the reasons and resultant actions need to be understood. The question is how to capture this “softer” information with sufficient structure to allow valid comparisons and open discussion.
One approach that has been tried with some success is described briefly here. It can complement the more conventional quantitative assessments or be used alone to provide a more qualitative overview. The first step is to agree and describe specific factors that are known to (or could) have an influence on outcome and to group these parameters into sensible clusters. It is then necessary to assess and describe the possible outcomes (up to five) in relation to each factor—from highly negative to highly positive. A “weighting” is applied to each outcome and the general shape of the “curve” agreed (i.e., linear or nonlinear weighting). This information is then transferred to a template and the most useful forms of graphical and/or numerical presentation of the possible outcomes are defined.
This part of the process is best accomplished interactively through a workshop-style session with relevant people under the guidance of one or more facilitators. The time required will vary, depending on the scope and complexity, but might typically range from a half a day (for a relatively contained exercise) to two days. Experience has shown that the quality and the level of ownership of the overall exercise is closely linked to the time and thought given to this customization phase.
Strategic Project Management at the Portfolio Level 53 The central component of the process takes the form of a structured discus- sion based closely on the information already developed. “Light-touch” software (the technology element is low-key) is used to capture views, to elicit and consider individual opinions, and to present outcomes. A particular strength of the process is the ability to highlight and discuss the merit of differing and “outlying” opinions rather than simply assuming that the majority or dominant view should prevail. A wide range of factors can be discussed efficiently and the output clustered to provide an easily digestible summary. This is essentially a qualitative process that seeks to capture and assimilate views and opinions and it has the following attributes:
Pragmatism—a simple approach, which captures subjective items very well. Versatility—can be applied just as easily to “big picture” and detail issues. Involvement—people-orientated (the whole team can and should contribute). Ownership—the conclusions are accepted because everyone has had their say.