\n| \n Individual criterion has \u201cvalues\u201d<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n Enables ranking on 1 criterion (even if\u00a0 high\/mid\/low)<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n| \n Enough elements as necessary<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n But as few as possible to avoid fatigue with large portfolio<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\nIt is especially important that core team members representing the business function stakeholders are fully understanding and supportive of the framework selected.<\/p>\n 4. Issues in trial ranking of projects<\/h4>\nFatigue<\/b>. Large portfolios take time to discuss and must be split over several sessions. Ideally this happens over consecutive days to maintain a consistent \u201cmind set\u201d for the work. Energy is needed to combat fatigue, so the project content should be ordered so that the most relevant (however judged) projects are dealt with first, creating high value and building confidence in the approach.<\/p>\n Maintaining Cadence<\/b>. Within sessions, it can be useful to \u201ctime box\u201d individual project discussions and place those projects that lack conclusion into an open category. If many projects keep getting put in the open category then this can be a sign of:<\/p>\n\n- Low quality project descriptions<\/li>\n
- Too complex prioritisation framework<\/li>\n
- Too many people participating<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
The project lead can directly address the last two issues e.g. by opening up the framework or using a smaller size team to build the draft proposal & review with the wider core team.<\/p>\n Handling \u201copen\u201d category projects<\/b>. The lead should judge if it is worth investing more time to clarify \u201copen\u201d projects\/ priorities or to prepare to return such projects without overall priority but within some identifying category e.g.<\/p>\n\n- Projects lacking in description\/benefits<\/li>\n
- Projects lacking agreement on business priority<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Rationality and balance of the result<\/b>. The trial project rank result should appear to make sense logically. If there are some anomalies, then it is worth rechecking for consistency of prioritisation criteria. The other test which is less obvious is to look for balance using the earlier project mapping. If only the top 25% of projects are considered, what would the portfolio then look like when mapped? This approach picks up cases when there is not enough in effort anticipating future problems e.g. paying back technical debt.<\/p>\n5. Preparing for the senior stakeholder review<\/h4>\n The ultimate approach taken for the review depends on the nature of the original question asked and therefore if any explicit decisions are required. The normal recommendations apply e.g. gaining feedback when possible from impacted functions, ensuring issues have solutions for mitigation and that the consequences for decisions are outlined.<\/p>\n It is important to be able to briefly show the \u201cworkings\u201d how the team came to its proposal e.g.<\/p>\n \n- This is the issue e.g. project portfolio load unsustainable<\/li>\n
- Here are the people \/ functions engaged in this activity to address the issue<\/li>\n
- Here is the prioritisation methodology used<\/li>\n
- And here are the conclusions & key decisions\u2026<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
The visualisations built used for initially understanding the project portfolio are very valuable as a way of communicating the consequences of different options.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Part way through my career, I was asked to work on a change activity. One of its goals was to bring together the business priorities for a suite of about 100 software development initiatives which supported the end offering of products and platforms. This was a historical exercise, but how might I approach matters now? […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[37],"tags":[16,8,10,11,12,17,20],"class_list":["post-69","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-portfolio-planning","tag-market","tag-portfolio","tag-prioritization","tag-programs","tag-projects","tag-risk","tag-visualization"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/allabouttheproduct.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/allabouttheproduct.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/allabouttheproduct.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/allabouttheproduct.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/allabouttheproduct.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=69"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/allabouttheproduct.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":96,"href":"https:\/\/allabouttheproduct.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69\/revisions\/96"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/allabouttheproduct.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=69"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/allabouttheproduct.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=69"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/allabouttheproduct.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=69"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}} | |
![\"pmap3\"](\"http:\/\/allabouttheproduct.co.uk\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/11\/pmap3.png\" "\\"pmap3\\"")
<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n