View
1.555
Download
3
Category
Tags:
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
Principles of good strategic potfolio management and dimensions of great portfolio results.
Citation preview
Principles of Strategic Portfolio Management
David MathesonPresident and CEO
www.smartorg.com
© 2000-2012 SmartOrg. | Confidential and Proprietary.2
David Matheson—Session Chairman
Dr. David Matheson has helped senior management of firms in the United States and Europe improve their results from portfolio management, product development, innovation, R&D, capital investment and strategy, and is an expert on measuring value and managing uncertainty. His practical experience covers a wide variety of industries,
including printing, software development, biotechnology, telecommunications, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, medical devices, manufacturing, electric power and entertainment. He is co-author of the best selling book, The Smart Organization:
Creating Value through Strategic R&D (Harvard Business School Press) and has authored numerous articles on innovation, portfolio management and decision making. In addition to SmartOrg, his executive roles include: currently
member of the board at Photozini, Inc. and prior to founding SmartOrg in 2000, a principal at Strategic Decisions Group.His Ph.D. is from Stanford University, where he currently teaches
on Strategic Portfolio Management and other topics at the Stanford Center for Professional Development
Improving capability to discover value.
3
Life science Aerospace Technology Other
© 2000-2012 SmartOrg. | Confidential and Proprietary.
Software and services to help you build your capability.
Portfolio Navigator Software Services
© 2000-2012 SmartOrg. | Confidential and Proprietary.4
Evaluate and track sources of value, risk and upside.
Focus stakeholders on critical issues.
Aggregate and compare projects and portfolios.
Jim Matheson, Ph.D. Chairman
Nadine Oeser,European Consultant
Greg Lorch,Consultant
Somik Raha, Ph.D.Consultant
Grant Steinfeld,Software
Peter McNamee, Ph.D. Solutions & Software
• Training & Coaching• Management Consulting• Pilots & Implementation
Projects• Customization
SPD-Framework v15—5 © 2009 by Stanford Strategic Decision and Risk Management. All rights reserved.
Strategic Decision and Risk ManagementA Professional Certificate Program
© 2000-2012 SmartOrg. | Confidential and Proprietary.6
Principles of good strategic portfolio management.
© 2000-2012 SmartOrg. | Confidential and Proprietary.7
Aligned Decision Forum
Value Creation Focus
Credible, Comparable Evaluations
Embraces Uncertainty
and Dynamics
Clear Communication
& Learning
Inclusive, Collaborative
Process
Principlesof SPM
The three basic dimensions of great portfolio results.
© 2000-2012 SmartOrg. | Confidential and Proprietary.8
What
How
Process:MilestonesGatesTimelineReviews
Resources:AssignmentBudgetingConflict
Economic:PrioritizationEvaluationStrategy
Great portfolio results
Who
De
cis
ion
s
Tracking Execution
Delivering A Billion Dollars – Lessons In
Portfolio Evaluation
Ken Edwardsson – Global Leader
Dow AgroSciences
September 15, 2008
Dow AgroSciences is a good example of a company – Achieving more with less.
© 2000-2012 SmartOrg. | Confidential and Proprietary. 10
© 2000-2012 SmartOrg. | Confidential and Proprietary.
Decision Focused
— Choosing the Right Path by
Deciding Where To Spend
Long Learning Loop
Results Focused
— Running Well on the Chosen Path
By Managing How You Spend It
Short Learning Loop
Portfolio Management Best Practice
Strategy Execution
Resource Management
Charter Projects
Development Stages
ReviewIdeas
Value Capture
Project Review
DecisionValue
Promise
Create Projects
Portfolio Management Project ManagementGating Process:• Singular projects• In depth reviews• Go/Kill decisions• Standards based
Portfolio View:• All Projects• Investment Types• Strategic Alignment
Requires – Both A Strategic View And A Tactical Focus
11
© 2000-2012 SmartOrg. | Confidential and Proprietary.
Identifying key projectUncertainties and their Impact (Value Drivers)
Valuing Projects and Characterizing alternatives
SensitivityAnalysis
Project Risk Assessment
Technical
Market
ExpectedFuture Value
H
Likely
L
Issues &Assumptions
••••••••
ProbabilityDistribution
DecisionAnalysis
InvestmentIntensity
Risk RewardBal. Portfolio
Less Emphasized
Decision and Risk Assessment Tools
Portfolio Management Best Practice
12
13
DAS Portfolio Management Results
EBIT* CAGR
SALES CAGR
16%5%
2001-2010
CAGR Goal
6%23%
2001-07
Actual CAGR
Growth + Return
*Non-GAAP financial measure, excludes certain items
© 2000-2012 SmartOrg. | Confidential and Proprietary.
The core of portfolio management: making decisions.
© 2000-2012 SmartOrg. | Confidential and Proprietary.14
Aligned Decision Forum
Value Creation Focus
Credible, Comparable Evaluations
Embraces Uncertainty
and Dynamics
Clear Communication
& Learning
Inclusive, Collaborative
Process
Principlesof SPM
© 2000-2012 SmartOrg. | Confidential and Proprietary.15
Portfolio Management = The discussion of what to do about the gap between top-down aspiration and bottom-up reality
© 2000-2012 SmartOrg. | Confidential and Proprietary.16
Top-Down• Where do we want to go?• What do we need to get
there?
Bottom-Up• What do we have in our
portfolio?• What should we keep,
modify, shut down?
Portfolio Manager Role
• Set funding priorities
• Allocate resources among segments
• Balance innovation and incremental projects
• Meet corporate financial goals
• Assure a steady stream of successful new products
$-
$50.0
$100.0
$150.0
$200.0
$250.0
$300.0
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Example top-down meets bottom-up: a growth gap.
© 2000-2012 SmartOrg. | Confidential and Proprietary.17
Growth Goal
GAP
Contribution from NPD Portfolio
Existing business, growth markets
Existing business, declining markets
Line 1Line 2Line 3Line 4
Line 1Line 2Line 3Line 4
Aligned Decision Forum. The process drives real decision-making at all levels.
© 2000-2012 SmartOrg. | Confidential and Proprietary.18
People
Structure
Information
Players compete to make decisions or advance their own agendas without an effective forum for joint portfolio decisions.
Players deliberate, resolve conflict, and take actions
based on cooperative discussion.
The process is unclear or most projects are exceptions to the process.
Line 1Line 2Line 3Line 4
Decisions are made using “gut feel” based on anecdotal information.
Meaningful and relevant information is summarized at appropriate level of detail for
decision at hand.
The process brings the right people together, clarifies top-
down aspirations and bottom-up reality, and frames decisions
about prioritization and strategy
About 40% of companies have difficulty with the Aligned Decision Forum.
© 2000-2012 SmartOrg. | Confidential and Proprietary.19
Take the survey at: http://spreadsheets.google.com/viewform?hl=en&formkey=dGk2TWdQUjJwT3J6YmIyUWU0VVYtU2c6MA#gid=0
Here’s a case where the key to success was shifting the focus to value creation.
© 2000-2012 SmartOrg. | Confidential and Proprietary.20
Aligned Decision Forum
Value Creation Focus
Credible, Comparable Evaluations
Embraces Uncertainty
and Dynamics
Clear Communication
& Learning
Inclusive, Collaborative
Process
Principlesof SPM
© 2000-2012 SmartOrg. | Confidential and Proprietary.21
Too many projects, not enough resources – what would you do in this situation?
• A high-tech packaging company built on tremendous innovation over decades in materials and design.
• Increasing global competition and erosion of its advantage.— Its products were increasingly undifferentiated.— Margins eroding dramatically.— R&D and NPD had in recent years failed to produce.
• The portfolio was choked with R&D and NPD proposals.— CEO has asked for more innovation— Largely cost reductions and incremental projects.— New innovation was crowded out.— Lots of churn and debate as projects struggled to get
resources.— They had 70+ projects and could only support about 15.
© 2000-2012 SmartOrg. | Confidential and Proprietary.22
Which approach produces the best result?
• Business cases – CFO created a business case process that gathered relevant data and put it in financial terms. Modeled after successful capital investment process.
• Project management – Assign clear project leadership responsibility, form teams, create plans with clear milestones and deliverables. Pursue the best plans, hold people accountable.
• Resource allocation – Core issue is that certain resources are oversubscribed. Create resource managers to assign key resources based on guidelines and situation specifics.
• Scoring rules – Define essential criteria, such as strategic fit, size of opportunity, technical difficulty and investment. Assess score for each project on scale of 1-5 on each dimension. Take weighted average to get figure of merit.
© 2000-2012 SmartOrg. | Confidential and Proprietary.23
Typical approaches often fail to resolve the real portfolio issues
“Business cases strongly favored incremental projects.” “Project management methods created more work on projects we would cancel.” “Resource allocation efforts abdicated the companies most important investment decisions to relatively low-level managers.” “Weighted scoring rules simply elevated politics to a new level of sophistication.”
“When we got clear about value, many project leaders voluntarily cancelled their own projects; they realized they could better direct their efforts to higher-value projects.”
“We reduced our portfolio from 70 to 20 projects, improving the return by more than 100%.”
© 2000-2012 SmartOrg. | Confidential and Proprietary.24
A High-Tech Packaging Company
APPROACHES THAT DID NOT WORK
GOOD EVALUATION WORKED
Too many projects — how to sort them out?
Reinventing the Product Portfolio: Session III – May 2010
Line 1Line 2Line 3Line 4
Line 1Line 2Line 3Line 4
Value Creation Focus. The goal is to find the strategy that maximize value creation.
© 2000-2012 SmartOrg. | Confidential and Proprietary.25
People
Structure
Information
Objectives are driven by personal agendas, functional perspectives, and individual biases.
Individuals and groups think clearly about economic and
strategic issues and creatively about how to improve value.
Metrics and analysis are not clearly connected to value creation, or they are manipulated to advance personal agendas.
Line 1Line 2Line 3Line 4
Information selected to support personal agendas or positions. Irrelevant information brought to bear on decisions.
All the information needed to inform value creation, both positive and negative, are incorporated into a neutral
evaluations
Metrics and analysis inform understanding of economic outcomes
and drive choices.
About 55% of companies have challenges with Value Creation Focus.
© 2000-2012 SmartOrg. | Confidential and Proprietary.26
Next we see an organization lacking comparable evaluations and full collaboration in decision making.
© 2000-2012 SmartOrg. | Confidential and Proprietary.27
Aligned Decision Forum
Value Creation Focus
Credible, Comparable Evaluations
Embraces Uncertainty
and Dynamics
Clear Communication
& Learning
Inclusive, Collaborative
Process
Principlesof SPM
© 2000-2012 SmartOrg. | Confidential and Proprietary.28
Accelerating the Deployment of Technology to Business Opportunities
Kevin Kimber – ChevronTexaco
Role of Portfolio Optimization Process & Toolsfor Heavy Oil Technology
Like many organizations, we faced significant challenges…
• Business needs for technology were not being met in a timely fashion
• Corporate growth objectives demanding more for less
• Technologists keeping projects alive too long
• Inconsistent project evaluations
• Not enough project failures
• Difficulty comparing projects of different types
• Limitations of thumbs up / down approach to project prioritization
30
The existing portfolio process was primarily a “roll-up” of business cases to justify projects.
ProjectJustifications
• Business Cases
PortfolioDecisions
• Subjective Factors
This was a competitive, adversarial process, with very little quality in the data, which severely hampered decision-making.
31
CT Heavy Oil met the challenges by implementing a value-based, portfolio management process.
Value-based, Portfolio Management Process
Project Evaluations
• Specify & quantify uncertainty
• Clear standards• Give teams real
direction
Peer & Expert Review
• Transparency• Credibility &
comparability
Portfolio Decisions
• Value-based• Solid information• Strategic
alignment
Uncertainty Tracking
• Baseline assessments
• Updates based on evidence
32
A transparent process helped address the “garbage-in, garbage-out” problem.
Commercial Value Given Technical Success Range of Uncertainty ($million)
Improving Computational Capability
Shearing
LSTS
Performance Prediction
Dow nhole Steam Prof ile Control
2D NMR
Thin Sand Thermal
Dow nhole Steam Prof ile - New Wells
Catalyst
Remote Sensing
Steam Inj Well BP
Steam Distribution
Bio-Upgrading
Heat Management
Improve Hydrocoking Process
Well Gauging
High Mobility Ratio Waterf lood
HOSGD
Reservoir Opportunity Identif ication
VAPEX
Cold Flow
Heavy Oil Chemistry
Sulfur & Metals Removal
CASH
-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Project 1
Project 2
Project 3
Project 4
Project 5
Project 6
Project 7
Project 8
Project 9
Project 10
Project 11
Project 12
Project 13
Project 14
Project 15
Project 16
Project 17
Project 18
Project 19
Project 20
Project 21
Project 22
Project 23
Probability of Technical Success
Shearing
Heavy Oil Chemistry
Improving Computational Capability
Bio-Upgrading
Thin Sand Thermal
Sulfur & Metals Removal
VAPEX
Catalyst
High Mobility Ratio Waterf lood
LSTS
Improve Hydrocoking Process
Performance Prediction
HOSGD
Steam Inj Well BP
Reservoir Opportunity Identif ication
Cold Flow
CASH
2D NMR
Dow nhole Steam Prof ile - New Wells
Heat Management
Remote Sensing
Steam Distribution
Well Gauging
Dow nhole Steam Prof ile Control
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80
Project 1
Project 2
Project 3
Project 4
Project 5
Project 6
Project 7
Project 8
Project 9
Project 10
Project 11
Project 12
Project 13
Project 14
Project 15
Project 16
Project 17
Project 18
Project 19
Project 20
Project 21
Project 22
Project 23
Project 24
• Historically this was one of the most challenging issues
• Process and tools key to overcoming
Project Evaluations
• Specify & quantify uncertainty
• Clear standards• Give teams real
direction
Peer & Expert Review
• Transparency• Credibility and
Comparability
Portfolio Decisions
• Value-based• Solid information• Strategic
Alignment
Uncertainty Tracking
• Baseline assessments• Updates based on evidence
After: a value-based management process
Project Comparison Tools33
The result: acceleration of technology to business opportunity.
2003 2004 Improvement
New ideas screened
22 35 60%
Projects initiated
6 9 50%
Projects Deployed
1 2 100%
Projects Terminated
3 6 100%
34
A major challenge in portfolio management:
© 2000-2012 SmartOrg. | Confidential and Proprietary.35
Saying “no” to a good idea…
In order to fund a better one…
How do you make a “no” stick? • Power• Persuasion
The gold standard of persuasion:
© 2000-2012 SmartOrg. | Confidential and Proprietary.36
The political loser comes to the same conclusion himself.
This sucks for me but I have to
agree it is the right priority.
The silver standard of pursuasion:
© 2000-2012 SmartOrg. | Confidential and Proprietary.37
The political loser accepts that the process was fair and accurate.
This sucks for me and I think it’s the wrong choice, but at least they heard the full story and
made a tough call.
Credible, Comparable Evaluations. The process allows participants to make and accept decisions.
© 2000-2012 SmartOrg. | Confidential and Proprietary.38
People
Structure
Information
Line 1Line 2Line 3Line 4
Project evaluations are internally inconsistent without underlying mental models or logic.
Information is selected to support individual projects without regard for consistency across projects.
Information comes from knowledgeable sources,
and is shared, vetted, and understood across the
projects.
Common evaluation framework follows clear
and comprehensible logic; common issues
are treated in common ways.
Significant advocacy: the objective is to “win” by having requests granted and gaming the system is tolerated.
Those whose preferred alternatives are rejected
find the basis for the decision convincing.
Explicitly evaluating uncertainty was key to unlocking value in the next company’s portfolio.
© 2000-2012 SmartOrg. | Confidential and Proprietary.39
Aligned Decision Forum
Value Creation Focus
Credible, Comparable Evaluations
Embraces Uncertainty
and Dynamics
Clear Communication
& Learning
Inclusive, Collaborative
Process
Principlesof SPM
Reinventing the Product Portfolio: Session III – May 2010
© 2000-2012 SmartOrg. | Confidential and Proprietary.40
Go/No Go: Knowing What to Bank On Version 10.0, 6/07© 2006 Sprint Nextel. All Rights Reserved.
41
Before: The valuation guessing game…
2007 2008 2009
Revenue 3M 6M 9MCosts 6M 7M 8M Margin (3M) (1M) 1M
PRO FORMA
Effects of this approach
Does not allow you to innovate around the business model, here the business model is constant – subscription model
Hides high areas of certainty Not the correct tool for highly uncertain businesses opportunities. Gives impression of precision based on difficult to support
assumptions.
Assumptions: Take Rate Market Size Market Share Ramp Up …
Go/No Go: Knowing What to Bank On Version 10.0, 6/07© 2006 Sprint Nextel. All Rights Reserved.
42
After: Focusing on driving value up
Effects of this approach
Each variable accounts for the range of variability
Top three variables are clearly illustrated Helps to filter non-essential data and stay
focused!
1: What is known / unknown about key economic factors?
e.g. Channel deal High: we use own channel,
we go direct, we do deal with X or Y
Low: we stay in traditional channel, we do deal with P or Q, we need lots of floorspace
2: What is the possible range of the factor given our uncertainty?
e.g. Channel deal High: 25% Base: 10% Low: 5%
NPV
“GRAND SLAM” VALUATION
$100M $450M$0M
Channel Deal
Margin
Monthly Fee
5% 25%
10%5%
$5 $15
3: What is economic impact of that uncertainty?
A company set up a new lab, with high expectations. Later they asked, “Is the new lab on track?”
© 2000-2012 SmartOrg. | Confidential and Proprietary.43
• A Fortune 100 company acquired several smaller companies with good products in the market, but not much of an R&D pipeline.
• A new R&D laboratory was established with the goal of “researching their way” to becoming a world-class firm.
• Since the lab was new, and the technical areas were leading edge, they picked easy targets to get them onto the map soon.
Is the lab on track? Will their lab generate the hits required?
A 1-month quantitative evaluation revealed a lack of the “oysters” needed to create block-buster products.
© 2000-2012 SmartOrg. | Confidential and Proprietary.44
Probability of Development
Success
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
.9
1.0
0
Expected Commercial Value Given Development Success($ millions)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000
PearlsBread & Butter
OystersWhite Elephants
Innovation Screen
After a quarter spent identifying more valuable commercial targets, their portfolio had better odds of winning.
© 2000-2012 SmartOrg. | Confidential and Proprietary.45
Probability of Development
Success
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
.9
1.0
0
Expected Commercial Value Given Development Success($ millions)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000
PearlsBread & Butter
OystersWhite Elephants
Innovation Screen
Uncertainty ranges tend to be base case + 10%.
Embraces Uncertainty and Dynamics. All uncertainties are treated explicitly over time.
© 2000-2012 SmartOrg. | Confidential and Proprietary.46
People
Structure
Information
Deterministic thinking and risk aversion drive a quest for certainty.
Robust thinking about upside, downside, and
options. Willingness to take prudent calculated risks.
Line 1Line 2Line 3Line 4
Assumptions co-mingle discussions about knowledge, commitments and aspirations into point estimates.
Assumptions are made to defend a position. Disconfirming information is suppressed.
Information is robustly represented in terms of
ranges and probabilities with supporting rationales
for the assessments.
Discussion of uncertain knowledge are separated
from discussions about commitments and
aspirations.
About 60% of companies have challenges with Embracing Uncertainty.
© 2000-2012 SmartOrg. | Confidential and Proprietary.47
Unless carefully managed, the portfolio process can create unintended burdens.
© 2000-2012 SmartOrg. | Confidential and Proprietary.48
Aligned Decision Forum
Value Creation Focus
Credible, Comparable Evaluations
Embraces Uncertainty
and Dynamics
Clear Communication
& Learning
Inclusive Collaborative
Process
Principlesof SPM
© 2000-2012 SmartOrg. | Confidential and Proprietary.49
Have you ever encountered a spreadsheet with hundreds of inputs?
© 2000-2012 SmartOrg. | Confidential and Proprietary.50
Simplified logical map of a spreadsheet once in common use at Boeing (the actual spreadsheet is too large to show).
Spreadsheet models can spin out of control creating drudgery and overhead.
© 2000-2012 SmartOrg. | Confidential and Proprietary.51
Spreadsheet model lacks a
feature needed in a case, feature is
added
Data requirements increase for everyone to
support more complex model
Broader Analysis
Expansion in scope of portfolio
More projects of different types
added
New portfolio insight
Benefits increase for every project added
Overhead increases as the square of the number of
projects
“Death by a thousand cuts”
Adversarial processes – a spiral of increasing overhead and distrust.
© 2000-2012 SmartOrg. | Confidential and Proprietary.52
Pressure to create a winning pitch creates a search for an advantage and tendency to
exaggerate
Concern of being misled creates need for extra
scrutiny
Staff and process created to oversee and
make sure pitches are good
ones
“You are asking for the rope you are going to use to hang me.”
Information available but biased and not vetted.
Documented for large Units only.
Inclusive, Collaborative Process. All stake-holders participate and derive value from the process.
© 2000-2012 SmartOrg. | Confidential and Proprietary.53
People
Structure
Information
Portfolio process serves some people (e.g. executives) and is not in the interest of others (e.g. project leaders).
All participants find the portfolio process useful
in accomplishing their work.
Line 1Line 2Line 3Line 4
Participants experience large scale drudgery in support of portfolio process
Basis of decisions lost or information is privileged.
Basis of decision is stored and becomes a common repository
of knowledge.
Tools, methods,
practices, etc. are efficient.
Finally, it is all about clear commination and learning.
© 2000-2012 SmartOrg. | Confidential and Proprietary.54
Aligned Decision Forum
Value Creation Focus
Credible, Comparable Evaluations
Embraces Uncertainty
and Dynamics
Clear Communication
& Learning
Inclusive, Collaborative
Process
Principlesof SPM
Reinventing the Product Portfolio: Session III – May 2010Reinventing the Product Portfolio: Session III – May 2010
© 2000-2012 SmartOrg. | Confidential and Proprietary.55
BIG MISTAKES IN EVALUATIONPEOPLE Treating a project evaluation as an analysis rather than as a
conversation. Not having the right people in the room for the conversation. Not having a process for making the decision.
TOOLS Use of scoring grids, strategic buckets or other tools that lack the power to provide real insight and drive a lasting business decision.
VALUE Failing to bring an evaluation to the bottom line prevents real discussion of business issues and tradeoffs. Narrow view of value as NPV. Undocumented assumptions lead people to believe that a particular value metric is more comprehensive than warranted.
UNCERTAINTY Critical issues are covered up using assumptions rather than explicitly quantified as uncertainty. Failure to evaluate, vet, and learn about uncertainties. No understanding of the businesses ability to manage risk and uncertainty.
Source: Robin Karol, CEO of PDMAStrategic and Operational Portfolio Management Conference, 2006
© 2000-2012 SmartOrg. | Confidential and Proprietary. 56
© Inspire Pharmaceuticals Inc., all rights reserved. Used with permission. 57
New Corporate Strategy
PatentGranted
CompetitiveProduct Approved
Technical Setback
NPV Given Technical Success
Pro
bab
ilit
y o
f Te
ch
nic
al S
uccess
What can we do with this asset?What can we do with this asset?
Bread & Butter Bread & Butter PearlsPearls
White ElephantsWhite Elephants OystersOysters
Innovation screen
PositivePhase 1
PositivePhase 2
RegulatorySet-back
Initial Perception
IP uncertainty addressed
ImprovedStrategy
Line 1Line 2Line 3Line 4
Clear Communication and Learning. Information is freely shared and updated.
© 2000-2012 SmartOrg. | Confidential and Proprietary.58
People
Structure
Information
Results are used to blame, punish, reward, etc.
Results are used to improve
project and portfolio value.
Results are used to measure progress and hold people
accountable.
No mechanisms for tracking, feedback, and learning.
Variance and cost / schedule
tracking only
The focus is on the most available information
Information is gathered based on the quantified
benefits of filling information gaps.
Uncertainties are tracked and updated based on
new evidence, and decisions are updated
appropriately
The design challenge is applying these principles in a way that best fits the situation.
© 2000-2012 SmartOrg. | Confidential and Proprietary.59
Aligned Decision Forum
The process drives real decision-making at all levels.
Value Creation Focus
The goal is to find the portfolio strategy that maximizes value created for the organization.
Credible, Comparable Evaluations
The information and evaluations in the process allow participants to make and accept decisions.
Embraces Uncertainty and Dynamics
All uncertainties are treated explicitly and updated over time.
Clear Communication and Learning
Information is share freely, performance is tracked, and assessments are routinely updated.
Inclusive, Collaborative Process
All stakeholders participate openly and derive value from the process.
Principles of Strategic Portfolio Management
Try assessing your own organization:www.smartorg.com/PrinciplesSurvey
© 2000-2012 SmartOrg. | Confidential and Proprietary.60
Aligned Decision Forum
Value Creation Focus
Credible, Comparable Evaluations
Embraces Uncertainty
and Dynamics
Clear Communication
& Learning
Inclusive, Collaborative
Process
Principlesof SPM
SmartOrg® provides software and services to help companies evaluate their opportunities and make the best decisions about where to invest, especially when the future is clouded with uncertainty. Customers use SmartOrg® to build their capability in driving innovation from idea to commercial results and in selecting projects, improving returns in their portfolio.
SmartOrg® helps companies to attain the highest value from projects and portfolios.
855 Oak Grove, Suite 202Menlo Park, CA 94025 USAT: +1.650.470.0120info@smartorg.com
www.linkedin.com/company/smartorg
@smartorginc
© 2000-2013 SmartOrg. | Confidential and Proprietary.61
Recommended