Mike FrenetteManager, IT PMO| Halifax Water (retired)Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
You often hear (and I have said it myself) that a "strategically aligned" portfolio of programs and projects must be your goal, and that if you reach this goal, you probably have the very best type of portfolio, bar none.
1. This assumes your strategy is realistic, achievable, and appropriate for your organization's capabilities.
2. If your strategy does not evolve as things change within and without, then your aligned portfolio might not reflect the new realities.
3. This also says nothing about bang for the buck - just because it is strategically aligned does not mean it is providing the best ROI or that you even have the funding and resource capacity to deliver all the components.
Strategic alignment is one of the objectives for a portfolio but not the only one...
Kiron Saving Changes...
Mike FrenetteManager, IT PMO| Halifax Water (retired)Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
PMO Leader | Speaker & Mentor | Content Leader – PMOGA Latin America
Hub| Catholic University of UruguayMontevideo, Montevideo, Uruguay
Strategic alignment of project portfolios is a fundamental objective for organizations seeking to maximize return on investment (ROI) and achieve their long-term strategic objectives. It is an ongoing process that involves the selection, prioritization and management of projects that contribute directly to the achievement of the organization's vision and mission.
Reaching the top of the portfolios requires more than simply aligning projects with strategy. It is about creating an optimized project portfolio that represents the best possible use of the organization's resources, Saving Changes...
George FreemanThought Leader | Author | Architect| Florida, United States
Hi Mike,
I agree with Kiron that portfolio management must be adaptive and capable of adjusting in real-time to the conditions functionally present in the upper and ground floors of initiatives. However, I think the answer to your question is “True” based on the following:
--------------------
If a “Strategically aligned portfolio” represents the idea that projects and programs are aligned to meet a strategic objective mandated, sponsored, and chartered by executive management, then yes, it represents an archetype portfolio.
Why? Because the project organization quintessentially exists to fulfill such mandates.
Challenging and fine-tuning the strategy and shaping the project and programs should be a natural activity of the project organization and assigned project managers.
George
...
1 reply by Mike Frenette
Jul 22, 2024 3:10 PM
Mike Frenette
...
To carry the debate a little further, and perhaps play devil's advocate for a moment, if a portfolio of programs and projects contains a number of projects that are clearly operationally-focused, such as one to update a piece of software, another to archive aged records in a financial system, and a few others that would prevent a product from coming to "end of support", would it be considered inferior to a 100% strategically focused portfolio?
Saving Changes...
Minhaaj RehmanCEO| Psyda SolutionsDubai, United Arab Emirates
A "strategically aligned" portfolio is the best type of portfolio due to the following reasons:
Maximizes Value Creation: Directly supports long-term organizational success.
Resource Optimization: Allocates resources to the most important initiatives.
Improved Decision Making: Enables better prioritization and focus.
Enhanced Stakeholder Satisfaction: Aligns with key objectives, satisfying executives and shareholders.
Risk Management: Identifies and manages risks effectively.
Agility and Adaptability: Adapts swiftly to changes in the business environment.
I think strategic alignment is insufficient. Portfolios should be strategically balanced. A former professor of mine used the term "solution space" frequently to describe the blank canvas of the available choices in how to achieve some objective. Let us for sake of argument use the Iron Triangle of scope, schedule, and cost. A portfolio could be fully aligned with schedule and cost, yet leave much potential in scope completely untouched. Saving Changes...
Mike FrenetteManager, IT PMO| Halifax Water (retired)Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
Jul 19, 2024 6:14 PM
Replying to George Freeman
...
Hi Mike,
I agree with Kiron that portfolio management must be adaptive and capable of adjusting in real-time to the conditions functionally present in the upper and ground floors of initiatives. However, I think the answer to your question is “True” based on the following:
--------------------
If a “Strategically aligned portfolio” represents the idea that projects and programs are aligned to meet a strategic objective mandated, sponsored, and chartered by executive management, then yes, it represents an archetype portfolio.
Why? Because the project organization quintessentially exists to fulfill such mandates.
Challenging and fine-tuning the strategy and shaping the project and programs should be a natural activity of the project organization and assigned project managers.
George
To carry the debate a little further, and perhaps play devil's advocate for a moment, if a portfolio of programs and projects contains a number of projects that are clearly operationally-focused, such as one to update a piece of software, another to archive aged records in a financial system, and a few others that would prevent a product from coming to "end of support", would it be considered inferior to a 100% strategically focused portfolio?
...
3 replies by George Freeman, Keith Novak, and Kiron Bondale
Jul 22, 2024 3:53 PM
Keith Novak
...
I consider running the core business as an essential element of a strategically focused portfolio.
There is a very old saying that an army marches on its stomach. If your army's focus is only moving your front lines forward but not maintaining your supply lines, then you will encounter the immortal words from the movie Princess Bride, "never get involved in a land war in Asia,"
Jul 22, 2024 4:57 PM
Kiron Bondale
...
Mike -
I'd agree with Keith that if you can't keep the lights running successfully, there's no point in pursuing strategic objectives.
And many times, operational-focused projects relate to risk reduction strategies...
Rather than strategically aligned (solely), what is important is that every component has an objective, realistic rationale for being selected and prioritized, and that every strategic objective has traceability to at least one component within the portfolio.
Kiron
Jul 22, 2024 5:30 PM
George Freeman
...
Mike,
If I were to read into your refined proposition, I would say you are representing the traditional battle wherein functional divisions within a disparate enterprise complain about the “amount of blood drained from their budgetary coffers” during budget season (for IT cost).
And when you explain the strategic requirement to “keep the lights on,” all they want to do is put IT into the budgetary fighting ring, where they hope their strategically worded uppercut will “turn the IT lights off.”
Those are the days where my name changes from “George Freeman” to “George Foreman.” :)
To carry the debate a little further, and perhaps play devil's advocate for a moment, if a portfolio of programs and projects contains a number of projects that are clearly operationally-focused, such as one to update a piece of software, another to archive aged records in a financial system, and a few others that would prevent a product from coming to "end of support", would it be considered inferior to a 100% strategically focused portfolio?
I consider running the core business as an essential element of a strategically focused portfolio.
There is a very old saying that an army marches on its stomach. If your army's focus is only moving your front lines forward but not maintaining your supply lines, then you will encounter the immortal words from the movie Princess Bride, "never get involved in a land war in Asia," Saving Changes...
To carry the debate a little further, and perhaps play devil's advocate for a moment, if a portfolio of programs and projects contains a number of projects that are clearly operationally-focused, such as one to update a piece of software, another to archive aged records in a financial system, and a few others that would prevent a product from coming to "end of support", would it be considered inferior to a 100% strategically focused portfolio?
Mike -
I'd agree with Keith that if you can't keep the lights running successfully, there's no point in pursuing strategic objectives.
And many times, operational-focused projects relate to risk reduction strategies...
Rather than strategically aligned (solely), what is important is that every component has an objective, realistic rationale for being selected and prioritized, and that every strategic objective has traceability to at least one component within the portfolio.
Kiron Saving Changes...
George FreemanThought Leader | Author | Architect| Florida, United States
Jul 22, 2024 3:10 PM
Replying to Mike Frenette
...
To carry the debate a little further, and perhaps play devil's advocate for a moment, if a portfolio of programs and projects contains a number of projects that are clearly operationally-focused, such as one to update a piece of software, another to archive aged records in a financial system, and a few others that would prevent a product from coming to "end of support", would it be considered inferior to a 100% strategically focused portfolio?
Mike,
If I were to read into your refined proposition, I would say you are representing the traditional battle wherein functional divisions within a disparate enterprise complain about the “amount of blood drained from their budgetary coffers” during budget season (for IT cost).
And when you explain the strategic requirement to “keep the lights on,” all they want to do is put IT into the budgetary fighting ring, where they hope their strategically worded uppercut will “turn the IT lights off.”
Those are the days where my name changes from “George Freeman” to “George Foreman.” :)
Community Champion
