New Product Portfolio Management: Practices and Performance

Abstract

Effective portfolio management is vital to successful product innovation. Portfolio management is about making strategic choices—which markets, products, and technologies our business will invest in. It is about resource allocation—how you will spend your scarce engineering, R&D, and marketing resources. It focuses on project selection—on which new product or development projects you choose from the many opportunities you face. And it deals with balance—having the right balance between numbers of projects you do and the resources or capabilities you have available. In this article, the authors reveal the findings of their extensive study of portfolio management in industry. This study, the first of its kind, reports the portfolio management practices and performance of 205 U.S. companies. Its overall objective was to gain insights into what portfolio methods companies use, whether they are satisfied with them, the performance results they achieve with the different approaches, and suggestions for others who are considering implementing portfolio management. The research first assesses management's satisfaction with portfolio methods they employ and notes that some firms face major problems in portfolio management. Next, businesses are grouped or clustered into four groups according to management's view of portfolio management: Cowboys, Crossroads, Duds, and Benchmark businesses. The research first assesses management's satisfaction with portfolio methods they employ and notes that some firms face major problems in portfolio management. Next, businesses are grouped or clustered into four groups according to management's view of portfolio management: Cowboys, Crossroads, Duds, and Benchmark businesses. Various performance metrics are used to gauge the performance of the business's portfolio. The results reveal major differences between the best and the worst. Benchmark businesses are the top performers. Their new product portfolios consistently score the best in terms of performance—high‐value projects, aligned with the business's strategy, the right balance of projects, and the right number of projects. The authors take a closer look at these benchmark businesses to determine what distinguishes their projects from the rest. Benchmark businesses employ a much more formal, explicit method to managing their portfolio of projects. They rely on clear, well‐defined portfolio procedures, they consistently apply their portfolio method to all projects, and management buys into the approach. The relative popularity of various portfolio methods—from financial methods to strategic approaches, bubble diagrams, and scoring approaches—are investigated. Not surprisingly, financial approaches are the most popular and dominate the portfolio decision. But what is surprising is the dubious results achieved via financial approaches. Again, benchmark businesses stand out from the rest: they place less emphasis on financial approaches and more on strategic methods, and they tend to use multiple methods more so than the rest. Strategic m...

Perspective: The Stage‐Gate® Idea‐to‐Launch Process—Update, What's New, and NexGen Systems*

“…Although not the most popular screening method, scorecards certainly are well liked by their users. They are rated highly in terms of effectiveness (make the right decision) and efficiency (in a timely fashion) and fit management's style (Cooper, Edgett, and Kleinschmidt, 1998, 1999). Users also indicate that, although the overall project score is useful to prioritize projects, the real value in the scorecard method is the behavioral aspect—the fact that a group of senior executives meet, discuss the project, walk through a set of key questions, debate the questions, reach closure, and then make a decision.…”

A Lack of Insight: An Experimental Analysis of R&D Managers’ Decision Making in Innovation Portfolio Management

“…F irms have to manage the right innovation projects to be successful, which has far-reaching consequences for long-run competitiveness (Eggers, 2012). This approach exceeds managing single projects and describes a dynamic decision process in which a firm continuously reconfigures its portfolio of active innovation projects (Cooper, Edgett & Kleinschmidt, 1999;Perks, 2007;McNally, Durmuşoğlu & Calantone, 2013). Potential projects are evaluated, chosen and prioritized, whereas ongoing projects may be exploited, de-prioritized or terminated (Cooper, Edgett & Kleinschmidt, 1999;Kester et al, 2011).…”

“…This approach exceeds managing single projects and describes a dynamic decision process in which a firm continuously reconfigures its portfolio of active innovation projects (Cooper, Edgett & Kleinschmidt, 1999;Perks, 2007;McNally, Durmuşoğlu & Calantone, 2013). Potential projects are evaluated, chosen and prioritized, whereas ongoing projects may be exploited, de-prioritized or terminated (Cooper, Edgett & Kleinschmidt, 1999;Kester et al, 2011). When making these choices, managers need to assess innovation projects against the backdrop of the entire innovation project portfolio and the resources available for managing it.…”

Evaluating the Software Product Management Maturity Matrix

“…Being a product manager is a complex affair consisting of many responsibilities ranging from requirements management [7], release planning [8] [9], product planning [10] [11], to portfolio management [12]. Therefore a product manager can also be referred to as the "mini-CEO" of an organization [4].…”