Jamal Moustafaev

Jamal Moustafaev

Project Portfolio Model2 min read

The next company to be discussed in our ongoing project portfolio management series is a rail transport engineering company that has encountered several challenges in the past several years. The organization has been reporting heavy losses from its operations for the past decade with no sign of potential improvement.

The analysis of the company’s operations has shown that one of the main reasons for the poor performance of the company was the large number of products produced by the organization as a result of various customization requests from their customers.

This in its turn led  to a very large number of concurrent projects with a lion’s share of them being customization rather than new product development ventures. As a result the quality of the project products has also declined leading to major delays in the product delivery to the customers.


As a result of the above-mentioned events the executives of the company came up with the following strategy:

  • Implement rigorous project portfolio management system in order to (a) prioritize projects and (b) cut low-priority ventures
  • Create platform products in order decrease the degree of customization and to eliminate complexity
  • Increase sales and margins per product category
  • Expand the markets to China, Africa, South America
  • Improve customer care
  • Improve product quality

The Scoring Model

The scoring model developed as a result of the project portfolio management initiative has consisted of the six variables (see also Table 1):

  • Market attractiveness
  • Fit to existing supply chain
  • Product and competitive advantage
  • Technical feasibility
  • Time to break even
  • NPV

Table 1


Interestingly enough the company management decided not to include the strategic fit as one of the variables in the model, arguing that the combination of the variables selected would address all of their strategic initiatives in a more efficient way.

As a result the maximum number of points the project could generate was sixty, while the minimum – unless it was added to the kill category – six points.

Portfolio Balance

Company executives decided to monitor the balance of their portfolio via the risk vs. reward graph (see Figure 1):


Strategic Alignment

The management decided to adopt the “top-down, bottom up” approach to the project selection with the following strategic buckets:

  • Stay in business projects – 10-20% of total project expenses
  • Product improvements – 60-70% of total project expenses
  • New product lines – 10-30% of total project expenses

This was a guest article written by Jamal Moustafaev from Thinktank Consulting.



Related Blog​s

Project Portfolio Management
Tim Washington

Project Pipeline Management

Project pipeline management is an important component of project portfolio management (PPM) because it encompasses the work needed to “select the right projects”. Pipeline management

Read More »
Project Portfolio Management
Tim Washington

Prioritization Matrix

In a recent LinkedIn discussion, questions were asked about the short-comings of prioritization matrices. I would like to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of using such a tool for portfolio management. Firstly, a prioritization matrix differs from a more traditional scoring approach in that it offers a limited number of priority selections. The most simplistic…

Read More »
Project Portfolio Management
Jamal Moustafaev

Project Portfolio Management – The Role of the PMO

The first role of the PMO is to act as a filtration mechanism for all the incoming project proposals. It is very important to point out that project management office should not have a mandate to overturn or reject project requests. Its role is to accept the business cases, review them and whenever possible to point…

Read More »

©2020 Cloudbyz Inc. All Rights Reserved.