Project Portfolio Model

2 min read


Share on linkedin
Share on twitter
Share on facebook
Share on email
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.

Subscribe to our weekly newsletter

Share this blog:

Share on linkedin
Share on twitter
Share on facebook
Share on email

Request a demo specialized to your need.

Prioritizing Communication Through an Integrated CTMS

Related Resources

Data management in a cloud-based world

Over the years, technology has made its way into different aspects of clinical trials bringing in significant progress in the field. There is no denying that in a

Cloudbyz eConsent

With increasing complexity in clinical trials and the adoption of virtual trials, ensuring patients and subjects have a clear understanding of what they will encounter and experience when

Cloudbyz - Safety & Pharmacovigilance Solution Overview

Disparate systems can cause preventable delays in periodic and AE/SAE reporting, which can

Clinical Trial Budget Management

Clinical trials are performed to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of the new drug, improve the capabilities of known drugs.

Cloudbyz is focused on developing innovative enterprise applications and solutions built natively on Salesforce to help enterprises be innovative and agile.

4320 Winfield Road, Suite 200
Warrenville, IL 60555, The USA
Phone: +1 (312)-763-8040

Subcribe to our newsletter

Get the latest update from us by subscribing to our newsletter.

© 2021 Cloudbyz