ANSWER NO # 02

Project risk management is an iterative process that begins with a plan for how
risks will be managed throughout the life of the project. Risks must first be
identified and analyzed. Then risk responses and action steps must be developed.
The risk management plan should also include the steps, processes, or procedures
that will be used to continually monitor risk during the project.
Defining requirements for a process improvement project can be particularly
challenging. Depending on the extent and complexity of the initiative, it can
involve a large group of stakeholders, external consultants, and new technology.
Risk analysis requires the project team to document each risk, assess the
probability and impact, and develop responses should the risks occur.

Risk management is the effect of uncertainty on an organization’s set objectives.

One of the principles for effective risk management in the ISO 31000:2009 global
risk management standard is that risk management should be “dynamic, iterative,
and responsive to change”. It captures a number of key ingredients for the
effective management of uncertainty and risk.
“Dynamic” suggests that risk management operates at the speed of the business.
It is far more than the occasional, even if regular, assessment of a list of so-called
top risks. “Dynamic” is when the consideration and management of risk is part of
the fabric of the organization, and an element in daily decision-making and
operations of the organization. It is active and essential.

“Iterative” is about a reliable set of processes and systems for identifying,

assessing, evaluating, and treating risk. It means that when management makes
decisions, based in part on risk information, there are proven processes and the
information is reliable.

Finally, “responsive to change” is essential when risk changes at speed. Every day
there is a potential surprise, a new or maybe changed situation to which the
organization should at least consider responding. It could be a shift in exchange
rates, a change in the government of a nation where you do business, the loss of a
key customer, a new competitor etc.

Therefore, organizations must be responsive to change and agile in modifying

strategy and execution at all times.
For this Discussion:

 Describe three to five risks you feel are important to address in defining
stakeholder requirements for a business process improvement project.
 How are the risks linked to the stakeholder requirements and business
objectives for the project?
 Using the data analysis technique traceability matrix, determine the
probability and impact of each risk.
 What is the overall risk exposure to the project?
 What is your strategy to respond to each individual risk? To overall project
risk?

Describe three to five risks you feel are important to address in defining
stakeholder requirements for a business process improvement (BPI) project.

 The risks are that the identified business process for improvement is
adding no or little strategic value to its stakeholders nor contributing to
objectives of company (markets / product). Because it was easy to do or
very easily identified that’s why was undertaken. It leads to wastage of all
resources. The needs of customers, shareholders, financiers should be
taken into account to select the process for improvement.
 The people who owns the process or who will run the process are
ignored. Their acceptance and inputs are required for success of the BPI
project.
 The communication barrier can jeopardize the scope of stakeholders
need for BPI. The risk is that organizations think ultimately the stakeholder
will witness value by implementing the process improvement. Here wide
communication is warranted. Stakeholders have their own diverse doubts.
Each group should be specifically told how they will get benefitted by BPI.
 ANSWER NO # 03
The Government's increased measures to slow the spread or 'flatten the curve' of
COVID-19, including closing schools, advising working from home and restricting
personal freedoms, has created enormous uncertainty for projects and
construction in terms of how these restrictions apply to site operations. Things
are getting a little clearer, for now at least.

On 31 March 2020, the Secretary of State for Business sent a letter to the
construction industry confirming that people working in the construction industry
can continue to travel to work and effectively endorsed the Site Operating
Procedures published by the Construction Leadership Council (CLC).The
procedures "introduce consistent measures on sites of all sizes in line with the
Government's recommendations on social distancing" and will be kept up-to-date
with the latest guidance from Public Health England.

The Coronavirus Act 2020 (the Act) was given Royal Assent on 25 March 2020 and
is now in force. Section 52 and Schedule 22 confer on the Government the right
to close premises during a "public health response period". As far we are aware,
we are not currently in a public health response period in England because no
declarations have been issued to that effect, so the Government is not yet
entitled to issue a direction of this nature under the Act. Scotland, however,
issued a declaration on 27 March 2020 commencing a public health response
period, but we have not found any directions given under it. Directions must be
"published in a manner as the Secretary of State (or in the case of Scotland, the
Scottish Ministers) considers appropriate to bring it to the attention of other
persons who may be affected by it." Despite the Government not specifically
ordering construction sites to close, the industry has been facing pressure to do
so of its own accord, with numerous major contractors having decided to close
their sites across the UK.

This article provides an overview of some of the key contractual provisions and
takes a brief look at the common law doctrine of frustration, which parties
involved in construction projects in the UK should consider in order to protect
their commercial position as a result of the additional risks and issues caused by
the COVID-19 pandemic. It considers the approach of two of the most widely used
domestic standard forms - JCT and NEC - to the situation, and provides practical
 tips for those who might be affected and how they might mitigate the risks that
may arise.

Entitlement to Extensions of Time / Loss and Expense

Contractors concerned that they could face delays or increased costs as a result of
the COVID-19 outbreak would be well advised to consider whether they have any
express entitlements to relief under their contract.

For example, a contractor may seek an entitlement to extensions of time and/or

additional payment in the event that: 

 shortages of labor arise as a result of preventative measures to alleviate the

outbreak spreading and/or due to infection, or potential infection, and the
resulting quarantine, or self-isolation, required;
 shortages of plant and materials arise due to delays in their importation or
transportation or the closure of plant hire companies or suppliers;
 the site is closed or access is restricted as a result of measures to contain
the COVID-19 outbreak; and/or
 the contractor is not able to carry out the works as a result of action by
governments to prevent the spread of the outbreak.
We consider below the possible entitlements under JCT and NEC standard form
contracts.

JCT

Force Majeure

Force majeure is a foreign law concept, originating from French civil law, which
has been introduced into English law contracts, where it remains a creature of
contract and not a common law doctrine. It is usually used to refer to
circumstances that are outside of the parties' control. Whether it can be relied
upon in relation to the COVID-19 outbreak will depend on how the clause is
triggered in the contract. The JCT suite of contracts makes express reference to
“force majeure” being a "relevant event" (see, for example, Clause 2.29.15 of the
JCT Standard Building Contract 2016) and a potential termination trigger (at
Clause 8.11 of the same form).

Force Majeure as a Relevant Event

As epidemic or pandemic events are not listed as separate relevant events,

entitling a contractor to an extension of time, contractors seeking entitlements
resulting from the COVID-19 outbreak would most likely seek to do so under the
"force majeure" relevant event.

Notably, in an unamended JCT there is no contractual definition of force majeure.

Parties should, in the first instance, check for a contractual definition of the term
in any schedule of amendments. Some force majeure clauses set out an
exhaustive or non-exhaustive list of events or circumstances that may amount to
force majeure (flooding, fire, war etc.); some use broad wording such as "an event
beyond the reasonable control of the parties" (or a combination of the two); and
some clauses leave force majeure as an undefined occurrence. Force majeure
clauses also often build in the concept of foreseeability but there is no mention of
this in an unamended JCT.

English law authority on force majeure is few and far between. A statement of the
meaning of force majeure by Goirand was approved by McCardie J in Lebeaupin v
Crispin [1920] 2 KB 714 as applying to many English contracts, and suggests that
an epidemic may constitute a force majeure event:

"Force majeure. This term is used with reference to all circumstances independent
of the will of man, and which it is not in his power to control... thus, war,
inundations and epidemics are cases of force majeure; it has even been decided
that a strike of workmen constitutes a case of force majeure."

In Clifford Gardner v Clydesdale Bank Limited [2013], it was said obiter that a flu
pandemic was force majeure. It is not force majeure, however, if the contract has
just become more expensive to perform (Thames Valley Power Ltd v Total Gas &
Power Ltd [2006]). There are no reported cases testing the scope of the term
"force majeure" in the context of JCT contracts.
Without a specific definition provided in the JCT, and without common law
precedent relating to JCT, the meaning of force majeure may have to be
determined by case law in the courts. Some commentators have indicated that
interpretation of force majeure under JCT is likely to be restrictive because similar
matters, which would typically constitute force majeure, are already expressly
dealt with as relevant events. As an epidemic / pandemic is not covered by other
relevant events, it would seem to be reasonable, however, for contractors to seek
to rely on the force majeure relevant event to cover such circumstances. Whilst,
we would like nothing more than to be able to give you a concrete answer on this,
ultimately it will turn on the facts relating to the build in question, including the
stage of the build.

Importantly, and as to be expected, the contractor must notify the Architect/

Contract Administrator forthwith, stating the applicable relevant event(s), "if and
whenever it becomes reasonably apparent that the progress of the Works or any
Section is being or is likely to be delayed" and must (either in that notice or as
soon as reasonably practicable thereafter) give particulars and estimates of its
expected effects (i.e. programming and the durations of delays). The obligation to
notify is continuing and material changes in the estimated delay or any other
particulars must be notified. Failure so to notify is likely to result in the contractor
losing this entitlement, so it's imperative to stay on top of notices.

Employers should make sure that they enforce these provisions around
programme information because an up-to-date copy of the programme is a very
effective tool when analysing extension of time claims to see where the critical
delay lies. In unamended JCT Contracts, extensions of time can be awarded in
respect of concurrency between relevant events and other contractor culpable
delays, and so, whilst it may be the case that force majeure need not be the sole
cause of the delay (as is normally required), a Contractor would still need to show
that this event was on the critical path of the programme and any extension of
time given would likely take into account other causes of delay.

Contracts often provide that a party seeking to rely on force majeure will need to
be able to show that they have sought to mitigate the effects of the event and JCT
contracts are no exception. There is a requirement on the contractor, albeit not
expressly related or limited to force majeure, for example at clause 2.28.6.1 of
the JCT Standard Building Contract 2016, to "constantly use his best endeavours
to prevent delay in the progress of the Works or any Section … and to prevent the
completion of the Works or Section being delayed or further delayed beyond the
relevant Completion Date". A Contractor would have to demonstrate that it had
made reasonably considerable efforts (including potentially some additional
expenditure) to mitigate the delay. This obligation should not be overlooked
because, again, a failure to do so could result in a loss of entitlement to an
extension of time under the JCT contracts or at least a reduction to reflect the
lesser delay that would have resulted if the Contractor had properly complied.
Contractors will likely take certain steps as a matter of course, such as seeking
alternative supply sources, but should also be taking steps to minimize the impact
of the virus itself, for example by adapting site attendance protocols and working
practices, now in accordance with the CLC Site Operation Procedures.

It is worth noting that 'force majeure' is not included in standard form JCTs as a
"relevant matter", so whilst the contractor may be entitled to an extension of
time for a force majeure event, they would not be entitled to loss and expense.
The effect of this is that a contractor does not have to pay damages for delay, but
he must bear any cost resulting from the delay (effectively meaning that a 'force
majeure' event is treated as a neutral event, where the financial risk is split
between the contractor and employer).

Force Majeure as a Termination Trigger

In a worst case scenario, as alternative to claiming for additional time, parties may
wish to consider their termination rights. Clause 8.11 of the un-amended JCT
Standard Building Contract 2016 provides for termination by either party by
reason of force majeure. Even if sites are not ordered to close (and no order for
site closures has happened yet), the current restrictions in place and the wider
effects of COVID-19 could continue for the foreseeable future and the economic
benefit of preserving the contract may be eroded given the degree of uncertainty
and the real risk of accumulating costs or losses from delay.

The right to terminate under Clause 8.11 arises if the carrying out of the whole or
substantially the whole of the uncompleted works is suspended for the period set
out in the contract particulars (the default position being two months). In the
event of suspension for the specified period due to a force majeure event, either
party may give notice to the other that, unless the suspension ceases within seven
days of receipt of the notice, the contractor's employment may be terminated on
the service of a second notice (which is given upon the expiry of the first notice
period).

Parties should be conscious of the risk of terminating for reason of force majeure
- if the event (i.e. the virus outbreak) is deemed not to be "force majeure", the
party seeking to rely on it could leave itself open to a claim for repudiatory breach
of contract. That is not a good position to be in, as it entitles the innocent party to
compensation putting it in the same position as if the contract had been properly
performed – potentially a significant sum. In addition, parties should consider
carefully the other potential effects of triggering a termination event, such as
reputational risks, and the potential damage to long-term supply chain
relationships.

Other Relevant Events

In addition to force majeure, the JCT standard form also includes the following as
a relevant event: "the exercise after the Base Date by the United Kingdom
Government of any statutory power which directly affects the execution of the
Works". It is questionable whether at this point the Government has exercised
such powers, which would give grounds for an extension of time claim for this
relevant event.

The CLC Site Operating Procedures are guidelines and not statutory requirements.
The Government has the power, under the Health Protection (Coronavirus,
Business Closures) Regulations 2020 to close certain premises and businesses, as
listed in the Schedule to the Regulations, which does not include construction
sites. As mentioned above, as far as we are aware, a "public health response
period" has not been declared yet under the Act - during which period the
Government would be able to issue directions under the Act in respect of the
closure of premises, because no declaration to such effect has yet been made (In
England at least). So it would seem, at least for now, that contractors are unlikely
to be able to rely on this relevant event.

Government intervention has not yet gone so far as to close sites or prevent
works from continuing, so it is up to the parties to decide what to do. Contractors
will be reluctant to abandon sites for fear of being in breach of contract and
 employers will be reluctant to issue an instruction denying access to site because
this could constitute a Change under clause 5.1.2, for which loss and expense may
become payable under clause 4.21.1. If and when construction sites are required
to close, then employers will need to word carefully any related notice to avoid
such notice being deemed to be an employer's instruction.

NEC

Compensation Event

Clause 60.1(19) of the NEC 3/ NEC 4 Engineering and Construction Contract

entitles a contractor to an extension of time as well as compensation if an event
occurs which:

 "Stops the Contractor completing the whole of the works; or

 Stops the Contractor completing the whole of the works by the date for
planned Completion shown on the Accepted Programme.
And which:

 neither party could prevent;

 An experienced contractor would have judged at the Contract Date to have
such a small chance of occurring that it would have been unreasonable for him to
have allowed for it."
The final limb of the test may prove troublesome at this stage for a contractor
looking for an extension of time / compensation under a contract signed in the
last few weeks, given the scale and impact of the outbreak. For those contractors
it would be difficult to argue that the effects of COVID – 19 had such a small
chance of occurring that it would have been unreasonable to have allowed for it.
Contractors that had already entered into an un-amended NEC standard form by
the time the COVID-19 outbreak was widely reported are more likely to succeed
in arguing that such an outbreak had such a small chance of occurring that they
could not reasonably have allowed for it.

As with JCT, if the employer (or its project manager) were to close the site outside
of a requirement by the Government to do so, then the contractor would
potentially have further grounds to claim an extension of time and compensation,
for example under clauses 60.1(2) and 60.1(4) of NEC4. These provisions cover
the employer not allowing access to and use of each part of the site and the
project manager giving an instruction to stop or not to start any work.

NEC is rooted in the principle of mutual trust and cooperation, which applies
equally to the process for notifying compensation events. Whilst the notification
process is designed to give early warning to encourage collaboration and to
mitigate risks contractors should be mindful of the somewhat proscriptive
procedure for notifying compensation events. Contractors must notify the project
manager of a potential compensation event under 61.3, within 8 weeks of
becoming aware of the event or risk losing their entitlement to additional time or
money. This is on top of the obligation at clause 15.1 which requires a contractor
to give early warning when they become aware of any matter which could
increase the price, delay completion or a key date, or impair performance of the
works.

Future Contracts

These unprecedented times are highlighting that construction documents are not
generally drafted to deal with circumstances like these. The increasing prevalence
of epidemics (including, for example, recent outbreaks of swine flu, Ebola, and
SARs) does raise questions as to whether parties might increasingly be expected
to make allowances for such outbreaks. Going forwards, parties should consider
including amendments expressly allocating the risks between the parties,
including programme delay and any associated additional costs, as well as
responsibilities in the event of site closure, including site security and de- and re-
mobilization, arising as a result of COVID-19, and indeed epidemics and
pandemics more widely.

Contractors will not want to bear the risk of events like these and equally
employers will not want to see longer programme and more expensive build costs
that could potentially arise from contractors factoring in eventualities like these.
Maybe the way forwards is some sort of risk sharing, if funders will allow it - even
they may have to take a more flexible stance than usual if negotiations are to
progress. We are already seeing COVID-19 related amendments and hopefully,
risk allocation and contractual amendments will evolve and become clearer as
parties navigate their way through this.

Frustration

Parties may also consider whether the doctrine of frustration applies. The
doctrine was developed to deal with situations where something occurs after the
formation of the contract which "strikes to the root of the contract" rendering it
physically or commercially impossible or illegal to fulfill the contract or
transforming the obligation to perform into an entirely different obligation from
that which the parties contemplated at the time of entering into the contract.

Unlike force majeure, where frustration does apply, the contract is automatically
terminated upon occurrence of the frustrating event. As neither party is at fault
and therefore no party is able to claim for damages, the common law provides
that losses are dealt with where they lie. This used to lead to inequitable results,
as, for example, a party might not be able to recover a pre-payment made under
the contract. To address this, the Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943 was
introduced to allow pre-payments to be recovered or, conversely, where a party
has derived considerable benefit from a contract prior to the frustrating event
equity can intervene to require that the party receiving the benefit makes fair
payment for it.

Some of the consequences of COVID-19 may render some contractual obligations

impossible (if, for example, the outbreak resulted in whole cities being locked-
down). Parties should, however, be aware that, perhaps due to the finality of the
remedy, the courts are usually reluctant to find that a contract has been
frustrated. As a result, the threshold for proving frustration is likely to be higher
than for force majeure.

As frustration is a permanent remedy, it should only be considered as a last

resort. As the burden of proving frustration is a heavy one, where parties are not
yet in contract, it would be sensible to consider how COVID-19 could impact the
contract and specifically provide for this in express terms.
Conclusion

Parties to construction contracts will naturally be concerned about the

commercial effect of the Coronavirus outbreak on their operations.

We urge parties to carefully review the terms of their contracts, particularly any
amendments to the standard forms, in order to determine the rights and
obligations of both parties in relation to extensions of time and entitlement to
additional payment as well as the obligations of the parties in the event of site
closure. In this regard, parties should also consider the wider reaching effects of
the outbreak, including changes in legislation or regulations and the knock-on
effect this might have on site access, supply of materials and availability of labor.

It would appear that the construction industry is currently in a bit of a stalemate

because there are potential contractual ramifications for whichever party takes
the first step in stopping the works. In these unprecedented and uncertain times
where related contractual provisions are varying shades of grey at best, the most
sensible thing to do would seem to be to discuss the issues at hand and agree the
best way forwards for all concerned.

Going forwards it may well be worth - in light of the coronavirus outbreak and the
others that have gone before it, such as SARS and swine flu - giving more thought
to epidemics and pandemics than previously, especially in this increasingly global
economy of ours. Parties should consider expressly providing for such events in
their contractual arrangements with a view to dealing at the outset with the risks
associated with them.

Please do not hesitate to contact us if you would like our assistance in considering
your contractual rights and obligations, and so that we can help better protect
your business in light of COVID-19 and its potential consequences.
 ANSWER NO # 04

Introduction
Project portfolio management (PPfM) is fundamentally different from project and
program management. Project and program management are about execution
and delivery---doing projects right. In contrast, PPfM focuses on doing the right
projects at the right time by selecting and managing projects as a portfolio of
investments. It requires completely different techniques and perspectives.
Good portfolio management increases business value by aligning projects with an
organization’s strategic direction, making the best use of limited resources, and
building synergies between projects. Unfortunately, organizations often do
portfolio management poorly. As a result, they fail to deliver strategic results
because they attempt the wrong projects or can’t say “no” to too many projects.
This paper summarizes current techniques for selecting, prioritizing, and
coordinating projects as a portfolio to increase value to an organization .

The Business Problem

Nearly all organizations have more project work to do than people and money to
do the work. Often the management team has difficulty saying “no.” Instead, they
try to do everything by cramming more work onto the calendars of already
overworked project teams or by cutting corners during the project.
Despite a heavy investment of people and money in projects, the organization still
gets poor results because people are working on the wrong projects or on too
many projects. Trying to do too much causes all projects to suffer from delays,
cost overruns, or poor quality.
The Solution

Effective project organizations focus their limited resources on the best projects,
declining to do projects that are good but not good enough. PPfM enables them
to make and implement these tough project selection decisions.
PPfM is a funnel that connects strategic planning to the execution of projects,
making the strategic objectives executable. Exhibit 1 shows the PPfM funnel.

The Portfolio Management Process

Exhibit 3 shows the five primary steps of the portfolio management process.
(Figure 3-2 in The Standard for Portfolio Management shows a more detailed
breakdown of these steps (Project Management Institute, 2006, p. 25):

1. Clarify business objectives

2. Capture and research requests and ideas
3. Select the best projects using defined differentiators that align, maximize,
and balance
4. Validate portfolio feasibility and initiate projects
5. Manage and monitor the portfolio
This process identifies the most important differentiators between projects, such
as Return On Investment, risk, efficiency, or strategic alignment. Then it uses
these differentiators to select the high impact projects, clear out the clutter, and
set priorities. Trade-offs are made in a disciplined way, rather than by allowing
the loudest voice to win.
The PPfM process accomplishes three things (Oltmann, 2006, p. 2):

1. Aligns execution with strategy. Each selected project must play a role in

carrying out the strategy of the organization. No more pet projects!
2. Maximizes the value of the entire portfolio of projects to get the “most
bang for the buck.” Taken together, the projects must have a high return on
the organization’s investment. This may be in terms of dollars or other
measures that are important to the organization.
 3. Balances the portfolio. Makes sure that it is not lopsided---for example, by
being too risky or too focused on short-term results.
The following sections describe each step in more detail.

PPfM Step 1: Clarify Business Objectives

First, Aim the in the Right Direction

Before selecting the right projects, you must know where you want to go! As Alice
of Alice in Wonderland discussed with the Cheshire Cat,
Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to walk from here?
That depends a good deal on where you want to get to, said the Cat.
I don’t much care where -, said Alice.
Then it doesn’t matter which way you walk, said the Cat. (Carroll, 1920, p. 89)
Similarly, you must be able to clearly state your organization’s strategic objectives
before starting portfolio management. This is often the first obstacle people run
into when trying to implement PPfM. If you can’t determine the strategic
objectives, stop working on portfolio management and fix that problem first.
As an example, a very popular framework for strategic planning is the strategy
map, based on the strategic perspectives developed by Kaplan and Norton
(Kaplan & Norton, 1996). A strategy map derives and links initiatives in a cause
and effect hierarchy so that they support each other Kaplan & Norton, 1996, p.
149). The top level of the hierarchy is financial objectives, because creating
financial returns for shareholders and owners is a priority at for-profit companies.
The supporting levels of the hierarchy are:

 Customer value: what value can the company create for the customer that
will translate into financial results?
 Processes: what internal processes will generate that customer value?
 Learning and growth: what capabilities and internal learning must the
company have to make the processes work effectively?
Decide What Value Means
Portfolio management requires a systematic method of differentiating between
candidate projects to determine which ones are “best.” What does “best” mean?
The definition is unique to every organization. For example, one company might
value environmental stewardship most highly, while another places top priority
on ROI. Select a critical few criteria that will measure each project’s true value to
your unique organization. Rigorously limit the number of criteria to four to ten to
keep the amount of data manageable.
The right criteria are critical, because poor criteria will cause you to select the
wrong projects. There are two primary approaches to defining valuation criteria:
financial and scoring. Exhibit 4 shows examples of both types of criteria.

Exhibit 4 Valuation Criteria Divide into Two Approaches

The financial approach to valuation uses quantitative monetary measures, such as
net present value, to define the differences between projects. Unfortunately, a
financial approach may mislead portfolio managers to mistake precision for
accuracy. Robert Cooper says,
In spite of the fact that financial methods are theoretically correct, the most
rigorous of all methods, and the most popular of all tools, of all the methods we
studied in a large sample survey of practices versus results, they yielded the
poorest results on just about every portfolio performance metric. The
sophistication of these methods far exceeds the quality of the data! (Cooper,
Edgett, & Kleinschmidt, 2001, p. 46).
Valuation by scoring takes a different approach. In many fields, researchers
understand which characteristics of projects correlate with success. Scoring uses
these predicting factors as the criteria for differentiating between candidate
projects. For example, Cooper ( Cooper, Greenberg, & Zuk, 2002, p. 47) lists three
factors in new product development that correlate well with eventual product
success:

 Unique, differentiated product that offers superior value to customers

 Product is targeted at an attractive market
 Product and project leverages internal company strengths
Regardless of theoretical superiority, use a valuation method that fits with the
executive decision making style in your organization. Some companies are more
comfortable with financial analysis, while others prefer the framework for voting
and discussion that scoring brings. Yet others combine financial and scoring
criteria into a single system. Most of my clients prefer at least some scoring
criteria in their evaluation process. Using either approach is better than having no
structured evaluation criteria at all!

PPfM Step 2: Capture and Research

Step 1 of the PPfM process builds a foundation for creating a portfolio. It requires
all of the decision makers to agree on strategic objectives and the vital few
valuation criteria, so initially it can be difficult and time consuming. Fortunately,
only periodic review and update is needed after that.
Step 2 builds on this foundation by starting to build a specific portfolio. Exhibit 5
shows the steps for constructing a tentative portfolio (Oltmann, 2007, p. 36). The
first two steps are research:

 Create an inventory of candidate projects for the portfolio. Include in-

progress projects as well as ideas for new projects. Sources can include
customer requests, initiatives from strategic planning, regulatory
requirements, and good ideas from employees and project managers.
 Gather data for each candidate project on the inventory. These include
data that will allow you to rate the projects against the criteria that you have
developed. It may also include early estimates of dependencies and high-level
resource requirements.

Exhibit 5 - Constructing a Tentative Portfolio Leads to Valuable

At first, identifying and gathering data on all of the candidate projects may be a
major challenge, requiring much investigation and interviewing. As your
organization matures at PPfM, this step will get faster and easier.

PPfM Step 3: Select the Best Projects

Maximize the Portfolio’s Value

With project data from Step 2 in hand, determine which combination of projects
creates the highest total value for the portfolio, given high-level resource
constraints. This is called portfolio maximization.
First, rate each candidate project against the valuation criteria to compute the
value of each project (the fourth step in Exhibit 6). This will be either a weighted
score or a financial value. Next, rank the candidates from highest to lowest value.
See Exhibits 6 and 7 for examples (Oltmann, 2007, p. 42).

Exhibit 6-Use Scoring Criteria to Rank Candidate Projects

Starting with the highest value projects, allocate available resources until they are
exhausted. Draw the “cut line” at this point, creating a tentative portfolio. (Exhibit
7) The portfolio is tentative because no valuation criteria, no matter how good,
can capture all of the subtleties that must go into real-world funding decisions.
The cut line becomes a starting point for vigorous discussion among the members
of the portfolio management team, as they use their real-world experience and
judgment to tune the tentative portfolio. The process, criteria, and data form a
framework that guides this discussion, instead of selecting projects by “loudest
voice wins.”

Exhibit 7-Use NPV and Resource Data to Draw a Cut Line

Balance the Portfolio
A maximized portfolio may be out of balance in important ways. For example, it
may have an inappropriate risk profile, subjecting the organization to either too
much or too little risk. According to Cooper (Cooper, Edgett, & Kleinschmidt,
2001, p. 73), balance is the second weakest element in portfolio construction,
after “too many projects.”
Use balance displays to check the balance of a tentative portfolio across
important dimensions. Exhibit 8 shows a bubble chart that displays risk versus
reward in a small portfolio, where each bubble represents a project. Some
popular balance displays are:

 Risk versus reward

 Strategy---tactical range
 Market or product-line segmentation
 Distribution of time to completion or time to profit

Exhibit 8-Balance Display Compares Portfolio Risk and Reward

PPfM Step 4: Validate and Initiate

To keep the amount of data manageable, a portfolio is initially constructed at high

level of abstraction. The resulting portfolio ignores some important constraints
and details about its projects. For example, a portfolio’s demand for resources
often appears feasible when analyzed at the FTE (full-time equivalents) level.
However, this masks bottlenecks caused by limited availability of certain skill sets
(Exhibit 9). Thus, a portfolio may not be feasible to execute even though it is
maximized and balanced.
Before starting execution, validate that a tentative portfolio appears to be
feasible. Team up with the people who will run the projects and thus know them
best---generally line and project managers, perhaps coordinated by the project
management office (PMO).
When looking at portfolio feasibility, consider the following:

 Inter project dependencies

 Knowledge and capabilities of the performing organizations
 Time-phased resource demand and availability, including considerations of
key skill sets
 Budgetary constraints
Exhibit 9-Availability of a Specific Skill Set Causes a Bottleneck in

PPfM Step 5: Manage and Monitor

After validating the portfolio, put it into execution. Initiate the new projects and
programs, inserting them into the project management system. Although the
project manager is responsible for day-to-day execution of each project, the
portfolio manager’s job continues. He or she monitors the execution of the
portfolio and its component projects, ensuring that it continues to meet its
original design objectives.
In this step, the portfolio manager works closely with the project managers or the
PMO to:

 Gather information to monitor the performance of the portfolio

 Identify and resolve issues within the portfolio, including reallocating
resources
 Steer the portfolio, making changes when necessary to rescue, re-scope,
cancel, or introduce new projects
 Manage escalations and mid cycle requests for changes to portfolio
composition---for example, adding new projects
 Initiate a full portfolio review and reconstruction on a scheduled basis, such
as quarterly or annually

Portfolio Governance

This paper focuses on the process and tools for PPfM. However, knowing the
process and tools is not enough. PPfM must have a governance framework.
Governance specifies who has responsibilities in each process step and how these
individuals will work together to make good decisions about projects. PPfM is
about sharing power and decision making at very senior management levels, so
clear governance is vital. As an example, Exhibit 10 shows an IT organization’s
governance structure for implementing the PPfM process discussed in this paper
(Oltmann, 2007, p. 140).
Conclusion

Based on my experience managing portfolios and helping clients, the following

are attributes of a good portfolio management system:

1. Encourages structured investment decision making based on effective

criteria
2. Helps decision makers make hard trade-offs, including saying “no” to some
projects
3. Ensures that strategy and execution are aligned
4. Backed by strong, long-term executive participation
5. Is an on-going process with frequent looks at the “big picture”
6. Favors process simplicity and transparency
7. Strongly tied to governance
Organizations that combine effective project portfolio management with good
project management achieve these results:

 Faster time to market

 Higher productivity
 Less chaos
 Strategy that actually gets implemented
For example, the IBM Institute for Business Values scored the performance of
over 20 electronics and high-technology manufacturers from 1996 to 2001.
Leaders in portfolio management delivered earnings performance that was 46%
more predictable than the performance of poor performers. The authors say,
“Leaders in portfolio management stand in stark contrast to many companies,
where portfolio management only occurs when poor business performance and
reduced budgets force crisis-mode cuts to projects” (Cooper, Greenberg, & Zuk,
2002, p. 12).
The next time that you hear the complaint “We’re spread too thin,” look below
the surface. Are your projects unfocused and misaligned? Do too many “good”
projects compete for too few resources? Combining project portfolio
management with project management will help you “do the right projects and
do them right.”
Carroll, L. (1920 ed.). Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland. New York: The Macmillan
Company.
Cooper, R., Edgett, S., & Kleinschmidt, E. (2001). Portfolio management for new
products (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Perseus Publishing.
Cooper, J., Greenberg, D., & Zuk, J. (2002). Reshaping the funnel: Making
innovation more profitable for high-tech manufacturers. Retrieved June 27, 2008,
from http://www-935.ibm.com/services/in/index.wss/ibvstudy/igs/x1022009?
cntxt=x1021857 
Kaplan, S., & Norton, D. (1996). The balanced scorecard. Boston: Harvard Business
School Press.
Oltmann, J. (2006). Project portfolio management---The art of saying
“no”. Retrieved June 27, 2008,
from http://www.spspro.com/SPS_cases_papers.htm 
Oltmann, J. (2007, May). Portfolio management of projects. Class, Center for
Professional Development, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland,
Oregon.
Project Management Institute. (2006). The standard for portfolio
management. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.
This material has been reproduced with the permission of the copyright owner.
Unauthorized reproduction of this material is strictly prohibited. For permission to
reproduce this material, please contact PMI or any listed author.

© 2008, Jeff Oltmann

Originally published as a part of 2008 PMI Global Congress Proceedings – Denver,
Colorado, USA