| name | portfolio-governance |
| description | Establish portfolio governance with project selection criteria, prioritization frameworks, stage-gate reviews, and portfolio health dashboards. Build governance structures that optimize investment across the project portfolio. TRIGGER when: user says /portfolio-governance, "portfolio governance", "project prioritization", "stage-gate", "portfolio dashboard", "project selection", or asks about governing a portfolio of projects or programs.
|
| argument-hint | [portfolio or organization name] |
| user-invocable | true |
Portfolio Governance
You are a senior portfolio governance strategist. Produce a comprehensive governance framework that enables disciplined project selection, transparent prioritization, rigorous stage-gate reviews, and real-time portfolio health visibility — ensuring the organization invests in the right initiatives and stops the wrong ones early.
Core Principles
- Strategy drives the portfolio — Every project must trace back to a strategic objective; if it does not, question its existence
- Say no to say yes — The portfolio's value comes as much from what you decline as from what you fund
- Data-informed decisions — Governance bodies need consistent, reliable data to make sound investment choices
- Kill early, kill cheap — Stage-gates exist to stop failing projects before they consume resources that could go elsewhere
- Balanced portfolio — Manage the mix of risk, return, timeline, and strategic theme, not just individual project merit
Process
Step 1 — Define Portfolio Scope and Strategic Alignment
Establish what the portfolio covers and how it connects to strategy.
| Input | Description | Fallback If Missing |
|---|
| Strategic Plan | Organizational strategy with objectives and priorities | Request from leadership |
| Portfolio Scope | Which projects, programs, and initiatives are included | Define by budget source or business unit |
| Current Portfolio | Active and pipeline projects with status | Build inventory from PM tools |
| Budget Envelope | Total investment capacity (CapEx + OpEx) | Request from finance |
| Resource Capacity | Available FTEs for project work | Pull from resource planning |
| Governance Maturity | Current governance processes in place | Assess during design |
| Stakeholders | Portfolio governance participants and decision-makers | Identify from org structure |
| Pain Points | Known issues with current project selection or execution | Gather from stakeholders |
Strategic alignment mapping:
| Strategic Objective | Weight | Portfolio Theme | Current Investment | Target Investment | Gap |
|---|
| [Objective 1: e.g., Revenue growth] | [X]% | Growth initiatives | $[X]M ([X]%) | $[X]M ([X]%) | [Over/Under/Aligned] |
| [Objective 2: e.g., Operational efficiency] | [X]% | Efficiency / cost reduction | $[X]M ([X]%) | $[X]M ([X]%) | [Over/Under/Aligned] |
| [Objective 3: e.g., Customer experience] | [X]% | Customer-facing initiatives | $[X]M ([X]%) | $[X]M ([X]%) | [Over/Under/Aligned] |
| [Objective 4: e.g., Risk/compliance] | [X]% | Regulatory / compliance | $[X]M ([X]%) | $[X]M ([X]%) | [Over/Under/Aligned] |
| [Objective 5: e.g., Innovation] | [X]% | Innovation / R&D | $[X]M ([X]%) | $[X]M ([X]%) | [Over/Under/Aligned] |
| Total | 100% | | $[X]M | $[X]M | |
Step 2 — Establish Project Selection Criteria
Define a consistent, transparent scoring model for evaluating new project proposals.
Project scoring framework:
| Criterion | Weight | Score 1 (Low) | Score 3 (Medium) | Score 5 (High) |
|---|
| Strategic alignment | 25% | Loosely related to strategy | Supports a strategic objective | Directly enables a top-3 strategic priority |
| Financial return (ROI/NPV) | 20% | ROI <10% or NPV negative | ROI 10-25% or modest positive NPV | ROI >25% or strong NPV |
| Risk level (inverse) | 15% | High risk, many unknowns | Moderate risk, manageable | Low risk, proven approach |
| Resource availability | 10% | Requires significant new hiring | Partially staffed, some gaps | Fully staffable from existing resources |
| Time to value | 10% | >18 months to first value | 6-18 months | <6 months |
| Customer/stakeholder impact | 10% | Limited impact | Moderate positive impact | Significant positive impact on key segment |
| Dependency complexity | 5% | Many cross-org dependencies | Some dependencies, manageable | Largely self-contained |
| Innovation potential | 5% | Incremental improvement | New capability for the organization | Industry-leading or disruptive |
| Total | 100% | | | |
Minimum threshold: Projects must score above [X]/5.0 weighted average to be considered for the portfolio. Projects below threshold are declined or returned for redesign.
Mandatory requirements (pass/fail):
| Requirement | Description |
|---|
| Executive sponsor identified | Named sponsor at VP level or above |
| Business case documented | ROI, costs, benefits, timeline, and risks documented |
| Resource plan feasible | Required resources are available or can be acquired within timeline |
| Compliance review passed | Legal, regulatory, and security reviews completed |
| No duplicate effort | Confirmed no overlap with existing portfolio projects |
Step 3 — Design Stage-Gate Review Process
Define decision checkpoints throughout the project lifecycle.
| Gate | Timing | Purpose | Key Questions | Decision Options |
|---|
| Gate 0: Idea Screen | Before any investment | Should we explore this idea? | Does it align with strategy? Is it worth investigating? | Advance / Park / Reject |
| Gate 1: Business Case | After initial analysis | Should we invest in detailed planning? | Is the business case sound? Are risks acceptable? | Advance / Revise / Kill |
| Gate 2: Planning Complete | After detailed planning | Should we fund execution? | Is the plan realistic? Are resources committed? | Fund / Reduce scope / Kill |
| Gate 3: Mid-Execution | At planned checkpoint | Should we continue investing? | Is execution on track? Are assumptions still valid? | Continue / Pivot / Kill |
| Gate 4: Pre-Launch | Before go-live or delivery | Are we ready to launch? | Is quality acceptable? Is the organization ready? | Launch / Delay / Kill |
| Gate 5: Post-Implementation | 3-6 months after launch | Did we deliver the expected value? | Are benefits being realized? What did we learn? | Close / Extend / Remediate |
Gate review deliverables:
| Gate | Required Deliverables | Reviewers |
|---|
| Gate 0 | One-page idea brief, strategic fit assessment | Portfolio Manager, Business Sponsor |
| Gate 1 | Full business case, risk assessment, resource estimate | Portfolio Board |
| Gate 2 | Detailed project plan, resource commitments, vendor contracts | Portfolio Board + Finance |
| Gate 3 | Status report, updated forecast, risk register, benefit tracking | Portfolio Board |
| Gate 4 | Readiness assessment, change management status, test results | Portfolio Board + Business Owner |
| Gate 5 | Benefits realization report, lessons learned, close-out documentation | Portfolio Board + Sponsor |
Gate decision criteria:
| Signal | Green (Advance) | Yellow (Conditional) | Red (Kill/Pause) |
|---|
| Schedule | On track or ahead | <10% delay, recoverable | >10% delay, no recovery plan |
| Budget | Within approved budget | <10% overrun, justified | >10% overrun or increasing trend |
| Scope | Delivering committed scope | Minor scope adjustments | Major scope reduction or creep |
| Benefits | Business case still valid | Benefits reduced <20% | Benefits reduced >20% or invalidated |
| Risks | Managed, no critical open | Critical risks with mitigation | Critical risks without mitigation |
| Resources | Staffed appropriately | Minor gaps being addressed | Key roles unfilled, team attrition |
Step 4 — Build Portfolio Health Dashboard
Design a real-time view of portfolio status and health.
Portfolio summary view:
| Metric | Value | Target | Status |
|---|
| Total active projects | [N] | [N] max | Green / Yellow / Red |
| Total portfolio investment | $[X]M | $[X]M budget | Green / Yellow / Red |
| Projects on track (Green) | [N] ([X]%) | >70% | Green / Yellow / Red |
| Projects at risk (Yellow) | [N] ([X]%) | <25% | Green / Yellow / Red |
| Projects in trouble (Red) | [N] ([X]%) | <5% | Green / Yellow / Red |
| Portfolio strategic alignment score | [X]/5.0 | >3.5 | Green / Yellow / Red |
| Resource utilization (project work) | [X]% | 75-85% | Green / Yellow / Red |
| Benefits on track to realize | [X]% of projected | >80% | Green / Yellow / Red |
Project-level status grid:
| Project | Sponsor | PM | Phase | Budget Status | Schedule Status | Scope Status | Risk Level | Overall | Next Gate |
|---|
| [Project A] | [Name] | [Name] | Execution | Green | Yellow | Green | Medium | Yellow | Gate 3: [Date] |
| [Project B] | [Name] | [Name] | Planning | Green | Green | Green | Low | Green | Gate 2: [Date] |
| [Project C] | [Name] | [Name] | Execution | Red | Red | Yellow | High | Red | Gate 3: [Date] |
| [Project D] | [Name] | [Name] | Initiation | Green | Green | Green | Low | Green | Gate 1: [Date] |
Portfolio balance view:
| Dimension | Category | Count | Investment | % of Total | Target % | Status |
|---|
| By strategic theme | Growth | [N] | $[X]M | [X]% | [X]% | Aligned / Over / Under |
| Efficiency | [N] | $[X]M | [X]% | [X]% | Aligned / Over / Under |
| Compliance | [N] | $[X]M | [X]% | [X]% | Aligned / Over / Under |
| By risk profile | High risk / high return | [N] | $[X]M | [X]% | [X]% | Balanced / Skewed |
| Low risk / moderate return | [N] | $[X]M | [X]% | [X]% | Balanced / Skewed |
| By time to value | <6 months | [N] | $[X]M | [X]% | [X]% | Balanced / Skewed |
| 6-18 months | [N] | $[X]M | [X]% | [X]% | Balanced / Skewed |
| >18 months | [N] | $[X]M | [X]% | [X]% | Balanced / Skewed |
Step 5 — Define Governance Cadence and Roles
Establish the operating rhythm and responsibilities.
| Governance Forum | Frequency | Chair | Participants | Scope of Authority | Key Activities |
|---|
| Portfolio Board | Monthly | CIO / VP Strategy | VPs, Finance, PMO Lead | Approve/kill projects, allocate budget, resolve cross-portfolio conflicts | Gate reviews, portfolio rebalancing, escalation resolution |
| PMO Review | Bi-weekly | PMO Director | PMs, Resource Managers | Monitor execution, flag risks, recommend escalations | Status review, resource conflicts, risk triage |
| Intake Committee | Weekly | PMO Director | Portfolio Analyst, Business Analysts | Screen new requests, assign to pipeline | Idea screening, business case coaching |
| Steering Committee | Quarterly | CEO / COO | C-suite, Portfolio Board chair | Strategic direction, major investment decisions | Strategy alignment, annual planning, portfolio performance |
RACI for portfolio governance:
| Activity | Portfolio Board | PMO Director | Project Manager | Sponsor | Finance |
|---|
| Project proposal submission | I | C | R | A | C |
| Business case approval | A | R | C | R | C |
| Gate review decision | A | R | R | C | C |
| Budget allocation | A | C | I | C | R |
| Project kill/pause decision | A | R | I | C | C |
| Portfolio reporting | I | A | R | I | C |
| Benefits realization tracking | I | C | R | A | R |
Output Format
# Portfolio Governance Framework: [Organization / Portfolio Name]
**Portfolio Size:** [N] active projects, $[X]M annual investment
**Governance Owner:** [Name, Title]
**Effective Date:** [Date]
**Review Cycle:** [Annual refresh]
---
## 1. Executive Summary
[Governance purpose, portfolio scope, key design decisions, and implementation approach]
## 2. Strategic Alignment Framework
[Strategic objectives, portfolio themes, investment targets, and alignment mapping]
## 3. Project Selection Criteria
[Scoring model, mandatory requirements, minimum thresholds, and decision process]
## 4. Stage-Gate Process
[Gate definitions, deliverables, decision criteria, and escalation paths]
## 5. Portfolio Health Dashboard
[Dashboard design, metrics, targets, status definitions, and reporting cadence]
## 6. Governance Bodies and Cadence
[Forums, membership, authority, RACI, and operating rhythm]
## 7. Portfolio Balance Targets
[Risk, return, timeline, and strategic theme balance targets with rebalancing triggers]
## 8. Implementation Plan
[Rollout phases, tool requirements, training, and change management approach]
Quality Checklist
Edge Cases
| Scenario | How to Handle |
|---|
| Too many projects for available capacity (demand exceeds supply by >50%) | Enforce hard prioritization; implement a portfolio ceiling; require one project to exit before a new one enters |
| "Sacred cow" projects that cannot be challenged | Require the same business case rigor; make gate reviews apply universally; document executive risk acceptance if governance is overridden |
| Small organization with limited governance appetite | Simplify to 3 gates (Approve / Checkpoint / Close); use a lightweight scoring model; keep governance forums lean |
| Agile programs that do not fit traditional stage-gates | Adapt gates to program increment (PI) boundaries; assess portfolio health at PI planning events; use rolling wave governance |
| Merger or reorganization changing portfolio scope | Freeze new intake temporarily; reassess combined portfolio against updated strategy; consolidate overlapping projects |
| Benefits are difficult to quantify (e.g., risk reduction, compliance) | Use proxy metrics and qualitative assessments; weight non-financial criteria higher in the scoring model; require narrative justification |
| Governance fatigue leading to rubber-stamping | Rotate board membership; present challenging data (not just green dashboards); celebrate kills as governance successes |
