| name | portfolio-governance |
| description | Governs the portfolio of work — intake, prioritization, stage gates, resource contention, and stopping things. Use this to set up intake and prioritization, run a stage gate, decide between competing initiatives, resolve resource contention across projects, or work out why everything is in flight and nothing is finishing. |
Portfolio governance
The portfolio question is not which projects are good. Most proposed work is defensible in isolation.
It is which projects the organization can actually finish, given that finishing is what produces
value and starting produces none.
Intake as a real gate
Without a single front door, work enters through relationships and volume, and the portfolio becomes
the sum of who asked most persistently.
Require the same minimum from every proposal regardless of who is asking: the outcome sought, the
evidence it matters, a rough size, the accountable owner, and what will not happen if it proceeds.
That last one is the honest part — capacity is fixed, so approving anything is declining something
else, whether or not the decline is ever stated.
Prioritize against capacity, not against merit
Ranking by value produces a list where everything above the line is approved and the line is
imaginary. Prioritization only means something when the cut is made at real, measured delivery
capacity — see operations:capacity-and-demand-planning for the throughput side.
Limit work in progress. An organization running twenty concurrent initiatives with capacity for
eight does not deliver twenty slowly; it delivers roughly eight, considerably later, with the
overhead of context-switching across all twenty. Fewer things, finished, is faster in wall-clock
terms — which is counter-intuitive and is why the discipline requires governance rather than good
intentions.
Stage gates that can say no
A gate whose only outcome is approval is a status meeting. Each gate must be able to stop, pause, or
redirect, and needs a named decision-maker with the authority to do it.
Gate on what has been learned since the last one, not on whether documentation was produced. The
useful question is whether the case still holds now that more is known — and it frequently does not,
which is exactly the information the gate exists to surface.
Stopping is the hardest and most valuable act
Organizations start well and stop badly. Sunk cost, sponsor prestige and the discomfort of admitting
error keep dead projects consuming capacity that the whole portfolio needs.
Make stopping a normal, non-punitive outcome. Where stopping is treated as failure, projects are
never stopped — they are quietly starved, which is the same cost with none of the released capacity
and no decision anyone can point to.
Resource contention
Contention across projects is resolved here, at the portfolio, not by the projects negotiating among
themselves. Left to negotiation, the outcome reflects seniority of the sponsors rather than value to
the organization.
Watch for the same scarce specialist appearing on the critical path of several initiatives — the
most common invisible cause of portfolio-wide slippage.
Never
- Approve work without naming what it displaces.
- Set a priority order without a line drawn at real capacity.
- Run a gate that cannot stop anything.
- Starve a project instead of stopping it.
