The Project Portfolio Funnel

24. Juli 2017
Kategorien
Newsletter abonnieren

Project Portfolio Funnel

When you look at the project portfolio funnel of the Simple Portfolio Management Framework (SPMF) it looks like the diagram below. Like I explained in previous articles, this is not greatly different from how PMI defines the project portfolio funnel. What is greatly different, is how you manage your funnel. SPMF is a framework within which people can address complex portfolio management problems while productively and creatively delivering projects of the highest possible value. The SPMF works well with any project delivery method. From Scrum to Waterfall, and anything in between.

So let’s walk through this funnel step by step to understand the dynamics of a project portfolio funnel. For this example we will start with an empty funnel at time point X. We will follow the suggestion of the SPMF Guide and have monthly portfolio cycles. At time point X we have a bunch of project ideas on our Project Backlog. These ideas are collected by the demand management process.

These eight ideas will be categorized and afterward evaluated. During categorization or in the evaluation phase ideas can be removed from the Project Backlog for reasons as described in the linked articles. In short: when it is clear there is no value in the idea at this point of time it will be marked as such and removed from the project backlog. 

At a portfolio planning meeting, the remaining ideas have the chance of being selected for validation. When they are selected for validation the ideas are placed on the Portfolio Backlog and additional information will be gathered. This can be a business case validation or a technical proof of concept.

On successful validation, the execution phase of the project will start. Duration of the validation phase can be different for each project, depending on the needs and accepted risk. In the funnel below you see that two projects are still in the validation phase, and for one project the delivery phase has started.

Of course one result of the validation phase can be that the project will not be executed. This is shown in the funnel below. One project continuous to the delivery phase and is joining the one that was already started, and one project is stopped.

When all goes well the project (or parts of it) will be delivered and you can start monitoring its benefits. When it does not go well or the priorities of the portfolio have changed the portfolio committee can decide to stop a project as well in a portfolio review meeting. Both are shown in the funnel below.

After a while of monitoring the benefits (or lack of them), you then do a project retrospective. This is essential for learning and improving within the organization. But like I said, this retrospective only make sense after a phase of benefits monitoring and not directly after the closing of the project.

The above example of the project portfolio funnel is of course extremely simplified because in reality new ideas will come in on an ongoing base, and every portfolio cycle new ideas need to be evaluated and could be selected.

The duration of the phases after evaluation can span between one and many portfolio cycles.

Projects will be delivered, and new ideas keep on coming in.

Benefit monitoring starts, and still, new ideas keep on coming. Which is a very good thing. When you run out of ideas your portfolio quality will suffer greatly.

So after a while of running SPMF your funnel will look like below. And that is why transparency and backlog management are essential for managing your portfolio. Displaying this funnel in the form of a Kanban Board is a great start.

Tags

Das könnte Sie auch interessieren

The Professional Services Transformation Paradox #11 – Risk Mitigation vs. Innovation

7. Mai 2026

Professional services firms are designed to minimize risk. Their business model depends on trust, reputation, and consistency. Clients rely on them for assurance, judgment, and reliability, which means failure is not just a delivery issue, but a firm-level risk. A single incident can have disproportionate consequences, whether through litigation, regulatory scrutiny, or reputational damage. That

Weiterlesen

The Professional Services Transformation Paradox #10 – Client Intimacy vs. Platform Standardization

28. April 2026

Professional services firms win through relationships. The closer they are to the client, the more value they create. Understanding the client’s context, adapting to their needs, shaping solutions around specific situations rather than applying generic ones. That is where trust is built, where differentiation happens, and where premium pricing becomes possible. Standardization moves in the

Weiterlesen

The Professional Services Transformation Paradox #8 – Short-Term Revenue vs. Long-Term Capability

23. April 2026

Professional services firms are built around revenue. Revenue is visible, measurable, and immediate. It drives partner compensation, signals performance, and anchors decision-making across the firm. Every client won, every project sold, every hour billed translates directly into current-year outcomes. Capability building works differently. It requires investment upfront, often without immediate return, and pays off over

Weiterlesen

The Professional Services Transformation Paradox #7 – Partner Autonomy vs. Firm-Level Strategy

18. April 2026

One of the defining features of professional services firms is partner autonomy. Partners are expected to build and run their own business. They originate clients, grow revenue, manage teams, and are rewarded based on the performance of what they directly control. This creates strong ownership, high accountability, and a culture where individual success is tightly

Weiterlesen

The Professional Services Transformation Paradox #6 – Service Lines vs. Firm

16. April 2026

One of the most persistent illusions in professional services is the idea of “one firm.” From the outside, large firms present themselves as unified organizations. One brand, one client proposition, one set of capabilities delivered across audit, tax, advisory, and deals. The expectation is clear: if the firm is integrated in the market, it should

Weiterlesen

The Professional Services Transformation Paradox #5 – Global Standardization vs. Local Economics

12. April 2026

One of the least discussed challenges in large transformation programs is the illusion of standardization. From the outside, global professional services firms look highly uniform. One brand, one set of services, one methodology, delivered across countries in a way that suggests consistency and control. Audit, tax, consulting, deals all appear to operate within the same

Weiterlesen

The Professional Services Transformation Paradox #4 – Accountability vs. Alignment

1. April 2026

In large transformation programs, accountability is rarely missing. It is distributed. It sits with executive sponsors, steering committees, transformation offices, service line leaders, and partner groups, each with a defined role and a legitimate claim to involvement. On paper, this creates alignment. In practice, it often removes ownership, because when accountability is spread across too

Weiterlesen

The Professional Services Transformation Paradox #3 – Long-Term Investment vs. Short-Term Management

27. März 2026

One of the most underestimated constraints in professional services transformation is not technology, capability, or even funding. It is time. Real transformation takes longer than most firms are structurally able to tolerate. Core systems such as ERP platforms, data architectures, AI capabilities, or global workflow solutions are not incremental improvements. They are foundational changes. They

Weiterlesen

The Professional Services Transformation Paradox #2 – Internal vs. Client Execution

26. März 2026

One of the most persistent, and least openly discussed, tensions in professional services firms lies in how they execute their own transformations. It is a tension that does not reveal itself in strategy decks or partner presentations, but in the day-to-day reality of large internal programs that quietly struggle to deliver. At first glance, the

Weiterlesen

The Professional Services Transformation Paradox #1 – Technology Alliances vs. Internal Fit

20. März 2026

This article is part of a series exploring the tensions at the core of the Professional Services Transformation Paradox. The paradox itself is straightforward, yet deeply consequential. Firms that excel at transforming their clients often struggle to transform themselves. Not because they lack capability, but because their own structures, incentives, and operating models create resistance

Weiterlesen
Next