Technological Forecasting & Social Change 180 (2022) 121652

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Technological Forecasting & Social Change

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/techfore

The portfolio planning, implementing, and governing process: An

inductive approach
Nitish Gupta a, Hyunkyu Park a, b, *, Rob Phaal a
a
Centre for Technology Management, University of Cambridge, 17 Charles Babbage Rd, Cambridge CB3 0FS, UK
b
Graduate School of Technology Management, Sogang University, Seoul 04107, South Korea

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Portfolio management has long been viewed as a major source of competitive differentiation in technology-
Portfolio management process intensive organizations with substantial R&D investment. Yet, little work has addressed how portfolio man­
Portfolio planning agement unfolds. Furthermore, the extant work has largely conceptualized the portfolio management process in a
Portfolio implementing
deductive manner, offering limited propositions for understanding the inner workings of portfolio management
Portfolio governing
Inductive approach
in real-world settings. Drawing on an inductive, qualitative study of nine cases in the electrical machinery,
Case research medical device, and pharmaceutical sectors, our work opens the black box of portfolio planning, implementing,
and controlling process in practice. We find that organizations manage portfolios through five interdependent
phases (ecosystem surveillance, portfolio strategy development, business case management, portfolio decision-
making, and new product/service management), with four distinct actors (corporate, top management, portfo­
lio management, and portfolio management governance functions) being actively engaged in different phases.
Our study also established three main levers that shape the portfolio management process in practice (gover­
nance, integration, and information). Based on these findings, implications for portfolio management studies and
practices are discussed.

1. Introduction has accumulated extensive knowledge of the multifaceted issues of

portfolio management. However, the existing work has offered limited
Portfolio management is one of the most important drivers of orga­ insights for understanding the ‘process’ of portfolio management in a
nizational success in technology-intensive firms with substantial R&D holistic and integrative manner. In detail, this research gap is ascribed to
investment. Portfolio management is defined in this study as a process in the extant studies typically focusing on particular aspects of portfolio
which an organization selects new product/service development pro­ management, and tending to generate process models in a deductive
jects (hereafter referred to as projects) and terminates ill-performing manner. Indeed, as Ahlemann (2009, p. 22) puts it, the process models to
projects to maintain a competitive set of projects (Cooper et al., date have been largely derived from “an examination of existing
2001). The consequences for an organization not being capable of research results and an analysis of project management case studies
planning, implementing, and controlling a project portfolio can be sig­ documented in the literature” (see also Archer and Ghasemzadeh, 1999;
nificant. Product/service projects are likely to be incorrectly resourced Jonas, 2010). Furthermore, most of the extant literature has neglected a
so that promising projects may not go through a new product/service link between the phases of the portfolio management process and the
development funnel (Oliveira and Rozenfeld, 2010). In addition, orga­ agents responsible for each phase. This oversight is substantial because,
nizations lacking portfolio management skills often fail to include without this oversight properly resolved, “portfolio management can
high-risk projects and their low-risk counterparts in a single portfolio neither be understood nor be implemented successfully” in organiza­
(Killen et al., 2008); they tend to encounter “higher-than-expected tions (Jonas, 2010, p. 818). Finally, some of the literature has labeled its
development costs” (Jugend and Da Silva, 2014, p. 19), and they are work as process research on portfolio management; yet, in fact, the work
likely to increase the time to market of certain products/services (Aubry has attempted to discover best practices that distinguish top-performing
et al., 2007). organizations (see, for example, Kester et al., 2011). Practice and pro­
Extant research on strategic and technological planning, therefore, cess are two different concepts in that the former refers to “customary

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (H. Park).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121652
Received 27 August 2021; Received in revised form 31 January 2022; Accepted 29 March 2022
Available online 13 April 2022
0040-1625/© 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
N. Gupta et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 180 (2022) 121652

performance that implements ideas and policies leading to the devel­ Table 1
opment and launch of new products and services” (Kahn et al., 2012, pp. Representative process models of portfolio management.
181–182) and the latter refers to “a sequence of events that describes Author(s) Model summary
how things change over time” (Van De Ven, 1992, p. 169). The extant
Archer & • Strategic considerations phase: aligning a portfolio
studies focusing on portfolio management ‘practice’ have mainly Ghasemzadeh (1999) focus with a strategic direction
endeavored to identify frameworks and tools that are adopted in • Project evaluation phase: evaluating a project’s
best-performing organizations (e.g., Cooper, 2008; Cooper et al., 1999); contribution to an overall portfolio
to outline existing methods and techniques that are available for effec­ • Project selection phase: selecting the most highly
ranked/prioritized projects
tive portfolio management (e.g., Linton et al., 2002; Mitchell et al., Patterson (2004) • Portfolio planning phase: developing technology and
2014); and to invent new tools that can improve portfolio management product roadmap
practices (e.g., Oliveira and Rozenfeld, 2010; Pérez et al., 2018; San­ • Portfolio assessment phase: conducting portfolio
tiago et al., 2015). By contrast, the ‘process’ studies have tended to review and resource management
Ahlemann (2009) • Initiation phase: idea generation and evaluation
explore the unfolding phases of portfolio management applicable
• Planning phase: project planning, preparation, and
beyond the studies’ research contexts (see, for example, Ahlemann, refinement
2009; Jonas, 2010). • Execution phase: project controlling and portfolio
Dealing with the aforementioned research gaps is important in that it controlling
opens a black box containing the step-by-step procedures and relevant • Termination phase: internal and/or external project
termination
stakeholders vis-à-vis portfolio management in real-world settings, in an Jonas (2010) • Portfolio structuring: setting up a target portfolio
holistic and integrative manner. This motivates us to produce the derived from an organization’s strategy
following research question: How does the process of portfolio management • Resource management: conducting cross-project
unfold in real-world settings, and which agents are engaged in the portfolio resource planning and resource approval
• Portfolio steering: monitoring the performance of the
management process? In coping with this query, we aim to develop an
current portfolio, coordinating selected/running
inductive model that outlines the processual steps and change agents projects, and discontinuing obsolete projects
interactively drive the unfolding of portfolio management. To do so, we • Organizational learning: storing knowledge arising
conducted inductive research on nine cases in the electrical machinery, from a closed project
medical device, and pharmaceutical sectors (see Appendix I). In detail, Kester et al. (2011) • Evidence-based decision making: a practice in which
organizations use objective and empirical evidence
drawing on the qualitative data collected through interviews and
• Power-based decision making: a practice in which
ethnography, we traced (a) processes in which our case firms plan, powerful groups/individuals make decisions that
implement, and control their product/service projects and (b) which reflect their personal interests
actors are engaged in each phase of the processes. • Opinion-based decision making: a practice in which
decisions are made, using overall feelings and personal
The paper continues as follows. We begin by reviewing the extant
experience
studies on portfolio management and clarifying a research gap within Edgett (2013) • Innovation strategy: creating and articulating an
this body of literature. This is followed by a presentation of our research innovation strategy
method and the resultant findings from it. In the last section we propose • Strategic portfolio decision: outlining strategic buckets
a process model stemming from our findings; and, finally, we close by and product roadmaps
• Tactical portfolio decision: engaging in project
discussing our work’s implications for theory, practice, and future
selection (go/kill), project prioritization, and resource
research. allocation to projects

2. Literature review
portfolio management ‘process’ in the context of product and service
The body of literature on portfolio management has expanded to development. Indeed, several portfolio management researchers have
include many aspects of organizational issues. Indeed, the existing continuously called for more studies on processes underlying portfolio
literature, to date, has addressed portfolio management in relation to management (see, for example, Jonas et al., 2013; Kwak and Anbari,
multiple organizational goals, including product portfolio management 2009; Martinsuo, 2013; Meifort, 2016).
that seeks to achieve the proper performance of new product develop­ This is, of course, not to say that there has been no research on the
ment projects in light of strategic alignment, balance, and value maxi­ process of portfolio management. As shown in Table 1, a few studies
mization (e.g., Cardozo and Smith, 1983; Cooper et al., 2002); have attempted to uncover processes underpinning organizational
technology portfolio management that helps organizations to possess portfolio management. For example, Kester et al. (2009) offered three
“an optimal set of technologies from a set of feasible alternatives” (e.g., genres of portfolio management decision making, which are made up of
Capon and Glazer, 1987, p. 1; Park and Yoon, 2017); and corporate formalist-reactive, intuitive, and integrative approaches. Building on
portfolio management that aims to identify effective ways of creating, this three-pronged model, Kester and her colleagues (2011) engaged in
revamping, breaking down, and/or shutting down business units within grounded theory research by which they investigated “portfolio decision
an organization (Nippa et al., 2011). making processes in their entirety” (Kester et al., 2011, p. 642).
More recently, the stream of research on portfolio management has Throughout a series of interviews and meeting observations in firms in
delved deep into portfolio management in specific situations, in which the food and service sectors, Kester et al. (2011) identified (a) three main
organizations deal with the issue of intellectual property (e.g., Ha et al., practices of portfolio decision making (e.g., evidence-based, power-­
2015; Song et al., 2016; Yue, 2017), inter-organizational relationships based, and opinion-based practices); (b) factors that cause a certain
(Gilsing et al., 2014), cryptocurrencies (Ma et al., 2020), and national practice (e.g., collective ambition, cross-functional collaboration, and
innovation systems (Ardito et al., 2019). In dealing with these organi­ politics); and (c) relationships between portfolio management practices
zational goals and situations, portfolio management researchers have and portfolio decision-making effectiveness.
unraveled portfolio management “policies, practices, procedures, tools Archer and Ghasemzadeh (1999) developed a process model
and actions that managers take to manage resources, make allocation comprising an iterative loop between individual project analysis and
decisions, and ensure that the portfolio is balanced” (McDonough and project development until it reaches successful completion. The authors
Spital, 2003, p. 40). divided the whole process into three stages: a strategic considerations
Within the ample body of literature on portfolio management, one phase, a project evaluation phase, and a project selection phase. Build­
important subject that has received surprisingly little attention is the ing on this process model, Arlt (2010) proposed a number of steps

2
N. Gupta et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 180 (2022) 121652

involving clarification about the availability of good-quality data, suggested three types of portfolio decision-making practices, including a
determining the level of organizational acceptance and maturity level of formalist-reactive one that mainly uses quantitative criteria, intuitive
portfolio methods. Jonas (2010) proposed four key interdependent and one that mainly uses qualitative criteria, and integrative one that com­
chronologically sequenced stages, including portfolio structuring, bines quantitative and qualitative criteria. Similarly, Kester et al. (2011)
resource management, portfolio steering, and organizational learning. provided what they label portfolio decision-making processes but, at a
In detail, portfolio structuring is a cyclical phase in which the portfolio closer look, the authors outlined portfolio decision-making genres (i.e.,
strategy is defined, and components to achieve the strategy are identi­ evidence-based one, power-based one, and opinion-based one), rather
fied and selected. Then, resources are allocated to the components, and than a process that typically refers to “the progression (i.e., the order
associated conflicts are resolved. Following this, the portfolio is steered and sequence) of events in an organizational entity’s existence over
in a such a way that it remains aligned with strategy, and, if not, time” (Van de Ven and Poole, 1995, p. 512). In addition, the extant work
corrective actions are taken. Finally, when projects are completed, on portfolio management practices has, by and large, tried to discover
post-implementation reviews are conducted, and the knowledge frameworks and tools that are adopted in best-performing organizations
generated is gathered and applied in the overall portfolio management (e.g., Barczak et al., 2009; Cooper, 2008; Cooper et al., 1999), to outline
system. methods and techniques that are available for effective portfolio man­
In an attempt to provide a more comprehensive picture of portfolio agement (e.g., Chao and Kavadias, 2008; Linton et al., 2002; Mitchell
management, Patterson (2004) suggested a process model, in which the et al., 2014), or to propose new methods and tools that can help orga­
strategic direction of the portfolio is defined by product and technology nizations improve their portfolio management processes (e.g., Grimaldi
roadmaps after scanning for opportunities or threats from technology et al., 2015; Oliveira and Rozenfeld, 2010; Pérez et al., 2018; Santiago
and market perspectives (see Table 1). The portfolio is then assessed, et al., 2015). These lines of practice research differ from process research
which means individual projects are reviewed, and it is decided whether that aims to uncover multiple phases underlying portfolio management.
to pursue the project (or not) and then resources are allocated. This Looking across the extant work on portfolio management, in general,
process model has recently been echoed by Edgett (2013). The afore­ and the process of portfolio management, specifically, we suggest that
mentioned process models, however, did not clarify at which organi­ theoretical and practical contributions can be made by attending to a
zational levels each portfolio management phase is carried out. To portfolio management process, rather than a practice, in an inductive
address this, Ahlemann (2009) developed what he calls the M-model, manner, with an in-depth focus on the link between the phases of the
which outlines three levels of organizational hierarchy and their portfolio management process and agents engaged in each phase.
respective portfolio management activities. For example, according to Against this backdrop, we address the following research question: How
the author, at project-management or team-member level, the focus is does the process of portfolio management unfold in real-world settings, and
on generating ideas, project planning, and execution. which agents are engaged in the portfolio management process?
Although the extant literature on the portfolio management process
has offered useful insights, we argue that it has provided limited prop­ 3. Method
ositions for understanding and, more importantly, applying portfolio
management procedures in real-world settings. The reason for this is We conducted inductive, qualitative research in which portfolio
three-fold. First, the extant work has largely developed a process model management processes in nine different organizations were explored
in a deductive manner, using “an examination of existing research re­ (Eisenhardt and Graebner, 2007; Gioia et al., 2012). In detail, our study
sults and an analysis of project management case studies documented in followed the methodological guidelines of multi-case research (Yin,
the literature” (Ahlemann, 2009, p. 22). For example, Jonas (2010, p. 2014) and organizational ethnography (Jarzabkowski et al., 2014). The
821) drew on the extant work of Killen (2008) and Cooper (2008) to reason for this methodological choice was that an inductive, qualitative
conceptualize “a chronological sequence of four highly interdependent research is particularly useful for exploring processes requiring detailed
phases” in relation to portfolio management. Likewise, Archer and explanations and descriptions from the stakeholders who experience
Ghasemzadeh (1999, p. 208) conceptualized the process of portfolio them (Langley, 1999; Patton, 2002).
management, using “many published articles and books”. Considering a Before undertaking formal case studies, we engaged in a six-month-
well-known gap between academic research and industrial practice long pilot study, to establish the criteria of sample selection, and to
(Kieser et al., 2015; A. Kieser and Leiner, 2009), we suggest that the understand the contemporary state of portfolio management practices.
extant process models that are deductively developed can be hypo­ This pilot study comprised two focus group interviews comprising 28
thetical, rather than correctly capturing the reality of portfolio participants and exploratory interviews with 9 informants. Interviewees
management. were all portfolio management coordinators (or decision-makers)
Second, the existing process models have rarely attended to agents working in The life science, industrial equipment, metal and mining,
that are responsible for the phases of portfolio management processes. biotech, aerospace, oil and gas, industrial automation, consumer goods,
As Jonas aptly put it, “portfolio management can neither be understood chemical, utilities, and manufacturing industries.
nor be implemented successfully” in organizations unless a link between Based on the outcome of pilot study, we used three-pronged case
a portfolio management process and agents is defined (Jonas, 2010, p. selection criteria to avoid sample selection bias (Yin, 2014). First, we
818). Indeed, portfolio management researchers have identified that decided to observe technology-intensive firms that spend more R&D
cross-functional integration is a key determinant of successful expenditures than the sector’s average. The need for effective portfolio
decision-making that should be repeatedly made through a portfolio management becomes critical for these firms because of the high un­
management process (Kester et al., 2014), and the high degree of certainties latent in R&D investment. Second, we chose case firms that
functional diversity within a portfolio decision-making team results in had portfolio management processes in place for more than a year.
the selection of more innovative projects (Criscuolo et al., 2017). As Finally, we targeted firms that run units dedicated to portfolio man­
such, we argue that understanding which organizational members are in agement. Using these criteria, we observed nine firms (hereafter referred
charge of which portfolio management steps is a key to offering a ho­ to as Cases 1–9) in the electrical machinery, medical device, and phar­
listic view of the portfolio management process. maceutical sectors (see Appendix 1). Within these case firms, we decided
Finally, some of the existing studies categorized as process research that the key informants were portfolio decision-makers and portfolio
have, in fact, offered insights for understanding best/standard ‘prac­ coordinators. This informant selection logic was in line with the extant
tices’ that are adopted in top-performing organizations. This practice research on portfolio management (e.g., Rank et al., 2015; Unger et al.,
research has tended to identify what Kester et al. (2009) refer to the 2012). Therefore, before collecting data from an informant, we made
‘genres’ of portfolio management. For example, Kester et al. (2009) sure that an informant either took part in a portfolio decision-making

3
N. Gupta et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 180 (2022) 121652

Table 2 Table 3
Data collection procedure. . Structure of data analysis and resulting theoretical categories.
Phase Data collection Data use in analysis Theoretical themes Second-order First-order concepts
categories
Step Seventeen interviews with the staff Used to acquire the background
1 members of eight firms (i.e., Cases understanding (e.g., industry Ecosystem Collecting ecosystem Collecting information about
1–8) in the electrical machinery, jargon and organizational surveillance information various actors/entities within their
medical device, and pharmaceutical structures) of portfolio ecosystems.
sectors (see Appendix I). management processes in real- Choosing the level of information
Informants’ ranks and roles world settings. to be collected.
included vice presidents and Used to create a first-cut process Assigning information gathering
managers at the portfolio model. work to relevant personnel/units.
management unit. Determining the amount of
resources allocated to information
Step Four-month-long participant Used to identify potentially missing collection.
2 observation in the global portfolio elements in the first-cut process
management team of a model. Generating strategic Identifying the patterns of
pharmaceutical firm (i.e., Case 9). Used to revise the first-cut process insights ecosystem information collected.
model. Identifying themes around which a
company should consider doing
Step Follow-up interviews with the case Used to double check the fitness of their businesses.
3 firms. our process model with the
Focus-group interview with five viewpoints of the informants. Portfolio strategy Translating strategy Breaking down high-level strategy
experts. Used to increase the validity and development into portfolio goals.
generalizability of the process Setting directions for portfolio
model. decisions.

Analyzing portfolio Analysis of portfolio(s) to spot gaps

with respect to strategy or business
event or coordinated a portfolio in his/her organization. Accordingly, all themes (as identified in ecosystem
surveillance).
informants of our study were portfolio decision-makers, representing the
Checking/monitoring the
‘insider’ view of portfolio management processes. performance of existing portfolio
To collect data, first, we conducted 17 interviews with 25 in­ (s).
formants, and these qualitative data were digitally recorded and tran­
scribed verbatim. Our main interview questions included: (a) a Identifying new Determining new project
project opportunity opportunities or generating ideas
description of the process of portfolio planning in their organization; (b)
that could be needed to achieve
a description of the process of portfolio decision-making (e.g., selection strategic goals or fix portfolio gaps.
of projects, termination of projects); and (c) a description of the char­
acteristics of the portfolio management process and performance of the Business case Preparing business Assigning a business case task to
portfolio, as well as the portfolio management process. On average, each management case relevant personnel/units.
Creating a template entailing all
interview lasted for approximately 1.2 h. Relevant documents regarding information essential to decision-
portfolio management processes were requested and collected (where making.
possible) during the interviews. Second, the first author undertook a Aligning a business case with an
four-month-long participant observation within the global portfolio organization’s strategy.
Conducting a multi-dimension
management team of an international pharmaceutical firm (hereinafter
feasibility test of a project
referred to as Case 9). The goal of our ethnographic data collection was proposed in a business case.
to confirm/revise the first-cut model through our own observation on a Getting the business case endorsed
real-time basis, in addition to the reliance on informants’ voices. This by the relevant staff members.
participatory practice lasted for four months due to a constraint set by
Assessing business Challenging assumptions
the case firm, but this time-frame was enough to collect the required case underlying the information of a
data for the revision of the model. During the participant observation, given business case.
we observed and confirmed that: (a) a portfolio management process Setting up criteria for business case
was divided into different phases ranging from individual project anal­ assessment.
Choosing the right method(s) for
ysis to executive decision-making and portfolio review; (b) portfolio
business case assessment.
management governance entails setting decision-making criteria, con­ Collecting evidence of project
straints, and forming decision-making teams; and (c) market expansion issues.
of commercialized product or product deletion from the existing market Prioritizing some business cases
comes under the scope of portfolio management decisions. Finally, as over others.

our process model became finalized, we carried out member-check in­ Portfolio decision- Performance checks Ensuring that the portfolio does not
terviews (Guba, 1981) with the case firms and a focus group interview making suffer deadlocks.
with five industry experts, including a technology transition lead in a Monitoring the performance of
corporate technology unit, a technology manager and innovation projects and portfolio.
growth leader in the R&D unit, an R&D product manager in the R&D
Decision-making Choosing the type of portfolio
department, and a technology assurance manager in the corporate decision (e.g., project hibernation).
innovation office (for confidentiality reasons, we do not present the Choosing the timing and time
organizations’ names). The purpose of this methodological step was to frame of resource commitment.
gather a set of data that could help us confirm if our process model Budgeting a financial resource to a
selected project.
correctly captured the reality of the case firms and if our findings were Announcing the result of decision-
applicable to organizations beyond our investigation. Our data collec­
(continued on next page)
tion process is outlined in Table 2.
We analyzed the data using widely accepted prescriptions for

4
N. Gupta et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 180 (2022) 121652

Table 3 (continued ) model to key informants in our case firms, and we conducted a focus
Theoretical themes Second-order First-order concepts group interview with industry experts. This member check (Guba, 1981)
categories and the focus-group interview ensured the validity and authenticity of
making to a relevant party.
our work. For example, we asked to key informants if our theoretical
themes were in line with the realities of their processes, and this was to
New product/ Allocating resources Choosing the right method(s) for ensure that our findings were commonly manifested in nine case firms
service resource allocation. (see Table 2). Our coding structure is summarized in Table 3.
management Choosing the time period for which
It is worth mentioning that the collaboration with case 9 was time-
resources are allocated to projects.
Implementing stage- Configuring a stage-gate process in limited due to the constraints on the side of case firm and first author.
gate management relation to a project type. Hence, the case study agreement was done for 4 months only. However,
Setting up a measure enabling the the objective of case 9 was to revise the first-cut model and it was found
accumulation of lessons learned. that four months gave enough time to collect the required data and
Monitoring the sales of products/
services and taking corrective
collect feedback from its informants for the revision of the model. So, we
actions. then conducted follow-up interviews with the case firms to ensure we
did not miss any important aspect or information of model from data
Post-launch tracking Monitoring the success ratio of collection to its analysis.
business cases.
For this, we created the visual representation of portfolio manage­
Managing the life-cycle of
products/services ment model specific to each case firm and used as a basis of follow-up
interviews. The feedback collected from case firms suggested that no
Portfolio Corporate function Enabling joint efforts between further changes were observed in theoretical themes, second-order
management different corporate functions. category and first-order concepts. However, we also acknowledge that
stakeholders Facilitating collaboration between
different corporate functions.
there is a degree of variability in practicing portfolio management across
case firms.
Top management Determining the level of resources
function allocated to the portfolio. 4. Findings
Auditing portfolio management
processes (at least) annually.
Giving feedback/power to project 4.1. Portfolio management process
managers.
Drawing on the inductive, qualitative observation of our case firms,
Project management Establishing/developing data
we found that a portfolio management process comprises five interde­
function management tools.
Using business case templates to
pendent phases: ecosystem surveillance, portfolio strategy development,
gather project information. business case management, portfolio decision-making, and new product
Processing data to generate development. In what follows, we describe each phase in detail.
insights.
4.1.1. Ecosystem surveillance
Portfolio management Describing project constraints.
governance function Controlling the scope of Portfolio management in our case firms started from what we labeled
participation/information in ‘ecosystem surveillance’, in which stakeholders from different corporate
portfolio management. functions undertake a series of tasks involving: (a) collecting ecosystem
Identifying points of improvement information, that is, the collection of information about organizations’
in portfolio management.
business ecosystems (e.g., market trends, technology opportunities,
customer complaints); and (b) generating strategic insights, that is, the
analysis of the collected information and identifying its implications for
qualitative data analysis (Corbin & Strauss, 1990; Miles et al., 2014). a business.
First, the authors read through the interview transcripts to familiarize First, our case firms collected different types of information, level of
ourselves with the data. We then generated a case description that information, and intensity of information. For example, some of our case
entailed the in-depth narrative of portfolio management processes firms set up a portal for customers to lodge their pain points, which are
implemented in nine case firms. In this case description, we also directly accessible by the R&D unit of these firms. This practice helped
included supporting evidence and figures. Second, we used analytical our case firms to produce new ideas for projects and foster customer
techniques that help a researcher to categorize low-level concepts into a visibility. To collect information about markets, some of our case firms
smaller number of higher-order theoretical themes (Gioia et al., 2012; visited academic conferences and customer engagement. For example,
Miles et al., 2014; Saldana, 2016). In doing this analytical task, we one of our informants mentioned:
retrieved and read relevant literature so that our codes were theoreti­ The marketing insight is our space, where we say we do customer
cally grounded. For example, we consulted the literature on absorptive involvement and market analysis all year round .... This is where we want to
capacity (e.g., Zahra and George, 2002) and the business ecosystem (e. go out, to do workshops with customers, or at least use these insights that we
g., Graça and Camarinha-Matos, 2017; Moore, 1993) to develop our have generated for the whole year to say, okay guys, what does this mean? An
theoretical theme, ecosystem surveillance, and the research on road­ example is, if there could be trends – what are the trends happening in the
mapping (e.g., Daim and Oliver, 2008; Phaal et al., 2004) in order to cleaning industry? There’s a trend for autonomous machines, that’s a trend,
refine our second-order category, strategy translation. so we have to see what that means for our industry, and what does the world
Our analysis was iteratively undertaken until no additional theo­ do with the autonomous technology moving, the way you can solve pain
retical categories emerged. points for our customers, so that’s an insight for us.
To increase the validity of our coding outcomes, we tracked the The second step in the ecosystem surveillance phase was to generate
number of changes made in the model in each of the step described in insights, by identifying trends and patterns across the different types of
Table 2. As we carried out the 9th case study and its data analysis, we ecosystem information collected. The associated practices include
found that the number of new theoretical themes, second-order cate­ identifying trends in customer complaints, identifying micro and macro
gories, and first order concepts were limited to three. trends in an ecosystem, for example, digitalization of products and
As our findings became saturated, again, we showed the process services and prioritizing trends identified across different regions. Our

5
N. Gupta et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 180 (2022) 121652

case firms also endeavored to identify themes around which a company In this sub-phase our case firms also established strategic priorities
should consider doing its business and to generate implications for the and/or buckets for an overall portfolio; translated high-level strategic
existing businesses of the case firms. The associated practices included objectives into the product/service-line level; gathered business inputs
exploring synergies between business requirements, setting up in­ and found commonalities between existing products/services and new
cubators for identifying potential firms for mergers and acquisitions. For product/service plans; and set up the direction for technology
example, one of our informants from Case 1 remarked: development.
Then those insights, we need to look at what it means in terms of our Second, our case firms undertook ‘analyzing the portfolio’, which
portfolio. If you know that autonomous is a trend, and it’s coming soon and spots gaps with respect to strategy or business themes (as identified in
we need to do something about it, there could be an idea of an autonomous the phase of ecosystem surveillance) and monitors the performance of
machine. That’s an example that, okay guys, this business strategy would existing portfolio(s). In detail, the case firms analyzed their portfolios
need to explore this, we need to see if it’s a real pain-solver for the customer, using bubble charts and/or a strategic bucket method; identified the
and can we make it an affordable value proposition for the customer? In our number of projects related to particular business themes and under­
product portfolio strategy, you take that as an input and say, okay guys, we standing their implications for strategic goals; checked for the risk of
need a new machine with autonomous capability and let’s build a business cannibalization (e.g., sales) among projects in a portfolio; and tracked
case around it. the performance of strategic buckets and the size of the portfolio and
The role of ecosystem surveillance in overall portfolio management monitored the product performance.
is quite important, as discovered across the cases. The information Finally, the last sub-phase of the case firms was ‘identifying a new
collected about an ecosystem helps with validating and updating the project opportunity’, through which the cases determined new project
various information about ongoing projects in a company, which have opportunities and/or generated ideas that could be needed to achieve
implications for selection/termination decisions on those projects. It strategic goals and fix portfolio gaps. Here, the case firms generated
supports the development of the portfolio strategy, the identification of ideas based on ecosystem information such as customer complaints and
new business or project opportunities, and business issues such as low regulatory changes, and they identified project opportunities based on
sales of existing products, which can help to increase the portfolio value. roadmaps, strategic inputs, or insights from the portfolio analysis. The
It also identifies opportunities for the expansion of portfolio(s) by firms also launched cross-functional workshops to gain project ideas. For
identifying potential products/services (of other companies) that have example, the aforementioned informant working for Case 4 also
synergies with the existing products or technology of a company. mentioned:
It is important to note that ecosystem surveillance at portfolio level is
Whereas this is the portfolio, if they need to generate product opportunity
different from market or technology intelligence carried out at new
assessment or project opportunity assessment that would come as a mini
product development (NPD) levels. This is because, at portfolio level, the
business place, if you like. It is formed from that product strategy plan.
objective of ecosystem surveillance is to support the development of a
Because that would be accepted into the next layer, which is then the
strategy for the overall portfolio (unlike for a specific product in
annual roadmap.
development) and also to shape the direction of portfolio emergence
with project ideas and to ensure that the NPD pipeline does not dry up. Similarly, an informant from Case 5 remarked, while explaining how
new project ideas are fed into their portfolio management process:
4.1.2. Portfolio strategy development
The second phase of portfolio management is labeled ‘portfolio I guess there are three or four ways that things come in. First of all, the
strategy development’, in which our case firms are engaged in setting more proactive thing that we do ourselves, we have these MAR charts or
strategic goals and directions for portfolio decisions, determining gaps call dashboards. We identified product KPIs because it’s a product-
in portfolio, and identifying new project opportunities that could be centered portfolio – which product KPIs is actually measured around
needed to implement the strategy or fix portfolio gaps. In detail, this the organization. We can see trends in this, we look into the data for an
phase was made up of three ingredients: (a) translating strategy, (b) array of KPIs and based on that we conclude on the health of our prod­
analyzing the portfolio, and (c) identifying new project opportunities. ucts. If everything looks rather green, we don’t do anything in that sense.
First, our case firms engaged in a ‘translating strategy’ that broke In particular, one of the KPIs we look much into, because it’s something
down high-level strategy into portfolio goals and set directions for that is very, very monitored, is the customer complaints for our products.
portfolio decisions. Specifically, the firms engaged in the joint devel­ Are there customer complaints? They’re very much, have a whole con­
opment and maintenance of short- to long-term plans related to the versation doing the analysis of this. They do technical analysis. Also, one
market, technology, and strategy by different functions of the firms. The of the reasons we get these complaints. Then they do MAR charts, if you
most salient work that the case firms conducted to achieve this sub- know MAR charts. It’s a lean tool where you measure, they’re used for
phase was roadmapping. For example, an Informant working for Case analysis, you get some numbers and then you organize these numbers with
4 mentioned: explanatory root causes. Then you make a pivotal analysis of what the
high parts are here. Where are the issues? Then you do extra and say,
There can be multiple sets of product strategy plans and we’ve got five okay, here we see two high parts and we’ve seen that as a trend of a fault
portfolios. You would see five product strategy plans. But underneath that in products. Let’s do a practical deep dive into why is this a trend? We
can be many and multiple layers. One of the reasons we do that is edu­ have last, I’ll say, a review. We review how the actions actually worked.
cation for the people doing them. It is for accountability. They could write That MAR chart that we have for all KPIs and sub-products, and we do
a whole section of a product strategy plan that they own. It would cover that review twice a year in relation to the portfolio prioritization saying,
life cycle management and product development ideas, competitor anal­ do we need to initiate something new? That’s the proactive or, you can
ysis. So, you can see there is a long-term component on the left and that’s say, focused approach. By focusing on something, you might also become
iterative. That gets refreshed every year. But that is a living practice, if you narrow-minded, so that’s one way we try to do it that’s a very structured
like playing out the corporate roadmap, which is another annual event, approach to it, but we also want to go otherwise. We also have ideas
because that is where we look at the capacity, demand planning, and the coming from the market and from our customers. We have also a
budget planning. So that annual piece is linked to the fiscal planning … customer idea database. Come in and say, hey, could we perhaps if this
how do we balance these plans and so on? But the corporate roadmap has idea was mature? It would be easier to … If more people come with these
everything in it. That is all of the aspirational things that have come from ideas or we see a trend in the customers’ ideas, then we initiate projects
all of the various inputs that we have had. So that is the major output, but based on that.
then that gets somewhat distilled into what we can actually afford.

6
N. Gupta et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 180 (2022) 121652

The role of portfolio strategy development in overall portfolio financial data. What is the NPV. We want them to have a sign-off with the
management was found to be critical across the case companies. For finance before they put in the data. So, you need … they need to prove …
example, it supports the development of multi-functional criteria based That’s why we have this quality section here. Quality assurance. We want
on roadmaps for assessing projects and the setting of strategic and to do a kind of quality assurance in the system. So, when you put that in,
performance targets to be achieved for a portfolio. It also helps in you need to type in that you have got an approval for final, for instance,
identifying opportunities for increasing portfolio value by focusing on on the cost and the NPV. And that will go also for technical evaluation. …
the development of the technology platform and enabling projects. It Before you can submit a proposal, you need to deliver it on a certain
supports the development and assessment of business cases aligned with quality level, where we have some specific criteria.
strategy by indicating their fit with strategic priorities or roadmaps. The
The role of business case management in overall portfolio manage­
development of roadmaps and setting portfolio priorities helps to
ment is found to be critical across the case companies. For example, the
communicate the strategic direction of a company and its portfolio.
use of business case templates ensures consistency in the information
Analysis of the portfolio could result in spotting portfolio gaps at an
type across business cases and supports transparency and parity in
early stage, which could be strategic or operational in nature. Identi­
assessment, and doing due diligence improves the business case quality
fying new project opportunities reduces the risk of drying up the port­
and enables more realistic assessment, indicating the degree of confi­
folio pipeline and hence its value.
dence about the project and portfolio value. Another implication of
identifying an owner of business cases and making explicit functional
4.1.3. Business case management
approvals is that it increases the sense of responsibility and commitment
The third phase of portfolio management was what we call ‘business
to implement business cases successfully among stakeholders.
case management’, wherein a business case is defined as follows: “…
Another benefit of business case management is that it can prevent
business case is a document that provides the necessary information to
operational bottlenecks, as it assesses business cases based on resource
enable management to make decisions about project prioritization and
availability and reduces the risk of ‘fire-fighting’. The major implication
funding. It contains estimates of the benefits, timescales, resource re­
of business case management is for portfolio decision-making. Under­
quirements (including costs), and risks of a project” (Kopmann et al.,
taking two sub-processes of business case management supports
2015, p. 530). Our data showed that business case management
informed and evidence-based decision-making on projects. For example,
comprised two sub-phases, that is, (a) preparing the business case, and
identifying ‘bad’ projects as a result of developing a priority list can
(b) assessing the business case.
enable their early termination, resulting in saving resources for more
First, business case preparation began with clarifying the account­
valuable projects, potentially leading to increased portfolio value.
ability and sponsorship of business cases. Our case firms then defined
the structure of information that should be provided in business cases.
4.1.4. Portfolio decision-making
Following this, the case firms aligned the business cases with the stra­
Our case firms moved onto the fourth phase of portfolio manage­
tegic and technology priorities or goals. The later parts of preparation
ment, and we labeled it ‘portfolio decision-making’. In this phase, the
included multi-dimension feasibility tests. In addition, the firms pre­
firms took selection, termination and/or holding decisions on projects,
pared their business cases, trying to gain the endorsement of relevant
in light of the projects’ assessed values, portfolio priorities, and project
staff members. This line of activities was explained by an informant
performance. For example, one of the informants (Case 2) mentioned
working for Case 2 while explaining business case preparation and its
that, during portfolio decision-making events, the project proposer
format:
made an elevator pitch, following which a decision on a project was
You can see the different parameters, like project name, owner and area, taken. Likewise, an informant working for Case 8 remarked that a
decision board, project lead, project organization, project state. We have project can also be terminated if a competitor has done a better job in the
different states, and in the beginning, of course, it’s just a proposal. So, it market or technology domain that a project was targeting. We found
will be proposed. Then we have value proposition and different data. We that this fourth phase was made up of two elements, that is, (a) per­
have key success factors; we have project category. That’s the one we formance checks and (b) decision-making.
talked about, if it’s enabling or the other… And there are some sub-tracks First, performance checks involved monitoring and optimizing
as well. … we have organized them around segment, and they have project and portfolio performance. To carry out performance checks, our
different products under that … Because in the beginning, you’ll just say it case firms estimated resource availability; reserved slack resources to
has to be launched this year, in October of this year, because otherwise we deal with contingencies; balanced the supply/demand of resources; and
can’t hit the heating season, for instance, or whatever it is. But it’ll be very discussed alternative or back-up projects to ensure that the portfolio did
top level. And then later on, just so you understand it, we have this process not suffer from deadlocks (e.g., delivery time) as a result of portfolio
here. So here, the business proposal comes. When we then decide to run decisions. The firms also monitored the performance of individual pro­
the project, the mandates are given to a project manager, and then he/she jects and the overall portfolio by means of checking the balance between
starts to put in more data as he/she continues. And that’s why what you innovation types; identifying warning signals for ‘pet’ projects; pre­
saw here is the complete deck of data that will be available. But much of it senting the project status and identifying issues; ensuring there was no
is, of course, the foundation you could say, in the beginning. delay in project delivery and the portfolio did not go over budget; and
checking portfolio value and strategic alignment. This also included the
Second, our case firms assessed business cases that were prepared. In
use of bubble charts and changes in project priorities as a result of
doing so, the firms sought to: challenge the assumptions (e.g., behind the
corrective actions. These activities were illustrated by the remark of an
potential sales number) underlying the information provided in the
informant working for Case 7:
business cases; increase the credibility of the business cases by making
explicit the approvals behind the information in business by respective Let’s say we do some preliminary business cases for projects and we base
corporate functions; and then prioritize some business cases over others. our selection on that. So, if there’s a big market, of course that would
Most importantly, our case firms used multifunctional criteria and come in favor. Maybe to inform that we have, we have what we call
methods to determine the value of business cases. For example, an “prejects”, so it’s pre-projects. Checking very early this idea we have,
informant working for Case 2 mentioned: doing some early concept development looking into the market and then
making a report saying, “We believe that this is an opportunity.” Again,
We want to push that out to the segment, the one that creates that. So, to
that goes into probably the strategic PDC [Project Decision Committee],
ensure quality, because that’s the big problem. Because they say that it’s
“Should we start a project here?… What investment is required? We have
just a gut feeling. You don’t have insights. We want to, for instance, the

7
N. Gupta et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 180 (2022) 121652

the market data, we have the investments, we have the cost price and what phase was resource allocation to certain projects. To do so, our case
sales price do we think we can get?” That’s the business case part of it. firms, in common, chose the right methods for resource allocation, and
Then there’s the user part. Where we try to make the concept some kind of they selected the time period for which resources were allocated to the
over – high-level concept, you could say, where we have checked with the projects. For example, one of the informants from Case 1 explained:
users, with the user group to check the first feasibility. “Does this seem to
After prioritization, we might have one to ten ranked projects but we
be a good idea?”
haven’t said, will we be able to do ten or will we be able to do only five?
Second, our case firms then activated portfolio decision-making, Okay, this is the request form product portfolio management on new
which is a central tenet of overall portfolio management. The types of business cases; we use the principle, right. It’s simple, I like that, I also
decision that the case firms made entailed a project selection, termina­ come from an organization but it was much more numbers and then they
tion or hibernation, and these pieces of decision-making were made never added up. Maybe that’s a better way of doing this one on each
through multiple activities. In detail, our case firms used commercial business case, he/she [senior member] looks for what skills, confidence is
estimates (e.g., potential sales), feasibility, and internal rate of return needed for those business cases and he/she looks at the available re­
(IRR) to select a project. The firms terminated a project if it encountered sources for those areas, okay what can we put on the roadmap? What can
the problem of resource unavailability, low feasibility, high complexity, we deliver for next year? How many projects? Then the next capacity he/
or poor strategic fit. Projects were put into hibernation mode if neces­ she goes and allocates. Then he/she comes up with a proposed roadmap
sary or before termination in the case of no market differentiation, un­ where “Guys, based on the request, this is what tactical project man­
dertaking decisions based on stage-gates, and exploring the agement – this is where we can deliver these 10 projects, not 15, as you
opportunities for alternative projects in the case of termination. said.” We can put resource commitment and approve the prior 10 of the
We found that one of the important elements of portfolio decision- projects… Now we come up with a proposal on a roadmap on a new
making was a time period for which the resource commitment is plan­ portfolio and also how much, will it give us the growth or not?
ned for projects and the portfolio. The instances of this component were
After allocating resources to projects, the firms implemented stage-
planning resource commitment for four months to two years (depending
gate management made up of four key components. In particular, the
on portfolio context) and finalizing the portfolio for a particular period
case firms configured a stage-gate process in relation to a project type.
(e.g., the next fiscal year). Companies can exhibit opportunistic behavior
Here, the stage-gate process “is a conceptual and operational map” that
by holding extraordinary portfolio decisions in cases of urgency.
“consists of … a series of stages, where the project team undertakes the
The later parts of portfolio decision-making were budgeting a
work, obtains the needed information, and does the subsequent data
financial resource to a successful project and announcing the result of
integration and analysis, followed by … gates, where go/kill decisions
the decision-making to a relevant party. For the former, our case firms
are made to continue to invest in the project” (Cooper, 2008, p. 214).
were formally signing off portfolio budgets or resources and authorizing
Following the stage-gate management, our case firms then set up a
resources for selected projects or optimizing the portfolio budget. For
measure governing project execution; set up a measure enabling the
the latter, the case firms were communicating portfolio decisions, for
acquisition of knowledge arising from project execution; and monitored
example, on a company’s internal network, providing a further mandate
the sales of existing products into market and took corrective actions if
or feedback to project managers, such as the justification for, or ratio­
necessary. These stage-gate management activities enabled our case
nale behind, portfolio decisions, raising red flags or identifying issues in
firms to build up a knowledge base and insights from execution of the
projects and making a global list of finalized projects that were available
projects. To keep the lessons learned, the case firms had project-learning
internally.
meetings with project teams and developed interim or
Making portfolio decisions such as project selection, termination,
project-completion reports. An informant working for Case 1 mentioned:
and hibernation is a way of implementing organizational strategy. Using
roadmaps and learning from previous decisions or project support ra­ To be honest, in the whole structured journey that we have started, we
tionality in decision-making, communicating portfolio decisions, and have project learning meetings in the projects, but if you ask me, we are
giving feedback to project managers renders portfolio management working toward a full-functioning machine, which, okay, get the failures,
transparent and enhances the commitment toward strategic priorities get the learnings and put it back in to – okay, how could we reward if you
from different stakeholders. Monitoring portfolio performance ensures did.
that portfolio management goals are met, such as strategic alignment,
value maximization, and balance. We found that the frequency of Likewise, an informant from Case 4 recounted:
portfolio decision-making is indicated to be monthly to annually, as I think, a retrospective as part of G4 to G5 [stage-gate system], before we
found across the case studies. An informant from Case 3 explained: sign off G5 activities. Where we look back and say lessons learned and
We usually look at the basic business case in any kind of decision that we what should we do better next time. That’s related to not just what their
are making regarding the project but it’s like a high-level ambition what it portfolio management does, but what the project team does. No, it may
would be, and, yes, it’s more like, okay, so what would be the lessons not be portfolio-specific. It might be – we could’ve tested – it’s more
required, what will be the expected net sales, what will be the profit? project-focused rather than it’s portfolio-focused. It’s actually two-fold.
Usually, that’s the key criterion that is being looked at. Then, also it can It’s both at the project level and also the portfolio level.
be something from the perspective of it’s strategically important in the Finally, we found that the firms generally engaged in what we call
area or what is also happening in the market. This is something that we ‘post-launch tracking’, in which they monitored the success ratio of
also look at the categories, is it something we want to do, is it something business cases and took corrective actions to improve project perfor­
we can fix or exit, so we also use these perspectives on the portfolio, so it mance, for example, by means of market expansion or product mainte­
depends where the project is and then what will be the impact of the nance efforts. For example, our case firms tracked the success ratios of
project. sales in business cases; identified warning signals by assessing the
launch performance; and gathered feedback on products/services that
4.1.5. New product/service management were released to market. In addition to these tracking activities, the
The last phase of portfolio management was what we referred to as firms undertook the life-cycle management of products/services that
new product/service management. In this phase, the firms engaged in were launched in the market. Associated activities included expanding
(a) allocating resources, (b) implementing stage-gate management, and the market of existing products by entering into new markets or coun­
(c) post-launch tracking. The first task that the firms conducted at this tries, updating product compositions according to market changes or

8
N. Gupta et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 180 (2022) 121652

regulations, and deleting or taking out products from the market. managing project-related data and it processed the data to enable/
The role of new product management in overall portfolio manage­ inform portfolio decisions. In detail, the staff members of the project
ment is important, supporting the execution of selected projects by management function established data management tools to support
allocating resources to them or ensuring the smooth operation of pro­ portfolio decisions; they developed methods to incorporate data in
jects. Configuring stage-gate processes according to project type ensures business cases; they used business case templates to gather project in­
that only the relevant project execution activities are carried out, and formation; and they processed the information to generate insights at
post-market surveillance helps in correcting product sales, influencing project and portfolio levels. This line of activities is well illustrated by
the overall portfolio value. one of the informants from Case 1:

We are part of the portfolio management center of excellence, so our role

4.2. Key actors of the portfolio management process is like portfolio managers to make this machine work, so start the process,
kick off, okay, now guys, in one month’s time we need to have this
In addition to the phases of portfolio management, we attempted to portfolio strategy workshop, this is your preparation, you bring together
identify organizational agents that work on one or more phases. Our with your R&D, we facilitate the cross-functional dialog, and then we
data showed that there are three types of agent responsible for portfolio come out with, okay guys, so do you have your updated product portfolio
management: (a) a corporate function, (b) a top management function, strategy? Yes. What are the new business case proposals? Yes, and then
(c) a project management function, and (d) a portfolio management the next step. We manage what you call the portfolio managers.
governance function.
Finally, a portfolio management governance function offered
First, a corporate function included the functional stakeholders
guidelines setting the boundary of the scope and mandates in relation to
responsible for marketing, finance, and operations personnel. One of the
portfolio decision-making. In detail, this function operated three main
main roles of this function was to coordinate joint efforts between
activities. Staff members of the portfolio management governance
different corporate functions for sharing relevant information related to
function described project constraints, such as being over budget or a
projects and portfolios. The associated practices are sharing project data
delay, for which a particular decision or action would be warranted. For
such as sales and portfolio updates on a regular (e.g., monthly) basis. In
example, as found in Case 9, the decision-making team had to make a
addition, a corporate function facilitated collaboration between
decision on a project (in addition to a phase-gate-based decision) if the
different corporate functions for driving portfolio management pro­
cost of a project (with a particular priority) deviated (increased) by
cesses. Instances of this component include forming a cross-function
€150–250,000 in a fiscal year, if a project was delayed by 2–4 months for
portfolio governance team, conducting workshops to assess projects,
the next planned phase, or if there was a significant change in the project
conducting business reviews with regional managers, jointly developing
strategy. This function also controlled the scope of participation and
and owning strategy and product roadmaps, and collaboration between
information in portfolio decision-making events by different stake­
marketing and R&D to solve customer complaints. For example, one of
holders. This gave clarity about roles to the decision-making team
the informants from Case 6 remarked:
members and reduced coordination efforts. For example, in Case 10
If you don’t establish the right collaboration on top of that process, then it portfolio management, the decision-making team for the late-phase
doesn’t really work because there’s so many teams involved in the first project was divided into four types of stakeholder: the chair (who
part of portfolio planning. We have a hard time getting people actually to chaired the portfolio decision-making meeting), the core (for whom the
run with this process and getting people to discuss the ideas across. meeting was mandatory), the large (for whom the meeting was
Because often, one team sits with some evidence, and another team sits optional), and the extended (for whom an invitation was needed to
with another part of evidence. attend the meeting). In addition, we found that portfolio management
governance functions tried to discover what was needed to improve the
Second, a top management function entailed the stakeholders in a portfolio management of decision-makers. For example, an informant
company who are responsible for making portfolio strategy decisions. working for Case 2 explained:
This function supported the implementation of a portfolio and its
management processes, through multiple activities: for example, they Especially the financial stuff, where we know we have issues, that NPVs
determined the level of resources allocated to a portfolio and the buy-in are not aligned. They’re calculated in different ways. And that means we
for portfolio management processes; they audited portfolio management can’t … when you do this bubble chart, you have two different ways of
processes annually; they offered feedback to project managers; they doing, or four or five, then of course … And that’s also why in this master
empowered project and portfolio managers; and they made portfolio data excellence team on business case, we have also defined the taxonomy
decisions based on strategy and intuition. Indeed, an informant working now. How we want it to be on these data here. And then also, we have
for Case 5 explained: agreed on the governance structure. So, I’ll be the secretary of that team,
and we have to find who should be in. So, I will call in. Nothing is changed
Our portfolio is mostly concerned with ensuring the manufacturability of in these data. The taxonomy or the calculation, methodology, unless it’s
our devices, and that means our focus as a portfolio group, what we mean agreed in this governance board. Which, we need the first meeting. So,
by portfolio management is to ensure alignment between the many we’re on track right now to develop it. But you can see there is a lot. This is
different stakeholders involved inside the company, typically inside the marketing, and then technical, instead of just taking all the details.
company, aligning with expectations and priorities for the projects.
Stemming out of different places [functions], governed out of different
forums, and to ensure that line of management will ensure priorities, is 5. Discussion and conclusion
immensely full. It cannot because the coordination needs to go across the
organization boundaries and then that, the linkage cannot be done hier­ Our work answers the call for more research on the ‘process’ of
archically. It needs to be done collaboratively and that we try to ensure in portfolio management (see, for example, Jonas et al., 2013; Kwak and
a portfolio group, that we bring key VPs across the organization to the Anbari, 2009; Martinsuo, 2013; Meifort, 2016). In contrast to the extant
same group for setting priorities. work on the portfolio management process, this study used an inductive
approach to explore the inner work of portfolio management. Building
Third, a project management function refers to organizational on our inductively derived findings, this section proposes the process
members who are responsible for facilitating portfolio decisions by model of portfolio management, discusses the model’s theoretical and
providing enabling information about the project and portfolio. To do managerial implications, and closes by outlining the limitations of our
so, this function selected approaches and techniques that can be used for

9
N. Gupta et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 180 (2022) 121652

Fig. 1. An inductive process model of portfolio management.

study and a potential future research agenda. it over time.

In our study we found three main levers that shape the portfolio
5.1. A process model of portfolio management management process in practice: governance, integration, and informa­
tion. Although the formalisation of portfolio management has been
Our inductive findings guide us to derive the process model of linked to portfolio and firm performance (Cooper et al., 1999; Kester
portfolio management (see Fig. 1). Our process model opens a black box et al., 2014; Lerch and Spieth, 2013), how a portfolio management
in which five processual steps and four agents interactively drive the process should be set up, or the ground rules of running a portfolio
unfolding of portfolio management. management process (e.g., decision criteria, decision-making team
First, to execute a portfolio management process, strategic inputs structure, which activities to be performed, decision-tools etc.), are the
derived from a firm-level strategy are required, which set the tone of the key pillars of portfolio management. Our study uncovers that, in a
whole process and determine how the process will lead the path to real-world setting, a portfolio management governance function is a key
achieve the strategic goals. This process model reveals five interdepen­ part of overall portfolio management and sets the boundary conditions
dent phases of portfolio management, which are ecosystem surveillance, for both portfolio management tasks and stakeholders, which is missing
portfolio strategy development, business case management, portfolio in existing portfolio management process models in the literature.
decision-making, and new product development. These phases have Whether a firm is new to portfolio management or mature in the field,
their own frequency of execution, depending on a firm’s other process the proposed process model holds utility for both types of firm, as it is
models, which are run in parallel. This model further exemplifies the generic and scalable. This study also noticed that the maturity of port­
sub-phases of the five key phases. For example, collecting ecosystem folio management is related to the size of a firm. It found that smaller
information and generating strategic insights together form ecosystem sized firms are in the early stages of portfolio management maturity and
surveillance. In a similar way, preparing business cases and assessing larger sized firms have more formalized and sophisticated portfolio
them together form business case management. management processes.
Second, there are four sets of actors that engage with five interde­ The literature has regarded portfolio management as a capability of a
pendent phases of the portfolio management process. Corporate func­ firm and as a competitive advantage (Killen et al., 2008), which needs to
tions, which are functional actors such as marketing, finance, and constantly evolve with both internal and external changes. Our study
operations, contribute to the execution of ecosystem surveillance, proposes the in-depth details of the portfolio management process,
portfolio strategy development, and business case management. The top which teases out multiple facets of this capability in the form of the
management function is the senior management team that drives port­ process phases and different functions and comprehensively outlines the
folio strategy development and the portfolio decision-making phases. sub-phases and their underlying tasks. Firms that intend to continuously
Project management functions are the actors responsible for facilitating improve their portfolio management process need to look into various
portfolio decisions by providing information about the project and phases and functions of the proposed model. The second main charac­
portfolio. They support business case management, portfolio decision- teristic is the degree of integration of, and within, the portfolio man­
making, and new product development phases. The portfolio manage­ agement process. The literature has not shed light on the role of portfolio
ment governance function includes senior management, which writes management in a broader context from a process point of view. Our
the rules for each of the phases of portfolio management, and how each study observed that portfolio management is run in cadence with other
phase will be run, and defines the scope and mandate for portfolio business processes of the firm and mainly aligned with the fiscal year
decision-making. Most importantly, this function focuses on developing and annual strategy planning of a firm, which serves as a main input to
portfolio management as a distinctive capability of a firm and adapting the systemic portfolio management process. For example, we found that

10
N. Gupta et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 180 (2022) 121652

our case firms use an annual corporate strategy event as a major driver from high-level strategic considerations (e.g., Archer and Ghasemza­
to establish their portfolio strategy; also, budget approved in an annual deh, 1999; Edgett, 2013; Jonas, 2010), our findings show that organi­
financial planning event is used to implement portfolio decisions by zations in a real-world setting begin their portfolio management with
allocating resources to approved projects. This aspect of aligning the what we refer to as ecosystem surveillance. In doing this activity, or­
portfolio management process with other corporate processes has rarely ganizations collect information in relation to their business ecosystems
been discussed in the extant literature. The integration of portfolio and, using the information gathered, they determine strategic di­
management activities and relevant stakeholders is as important as rections. Our findings also reveal the importance of business case
setting up portfolio management in the overall corporate process management. Perhaps this activity may seem to be a bureaucratic for­
cadence. The extant literature has revealed different portfolio manage­ mality, but we found that it serves as a multipurpose device enabling
ment stakeholders and emphasized the importance of their collaboration informed portfolio decisions, prioritizing resource allocation, and
for portfolio decision-making (Kester et al., 2014). Our studies extend facilitating the early detection of unprofitable investment. This echoes a
this line of argument and reveal which stakeholders take a driving seat few studies elevating the significance of a high-quality business case in
in which phase of the portfolio management process. For example, top the context of new product development (Cooper et al., 2001; Kopmann
management functions develop a portfolio strategy and take portfolio et al., 2015). Another finding that makes our process model different
decisions, whereas project management functions support the framing from the extant work is the identification of post-launch tracking, in
of the portfolio decision by processing and executing portfolio decisions which organizations monitor the success/failure of business cases, take
through analyzing business case information and allocating resources, corrective actions to improve a given project’s performance, and firms
and they provide support to the new product/service development undertake the life-cycle management of products/services that are
projects. Firms that are setting up a new portfolio management process launched in the market. We argue that this post-launch activity acts as a
or improving an existing process should look into this aspect of inte­ positive feedback loop that helps organizations to put lessons learned
gration in order to have smooth functioning of portfolio management. back into the early stage of business case management (Meskendahl,
One of the benefits of this type of integration is that different stake­ 2010; Spieth et al., 2014).
holders have different types of insight, which, when brought together, The second implication concerns the role of roadmapping in port­
have implications for characteristics of portfolio decisions such as folio management. Although Patterson (2004) suggests that road­
quality and rationality, among others. mapping plays a certain role in a portfolio planning stage, there has been
The third important characteristic of portfolio management is its little evidence backing up this claim. Our findings confirm that organi­
bifocal nature in terms of both project and portfolio information levels. zations intensively use roadmapping, which is defined as “a process that
Our study emphasized that the portfolio management process needs mobilizes structured systems thinking, visual methods (e.g. roadmap
both project- (such as cost, benefits) and portfolio- (such as bubble ‘canvas’) and participative approaches to address organizational chal­
charts, roadmaps) level information, depending upon its phases, and lenges and opportunities, supporting communication and alignment for
both levels of information are important for the smooth execution of the strategic planning and innovation management within and between
portfolio management process. For example, portfolio-level information organizations at firm and sector levels” (Park et al., 2020, p. 2). In detail,
plays a pivotal role during portfolio strategy development, whereas organizations use roadmapping as a means to align their high-level
business case management and new product development are primarily strategies with portfolios under development and identify the strategic
carried out at project-information level and, interestingly, portfolio priorities of multiple, competing projects. The reason why roadmapping
decisions are undertaken by understanding both project- and portfolio- can play an important role in these activities is that it clarifies how the
level information. In our study, we also found that the different stake­ market is changing, what customers are demanding, what pro­
holders act upon different information levels according to the portfolio ducts/services need to be released, and how to develop technologies for
management process phases. For example, top management functions product/service development, all over time. Our finding, as such, is in
mainly use portfolio-level information for portfolio strategy develop­ line with the instrumental work of Oliveira and Rozenfeld (2010) that
ment, whereas the same functions use both project- and portfolio-level proposes a method combining roadmapping with portfolio management
information for portfolio decision-making. This has implications for in the context of new product development.
the design of the information support system and tools that firms use in Third, our results also show that a portfolio management process is a
their portfolio management processes. Firms need to focus on both sum of ongoing events in flux, rather than a static one-off happening.
project- and portfolio-level information to establish information support This finding adds to the extant understanding that attributes the emer­
systems for a formalized portfolio management process. gence of portfolio management to turbulence and instability in external
environments (Floricel and Ibanescu, 2008; Petit and Hobbs, 2010). For
5.2. Theoretical implications example, taking the case of a pharmaceutical company, Newey and
Zahra (2009) showed that exogenous shocks result in evolution in
Much work has been done in identifying a causal relationship be­ portfolio management processes, and, building on this finding, our work
tween a formalized portfolio management process and the performance identifies that a portfolio management process as a whole, and in its
of a new product/service development (e.g., Barczak et al., 2009; Kock constituent phases, undergoes a continuous update to deal with chang­
et al., 2015; Spieth and Lerch, 2014; Teller et al., 2012), and a few ing environments.
studies have tried to conceptualize the portfolio management process in Finally, our study adds to the existing understanding that emphasizes
a deductive manner (e.g., Ahlemann, 2009; Edgett, 2013; Jonas, 2010). the role of portfolio management offices (e.g., Aubry et al., 2009; Unger
However, without inductively attending to portfolio management pro­ et al., 2012) by clarifying a set of actors involved in a portfolio man­
cesses unfolding in real-world organizations, an in-depth understanding agement process, and these agents’ relationships with the phases of the
of portfolio management’s inner work is hardly achievable. Drawing on portfolio management process. Again, our findings reveal that there are
an inductive approach, this study attempts to open the black box of four different groups of actor responsible for the portfolio management
portfolio management, and, accordingly, we offer implications for un­ process: (a) a corporate function undertaking organizational ecosystem
derstanding several sources that result in differences in the organiza­ surveillance and business case management and assisting the develop­
tional performance of new product/service development. ment of the portfolio strategy; (b) a top management function dealing
The first implication concerns three elements of the portfolio man­ with portfolio strategy development and business case management; (c)
agement process – ecosystem surveillance, business case management, a project management function primarily looking after the later stages of
and post-launch tracking – that have received relatively scant attention portfolio management (e.g., decision-making and new product/service
in the existing studies. In contrast to the extant process models starting management); and (d) a portfolio management governance function

11
N. Gupta et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 180 (2022) 121652

addressing all the phases of the portfolio management process. While Table 4
existing studies found that functional diversity and cross-functional . Case description.
integration serve as the driver of successful portfolio management Case Sector Description
(Criscuolo et al., 2017; Kester et al., 2014), our work builds on these Case Electrical European firm providing cleaning equipment and
existing understandings to show how functional diversity and 1 machinery solutions. The size of the firm is 2000–5000
employees.
cross-functional integration are put into practice in a real-world setting.
Case Electrical European firm providing water pumps and related
5.3. Managerial implications 2 machinery solutions for irrigation. The size of the firm is
18,000–19,000 employees.
Our findings, which are intensively verified by our nine case firms,
Case Electrical European firm manufacturing consumer electronic
provide implications for managers seeking to achieve portfolio man­ 3 machinery appliances. The size of the firm is more than 50,000
agement maturity. First, organizations formalizing portfolio manage­ employees.
ment fare better if they begin processes with the collection of
information in relation to their business ecosystems. We found that or­ Case Medical devices European firm providing healthcare and treatment
4 equipment. The size of the firm is 3000–4000
ganizations investing in gathering ecosystem information were able not
employees.
only to improve the quality of inputs used in the sequential chain of the
portfolio management process but also to build up a usable knowledge Case Medical devices European firm developing products for managing
base and learning capabilities with regard to portfolio management. 5 chronic diseases. The size of the firm is more than
Second, our findings suggest that roadmapping plays a central role in 40,000 employees.

aligning organizational high-level strategies with portfolio manage­ Case Medical devices European firm manufacturing hearing aids or
ment. Organizations that seek to embed roadmapping approaches in 6 solutions. The size of the firm is 3500–4000
their portfolio management may consult the work of Oliveira and employees.
Rozenfeld (2010) that proposes how to combine roadmapping and
Case Medical devices European firm developing healthcare and diagnostic
portfolio management in the context of new product development.
7 equipment. The size of the firm is 2000–3000
Finally, we suggest that a harmonious division of labor in terms of employees.
portfolio management acts as a key to portfolio management maturity.
In detail, establishing a dedicated function that overlooks the overall Case Pharmaceuticals European firm developing dermatological products.
process of portfolio management is a necessary condition of high-quality 8 The size of the firm is 4500–5000 employees.

portfolio management, and having individual functions that deal with

Case Pharmaceuticals European firm developing products for chronic
the early, middle, and later stages of the portfolio management process 9 diseases. The size of the firm is more than 40,000
can serve as a sufficient condition. employees.

5.4. Limitations and future research

References
The boundary condition of our process model is two-fold. First, the
model’s applicability and consistency are limited to portfolio manage­ Ahlemann, F., 2009. Towards a conceptual reference model for project management
ment in private-sector firms, and there is a possibility that this process information systems. Int. J. Project Manage. 27 (1), 19–30.
Archer, N.P., Ghasemzadeh, F., 1999. An integrated framework for project portfolio
model requires adaptation according to public-sector or non-commercial
selection. Int. J. Project Manage. 17 (4), 207–216.
firms and their context. Future research could be carried out to test the Ardito, L., Peruffo, E., Natalicchio, A., 2019. The relationships between the
applicability of this model in public-sector settings, for example. Second, internationalization of alliance portfolio diversity, individual incentives, and
our model is derived from case studies that mainly examine firms in innovation ambidexterity: a microfoundational approach. Technol. Forecast Soc.
Change 148, 1–9.
European countries. Future research that might explore if the process Arlt, M., 2010. Advancing the Maturity of Project Portfolio Management. RMIT
model is working in the context of developing countries (see, for University.
example, Oliveira and Rozenfeld, 2010). Another limitation of this study Aubry, M., Hobbs, B., Thuillier, D., 2007. A new framework for understanding
organisational project management through the PMO. Int. J. Project Manage. 25 (4),
is the unexplored degree of interdependence between the five phases of 328–336.
the portfolio management process model and their impact on one Aubry, M., Hobbs, B., Thuillier, D., 2009. The contribution of the project management
another. Further qualitative studies could focus on zooming in on the office to organisational performance. Int. J. Manag. Projects Bus. 2 (1), 141–148.
Barczak, G., Griffin, A., Kahn, K.B., 2009. PERSPECTIVE: trends and drivers of success in
type and conditions of interdependencies between these phases. This NPD practices: results of the 2003 PDMA best practices study. J. Product Innov.
study revealed a different set of functions and actors engaging across the Manage. 26 (1), 3–23.
process of portfolio management. That said, in what role and to what Capon, N., Glazer, R., 1987. Marketing and technology: a strategic coalignment. J. Mark
51 (3), 1.
extent these actors and their dispositions impact a portfolio manage­
Cardozo, R.N., Smith, D.K., 1983. Applying financial portfolio theory to product portfolio
ment process and its performance could be an interesting direction of decisions: an empirical study. J. Mark 47 (2), 110.
future research. Chao, R.O., Kavadias, S., 2008. A theoretical fraamework for managing the new product
development portfolio: when and how to use strategic buckets. Manage. Sci. 54 (5),
907–921.
CRediT authorship contribution statement Cooper, R.G., 2008. Perspective: the Stage-Gate® Idea-to-launch process—Update,
what’s new, and nexgen systems. J. Prod. Innov. Manage. 25 (3), 213–232.
Nitish Gupta: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Data Cooper, R.G., Edgett, S.J., Kleinschmidt, E.J., 1999. New product portfolio management:
practices and performance. J. Prod. Innov. Manage. 16, 331–351.
curation, Formal analysis, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – Cooper, R.G., Edgett, S.J., Kleinschmidt, E.J., 2002. Portfolio management: fundamental
review & editing. Hyunkyu Park: Conceptualization, Validation, to new product success. Prod. Innov. Best Prac. Series 1–33.
Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Project Cooper, R.G., Edgett, S., Kleinschmidt, E., 2001. Portfolio management for new product
development: results of an industry practices study. R&D Manage. 31 (4), 361–380.
administration. Rob Phaal: Conceptualization, Validation, Writing – Criscuolo, P., Dahlander, L., Grohsjean, T., Salter, A., 2017. Evaluating novelty: the role
review & editing, Resources, Supervision, Project administration. of panels in the selection of R&D projects. Acad. Manag. J. 60 (2), 433–460.
Daim, T.U., Oliver, T., 2008. Implementing technology roadmap process in the energy
services sector: a case study of a government agency. Technol. Forecast Soc. Change
Appendix I 75 (5), 687–720.

Table A1

12
N. Gupta et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 180 (2022) 121652

Edgett, S.J., 2013. Portfolio management for product innovation. In: Kahn, K.B, Kay, S.E, Newey, L.R., Zahra, S.A., 2009. The evolving firm: how dynamic and operating
Slotegraaf, R.J, Uban, S (Eds.), The PDMA Handbook of New Product Development. capabilities interact to enable entrepreneurship. British J. Manage. 20, S81–S100.
John Wiley & Sons, pp. 154–166, 3rd ed., pp. Nippa, M., Pidun, U., Rubner, H., 2011. Corporate Portfolio management: Appraising
Eisenhardt, K.M., Graebner, M.E., 2007. Theory building from cases: opportunities and four Decades of Academic Research, 25. Academy of Management Perspectives,
challenges. Acad. Manag. J. 50 (1), 25–32. pp. 50–66.
Floricel, S., Ibanescu, M., 2008. Using R&D portfolio management to deal with dynamic Oliveira, M.G., Rozenfeld, H., 2010. Integrating technology roadmapping and portfolio
risk. R&D Manage. 38 (5), 452–467. management at the front-end of new product development. Technol. Forecast Soc.
Gilsing, V., Vanhaverbeke, W., Pieters, M., 2014. Mind the gap: balancing alliance Change 77 (8), 1339–1354.
network and technology portfolios during periods of technological uncertainty. Park, H., Phaal, R., Ho, J.-.Y., O’Sullivan, E, 2020. Twenty years of technology and
Technol. Forecast Soc. Change 81 (1), 351–362. strategic roadmapping research: a school of thought perspective. Technol. Forecast
Gioia, D.A., Corley, K.G., Hamilton, A.L., 2012. Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive Soc. Change 154, 1–14.
research: notes on the gioia methodology. Organ Res. Methods 16 (1), 15–31. Park, Y., Yoon, J., 2017. Application technology opportunity discovery from technology
Graça, P., Camarinha-Matos, L.M., 2017. Performance indicators for collaborative portfolios: use of patent classification and collaborative filtering. Technol. Forecast
business ecosystems — Literature review and trends. Technol. Forecast Soc. Change Soc. Change 118, 170–183.
116, 237–255. Patterson, M.L., 2004. New product portfolio planning and management. In: Kahn, K.B,
Grimaldi, M., Cricelli, L., di Giovanni, M., Rogo, F., 2015. The patent portfolio value Castellion, G., Griffin, A (Eds.), The PDMA Handbook of New Product Development,
analysis: a new framework to leverage patent information for strategic technology 2nd ed. John Wiley & Sons, pp. 46–58.
planning. Technol. Forecast Soc. Change 94 (1), 286–302. Patton, M.Q., 2002. Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods, 3rd ed. Sage.
Guba, E.G., 1981. Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries. Pérez, F., Gómez, T., Caballero, R., Liern, V., 2018. Project portfolio selection and
Educat. Commun. Technol. 29 (2), 75–91. planning with fuzzy constraints. Technol. Forecast Soc. Change 131, 117–129.
Ha, S.H., Liu, W., Cho, H., Kim, S.H., 2015. Technological advances in the fuel cell Petit, Y., Hobbs, B., 2010. Project portfolios in dynamic environments: sources of
vehicle: patent portfolio management. Technol. Forecast Soc. Change 100, 277–289. uncertainty and sensing mechanisms. Project Manage. J. 41 (4), 46–58.
Jarzabkowski, P., Bednarek, R., Lê, J.K., 2014. Producing persuasive findings: Phaal, R., Farrukh, C.J.P., Probert, D.R., 2004. Technology roadmapping—A planning
demystifying ethnographic textwork in strategy and organization research. Strat. framework for evolution and revolution. Technol. Forecast Soc. Change 71 (1–2),
Organ. 12 (4), 274–287. 5–26.
Jonas, D., 2010. Empowering project portfolio managers: how management involvement Rank, J., Unger, B.N., Gemünden, H.G., 2015. Preparedness for the future in project
impacts project portfolio management performance. Int. J. Project Manage. 28 (8), portfolio management: the roles of proactiveness, riskiness and willingness to
818–831. cannibalize. Int. J. Project Manage. 33 (8), 1730–1743.
Jonas, D., Kock, A., Gemünden, H.G., 2013. Predicting project portfolio success by Saldana, J., 2016. The Coding Manual For Qualitative Reserachers, 3rd ed. Sage.
measuring management quality-a longitudinal study. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage. 60 Santiago, L.P., Martinelli, M., Eloi-Santos, D.T., Hortac, L.H., 2015. A framework for
(2), 215–226. assessing a portfolio of technologies for licensing out. Technol. Forecast Soc. Change
Jugend, D., Da Silva, S.L, 2014. Product-portfolio management: a framework based on 99, 242–251.
methods, organization, and strategy. Concurr. Engin. Res. Appl. 22 (1), 17–28. Song, B., Seol, H., Park, Y., 2016. A patent portfolio-based approach for assessing
Kahn, K.B., Barczak, G., Nicholas, J., Ledwith, A., Perks, H., 2012. An examination of potential R&D partners: an application of the shapley value. Technol. Forecast Soc.
new product development best practice. J. Prod. Innov. Manage. 29 (2), 180–192. Change 103, 156–165.
Kester, L., Griffin, A., Hultink, E.J., Lauche, K., 2011. Exploring portfolio decision- Spieth, P., Lerch, M., 2014. Augmenting innovation project portfolio management
making processes. J. Prod. Innov. Manage. 28 (5), 641–661. performance: the mediating effect of management perception and satisfaction. R&D
Kester, L., Hultink, E.J., Griffin, A., 2014. An empirical investigation of the antecedents Management 44 (5), 498–515.
and outcomes of NPD portfolio success. J. Prod. Innov. Manage. 31 (6), 1199–1213. Spieth, P., Schneckenberg, D., Ricart, J.E., 2014. Business model innovation - state of the
Kester, L., Hultink, E.J., Lauche, K., 2009. Portfolio decision-making genres: a case study. art and future challenges for the field. R&D Manage. 44 (3), 237–247.
J. Eng. Tech. Manage. 26 (4), 327–341. Teller, J., Unger, B.N., Kock, A., Gemünden, H.G., 2012. Formalization of project
Kieser, A., Leiner, L., 2009. Why the rigour – relevance gap in management research is portfolio management: the moderating role of project portfolio complexity. Int. J.
unbridgeable. J. Manage. Stud. 46 (3), 516–533. Project Manage. 30 (5), 596–607.
Kieser, A., Nicolai, A.T., Seidl, D., 2015. The practical relevance of management Unger, B.N., Gemünden, H.G., Aubry, M., 2012. The three roles of a project portfolio
research: turning the debate on relevance into a rigorous scientific research program. management office: their impact on portfolio management execution and success.
Acad. Manag. Annals 9 (1), 143–233. Int. J. Project Manage. 30 (5), 608–620.
Killen, C.P., Hunt, R.A., Kleinschmidt, E.J., 2008. Project portfolio management for Van De Ven, A.H., 1992. Suggestions for studying strategy process: a research note. Strat.
product innovation. Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manage. 25 (1), 24–38. Manage. J. 13, 169–188.
Kock, A., Heising, W., Gemünden, H.G., 2015. How ideation portfolio management Van de Ven, A.H., Poole, M.S., 1995. Explaining development and change in
influences front-end success. J. Prod. Innov. Manage. 32 (4), 539–555. organizations. Acad. Manage. Rev. 20 (3), 510–540.
Kopmann, J., Kock, A., Killen, C.P., Gemunden, H.G., 2015. Business case control in Yin, R.K., 2014. Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 5th ed. Sage.
project portfolios - an empirical investigation of performance consequences and Yue, X.P., 2017. Behavior of inter-enterprises patent portfolio for different market
moderating effects. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage. 62 (4), 529–543. structure. Technol. Forecast Soc. Change 120, 24–31.
Kwak, Y.H., Anbari, F.T., 2009. Analyzing project management research: perspectives Zahra, S.A., George, G., 2002. Absorptive capacity: a review, reconceptualization, and
from top management journals. Int. J. Project Manage. 27 (5), 435–446. extension. Acad. Manage. Rev. 27 (2), 185–203.
Langley, A., 1999. Strategies for theorizing from process data. Acad. Manage. Rev. 24
(4), 691–710.
Nitish Gupta is a Global Product Manager at Buhler Group, UK. He completed his PhD in
Lerch, M., Spieth, P., 2013. Innovation project portfolio management: a qualitative
technology and innovation management from the University of Cambridge. His-research
analysis. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage. 60 (1), 18–29.
focuses on new product development, portfolio management, project management and
Linton, J.D., Walsh, S.T., Morabito, J., 2002. Analysis, ranking and selection of R & D
digital transformation. Nitish has a background in computer science engineering and holds
projects in a portfolio. R&D Manage. 32 (2), 139–148.
MBA degree. He has industrial experience in pharmaceuticals, information technology and
Ma, Y., Ahmad, F., Liu, M., Wang, Z., 2020. Portfolio optimization in the era of digital
manufacturing.
financialization using cryptocurrencies. Technol. Forecast Soc. Change 161, 1–12.
Martinsuo, M., 2013. Project portfolio management in practice and in context. Int. J.
Project Manage. 31 (6), 794–803. Hyunkyu Park is an Assistant Professor at the Graduate School of Technology Manage­
McDonough, E.F., Spital, F.C., 2003. Managing project portfolios. Res. Technol. Manage. ment, Sogang University. He earned his PhD in technology and innovation management
46 (3), 40–46. from the University of Cambridge. His-research focuses on digital entrepreneurship,
Meifort, A., 2016. Innovation portfolio management: a synthesis and research agenda. entrepreneurial ecosystems, and technology/strategic planning. Hyunkyu has a back­
Creat. Innov. Manage. 25 (2), 251–269. ground in anthropology and industrial experience in computer programming.
Meskendahl, S., 2010. The influence of business strategy on project portfolio
management and its success - a conceptual framework. Int. J. Project Manage. 28 (8),
Rob Phaal is a Director of Research (STIM) in the Department of Engineering at the Uni­
807–817.
versity of Cambridge. He conducts research in strategic technology and innovation man­
Miles, M.B., Huberman, A.M., Saldana, J., 2014. Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods
agement, with interests in the development of practical management tools. He has a
Sourcebook, 3rd ed. Sage.
mechanical engineering background, with a PhD in computational mechanics, and in­
Mitchell, R., Phaal, R., Athanassopoulou, N., 2014. Scoring methods for prioritizing and
dustrial experience in technical consulting, contract research and software development.
selecting innovation projects. In: Proceedings of PICMET Conference, pp. 907–920.
Moore, J.F., 1993. Predators and prey: a new ecology of competition. Harv. Bus. Rev. 71
(3), 75–86.

13