Why Most Organizations Are Just Funding Activity
Most organizations believe they have a portfolio.
They produce slides listing programs. They review dashboards. They discuss budgets and timelines. They hold monthly meetings. They report RAG status.
But what they often have is not a portfolio.
It is a list.
A true portfolio is not a collection of initiatives. It is a deliberately constructed set of investments designed to maximize organizational value under conditions of uncertainty and constraint.
The difference is not semantic. It is structural.
And it explains why so many organizations remain busy but underperform strategically.
Activity Is Not Strategy
The first myth is that approving multiple initiatives aligned with strategy equals portfolio management.
In reality, activity alignment is the lowest threshold of discipline. A project can align to strategy and still destroy value. It can align and still consume scarce change capacity that would have been better deployed elsewhere. It can align and still be redundant, poorly sequenced, or mis-timed.
A portfolio is not validated by alignment alone. It is validated by relative optimization.
If every initiative claims to support the strategy, then prioritization must move beyond binary alignment and into comparative value assessment.
Without comparative rigor, alignment becomes a justification tool rather than a selection mechanism.
A Portfolio Requires Scarcity Thinking
True portfolio management assumes scarcity.
Scarcity of capital.
Scarcity of leadership attention.
Scarcity of change absorption capacity.
Scarcity of skilled resources.
When organizations treat investment capacity as elastic, they unconsciously fund everything that appears plausible. Over time, this produces initiative overload, stakeholder fatigue, diluted sponsorship, and fragmented execution.
Scarcity thinking forces harder questions:
- If we could fund only three of these initiatives, which would we choose?
- Which initiatives must stop to make room for higher-value ones?
- Where are we spreading effort too thinly?
These questions are uncomfortable. They expose trade-offs. But without them, a “portfolio” becomes a funding pipeline for ideas rather than a strategic allocation mechanism.
The Illusion of Control Through Reporting
Many executive forums equate visibility with control. Detailed reporting across dozens of programs creates the appearance of governance maturity. Red, amber, and green indicators suggest that risk is being managed.
But reporting is not portfolio intelligence.
Portfolio intelligence requires the ability to:
- compare initiatives against one another,
- evaluate their expected net contribution to business value,
- assess interdependencies,
- and terminate those that no longer justify continued investment.
A list can be reported. A portfolio must be curated.
The difference lies in willingness to intervene.
Interdependence Changes the Game
In a simple list of initiatives, each project stands alone. It has its own business case, sponsor, and delivery timeline. It is evaluated largely on its own performance.
In a portfolio, interdependence matters.
The removal of one initiative may reduce the value of another. The delay of one program may invalidate assumptions embedded in several business cases. A technology foundation project may enable multiple downstream initiatives. Conversely, a poorly performing initiative may be blocking value elsewhere.
Once interdependencies are acknowledged, portfolio management becomes systemic rather than transactional.
Selection and removal decisions must account not only for standalone value but for network effects across the change landscape.
Most organizations underestimate this complexity and default to treating initiatives as isolated investments.
The Hidden Cost of Initiative Saturation
One of the least understood constraints in portfolio management is change absorption capacity.
Organizations can absorb only a finite amount of change at any given time. Employees can adapt to only so many new systems, processes, metrics, and behaviors simultaneously. Leaders can sponsor only so many major transformations with credibility and focus.
When initiative volume exceeds absorption capacity, performance degrades. Benefits fail to materialize not because projects were poorly delivered, but because the environment was saturated.
This phenomenon is rarely captured in traditional portfolio dashboards.
Yet it is often the single largest cause of under-realized benefits.
A true portfolio balances not only financial investment but organizational load.
From Approval Gate to Continuous Rebalancing
Another misconception is that portfolio management happens primarily at approval stage.
In immature environments, proposals are rigorously reviewed before funding, but once approved, they persist unless catastrophic failure occurs.
In mature portfolio environments, approval is only the beginning.
Continuous rebalancing is the real discipline.
As conditions change—market shifts, regulatory updates, leadership transitions, economic volatility—the relative attractiveness of initiatives evolves. A project that was strategically critical six months ago may become marginal today.
Portfolio intelligence requires ongoing evaluation of:
- expected net value,
- probability of benefit realization,
- cost exposure,
- and strategic relevance.
This dynamic perspective transforms portfolio management from a front-loaded governance ritual into a continuous optimization capability.
The Courage to Terminate
Perhaps the most defining feature of a true portfolio is the presence of structured termination.
Mature organizations do not wait for failure. They proactively remove initiatives that:
- no longer align with evolving priorities,
- show declining net value,
- require disproportionate BRM effort relative to expected return,
- or are crowding out higher-value opportunities.
Termination is not an admission of defeat. It is evidence of capital discipline.
When removal is culturally taboo, portfolios accumulate legacy initiatives that consume resources long after their strategic relevance has expired.
The absence of termination is a diagnostic signal: the organization does not have a portfolio; it has a backlog of commitments.
Portfolio Boards vs. Programme Governance
Programme governance focuses on delivering outcomes within a defined scope. It is concerned with risk mitigation, milestone performance, and benefit tracking within a bounded initiative.
Portfolio governance operates at a different altitude.
Its concern is not whether a programme is being delivered well, but whether it should continue to exist within the broader investment landscape.
This distinction is subtle but critical.
Without clear separation between programme-level accountability and portfolio-level authority, difficult decisions are deferred. Sponsors defend their initiatives. Portfolio discussions devolve into status updates.
A genuine portfolio board requires both seniority and independence. It must be capable of stepping above individual initiative advocacy to consider enterprise-level optimization.
Beyond ROI: Probabilistic Value
Traditional business cases often assume full realization of projected benefits and accurate cost estimates. In reality, both assumptions are optimistic.
A more sophisticated portfolio view adjusts expected value by probability of realization and adjusts estimated costs by likelihood of underestimation.
This probabilistic lens reframes decision-making.
Two initiatives with similar headline ROI may differ dramatically in expected net value once probability factors are applied. A high-potential but poorly governed initiative may represent a lower expected contribution than a modest but reliably managed one.
Without incorporating probability into portfolio thinking, organizations systematically overestimate value and underestimate exposure.
A list rarely captures this nuance. A portfolio must.
The Discipline of Comparative Choice
The defining characteristic of a portfolio is comparative choice under constraint.
Every inclusion implies an exclusion.
Every continuation implies that something else is less important.
Every termination releases resources for higher-value deployment.
When organizations avoid explicit trade-offs, they default to incrementalism—adding initiatives while rarely subtracting them.
This pattern produces strategic drift.
Portfolio intelligence requires the discipline to continuously ask: “Given what we know today, is this still one of the best uses of our limited capacity?”
If that question is not being asked—and answered—regularly, the organization is managing activity, not a portfolio.
Do Less, But Make It Count for More
The ultimate objective of portfolio management is not to increase the number of initiatives delivered. It is to maximize realized value relative to investment and organizational strain.
This often means doing fewer things.
It means concentrating sponsorship on initiatives with genuine enterprise impact. It means removing low-value or low-probability investments. It means resisting the temptation to equate motion with progress.
A true portfolio is curated, not accumulated.
It reflects deliberate selection, structured removal, continuous rebalancing, and disciplined probabilistic thinking.
Most organizations believe they have this capability.
Few actually do.
Recognizing the difference is the first step toward developing real portfolio intelligence.
And without portfolio intelligence, value remains an aspiration rather than an optimized outcome.
Reach a global audience of portfolio, program, and project managers, product leaders, and certification professionals. Explore advertising opportunities .
Sponsored