The work in practice
Continuing stopped being the default. Investments return with evidence against the outcome they were funded for, and the panel makes an explicit call: persevere, pivot or stop.
What the old review could not see
Investments were reviewed on milestones and red, amber or green status. Those reports answered one question well: is the plan being followed? They could not answer whether the outcome the investment was funded for was still likely, or whether a newer proposal needed the same people. An initiative could be green on every line and still be the wrong thing to keep funding.
What I changed
I rebuilt the review around three questions. What was this investment meant to change? What evidence do we have now? What does continuing take from the rest of the portfolio?
Two things changed in the room. Product leaders presented the evidence themselves, instead of a delivery manager reporting status on their behalf. And senior technology and business leaders made the call together, in the same forum, so a conflict found in the review could be resolved there. I brought a recommendation to each review; the panel decided.
A pivot the old review would have missed
In one review, early evidence showed an initiative was delivering to plan but not moving the outcome it was funded for. Under the old reporting it would have stayed green. The panel changed its scope and direction instead.
The harder part
The process was the easy bit. Product leaders had been rewarded for shipping on time, so a review that asked about outcomes felt like a change of rules mid-game. I coached them on writing goals they could be held to as outcomes, and on bringing a change of direction to the panel before the panel had to ask for one.
What I would tell another portfolio owner
Stopping is rarely the hard decision. Continuing is, because it happens by default unless someone turns it into a choice. The essay on capacity develops why that choice also has to account for the work already in progress.
Related work and reading