Managing a change project portfolio in today’s hyper-competitive, ever-evolving market is far from straightforward. With pressures to adopt new technologies, AI, adapt to regulatory updates, and satisfy a growing list of internal initiatives, leaders face overwhelming choices. Paired with resource constraints and time pressures, how do you decide what moves forward? How do you inject rigour into the selection process, avoiding initiatives that drain resources but don’t deliver impact and real value?
It seems every conference, article and debate these days inevitably veers into how AI will fix everything, but for many of us, not quite ready or willing to trust decisions to an algorithm, there’s still much to consider when establishing a method to prioritise projects effectively. Managing a change portfolio can still feel like trying to navigate a moving maze.
In this blog we explore some of the challenges leaders face when establishing and prioritising a change portfolio, and what to consider when navigating a path to success.
Picture the scene; a Life Insurer has agreed its long-term strategic objectives. At the start of the year, it allocates a change budget to each divisional lead, empowering them to execute the critical projects needed to achieve these goals.
As the year unfolds, we see a plethora of new projects spun-up, with each lead driving a mixture of pet-projects, projects to meet new regulation, small projects to keep operations running, one or two flagship programmes to tackle strategic goals head-on, and a host of other initiatives claiming a tenuous linkage to the strategic objectives.
Inevitably, some of the projects are foundering due to a lack of dedicated resources, key resource overload, the business cases on the pet-projects don’t add up, the small Business-as-Usual (BAU) projects are underfunded, and Annuity project A is implementing a process that unknowingly will be replaced by a new system in scope of Protection project B.
So… a year into this uncoordinated effort and the organisation has already drifted off course from its strategic objectives, but never mind…. there is always the next budget planning cycle. We’ll get it right next time, right?
Any of this sound familiar? Unfortunately, we see this picture all too often, particularly as organisations grow. The linkage to the organisational strategy becomes ever more convoluted between those setting the vision and those responsible for delivering it, and the business cases become an afterthought.
But why? there are multiple factors at play here which hinder an organisation’s chance of achieving its vision through the effective portfolio management of change:
Inconsistent decision making. Many organisations lack a structured framework for qualifying and prioritising projects, leading to poor choices based on incomplete information or subjective personal interests. By establishing clear, objective criteria for project selection, organisations can ensure each initiative contributes meaningfully to broader goals, which are bought into collectively.
Siloed working. In sizeable enterprises the change portfolio is likely to be distributed across multiple departments, each with their own agenda. It is critical that these are aligned at the portfolio and organisational level to ensure the portfolio is balanced, integrated and optimised.
Too much change. I’m not talking purely about change fatigue, but an overabundance of change initiatives spanning operational siloes which loosely or don’t map to any strategic outcome, or are even working cross-purpose. Reflect on your in-flight change projects; might it be better to pause some (or all!) projects until there is collective agreement on priorities?
Lack of transparency. Portfolio management as a process should be made visible to all – conceptually. If people understand the process and have a vested say in its operation, the process is not shortcut and remains consistent in terms of inputs, metrics, and alignment to strategic objectives. Crucially, there must be a single “front door” for new demand, with no opportunities for circumvention.
Inability to scale. Managing a change portfolio, even part-time, demands focus and cannot be underestimated. Without the right attention, it’s impossible to track interdependencies, progress, or adapt to shifting priorities effectively. The right tools simplify this, streamlining updates, flagging changes, and preventing strategic “drift” to ensure projects stay aligned with high-level goals and deliver maximum value.
Scope. Not all change is created equally. Treating every initiative with the same level of scrutiny can lead to inefficiency and frustration. Differentiating between BAU and strategic change initiatives is essential for effective portfolio management. Categorising change into distinct buckets each with a dedicated process and budget, can streamline decision-making and ensures the keener focus remains on initiatives that truly impact strategic goals.
For example, small, day-to-day “keep the lights on” changes, such as minor system updates or process tweaks often have straightforward benefits and are low risk. These changes should follow a simplified review and approval process, enabling quick decision-making and rapid implementation. Running these through the same rigorous governance as high-impact, transformational projects bogs down the prioritisation process in unnecessary detail and cost, and will lead to project managers finding ways to bypass the process leading to off-book, untracked deliveries.
Strategic changes, those that significantly impact organisational direction or require substantial resources, demand comprehensive evaluation and robust governance. These initiatives often have complex interdependencies and long-term implications, warranting thorough planning and prioritisation within the portfolio.
Effectively prioritising change starts with a structured approach. Qualifying demand to focus on valuable, relevant initiatives, aligning them with strategic goals, setting up clear controls, and maintaining reporting and communication, you can bring order to the chaos.
There is no such thing as an optimal change portfolio. Portfolio components only ever support organisational goals for a specific point in time. Changes in business context driven by shifting customer demands, resource movements and regulation mean that portfolios must be continually revisited to remain true to the evolving strategic goals of the organisation.
AI might promise to help you pick your next project or even launch a mission to Mars, but it’s not the silver bullet for prioritising change. Without understanding the nuances of competing organisational goals, visibility of resources, and an appreciation for market trends, success still hinges on a structured, strategic approach to portfolio management. Could more transparent and focused methodology and tooling revolutionise the way your organisation handles change?
At Altus, we bring structure, clarity and experience to Change Portfolio Management through our APEX Platform, powered by Method Grid. Our robust framework, extensive artefact catalogue and tooling, equip organisations to develop, implement, and manage an effective change portfolio management system that aligns with their unique strategic goals.
