CHAPTER 4

Case Study: How a Division of a Global Pharmaceutical Company Moves Strategy into Projects

Business Management and Corporate Strategy

Developing pharmaceuticals is a complex activity. It can take well over 10 years and over US$800 million to develop a product from the laboratory to its delivery in the market. Towards the latter stages of development, the organization of the development teams is especially large and complex, with people working in a virtual and matrix environment.

Hence, it is no surprise that the structure of a division of the company studied here is very complex, as illustrated in Figure 4.1. Pharmaceuticals product development is one of a number of business sectors within the company (albeit the principal one) and has two major divisions: research and development (R&D) and marketing. The division upon which this case study was carried out—R&D—comprises two global zones: Discovery and Development. These zones are organized primarily along global functional lines (e.g., clinical, pharmaceutical sciences, etc.) and product (therapeutic) areas (e.g., oncology, pain, etc.) from which portfolios of programs and projects are set up and governed by senior management and executed by project teams consisting of staff from the functional lines, including project management.

The CEO of the company sets out corporate strategy in a high-level corporate strategy plan. Goals are set for the division, zones, and product development portfolios of programs and projects, which, in turn, communicate them as goals to the project teams and individuals. The division produces an annual business plan and strategic operating plan, in which the division's strategy is defined and aligned with corporate strategy. A strategic management group has responsibility for assembling the strategic operating plan, which it does in consultation with the numerous functions and departments of the division, located at several sites in a number of countries. Strategies are developed in both a top-down and bottom-up way, and the intended strategy is flowed down the organization by means of a goal-setting process. In developing strategy, the division is flexible and responsive and its intended strategy includes elements of product development, strategic initiatives, and strategic drivers, such as productivity improvements and putting people first.

It is recognized, however, that to the nature of the business means that a large element of strategy realization will be emergent as the company responds to—and exploits—discoveries emerging from existing product development projects and new scientific and technical information.

Indeed, this emergent nature of pharmaceutical projects is quite critical. Pharmaceutical projects are often seen more as unraveling unknown intrinsic properties rather than engineering a solution to meet a design. Though there is arguably an element of this during the initial drug discovery phase when specific molecules may be engineered to interact with physiologic receptors, in the development stages the chemical entity has already been discovered and is being put through a series of tests (preclinical and clinical) to determine its safety and efficacy in human beings. Many compounds do not pass the testing phase because they do not demonstrate safety and efficacy. These compounds are terminated or attritted.

Although there is compound failure in most new product development type projects, the limited ability to accurately predict how a pharmaceutical or biotech compound will react in tests creates considerable uncertainty in forecasting future work and in shaping the emerging portfolio, program, and project strategy.

The emerging nature of information from test results—and the implications of this to the strategic profile of the compound drug data—creates a high degree of interaction between planning at the portfolio, program (brand), and project level. The emerging perception of therapeutic efficacy, along with the implications in business terms, has a direct impact on project and portfolio strategy, not the least as regards appropriate resource usage. Though this interaction is by no means unique to pharmaceutical projects, its extent is notably greater.

Governance and Strategy Decisions

The creation and approval of strategy within the division is managed by a number of governance bodies made up of senior company managers. The positions of these bodies are shown in Figure 4.2. A business strategy group makes decisions on portfolio strategy, portfolio prioritization, and the overall direction of the pharmaceutical business. This group sets the framework in which project decisions are taken. There are also decision-making governance bodies for the two development areas that have the responsibility for the portfolios of products, programs, and projects of the division. Each decision-making body ensures that the zone, development areas, product, program, and project strategies are aligned with each other and with the portfolio strategy set by the business strategy group through a series of reviews. The project teams drive program strategy and involve the governance decision-making bodies to gain alignment and investment when they are required to or deem it appropriate.

Portfolios and Programs

We saw in the literature review section how strategies and objectives are cascaded through portfolios, programs, and projects. This enables an organization to ensure it maintains strategic coherence across the different levels of portfolios, programs, and projects and provides a mechanism for prioritizing and allocating resources and activities. Managing the portfolios relating to the division is undertaken at business, divisional, zone, and product area levels, as indicated in Figure 4.2. Different strategies can and do exist for each of these entities. However, these all align with corporate and business strategies and objectives.

Portfolios are very important in the company. They essentially form the hand from which the future of the company is being played. The term programs is less well embedded. Programs are seen as constituting a technical platform—a particular type of drug—of which there may be various versions (slightly different indications, dosages, or delivery mechanisms, for example). This product—or chemical entity—may also have a strong brand presence. Program management typically is important in strategy terms (a) as consideration is given to whether to invest in development early in the preclinical and Phase I stages of the development cycle (b) when line extensions are being considered.

Projects, in effect, have two meanings. One is the major project of developing a compound from discovery to regulatory approval and into the marketplace. The other is the activity of getting the compound to the next milestone review point of its development.

Portfolio Management Process

Portfolio management at the highest level within the division primarily consists of:

• Selecting a strategic areas of focus;
• Prioritizing projects within product areas based on potential value;
• Removing projects that no longer have sufficient potential value or strategic fit with the portfolio.

And at a more local level, it consists of:

• Prioritization of early projects;
• Analyzing resource load and capacity, and resolving resourcing issues.

A key aspect of portfolio management is the allocation of resources. There are never enough resources to meet all the opportunities that are potentially available. Therefore, resources have to be allocated clearly on the basis of perceived value and risk. Also, the dynamics of these decisions change on a relatively real-time basis as new technical, scientific, and commercial data becomes available.

Accomplishing this within a large, complex portfolio requires a clear decision-making hierarchy. These decisions are made through the governance bodies described above. In order to do this, each governance body considers information contributed by a wide range of experts on a large number of factors, such as:

• Therapeutic value and fit within the portfolio
• Likely commercial value
• Competition
• Risk
• Development time requirements.

Representatives from all of the lines within the division participate in project teams and are involved in providing and interpreting this information. In addition, other groups within the company are also critical to ensuring that portfolio management maintains close and effective relationships with these groups.

Portfolio management in the Discovery phase begins with the company's strategic market objectives and ensures that the area's work in identifying and developing new products is aligned with the business strategy and objectives. A portfolio management process is used to prioritize projects and support resource decisions based on information supplied by governance, teams, and market assessment, to name a few.

The scale and complexity of portfolio management within the division is demonstrated in Figure 4.2. To enable it to be carried out consistently, standardized analytical tools and methods are used that effectively integrate all the competing factors, issues, and risks. These tools and methods estimate the potential value of each product. The results are then used to adjust project priorities.

Portfolio Management Roles and Responsibilities

Most pharmaceutical project management organizations distinguish between a project leader (or director) role and the project manager. Typically, the former has a strong feeling for the science of the development (and ought to have a good grasp of the commercial possibilities—but combining the two is often a challenge); the latter is more concerned with the operational management of the project. The reasons for this split are largely historic: the differences are similar to those between a movie director and producer, as discussed in Foulkes and Morris (2004). In practice, the precise sharing of responsibilities often follows the characteristics and wishes of the two individuals filling these roles on any one project. The important thing is that the overall management of the project space gets properly filled on the project.

Significantly, for us, the project leader/director typically assumes a much more prominent role in shaping project strategy, though this is not always the case. The split is reminiscent of Kotter's distinction between leadership and management (Kotter 1990).

In what follows, the distinction is blurred.

It is the responsibility of project management leadership to:

• Contribute to the portfolio management process by ensuring that project management develops and maintains project reporting systems and databases that meet the needs of project stakeholders in valuing and managing projects and the portfolio;
• Ensure that project management staff understand and are adequately trained to fulfill their roles, with regard to project valuation exercises and other portfolio management activities;
• Supervise and support project management staff in getting timely and accurate information to project stakeholders through appropriate reporting systems.

The project leader is accountable for and the project manager is responsible for:

• Ensuring that all information in project planning and reporting systems is up-to-date, accurate, and complete;
• Ensuring that appropriate team members participate in portfolio prioritization exercises;
• Partnering with team members to obtain requisite information that will enable prioritization exercises to be performed;
• Collating and collecting outputs of updates to governance;
• Communicating project priorities to the team;
• Leading the project team and managing their project and resources within the context of the portfolio and priority set by governance.

It is the responsibility of the relevant line representatives on a project team to:

• Provide line information relevant to monthly update requirements for all reporting systems;
• Participate in team meetings to provide estimates/data to prioritization exercises.

The key project management activities that need to be undertaken in relation to portfolio management are set out in the RASI table in Table 4.1. The definition of RASI is as follows:

R	Responsible	The doers. The person(s) directly involved in performing the activity (per defined procedures) and having an impact on results. These people are responsible for performing tasks and are accountable for their actions.
A	Accountable	The buck stops here. The person with the ultimate authority for ensuring that policies and procedures are adhered to, progress is measured, and results are achieved.
S	Support	The reference points. The person(s) who must be consulted or whose opinion must be obtained before a decision is made.
I	Inform	The need to know. The person(s) who should be actively informed of decisions or outcomes. (Passive information sharing through reports, system inquiry, data analysis, etc. is not listed here.)

Project managers in partnership with functional line leaders (see Figure 4.1 above) make the following contributions to portfolio management:

• Lead teams in developing strategic alternatives for consideration and endorsement by governance;
• Lead teams through participation in various prioritization analyses;
• Coordinate interfaces with other groups conducting project/portfolio analyses;
• Gather and compile project information;
• Ensure information is entered accurately into appropriate reports and databases (including entering planned and actual schedule dates);
• Ensure consistency between various schedules and reports and within sections of reports;
• Communicate the priority of assigned projects to teams;
• Assure allocation of resources is aligned with priorities;
• Raise warnings to governance when slippage of project targets occurs, line resource commitment is inadequate to meet plan requirements, or unexpected results occur;
• Represent teams at governance/review meetings.

Projects

Figure 4.3 shows the development lifecycle for product development projects used by the division and identifies the following:

• Key strategy documents produced to manage a development project;
• Phases of the product development lifecycle;
• Stages 1-3 of the lifecycle, which are undertaken by teams from Development Areas 1-3, respectively, as shown in Figure 4.2.

The research team did not investigate the market stage of the lifecycle, as it is in another division of the company.

The division uses a very structured project management process to manage projects. The process is geared to each of the phases of the lifecycle and utilizes a plan, form team, monitor, and re-plan structure. It is also linked to a series of project management methodologies, which identify the actions to be taken by the project team at any point in the project or phase of the development lifecycle. An example of this can be seen in Figure 4.4, which shows the project management process in schematic and a chart of the project methodologies for the Phase A (see Figure 4.3). The example indicates, among other things, that the project strategy methodology (practice) needs to be implemented by the project team (highlighted in gray), during the plan element of Phase A. The processes and methodologies are mapped in document form for the benefit of the user. These topics are also viewed as project management practices, within the context of this research, and include many of those practices identified in the literature review.

Figure 4.5 integrates the development lifecycle (Figure 4.3) and the project management process and methodologies (Figure 4.4) to provide a schematic of the structure of the division's project management process and methodologies. Using this structure, the methodologies relating to each project management process stage and project lifecycle phase can be identified at a glance, which is a major benefit to managers, project teams, and individual team members.

Managing projects requires not only the identification and use of project management methodologies, but also interacting methodologies, sub-processes, and practices. A visual depiction of how these interrelate with each other is likely to benefit project teams. The division uses such a matrix, as shown in Figure 4.6.

Developing and Managing Project Strategy

Though projects are important in drug development, there is such a high rate of attrition—particularly pre-Stage 3—that spending too much time detailing long-term project strategy is not considered to be useful in the division. However, it is still essential to develop and maintain a flexible strategy for the success of the project. This is aligned with the portfolio strategy and can be revised as a project progresses; indeed, exit strategy is an important element of total project strategy. The governance bodies and the program and project teams have the responsibility to ensure this happens.

Figure 4.7 outlines briefly the key steps taken by product development teams to develop, implement, and review project strategy. The steps are undertaken, in-depth, using the project management process and methodologies shown in Figure 4.5. It can be seen from Figure 4.5 that specific project strategy management activities are carried out during almost all the phases of the product development lifecycle and that it is a highly structured approach incorporating key elements relating to strategy, such as scope management and resource management.

The project strategy development process is used primarily for programs and projects managed by Development (see Figure 4.2).

The following are the key steps in the strategy development process:

Step 1: Environmental assessment

The project team identifies the environment in which the product will be developed and launched. Product development projects are subject to both internal (company) and external influences, both of which set the environment in which the project will operate. The project team needs to have an appreciation of this environment so that an appropriate strategy is developed. Since development projects are undertaken over a number of years, changes to the environment will occur. The team, therefore, should monitor the environment and make adjustments to the strategy as required. Items that are considered as part of an environmental assessment include:

• Company business strategy;
• Commercial factors;
• Competitor analysis;
• Medical needs;
• Mode of action;
• Demographics and population;
• Cost of development;
• Position in portfolio.

Step 2: Identify strategy drivers; Develop goals and objectives

The drivers that initially set and then maintain the project strategy need to be identified. Examples of drivers include: gap in market; high confidence in safety of the compound; and clear differential with a competitor's product. The drivers are used by the project teams to establish and set goals for their product. When setting objectives, consideration is given to:

• Establishing a clearly defined vision, purpose, and objectives for the project;
• Ensuring objectives are measurable, in order to deliver the right products at the right time;
• Describing alternative approaches for how objectives can be achieved;
• Identifying processes for tracking progress and verifying final delivery of the objectives.

In addition, the goals and objectives are designed to:

• Achieve optimal labeling to maximize the product's commercial opportunity;
• Minimize time to market;
• Assure effective utilization of resources;
• Achieve a balance between cost, benefits, and levels of risk;
• Maximize the product's opportunities through commercialization and ever-greening strategies (throughout the product's lifecycle).

Initial goal-setting for the product takes place and is then revised on an annual basis. The team progressively develops the overall approach to achieve the goals and objectives. Each element of the project strategy is normally assigned to line representatives. At stage 2 (see Figure 4.3), the project director is accountable and project manager is responsible for working with team members to develop the overall project strategy. The project leader for stage 3 of the project is accountable for managing project strategy in conjunction with the business governance body.

Step 3: Identify potential alternative strategies

Teams identify a range of strategies that will meet the drivers, goals, and objectives they have set for the project. In this step teams identify as many different alternatives as possible. Discussing the alternatives gives the team greater insight into the issues surrounding the project and assists in determining the most appropriate strategy. The amount of work that is done by the team in developing alternative strategies is limited to the identification and initial understanding of the issues involved in taking an alternative forward. Spending time performing detailed evaluation of an excessive number of alternatives is not an effective use of resources.

Step 4: Screen alternative strategies; Select strategy for recommendation to governance

Alternative strategies are screened, since the team is only able to evaluate a relatively small number in detail. The selected strategies undergo detailed evaluation by the project team. This generally involves the line representatives working with colleagues in their own line to fully understand the implications of each strategy. The team also reviews the drivers, objectives, and goals set in Step 2 to ensure that the recommended strategy meets them. A strategy document is developed that contains details of evaluated strategies, the reasons why alternatives have been rejected by the team, and the case for the recommended strategy. Project management ensures all the line-based strategies are combined in such a manner as to form an integrated and cohesive project strategy.

Step 5: Obtain endorsement for recommended strategy

As part of the preceding stages, the team has been working with governance to get initial feedback on the alternative strategies, including the selection of a recommended strategy. This makes the presentation of the recommended strategy at the governance meeting more effective. The formal presentation to governance is prepared from information contained in the key strategic documents (see Figure 4.3). The team has to be specific in its request for governance endorsement and may have to undertake further work to address items that governance raises. Governance should then endorse the recommended project strategy. Strategy is developed for programs and projects managed by Development (see Figure 4.2).

Step 6: Implement endorsed strategy; Review periodically; Revise as appropriate

The endorsed strategy should be issued to all project team members and other project stakeholders for communication purposes. The project strategy is not thought of as static, but is reviewed at major milestones (e.g., stage-gates), as well as when any other major changes in the project take place. Periodic reviews of project strategy are conducted, including bi-annual reviews of all projects in the portfolio to adjust priorities.

Strategy Documents

A number of sources in the literature suggest a project plan should incorporate project strategy predicated on the project requirements, project definition, and project scope documents and plans. The view here within the division, however, is that so much relating to the way a project is to be conducted is already covered in the organization's standard operating practices, or is distributed throughout functional lines in different formats, that there is not the same need to pull everything together in a unique project strategy document. (Equally, it could be argued, that it is for precisely this reason and the complexity of the organization that project strategy needs to be more readily visible, documented, and accessible in a single document or set of documents.)

In fact, strategic planning documents are developed at three specific periods during the development project lifecycle (also see Figure 4.3). These documents are strongly technical in character, though they do contain information on timelines, costs, risks, and so on. They are, however, less purely project management strategic in nature than effective forms of business plans. Specific parts of the project's overall strategy are detailed in separate supporting documents (see below), and project management ensures that these are reflected in the key strategic planning documents.

Stage 1 strategic planning document (SPD1)

The first document, called, let us say, the strategic planning document (SPD1), is an operating plan that begins to be prepared in Discovery. The document evolves as the project proceeds; each successive build is published upon transition into a new phase, incorporating data gathered in previous stages.

SPD1:

• Defines a research opportunity by examining an unmet medical need;
• Gives a preliminary commercial assessment;
• Assesses freedom to operate (intellectual property issues);
• Describes desirable characteristics of new products and the rationale for investigating a new treatment;
• Assesses the probability of technical success;
• Specifies objectives, approaches to achieve them, and timeliness;
• Identifies known issues and key go/no-go decisions;
• Identifies organizational responsibilities, including resource estimates.

Stage 2 strategic planning document (SPD2)

Several months prior to the commencement of a compound being approved for development, a team prepares the second strategic planning document (SPD2), using information from SPD1 and substantial input from the lines. The aim is to have an endorsed SPD2 in place early in Stage 2 of a project. SPD2 covers the strategy to get the potential product to proof-of-concept and authorization-to-proceed to Full Development.

SPD2 includes:

• A summary of the opportunity and technical characteristics of the potential product;
• A discussion of the strategic approach for the project upon which the detailed plans are based;
• Development plans (including FTE and cost estimates) for individual lines;
• Commercial issues, including competitor analysis;
• Intellectual property rights;
• Development risks and opportunities (and how they will be managed);
• Timelines and decision points;
• Major work packages;
• Organization of the potential product project team, including;
  • Teams’ membership
  • Team roles and responsibilities
• Development costs.

The project leadership ensures that the team continuously monitors and reviews the strategy in order to achieve the Stage 2 milestones and that any revision to the strategy is communicated to, and endorsed by, governance.

Stage 3 strategic planning document (SPD3)

SPD3 defines the implementation plan for development activities and includes a more detailed assessment of costs and resources for Stage 3. (Stage 3 will be much more expensive than all the previous stages put together.) SPD3 is produced at the end of Stage 2, at which point governance also endorses it. It contains the overall project strategy for Stage 3 and highlights the strategy for each of the key lines.

SPD3 includes:

• The potential product characteristics;
• Critical scientific and market impact terms;
• Commercial issues;
• A discussion of the strategic approach for the project upon which the detailed plans are based;
• A market development and launch plan;
• Intellectual property rights (IPR);
• Development strategy and operating plans, including procurement;
• Quality definitions for the potential product;
• Risks and how these are to be managed;
• Resource requirements;
• The project organization (team membership);
• Timelines;
• Development costs.

Project leadership leads the development and product teams to review SPD3 and ensure that it is updated and adjusted throughout Stage 3 until the product is approved, to reflect any changes in strategy that may be appropriate due to internal and external influences. Project management, through ongoing coordination with the lines, assembles SPD2 and SPD3.

It is extremely important to recognize that all governance decisions are taken within the program and portfolio context.

Detailed Plans Supporting the Strategy Documents

Detailed plans are put in place in order to realize the strategies presented in the three documents described above. These detailed plans form the core of the project management control process. It is against these plans that progress is measured, variance from the plans assessed, and corrective actions taken to bring the project back to plan. These detailed plans include:

• A schedule which includes:
  • A WBS that details the scope of work;
  • The sequence in which work will be done;
  • Estimates of company resource requirements.
• An estimate of project monetary requirements;
• How the work will be carried out (detailed process, procedure, and practice documents are maintained by separate lines);
• Detailed risk and opportunity management information developed by project teams.

Roles and Responsibilities for Developing and Managing Project Strategy

It is the responsibility of the division's project management leadership to:

• Participate as members of governance bodies in setting and clarifying strategy for Development portfolios (see Figure 4.2) and providing guidance to teams in creating and aligning project strategies within portfolios;
• Provide systems, procedures, and supporting staff to meet the company's needs to effectively manage projects;
• Establish the appropriate level and content of project planning documents;
• Establish and clarify with other line and senior managers the roles of project management staff on teams with regard to developing project strategies, leading teams through developing, analyzing, and choosing strategy alternatives, and other strategic value management processes.

The project leadership (late team leaders (LTLs) and early team leaders (ETLs) in Development) is accountable for and the project manager is responsible for:

• Identifying how the project relates to the wider portfolio and leading the team in preparing an appropriate project strategy in alignment with governance;
• Leading the team in proposing/recommending strategic alternative/options that reflect what may be best for the company's portfolio, not just the individual project;
• Recognizing the need to review the development strategy through the application of tools and procedures;
• Initiating, implementing, and managing the development of the project strategy documents;
• Revisiting the documentation on a regular basis in order to ensure that it remains current, that objectives are being met, and that the team is aware of the strategic issues;
• Ensuring that new team members can access the existing documentation and that strategic objectives are fully understood.

It is the responsibility of the relevant line representatives on the project team to:

• Provide input into the development of the project strategy;
• Communicate the project strategy to their line and ensure that line activities support the project strategy;
• Alert the project leadership of any change in line activities that could impact the project strategy;
• Alert the project leadership of any new information (internal or external) that could/should precipitate a review of the project strategy.

The key project management activities that need to be undertaken in relation to project strategy are set out in the RASI table in Table 4.2.

Value Management and Project Strategy

Applying value management practices to key elements of project strategy is a distinctive part of the way the division manages its programs and projects. Value management in product development projects consists of two sequential processes, value planning, and value improvement and maintenance (Thiry 2004). The value planning process aims to understand the drivers of a product development project and optimize the strategy to deliver the agreed objectives. It comprises the following stages:

1. Review project objectives;
2. Evaluate a range of strategic options;
3. Define the scientific/commercial case for the development project.

In Discovery, the project team carries out a fundamental review, either during or just before a phase gate review (see Figure 4.3). This is to ensure that the project objectives are correct, that these are completed by reviewing the project strategy that has been developed for the phase of the project and by critically assessing the project strategy to ensure the objectives can be achieved. At a milestone review point during the early part of Development, a specialist portfolio management group works with project management to identify and evaluate a range of strategic alternatives for the project. Options are appraised and selected largely on the basis of technical and commercial risk and opportunity. Based on this evaluation, the portfolio group recommends the best strategic option to governance for endorsement.

The value maintenance process is designed to maintain the value of the project that is set out in the strategic planning documents. Reviewing the project objectives and their achievement, as well as their impact on project strategy, are key activities undertaken by the project teams, governance, and lines during the value maintenance process. The important point, however, is that the value optimization process takes place around the strategic character of the project in relation to the portfolio, including the rest of the program where this is appropriate.

Conclusions

In this pharmaceutical division, strategy is cascaded from corporate and business levels down through portfolios, programs, and projects. There is a clearly defined hierarchy and process to facilitate this, through which alignment and coherency of strategy are achieved. The roles of governance bodies in setting and deciding strategy in this process are very prominent and clearly defined.

Strategy has a highly emergent character to it, due to the impact of compound attrition on the portfolio. This dramatically colors the way projects are planned and decisions are made on them, for example, with regard to resourcing.

Portfolio management is, thus, a key element in the way the division manages drug development projects. The management of portfolios of programs and projects at zone (Discovery and Development) and product area levels are critical activities in which strategy is aligned both upstream and downstream, strategic areas of focus are selected, and project selection and resource allocation are optimized. Project management's job is to get the project to the next timeline as efficiently as possible. Meanwhile, the division's governance-leadership nexus decides how the emerging results feed into the overall portfolio decision-making.

The structured approach used to develop and manage project strategy—in which best practice project management methodologies and practices are incorporated in a very thorough manner—is one which is likely to result in more effective project strategy and improve the performance of project teams as well as communication within the organization. The strategic planning documents developed and maintained during the project lifecycle, and the detailed plans that support them, cover typical project strategy elements comprehensively.

The clearly defined roles and responsibilities for portfolio management, project strategy management, and value management—and the use of RASI tables—ensures there is no ambiguity as to who is accountable and responsible for ensuring the effective management of strategy. The project team leader is more concerned with the strategy for the project than is the project manager, who is primarily focused on the implementation of the strategy and the execution of the project.

Embedding the assessment and maintenance of project strategy within a value management process that is applied at stage (phase) gates throughout the product development lifecycle is a major strength, one that should improve the performance of project teams to manage projects within the overall portfolio more effectively. Note, however, how much of the traditional value management practice is being carried out at the portfolio level.

This case shows more than any other how project management and portfolio management can integrate around the management of risk and value.