A subject can be understood on its own. It has a purpose, characteristics, qualities and constraints that explain what it is and why it exists. Once several subjects are deliberately brought together into a portfolio, however, another subject appears: the portfolio itself.
The portfolio has its own purpose. This changes how its constituents should be understood.
Consider a collection of watches. A Victorinox I.N.O.X. can be understood and appreciated independently. It may be robust, mechanical, architectural and versatile. A Seiko Presage can likewise be understood independently, with an emphasis on elegance, refinement and dial design.
But once both watches belong to the same collection, another question becomes relevant. It is no longer sufficient to ask:
Why does this watch exist?
We must also ask:
Why is this watch in this collection?
These are different questions.
The distinction does not depend on the constituents being watches, or even products. It arises whenever independently meaningful subjects are deliberately brought together into a portfolio.
The portfolio has an intent of its own
A watch collection might exist to cover its owner’s relevant use cases while providing distinctly different experiences. In such a portfolio, the I.N.O.X. and Presage have different reasons for belonging. The I.N.O.X. contributes robustness, architectural character and everyday versatility. The Presage contributes refinement, restraint and a dressier personality.
Neither needs to be better than the other. In fact, making them increasingly similar could make the portfolio worse.
The same effect can be seen with bicycles. A road-oriented Giant Defy and a Trek Dual Sport can be deliberately optimized for different practical situations. Improving one does not mean making it resemble the other. If both gradually converge on the same compromise between road speed and mixed-surface versatility, each bicycle might remain individually excellent while the reason for owning both becomes weaker.
A portfolio of individually good constituents is therefore not necessarily a good portfolio.
The intent of the whole introduces criteria that do not exist when the constituents are considered separately.
The WHY of a constituent has two perspectives
A constituent of a portfolio can consequently be considered from two perspectives.
The first concerns the subject itself:
Why does this subject exist?
The second concerns its membership of the portfolio:
Why is this subject here?
The second WHY derives from the intent of the portfolio.
This distinction becomes particularly clear in a model train collection. Each locomotive, carriage or train can be described independently: what real rolling stock it represents, when that rolling stock existed, how the model represents it and what characteristics make the model interesting.
But a particular collection might have a very different purpose: preserving the memory of the rolling stock someone remembers from childhood.
That purpose changes the meaning of individual acquisitions. An exceptionally detailed model of a locomotive that was never part of that remembered environment might be an excellent model but a poor addition to the collection. A less sophisticated model of a familiar train might contribute much more strongly to the purpose of the portfolio.
The quality of the constituent and the quality of its contribution are therefore different judgments.
Portfolio intent gives meaning to constituent roles
This suggests a relationship between portfolio intent and constituent intent:
Portfolio intent → required contributions → constituent roles → constituent intent
The portfolio intent explains what the portfolio as a whole is intended to accomplish. From this follow the contributions that are needed from its constituents. Those contributions establish roles within the portfolio. A particular subject can then be selected, developed or configured to fulfil such a role.
This does not mean that a constituent has no independent purpose. A bicycle remains a bicycle, a watch remains a watch, and a capability remains a capability. Rather, membership of a portfolio gives the constituent an additional context in which its purpose must be understood.
The WHY of the constituent should therefore align with the WHY of the portfolio.
This alignment also explains why optimization at constituent level can conflict with optimization at portfolio level.
Suppose a Dual Sport is changed to become increasingly effective on paved roads. Considered independently, some of those changes may be improvements. But if the portfolio already contains a Defy optimized for that purpose, the changes may increase overlap and reduce the range of situations covered by the bicycle portfolio.
Likewise, making an elegant Presage tougher, sportier and more universally versatile might improve certain characteristics of the watch in isolation while simultaneously moving it toward the role already occupied by an I.N.O.X.
A constituent should therefore not necessarily be optimized toward some universal conception of the best possible subject. It should be developed with regard to the contribution it is intended to make.
Redundancy is a portfolio question
This also changes how overlap should be interpreted.
Overlap is not inherently undesirable. Some portfolios may deliberately require redundancy, resilience, interchangeability or multiple alternatives. But where the intent of the portfolio is to provide coverage or diversity, unnecessary overlap consumes resources without adding a corresponding contribution.
This explains a familiar phenomenon in collections based on an upgrade hierarchy.
Someone might first buy an affordable watch, later buy a more expensive watch with essentially the same personality and use cases, and eventually replace that with an even more prestigious version. Each acquisition may represent an improvement when the watches are compared directly. Yet the previous watch increasingly remains unworn because the new constituent has taken over its role.
The portfolio has not gained another meaningful option. One constituent has effectively displaced another.
By contrast, adding a watch with a distinctly different purpose or personality increases the range of meaningful choices available without making the existing watch obsolete.
A useful portfolio principle follows:
A new constituent should add a meaningful contribution to the portfolio, not merely improve the ranking among existing constituents.
Whether that means maximizing diversity, providing redundancy, filling a gap, increasing resilience or serving some other purpose depends on the intent of the particular portfolio.
A portfolio is itself a subject
Once the portfolio is recognized as having an intent of its own, it can also be treated as a subject in its own right.
It can be understood.
It can be deliberately developed.
And it can be assessed.
Its reference cannot simply be the sum of the references of its constituents.
A portfolio reference must describe what the portfolio as a whole is intended to accomplish: the contributions required from its constituents, important distinctions or relationships between their roles, relevant constraints, desired coverage or redundancy, and principles governing addition, development, replacement or removal.
This creates references at two related levels.
At the constituent level, a reference describes what the individual subject is intended to be.
At the portfolio level, a reference describes what the portfolio is intended to accomplish through its constituents.
The two references are related because the intended contribution of the constituent derives partly from the intent of the portfolio.
The portfolio therefore provides context for understanding the constituent without replacing the constituent’s own reference.
Assessment also occurs at two levels
The distinction produces two different assessment questions.
At constituent level:
How well does this subject realize its own intent?
At portfolio level:
How well does this constituent make its intended contribution, and how well does the portfolio as a whole realize its intent?
These assessments can produce different answers.
Every individual constituent in a portfolio may be excellent while the portfolio has excessive overlap, important gaps or constituents that contribute little to its purpose.
Conversely, a constituent that would not rank highest when assessed independently may be precisely the constituent that makes the portfolio better because it provides a contribution that would otherwise be missing.
This means that assessment of a portfolio cannot be reduced to aggregation of constituent assessments.
A portfolio containing five individually excellent subjects is not necessarily better than a portfolio containing four. Nor does improving the assessment result of every constituent necessarily improve the portfolio.
The reference for the portfolio determines what improvement means at portfolio level.
From product portfolios to portfolios of subjects
Nothing in this reasoning requires the constituents to be physical products.
The same structure can apply wherever independently meaningful subjects are deliberately managed together.
A product portfolio consists of products.
A service portfolio consists of services.
A project portfolio consists of projects.
An application portfolio consists of applications.
A capability portfolio consists of capabilities.
The nature of the required contributions will differ, but the underlying relationship remains:
Portfolio intent → required contributions → constituent roles → constituent intent
The portfolio is therefore not merely a convenient grouping or administrative container. When the grouping is intentional, the portfolio itself becomes a meaningful subject whose intent provides context for decisions about its constituents.
The implication for capability portfolios
This has a particularly interesting consequence for capability development.
An organizational capability can be understood, developed and assessed as a subject in its own right. A reference for that capability can describe what the capability is intended to accomplish and the characteristics necessary to do so.
But capabilities do not exist merely to achieve high assessment scores. They exist to contribute to what the organization is trying to accomplish.
Once capabilities are considered as constituents of a capability portfolio, their development can therefore no longer be determined solely by deficiencies found in individual capability assessments.
A capability assessed at a relatively low level might already be sufficient for the contribution expected from it. Developing it further could consume substantial resources while adding little value to the portfolio.
Another capability might appear reasonably strong when considered independently but be inadequate for a contribution that is critical to the portfolio.
The relevant question is therefore not simply:
How can we improve this capability?
It must also be:
What contribution does the organization require from this capability, and how should it be developed to make that contribution?
This provides a possible foundation for capability portfolio management as a discipline.
Business intent gives meaning to the capability portfolio. Portfolio intent establishes the contributions required from its constituent capabilities. Those contributions give context to the intent and reference of each capability. Capability development can then be directed toward what the organization actually requires rather than toward generic improvement or maturity for its own sake.
The resulting chain is:
Business intent → portfolio intent → required contributions → capability intent → capability reference → capability development
Assessment and learning can operate at both capability and portfolio level, providing feedback into subsequent development.
From individual quality to contribution
A subject can be valuable in its own right and still be the wrong constituent for a particular portfolio.
Likewise, a constituent that would not rank highest independently can be exceptionally valuable because of the contribution it makes to the whole.
This changes the fundamental question.
It is not sufficient to ask:
How good is this subject?
We must also ask:
Why is it here, and what is it supposed to contribute?
A portfolio is therefore more than a collection of individually valuable subjects. It is itself a subject with an intent, and that intent gives meaning to the contribution expected from each constituent.
The WHY of the portfolio gives context to the WHY of its constituents.
Leave a Reply