I have been thinking about watches. This has proved unexpectedly dangerous, not because choosing a watch is particularly difficult, but because somewhere along the way I stopped thinking about the watches themselves and started thinking about the collection.
At first that seemed like a small shift in perspective. A watch is obviously something that can be understood and assessed. It has characteristics, functions, limitations and qualities of its own. A collection, by contrast, can easily look like little more than several watches placed next to one another.
But that is not quite true. The moment we draw a boundary around several individual watches and consider them together, new characteristics appear. We can ask whether the collection provides useful variety, whether important situations are poorly supported, whether several watches contribute almost the same thing, whether one member carries too many important roles, or whether removing a particular watch would materially weaken the whole.
None of those questions belongs to any one watch. They arise from the composition. The collection has become a subject in its own right.
Changing the Boundary
Suppose four watches are placed on a table. Each can be assessed independently. One may be unusually robust, another elegant, another highly functional and another particularly enjoyable to wear. Those qualities belong to the individual objects.
Now imagine drawing a conceptual boundary around all four.
The questions change. Do these watches complement one another? Does the collection provide meaningful choice? Are some situations represented strongly while others are not represented at all? Is there deliberate overlap, or merely repetition? Does the collection depend heavily on one member for several important situations?
Nothing about the watches themselves has changed. Only the boundary has changed. Yet changing the boundary changes the subject.
This is important because it means that a portfolio cannot always be understood by aggregating what we know about its members. Some of its most relevant characteristics exist only at the level of the whole.
Individual Quality Does Not Determine Portfolio Quality
This creates a distinction between the quality of a member and the quality of the portfolio it belongs to. A collection may consist entirely of excellent watches and still be poorly composed.
Imagine four outstanding watches that all serve roughly the same role. There may be nothing wrong with any of them, and there may be perfectly good personal reasons for owning all four. But their individual excellence tells us surprisingly little about whether the collection as a whole is suitable for what its owner wants from it.
The reverse can also be true. A comparatively ordinary watch may make a disproportionately important contribution because it provides something the rest of the collection does not.
The relevant question is therefore no longer simply whether a watch is good. It is what the watch contributes to the collection.
That is a different assessment problem.
The Whole Needs Its Own Intent
Once the collection is treated as a subject, another question becomes unavoidable.
What is the collection actually for?
That purpose cannot be inferred safely from whatever happens to be in the watch box today.
One collection might be intended to cover the realistic situations in which its owner wears watches. Another might explore historically important designs. A third might focus on mechanical movements, a particular manufacturer or watches associated with personal memories.
The same set of watches could therefore make sense against one intention and make very little sense against another.This means that the collection needs an intent of its own.
Without that intent, composition becomes difficult to judge. More watches may look like progress simply because there are more of them. Greater variety may look desirable simply because variety is conventionally associated with collecting. Missing categories may appear to be gaps even when they have no relevance to the owner. Once intent becomes explicit, those assumptions can be challenged.
A Portfolio Reference Model
From there, the idea of a Portfolio Reference Model follows quite naturally. Such a reference would not prescribe which watches should be owned. Instead, it would describe what the collection as a whole should enable.
It might express the situations that matter, the forms of variety that are valuable, the level of overlap that is useful, the dependencies that should be avoided, the constraints that matter and the areas the collection deliberately does not need to support.
The distinction between requirement and realization is important here. A conventional watch category such as dive watch, dress watch or chronograph may be one way of satisfying part of the reference, but the category itself is not automatically the requirement. If I begin by assuming that a complete collection must contain one of each recognized type, then the classification system has already started dictating the answer.
The reference should come from the purpose of the collection. The watches come later.
Composition Is the Realization
For an individual product, realization is usually the product itself. For a portfolio, realization is largely its composition.
The watches are individual objects, but the collection exists through which watches are included, what roles they play and how they relate to one another. This means that the portfolio can change even when none of its members changes.
A watch may be added. Another may be removed. A previously central watch may become secondary because the owner’s circumstances have changed. A new watch may make an existing one redundant. An inherited watch may enter the collection for reasons that have nothing to do with functional coverage but still become highly significant.
Portfolio development is therefore not the same as developing the individual subjects within it. It is the intentional evolution of composition.
That evolution can involve adding, retaining, repositioning, replacing or retiring members. The important question is not whether the collection is changing, but whether the change makes it a better realization of its intent.
Assessment Changes Too
If composition is the realization, portfolio assessment must also operate at the level of composition. Assessing the individual watches tells us whether those watches satisfy the expectations placed upon them. Assessing the collection tells us whether we have the right combination.
The questions therefore become different. Where does the portfolio provide strong support for its intended purposes? Where is that support weak? Which contributions are unique? Which are heavily duplicated? Does apparent variety represent meaningful variety, or are several members different mainly in appearance while performing essentially the same role? Which important purposes depend on a single member? Which members remain even though nobody can clearly explain what they contribute?
These conclusions cannot be produced simply by averaging individual assessments. Every watch could assess well on its own while the collection still assesses poorly. The whole must be assessed as the whole.
Emergent Portfolio Characteristics
This is where the idea becomes more interesting. A portfolio has characteristics that cannot sensibly be assigned to any one member.
Coverage is one example. It describes how much of the intended domain the portfolio collectively supports.
Redundancy is another. It arises when several members provide similar contributions.
Concentration describes how dependent the portfolio is on a small number of members.
Complementarity concerns the extent to which members strengthen the usefulness of one another.
Resilience concerns whether the portfolio can continue to satisfy important needs when one member disappears.
Diversity concerns whether differences between members are actually meaningful against the portfolio’s intent.
These characteristics emerge from relationships and composition. They are not hidden properties of the individual members waiting to be discovered. That is why individual assessment is necessary but insufficient.
Portfolio Risk
The same applies to risk. Each watch can have risks of its own. It may be fragile, difficult to service, unsuitable for water or expensive to replace.
The collection introduces other risks. An important situation may depend entirely on one watch. Resources may be concentrated in alternatives that add little additional value. Several apparently different watches may depend on the same underlying technology or share the same weakness. The collection may continue to reflect needs that were important years ago but no longer matter.
There is also a more subtle risk. The owner may gradually forget why particular members are there at all. At that point, the existing composition begins to acquire authority simply because it exists.
When the Portfolio Becomes Its Own Reference
This is a familiar danger in another form. Once a collection has existed for a while, it becomes tempting to develop it relative to itself.
I already have this kind of watch, so the next one should be different.
I do not own that category, so perhaps I should.
Serious collectors seem to have one of those, so maybe mine is incomplete without one.
The reasoning has quietly reversed. Instead of asking what collection is appropriate for the owner’s life and interests, the owner starts asking how the current collection compares with a conventional idea of what a collection ought to contain. The realization has started replacing the reference.
A Portfolio Reference Model provides a way out of that loop. It creates an independent basis against which both the existing collection and possible changes can be judged.
The Portfolio Can Outlive Its Reasoning
This is also where continuity enters the picture. Portfolios rarely appear fully formed. They develop over time.
A product is launched for a market opportunity. Another arrives through acquisition. A system survives a migration. A capability is created for a strategic initiative. A watch is inherited. Another is bought because its owner simply loves it. The members remain, but the reasoning behind their presence can gradually disappear.
Eventually the organization, or the collector, can describe what is in the portfolio without being able to explain why the portfolio has that shape. That loss of understanding matters because composition decisions depend on context.
Without preserved reasoning, something may remain because nobody is confident enough to remove it. Something new may be rejected because it does not resemble what is already there. A historical accident may become a requirement. A member may continue occupying an important place long after the purpose that justified it has disappeared.
Portfolio Continuity would preserve the understanding needed to avoid that. Not merely what the portfolio contains, but why it contains those things, what they are expected to contribute and under which circumstances that composition should change.
Beyond Watches
Watches make this easy to see because the stakes are low. The same structure appears in much more consequential domains.
A product portfolio is not simply a collection of individually successful products. Two excellent products may compete unnecessarily with one another, while an apparently minor product may occupy a strategically important niche.
A capability portfolio is not simply a collection of mature capabilities. An organization may be exceptionally strong in several areas and still be constrained by one capability it does not possess.
A systems portfolio can contain individually stable systems while being collectively expensive, redundant, fragile or strategically incoherent.
In each case, the members matter. But composition matters too.
Portfolio Continuity
This suggests a possible specialization of the broader Continuity idea. If Product Continuity preserves the understanding needed to develop and assess a product, and Capability Continuity preserves the understanding needed to develop and assess an organizational capability, Portfolio Continuity may preserve the understanding needed to intentionally develop and assess the composition of a portfolio over time.
The structure would be familiar. Portfolio intent establishes what the portfolio is meant to accomplish. A Portfolio Reference Model describes the significant characteristics expected of the portfolio as a whole. Portfolio Development changes its composition. The realized portfolio consists of the current members and the relationships between them. Portfolio Assessment determines how well that realized composition satisfies the reference. Learning then informs what should be added, retained, repositioned, replaced or retired.
Portfolio Management may therefore be understood, at least in part, as maintaining continuity through that cycle.
Reflection
There is a deceptively simple lesson in all of this. When several things are assembled to serve a larger purpose, it is natural to keep looking at the things themselves.
Are these good products?
Are these strong capabilities?
Are these reliable systems?
Are these good watches?
Those are all useful questions.
But once the boundary expands around them, another subject appears. That subject has characteristics the individual members do not have, risks that do not exist at member level and development actions that can change the whole without changing any of its parts.
At that point, the portfolio question is no longer:
Are these good things?
It is:
Do we have the right ones?
And answering that requires a reference for the whole.
Leave a Reply