APM Portfolio Management SIG survey 2020 results - including comparison to the 2015 survey The SIG microsite: https://www.apm.org.uk/community/portfolio-management-sig/

1. APM Portfolio Management SIG (PfM)
survey 2020 – results
(Including comparison to the 2015 survey)

2. PfM survey 2020 - introduction
Some background features to note:
▪ The average number of responses to 2020 survey questions was 165
▪ In 2015, it was 70
▪ In 2020 most of the respondents were taking part in an interactive webinar
▪ Most questions have been analysed to show views for both 2020 and 2015
▪ Some were new for 2020
▪ The population of participants is considered a good representation for both years
▪ In 2015, people would have had more time to consider/research their responses
▪ In 2020, feedback was more immediate as it took place in real-time during the webinar

3. PfM survey 2020 - context
Sectors represented
▪ There was a good spread across most sectors for each year
▪ Some differences between years may reflect how easy people in some roles could join the webinar in 2020
▪ More sectors being represented in 2020 suggests that interest in portfolio management is expanding
2
18
3 6 5
9
7
2 6 4
8
3 4 3
12
5 3
16
14
0 6 5 5 6 0
13
2 3
8
5 3
10
0 5
Business Sector Represented - % of total replies
2020 (%) 2015 (%)

4. PfM survey 2020 - context
Roles
3 7 5
22 20
40
3
0
17
3
17 14
41
7
Roles Represented (%)
2020 (%) 2015 (%)
▪ While a similar proportion of PMO-related roles took part in both surveys, it is encouraging to see an increase in
interest from leadership roles in 2020
▪ The increase in delivery specialists taking part this year may be due to a greater recognition of the significance of
PfM to project and programme managers

5. PfM survey 2020 - context
Organisation size - people
▪ As might be expected, larger organisations dominate the picture
▪ In both 2020 and 2015, 73% of people taking part came from organisations with more than 500 people
▪ Although in 2015, the very largest organisations had the highest proportion
6 4
6 4
15
18
36
31
37
42
2020 (%) 2015 (%)
Sizes of Organisation - People (%)
10 or less 11 to 100 101 to 500 501 to 5000 More than 5000

6. PfM survey 2020 - context
Organisation size – portfolio (number of change initiatives)
▪ Interestingly, for 2020 a larger % of people represented organisations with less than 10 change initiatives
▪ However, as the term “Change Initiative” was not defined it may have been interpreted differently
▪ The increase in the “>500” category might suggest a more segmented approach to portfolio construction
▪ There is no correlation with the size of organisation by people (previous slide)
20
15
29
36
14
19
18
22
18
7
2020 (%) 2015 (%)
Size of Organisation - Portfolio (%)
Less than 10 11 to 50 51 to 100 101 to 500 More than 500

7. PfM survey 2020 – core results
Approach to PfM
▪ At first glance, the lower % with a “formal” centralised approach might seem a retrograde position
▪ However, it may reflect a move towards more “local” decision-making and goals
▪ But, the “devolved” proportion remains unchanged……..
▪ Therefore, are we looking at more de-centralised portfolio management being linked to local accountability?
42
56
21 21
37
23
2020 (%) 2015 (%)
Approach to Managing the Portfolio
Formally managed at the organisation level for all (or nearly all) change initiatives
Formally devolved to sub-organisational level for all (or nearly all) change initiatives
Informal – determined by division/department director

8. PfM survey 2020 – core results
The PMO role
▪ This question only applies to the 2020 survey and relates to those organisations that have a PMO
▪ It is very encouraging that almost two thirds felt their PMOs are “somewhat/significant” enablers of the portfolio
▪ That still leaves 38% with a relatively long way to go
11
27
38
24
The extent to which the PMO deliver the Portfolio - %
Slow progress/early days (None)
Starting to bite/small steps (Limited)
Good progress/basics in place (Somewhat)
Nearly there/most aspects working well (Significant)

9. PfM survey 2020 – core results
Decision- making
▪ This question only applies to the 2020 survey
▪ The good news – 51% of organisations make their decisions within a formal PfM model
▪ The bad news – 49% do not
▪ However, it would be interesting to know how successful the 49% are in delivering the required portfolio results
51
8
32
10
The organisation's approach to portfolio decision-making
Within the formal portfolio governance
Exception focused
Ad Hoc
Outside the formal portfolio governance

10. PfM survey 2020 – core results
Governance – the extent to which portfolio governance is articulated
and followed
▪ For the 2015 survey, the option “No” was not available
▪ There may limited comparability between the term “Strongly” (used in 2020) and “>75%” (used in 2015)
▪ Looking just at 2020 it is slightly concerning that only 19% are in the top portfolio governance category
▪ However, there is a good correlation between better portfolio governance and formal decision-making
19
41
24
16
41
36
23
0
USUALLY (75%+) -
STRONGLY
SOMETIMES (50-75%)
- REASONABLE
AMOUNT
OCCASIONALLY
(<50%) - WEAKLY
NO
Portfolio Governance
2020 (%) 2015 (%)

11. PfM survey 2020 – core results
Portfolio alignment
▪ For the 2015 survey, the option “No or Minimal Connection” was not available
▪ Overall, this is a moderately encouraging picture - particularly in the top category
▪ There is also a strong correlation between having a formal approach to PfM and strong strategic alignment
▪ However, maybe there are some good portfolios not strongly aligned, if the strategy is vague or out-dated?
▪ The 2020 survey highlighted
that “Governance &
Leadership” is considered the
main barrier to effective PfM
▪ The view from the previous
slide may suggest that an
improvement in governance
might translate into better
strategic alignment of
portfolios
20
43
29
7
15
42
42
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
ALMOST TOTAL CONNECTION AND
ALIGNMENT
QUITE CLOSELY ALIGNED AND CONNECTED
IN MOST AREAS
SOME CONNECTION IN SOME AREAS, BUT
QUITE A LOT OF DISCONNECT
NO OR MINIMAL CONNECTION
Portfolio-Strategy Alignment (%)
2015 (%) 2020 (%)

12. PfM survey 2020 – core results
Portfolio reviews
▪ The increase in quarterly reporting for 2020 suggests there is now more regular/active portfolio scrutiny overall
▪ A good correlation exists between monthly/quarterly reviews and adopting a more “formal” approach to PfM
▪ More frequent reviews in 2020 may reflect more (agile?) projects [18% of orgs. had >500 (2015=7%)]
▪ Most organisations review portfolios annually in the planning process (figures for this might skew this view)
▪ More investigation would reveal why some portfolios are seldom reviewed
20
24
35
15
11
21
19
26
15 14
2020 (%) 2015 (%)
The frequency of portfolio reviews
Monthly 3-Monthly 6-Monthly Annually Not at all or hardly ever

13. PfM survey 2020 – core results
Portfolio MI
▪ The dominant focus of reported MI is on the status of individual programmes and projects
▪ This may reflect a “traditional” desire to ensure that specific changes are being progressed
▪ It may also suggest that people on decision-making bodies tend to look out for changes in their own “patch”
▪ Therefore, greater focus should be directed towards portfolio-level benefits and delivery against strategies
37
74
29
43
60
36
Progress against strategic objectives
Individual programme/project status
Portfolio-level benefits achieved/to come
Cost/investment performance/status
New/change/stop decisions - programme/project level
Key risks/issues that need executive direction/decision
Portfolio MI reported - all replies

14. PfM survey 2020 – core results
PfM maturity
▪ This question relates to the 2020 survey only
▪ Clearly, on this data, there is a long way to go before most organisations can take PfM “in their stride”
▪ Only 26% have a managed/optimised level of maturity
▪ However, 58% are at least beyond the “Aware” stage - more needs to be done to address the limiting factors
42%
14%
18%
22%
4%
Level of Portfolio Management Maturity - %
Aware Repeatable Defined Managed Optimised

15. PfM survey 2020 – core results
PfM challenges
▪ On this data, there has been a slight improvement in how well organisations are addressing these core challenges
▪ Survey participants rated each on a score of 1 to 5 – overall, they are rated a bit above “average”
▪ These are tough areas to manage effectively and progress would be expected to rise in line with PfM maturity
2.92
2.48 2.52 2.66
3.00
2.20 2.30
2.00
Gaining board buy-in to a
single agreed view of
business objectives
Prioritising and balancing
the portfolio
Putting in place the right
tools & techniques to
support portfolio
Management
Delivering overall
portfolio benefits
Meeting key PfM challenges
2020 (2) 2015

16. PfM survey 2020 – core results
Barriers to effective PfM
As has been evident from the survey data, many aspects of portfolio management are proving a challenge to a large
number of organisations.
This is having an impact on the ability of organisations to develop a level of portfolio management maturity that can
improve the performance of PfM in delivering organisational strategies.
The main barriers to effective portfolio management highlighted by 2020 survey respondents are:
▪ Governance & Leadership (Only 19% of organisations rated themselves “>75%” for Governance)
▪ Resources (Does this explain why 38% of organisations have a PMO with little or no impact on portfolio delivery?)
▪ Understanding (e.g., 42% say their organisation is “Aware” of PfM, rather than actively employing/developing it)
▪ Tools & Techniques (These tend to follow, as supporting capabilities – once the PfM approach has been accepted)

17. PfM survey 2020 – conclusions
A few conclusions might be drawn from the survey results for 2020 (and, where relevant, those from 2015):
1. Overall, there are many areas of positive (albeit modest) progress since 2015.
2. A major insight emerging is the number of (unsurprising) linkages between various key factors:
▪ Organisations with stronger levels of portfolio governance tend to have a portfolio which is better aligned to
the organisation’s strategies (and vice versa).
▪ Organisations with a more “formal” approach to portfolio management also appear to achieve better
alignment of portfolios with strategies.
▪ Those organisations with the best levels of portfolio management maturity appear to be those doing best at
governance, alignment and with a more formalised approach to PfM decision-making.
3. The features that survey respondents identify as “barriers” to effective portfolio management all have a bearing on
the factors covered in point 2 above.
4. APM and the PfM SIG should use the survey results to help direct future debate with practitioners and senior
leaders on learning more about the best ways to increase overall portfolio management performance.