Project portfolio management for product innovation

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to create a benchmark and identify best practices for Project Portfolio Management (PPM) for both tangible product‐based and service product‐based development project portfolios.

Design/methodology/approach

A questionnaire was developed to gather data to compare the PPM methods used, PPM performance, PPM challenges, and resulting new product success measures in 60 Australian organisations in a diverse range of service and manufacturing industries.

Findings

The paper finds that PPM practices are shown to be very similar for service product development project portfolios and tangible product development project portfolios. New product success rates show strong correlation with measures of PPM performance and the use of some PPM methods is correlated with specific PPM performance outcomes.

Research limitations/implications

The findings in this paper are based on a survey of a diverse sample of 60 Australian organisations. The results are strengthened by comparisons with similar North American research; however, they may not be representative of all environments. Research in other regions would further qualify the findings. As each organisation's PPM process is unique, case study methods are recommended for future studies to capture more of the complexity in the environment.

Practical implications

The paper shows that PPM practitioners and executives who make decisions about the development of tangible products and/or service products will benefit from the findings.

Originality/value

This paper extends the existing understanding of PPM practices to include service development project portfolios as well as tangible product development project portfolios and strengthens the links between PPM practices and outcomes.

Citation

Killen, C.P., Hunt, R.A. and Kleinschmidt, E.J. (2008), "Project portfolio management for product innovation", International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 24-38. https://doi.org/10.1108/02656710810843559