By Marty Cagan · svpg.com · LinkedIn
Marty Cagan argues that the typical product portfolio planning process used by companies past the startup stage is deeply frustrating, and that few organizations are satisfied with how they choose projects and allocate resources. He identifies several core problems: leadership makes critical decisions with poor or misleading information, funding decisions are all-or-nothing commitments with high opportunity costs, the planning cycle is a time-consuming scramble, executive debate is thin and politics dominates, and projects lack strong sponsors. Because these decisions shape the work of the entire product, design, engineering and go-to-market organization, the flaws matter widely. The piece sets up a series promising alternative practices.
01Key takeaways
- Question whether your portfolio decisions rest on inputs accurate enough to justify their weight.
- Recognize that early ROI or factor-scoring estimates often reflect guesswork rather than knowledge.
- Treat funding commitments as costly all-or-nothing bets that carry significant opportunity costs.
- Watch for planning cycles that consume enormous effort without improving decision quality.
- Ensure every funded project has a strong executive sponsor, since unsponsored work rarely survives setbacks.
02Key sections
- Why current planning frustrates everyone
- Few companies are happy with how they pick projects, yet they keep using the same techniques because realistic alternatives have been scarce. The author intends to offer new approaches in later articles.
- Decisions made with poor information
- Executives must choose with little reliable data, and ROI-style or factor-matrix models inherit the weakness of their inputs. The decision also arrives too early to estimate costs or benefits accurately.
- All-or-nothing funding and the planning fire drill
- Funding a project commits the company to its full lifecycle at high cost, and the quarterly or annual planning ritual consumes large amounts of time, slides and lobbying.
- Politics, weak debate and missing sponsors
- Limited information reduces executive debate, corporate politics fills the gap, and projects without strong executive sponsors rarely survive setbacks, a risk the process does not address.
03From the post
“A partnership dedicated to teaching best practices to product teams and product leaders”
04Frameworks mentioned
Summary and takeaways written by PM Atlas; quotes are short excerpts. © the original author.