There is a temptation to plan the full use of all available capacity when designing the change portfolio. At one level this even seems reasonable; would you consider employing someone and only plan to use them at 70% of their capacity? However, it does suppose that your portfolio is a stable entity, at least as far as your planning horizon; and this is rarely the case.
Emergencies, opportunities and externally imposed mandates will, despite strategic intent, all play a role in altering corporate priorities for change and can destabilise the portfolio. Even worse, this creates the impression of a lack of clarity of purpose and inconsistency in senior management behaviour to the staff who are involved in the changes. There is little worse for morale and motivation than the perception that an organisation’s leadership is prone to erratic, short-term behaviours – especially when this is not really the case!
The real question, therefore, is how do we deliver strategic change objectives and structure a consistent portfolio, while maintaining the capability to respond to short-term tactical priorities?
Things to consider
Have you discussed and agreed:
- the relative priority of work within the portfolio and the level of resource commitment that the work requires?
- the organisation and mechanisms that accept unplanned work into the portfolio and how this will be communicated?
- the value system that is being used to drive the portfolio?
And are you considering:
- a ‘practical’ level of planned resource utilisation for the current and foreseeable circumstances?
- making explicit the rationale for accepting any unplanned work, particularly in terms of the impact on the overall portfolio?