Tech-enabled companies with product management and software engineering functions often struggle to align development processes and business goals.
Whether it’s products for internal use or client consumption, many companies may think they are making the right decisions about where to focus their development teams, even as they lack a clear way to validate those efforts. They are missing accurate data about the true cost of product roadmap initiatives, failing to consider the full range of cross-functional inputs, and letting reactive decision-making take the place of proactive planning.
As a result, a divide forms between the product and engineering functions and the rest of the C-suite. The linkages between strategy, process, and results become thin and frayed. Companies see margins decrease, because they are paying more for less return on their investment. Or development teams may be working efficiently—but working on the wrong things.
In my experience, Strategic Portfolio Management is the most effective framework for steadily building the connective tissue that strengthens everyone’s abilities and improves business results. Strategic Portfolio Management (SPM) is a structured approach to systematically organizing, prioritizing, and managing a business’s product roadmaps and the engineering work they drive. It resolves scattered engineering efforts into a coherent, holistic, company-wide point of view.
Properly implemented, SPM squeezes more horsepower out of the development engine because everyone involved can look up at any moment and know where their individual efforts fit into the complete picture. Capability builds across the organization as executives, managers, and developers all become aligned in their efforts.
The first step of implementation is overcoming any resistance to new processes. There is an understandable concern that adding oversight and procedures may slow everyone down—if not threaten fiefdoms with new accountability. Many teams prefer autonomy. But the whole goal of Strategic Portfolio Management is broadening alignment by providing the framework and data-driven insights needed to make decisions based on strategic merit rather than politics or inertia. It is not about bureaucracy, but effective governance.
Effective reviews require standardized data. Many organizations believe they’re managing development portfolios well, even as they’re working with flawed information. Companies may have performance management tools (like Jira and Confluence) available, but their use across engineering and product teams can be inconsistent. Developers may not be logging time correctly, or may be classifying their work without a standard taxonomy.
This can lead to a situation where everyone appears to be busy, but visibility into true progress for the organization as a whole is unclear. Or teams may be working on too many things simultaneously (even if they are the right things), which also slows progress and puts quality at risk. Unequivocally, leaders need a clear picture of how teams spend their time. Absent that, misleading perceptions inevitably emerge about the performance of individual products.
Cross-functional input is similarly crucial. Reviews are most useful when it is not only the CFO and the CEO in the room. Sales and Customer Service can provide critical forward-looking insights about customer dependencies and operational requirements. They know what customers are counting on, and what features are most requested. Marketing and Product Management can contribute vital market research that may alter the trajectory of a struggling or early-stage project. Engineering and Finance can provide transparency into resource allocation, or fill out the details around product scalability. A product with high costs today may have strong revenue potential in the future. But none of these insights will emerge without everyone involved in the review process.
Finally, any SPM process must be consistent. Maintaining a steady cadence of product portfolio reviews helps companies become more proactive in their decision-making. Regular evaluations of product performance, resource allocation, and product roadmap execution can mitigate release delays or even avoid unnecessary investment in products or features that no longer make sense for a company’s strategy or its customers.
Done often and effectively, SPM creates a positive reinforcement loop. Businesses see tangible results as their development teams accomplish more work on the right priorities. Teams can focus on innovation and execution, rather than constantly questioning priorities. There’s less noise, fewer misaligned tasks inserted into engineering backlogs, and clearer connections between daily work and strategic objectives. The outcome is organizational confidence—knowing that every development effort, every resource allocation decision, and every product investment contributes meaningfully to company strategy.