## Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

**Robert D. Solimeno PhD
**

Immersitech LLC, 1776 Mentor Avenue, Suite 330, Cincinnati, Ohio 45212

Abstract Managers needing to allocate resources (both human and ﬁnancial) must decide in some fashion how the allocation takes place to maximize the value of their project portfolio. A diﬀerent way—by application of a spreadsheet scoring model followed by Principal Components Analysis (PCA) produces a “map” of all projects and scoring parameters together in a single plot. This map is a useful aid to guide the critical decision making in allocating scarce resources.

Key words: portfolio analysis, project management, business strategy, maximizing portfolio value

1

Introduction

Many businesses in the manufacturing sector have an abundance of project work: to improve operations, to address quality issues, to develop new and innovative products, etc. These same businesses have a talented staﬀ that these days is typically lean in number. This leads one to the conclusion that there is an even more acute need for an objective decision making process by which business managers decide on where to put their limited resources. This article presents another look at how to guide those decisions in a pragmatic way as a proxy for a more rigorous analytic method. The approach presented uses a multi-faceted scoring model followed by principal components analysis of the scoring results. The result is a map of all projects to guide the business stakeholders in deciding which projects should get the limited resources.

business leverage. and strategic leverage.” and then to add the ﬁve factor scores together in a weighted fashion to generate an overall project score. The scoring model as described fails to do this. not all ﬁrms using the scoring model share this view and the various categories are thought to capture diﬀerent facets of project value. (2) High scores across the board – “The Halo Eﬀect” – a project scoring high on one criterion often score high on many criteria. et al.[1] is to simply add the scores within each category to yield “factor scores. over time. The project scores are easily compiled into a data matrix (spreadsheet) of 19 columns (the scores) by “n” rows (the projects). While simple and straight-forward. The scoring model is comprised of 19 questions in ﬁve categories: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) likelihood of commercial success. ﬁnancial reward. this approach homogenizes the information from this array of categories.2 Background The governing strategic approach with this model is that the value of the portfolio is maximized. one has to draw a line among a cluster of projects. The ﬁrst step in doing such a portfolio analysis is to list all projects in a portfolio and then to score each of them using a scoring model as has been described in Cooper.[1] that use this technique are that: (1) Precision is imaginary – project scores are necessarily compared and a threshold established for funding. 2 . likelihood of technical success. As a result some ﬁrms have. Edgett. Most often there will be many more projects than project scores. To measure one with a micrometer can be misleading. When the overall averaged project scores are very close. (3) No assurance of eﬃciency – with purely ﬁnancial-based models (NPV or ECV methods) the parameter to be maximized is divided by the constraining resource to maximize the value of the portfolio. Nevertheless. and Kleinschmidt[1]. reduced the number of criteria signiﬁcantly to avoid the eﬀect. The “measured” scores are not precise and are like ﬂuﬀy cotton balls. The traditional approach as explained in detail by Cooper. Major concerns expressed by managers as described by Cooper. Small diﬀerences can be meaningless. et al.

1. and then as a whole is a most daunting exercise. Interpretation is so cumbersome at this level of granularity that the big picture is lost. Scatter plots like this can be constructed for any pairwise combination of the 19 parameters in the scoring model. Visualizing data by constructing simple scatter plots is an easily accomplished step toward identifying potential patterns. . Scatter plot of Market Attractiveness versus Growth Opportunity for nine ﬁctitious projects. and even much larger ones. . Plotting all combinations of 19 x 19 parameters generates a matrix of 361 plots! Attempting to evaluate what all of the plots mean individually. Any pair of scoring parameters may be arranged on an x-y scatter plot. Fortunately.q q q Growth Opportunity 5 q 6 7 q q q q 2 3 4 q 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Market Attractiveness Fig. there is a better way to analyze large data sets such as this . As an example nine ﬁctitious projects were scored for all 19 parameters and Figure 1 displays a plot of two of those parameters—comparing Market Attractiveness versus Growth Opportunity. 3 Simple Graphical Analysis A graphical approach to data analysis of the raw scores has the potential to overcome the imaginary precision issue. 3 .

−5 1.5 9 Track.Attractiveness Platform. The R environment for statistical computing [4] was used in preparation of this work.Position Profitability Durability 6 −0. ultimately produces a two-dimensional plot of the data and the corresponding dimensions.0 PC1 0.Required Business. 4 −5 1 0 5 . The analysis.Impact 5 Proprietary. and parameter names appear at the maximum end of the loading vector) 4 A Pragmatic Approach The improved analysis presented here retains the original 19 “dimensions” of the raw data in the scoring model without the homogenization induced by summing or averaging the individual scores.Fit 7 Market.time Uniqueness Regulatory.0 0 5 0.Impact 8 Synergy Capital.5 0.for.Record Mfg.0 Commercialization.5 −1.Intensity Technical.Capability 4 Growth.Gap Equipment. The project map of nine ﬁctitious projects is shown in Figures 2 and 3. A more modern textbook by Jolliﬀe [3] is a comprehensive text on the subject.0 −0. 2. Principal Component bi-plot of PC1 versus PC2 with overlaid loading vectors (numerals in the plot correspond to the project name listing.Opportunity 3 Competitive.0 Fig. The ultimate desired outcome is that the map guides the key stakeholders in making as informed a decision as possible with the available information. ﬁrst described by Pearson[2].Resources Technology. which may be accomplished with many modern statistical software packages.Social..Growth Business.. The scoring data are analyzed by a method known as Principal Components Analysis (PCA).Base 2 PC2 0.or.0 −1.Political. The plot is a map that managers can use to debate the relative merits of like and dissimilar projects.5 1.Skill.

2 Fig. Magniﬁcation of Figure 2 5 Interpretation of Results The PCA bi-plot packs a terriﬁc amount of information into a concise and seemingly simple plot.Position Profitability Durability −0.1 Technical.Resources Technology.0 0.Skill.Opportunity Competitive.or. Figure 2 quite literally represents a “map” of the project portfolio. 3..Intensity 3 PC2 0.time Uniqueness 0.Capability 4 0. is the major driver of the plot since it represents the greatest proportion of variance of any of the principal components. PC1. but once the analyst recognizes a few features of the plot the real value of the method emerges.for.” The ﬁrst principal component.Record Mfg.0 Regulatory.1 PC1 0.3 Track.Impact 5 Proprietary.Gap Equipment.Social.Base 2 Commercialization. Interpretation may seem daunting at ﬁrst.Political.2 −0. A clearer view of this is evident in 5 −2 −1 0 1 2 . So directionally it makes sense to pay most attention to the x-axis corresponding to PC1 where we see a number of loading vectors pointing to the left.Impact 7 8 Synergy Business.3 −0. Upon this map are superimposed each of the 19 parameters (the arrows) with which all nine projects were evaluated.−3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 0.2 Growth.Fit Capital. At ﬁrst glance one can see in Figure 2 a cluster of arrows and text superimposed upon a scatter plot of numbers from 1 to 9 (referring to the nine projects in the current portfolio under study) and their juxtaposition on the plot depicts how each of them relate to the others with respect to all 19 scoring parameters.1 Market. The names of each parameter are shown adjacent to the respective “loading vector.Required −0..Growth Business.1 0.Attractiveness Platform.2 −0.

Business Fit. Management debate is still necessary to decide where to place resources. 7. or cluster of projects. 2. 2001. etc pointing in generally similar directions). That debate is both stimulated and facilitated by employing this analysis and is perhaps one of the most valuable outcomes of this method of analysis. Perseus Publishing. and eﬃcient data reduction to provide business managers a clear view of project opportunities for decision making. Proximity of any project point. 7. Now that projects in the portfolio can be readily grouped in clusters. Portfolio management for new products. Business managers can now debate which projects should be funded and logical decisions can be made about where resources will be put. The general rule to follow is that projects clustered in proximity to each other have similar characteristics. near a vector arrow indicate high values and opposite the arrow head are low values. This method also addresses at least one major concern expressed by managers using the scoring model: imaginary precision.Figure 3 where projects 5. 6 . objective. Projects 6 and 1 appear to be clear outliers from the others. Market Attractiveness. Business strategy is not implemented until money is committed to speciﬁc projects. Synergy. and 8 appear in the upper end (high scores) of the distribution for most of the scoring parameters (e.g. Business Impact. 3. Thus in contrast to projects 5. Those projects have a lot in common — similar high scores for those parameters! Projects positioned opposite of any given arrow score low for that parameter. and 8 — projects 4. This analytical approach provides a most pragmatic. but project similarities and diﬀerences are clearly related by position on the map. and Elko J. Edgett. 6 Conclusion The pragmatic approach of applying Principal Components Analysis to a portfolio of projects that have been scored among many criteria provides a useful visual map of how these projects are interrelated. Kleinschmidt. The PCA analysis avoids the imaginary precision issue by graphically presenting the juxtaposition of all projects relative to each other and their raw scores. References [1] Robert Gravlin Cooper. and 9 in the upper right quadrant of Figures 2 and 3 have similarities with each other but diﬀer signiﬁcantly from the ﬁrst cluster. the picture of the portfolio as a whole becomes much clearer with respect to all metrics applied. Scott J.

Philisophical Magazine. [3] I. Springer.org/. 2:557–72. [4] The R Foundation. 7 .[2] Karl Pearson. 1901. 2002. Jolliﬀe.T.r-project. Principal component analysis. On lines and planes of closest ﬁt to a system of points in space. http://www. Springer series in statistics.

- Zhao
- Workshop Book
- Hyper Tools
- Comparative Analysis of PCA and 2DPCA in Face Recognition
- 232
- 34157
- Structural Damage Detection using Independent Component Analysis
- PCA
- Alden
- An Inverse Global Environmental Kuznets Curve
- Principle Component Analysis
- Face Recognition in Video
- 1570-4724-1-PB
- Monterroso Et Al
- Lecture 4
- Analysis of Functional Magnetic Resonance
- ac102572b
- CS231n Convolutional Neural Networks for Visual Recognition
- Adaptive Radiation in Anolis Lizards
- [IJCT-V3I1P9]
- Minimum Sample Size For Cronbach Coefficient Alpha
- Bouchaud Potters Random Matrix Finance
- HH whitepages 10 2009
- Mock Exam - Answer Dec 2013
- Reference Paper for ASCC Paper
- 5134 Fast Algorithams for Gaussian Noise Invariant Independent Component Analysis
- Model Optimization
- 1 (515)
- utry
- Reconocimiento de Digitos

Close Dialog## Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

Loading