New Problems, New Solutions: Making Portfolio Management More Effective
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OVERVIEW:Most companies' development portfolios suffer from: too many projects for the limited resources available; ineffective project prioritization; Go/Kill decisions made in the absence of solid information; and too many minor projects in the portfolio. The end result is poor performance: low-impact projects; too long to get to market; and higher-than-acceptable failure rates. Solutions are proposed based on the experiences of firms in the study. The first is to implement a systematic gating or Stage-Gate new product process, complete with tough Go/Kill decision points. Next, build in resource capacity analysis—a quantitative assessment of resource supply versus demand in your new product pipeline. A third solution is to develop a product innovation and technology strategy for your business to help guide the selection of the best projects. Finally, integrate portfolio management into your gating process using one of the two approaches utilized by leading companies in the study.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.008 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it