Project portfolio management in the age of artificial intelligence: A review of challenges, key features, and future research directions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) has revolutionized project portfolio management (PPM), as it has in many other areas, by introducing data-driven methods that improve decision-making, risk assessment, and strategic alignment. Unlike traditional project management, which emphasizes individual project execution, PPM requires balancing multiple initiatives to optimize value creation and resource allocation. This paper presents a systematic review of scientific research on the integration of AI techniques into PPM, focusing on their applications, benefits, and challenges. The review synthesizes findings from 73 peer-reviewed studies covering a wide range of AI methodologies, such as machine learning, deep learning, neural networks, reinforcement learning, natural language processing, and hybrid optimization models. These approaches have been applied in diverse fields, including information technology, construction, healthcare, defense, energy, and telecommunications. Analysis shows that AI significantly improves project portfolio performance by predicting project outcomes, identifying interdependencies, optimizing resource allocation, and supporting adaptive strategies in dynamic environments. In addition, advanced AI tools provide project portfolio managers with predictive and prescriptive analytics, transforming PPM from reactive monitoring to proactive governance. Despite these advances, challenges remain regarding data quality, organizational readiness, and interpretability of AI-based models. Concerns about transparency, ethical implications, and integration with existing management frameworks also hinder wider adoption. However, recent developments indicate a growing trend toward hybrid systems that combine AI with traditional decision-making models, increasing both accuracy and practical applicability. This review contributes to theory and practice by synthesizing current knowledge, highlighting research gaps, and identifying emerging directions such as the use of large language models, ensemble methods, and sustainability-focused project portfolio optimization. The findings highlight the transformative potential of AI in advancing PPM and provide valuable insights for researchers and practitioners seeking to design smarter, more adaptive, and more sustainable project portfolio management strategies.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".