logologologo
  • Home
  • About
    • Contributors
    • Guide for contributors
  • Themes
    • Roadmapping
    • Open Innovation
    • Managing the R&D pipeline
    • Technology Strategy
    • Managing international R&D
    • Ideation and creativity in R&D
    • Impact of digital technologies
    • The resurgence of frugal innovation
  • Tools
  • News
  • Resources
  • Papers
  • Case Studies
  • Events
  • R&D Conference
  • Contact
  • Home
  • About
    • Contributors
    • Guide for contributors
  • Themes
    • Roadmapping
    • Open Innovation
    • Managing the R&D pipeline
    • Technology Strategy
    • Managing international R&D
    • Ideation and creativity in R&D
    • Impact of digital technologies
    • The resurgence of frugal innovation
  • Tools
  • News
  • Resources
  • Papers
  • Case Studies
  • Events
  • R&D Conference
  • Contact

Portfolio management at GlaxoSmithKline

An often-quoted paper by Sharpe and Keelin, back in 1998, reported how managers at GlaxoSmithKline redesigned their portfolio selection process. They were unhappy that it had become politicised, as strong-willed project leaders competed for resources for projects that only they fully understood. The process was seen as neither efficient nor objective. As one manager said “Figures can’t lie, but liars can figure”. The improved approach had three phases:

The first was to ask teams to make not one but four proposals: a base-line proposal, to continue the project as planned; a ‘buy-up’ proposal in which they could ask for larger resources for an enhanced project scope or speed; a ‘buy-down’ proposal for smaller scope; and a ‘minimal’ that would close the project but much as possible of what had been learned. This had the effect of moving teams away from ‘all or nothing’ advocacy toward a more business-centric approach.

In the second phase a common set of information was compiled about each project with the help of consultants and colleagues inside and outside the project. Valuations were produced using decision trees and resulting in an upper and a lower valuation for each project rather than a single-point valuation. These valuations were reviewed and debated by the selection panel until everyone was content.

In the third phase the portfolio was selected by an independent internal consultancy group who then presented it to the selection panel for review. The selection panel could now concentrate on the portfolio debate, without getting drawn back into valuation issues.

The process is reported to be very successful. The careful and open valuation process was accepted as fair and the new portfolio projected a 3-fold improvement in return on assets.

 

Read the full article:

How SmithKline Beecham makes better resource allocation decisions, Paul Sharpe and Tom Keelin, Harvard Business Review 1998

Recommended by and post by Rick Mitchell

portfolio management
Previous PostThe other side of innovation
Next PostTransferring new ideas from research to pract...
Search R&D Today
Search
Generic filters
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Search in excerpt
Filter by Article Type
Papers
Events
Tools
Funding Articles
Case Studies
Resources
Opportunities
Theme Editor Blogs
Filter by Categories
Business model innovation
Ideation and creativity in R&D
Latest news
Managing international R&D
Managing technology platforms
Managing the R&D pipeline
Open innovation
Outsourcing R&D
Project valuation and selection
R&D strategy
Roadmapping
Stage gate processes
Technology intelligence
Theme Editor Blogs
  • Pasteur’s Quadrant: a wonderful example of KISS*?
  • Loading and Turbulence in R&D: Is there a Reynolds Number?
  • Can you justify the R&D investment?
Resources
  • Portfolio Management techniques
Related Posts
  • Portfolio Management techniques
Tools
  • TRIZ Toolkit
    The challenge of applying TRIZ tool kit for ideation
    TRIZ (the theory of inventive problem solving) provides a logical approach to developing creativity...
  • Creating compelling objectives to deliver strategic growth platforms
    Leaders want their teams to think beyond the day-to-day and create thriving visions for...
  • Radar-Roadmap-feat
    The Halo-Effect: Creating Impact Through “Good-looking“ Roadmaps
    Content is the essence of roadmapping. But the impact of impressive, professional visuals that...
  • Kano model of product or service features 2
    Improving Product Features: When is More Less?
    Different types of feature have different effects on customer satisfaction - analysis by Quality...
  • Would an analogy help?
    nalogies are a useful tool for creative problem solving, to help one move away...
Have Your Say…

Have Your Say / Follow Us

R&D Today is the outreach site for the Research and Development Management Association, a charitable organisation that supports research, best practice and innovation.  www.radma.net

Click here to sign up to our newsletter, and click here to view our newsletter archive.

Copyright R&D Today 2020. All rights reserved.