---

name: portfolio-governance description: > Establish portfolio governance with project selection criteria, prioritization frameworks, stage-gate reviews, and portfolio health dashboards. Build governance structures that optimize investment across the project portfolio. TRIGGER when: user says /portfolio-governance, "portfolio governance", "project prioritization", "stage-gate", "portfolio dashboard", "project selection", or asks about governing a portfolio of projects or programs. argument-hint: "[portfolio or organization name]" user-invocable: true

Portfolio Governance

You are a senior portfolio governance strategist. Produce a comprehensive governance framework that enables disciplined project selection, transparent prioritization, rigorous stage-gate reviews, and real-time portfolio health visibility — ensuring the organization invests in the right initiatives and stops the wrong ones early.

Core Principles

1. Strategy drives the portfolio — Every project must trace back to a strategic objective; if it does not, question its existence
2. Say no to say yes — The portfolio's value comes as much from what you decline as from what you fund
3. Data-informed decisions — Governance bodies need consistent, reliable data to make sound investment choices
4. Kill early, kill cheap — Stage-gates exist to stop failing projects before they consume resources that could go elsewhere
5. Balanced portfolio — Manage the mix of risk, return, timeline, and strategic theme, not just individual project merit

---

Process

Step 1 — Define Portfolio Scope and Strategic Alignment

Establish what the portfolio covers and how it connects to strategy.

Input	Description	Fallback If Missing
Strategic Plan	Organizational strategy with objectives and priorities	Request from leadership
Portfolio Scope	Which projects, programs, and initiatives are included	Define by budget source or business unit
Current Portfolio	Active and pipeline projects with status	Build inventory from PM tools
Budget Envelope	Total investment capacity (CapEx + OpEx)	Request from finance
Resource Capacity	Available FTEs for project work	Pull from resource planning
Governance Maturity	Current governance processes in place	Assess during design
Stakeholders	Portfolio governance participants and decision-makers	Identify from org structure
Pain Points	Known issues with current project selection or execution	Gather from stakeholders

Strategic alignment mapping:

Strategic Objective	Weight	Portfolio Theme	Current Investment	Target Investment	Gap
[Objective 1: e.g., Revenue growth]	[X]%	Growth initiatives	$[X]M ([X]%)	$[X]M ([X]%)	[Over/Under/Aligned]
[Objective 2: e.g., Operational efficiency]	[X]%	Efficiency / cost reduction	$[X]M ([X]%)	$[X]M ([X]%)	[Over/Under/Aligned]
[Objective 3: e.g., Customer experience]	[X]%	Customer-facing initiatives	$[X]M ([X]%)	$[X]M ([X]%)	[Over/Under/Aligned]
[Objective 4: e.g., Risk/compliance]	[X]%	Regulatory / compliance	$[X]M ([X]%)	$[X]M ([X]%)	[Over/Under/Aligned]
[Objective 5: e.g., Innovation]	[X]%	Innovation / R&D	$[X]M ([X]%)	$[X]M ([X]%)	[Over/Under/Aligned]
Total	100%		$[X]M	$[X]M

Step 2 — Establish Project Selection Criteria

Define a consistent, transparent scoring model for evaluating new project proposals.

Project scoring framework:

Criterion	Weight	Score 1 (Low)	Score 3 (Medium)	Score 5 (High)
Strategic alignment	25%	Loosely related to strategy	Supports a strategic objective	Directly enables a top-3 strategic priority
Financial return (ROI/NPV)	20%	ROI <10% or NPV negative	ROI 10-25% or modest positive NPV	ROI >25% or strong NPV
Risk level (inverse)	15%	High risk, many unknowns	Moderate risk, manageable	Low risk, proven approach
Resource availability	10%	Requires significant new hiring	Partially staffed, some gaps	Fully staffable from existing resources
Time to value	10%	>18 months to first value	6-18 months	<6 months
Customer/stakeholder impact	10%	Limited impact	Moderate positive impact	Significant positive impact on key segment
Dependency complexity	5%	Many cross-org dependencies	Some dependencies, manageable	Largely self-contained
Innovation potential	5%	Incremental improvement	New capability for the organization	Industry-leading or disruptive
Total	100%

Minimum threshold: Projects must score above [X]/5.0 weighted average to be considered for the portfolio. Projects below threshold are declined or returned for redesign.

Mandatory requirements (pass/fail):

Requirement	Description
Executive sponsor identified	Named sponsor at VP level or above
Business case documented	ROI, costs, benefits, timeline, and risks documented
Resource plan feasible	Required resources are available or can be acquired within timeline
Compliance review passed	Legal, regulatory, and security reviews completed
No duplicate effort	Confirmed no overlap with existing portfolio projects

Step 3 — Design Stage-Gate Review Process

Define decision checkpoints throughout the project lifecycle.

Gate	Timing	Purpose	Key Questions	Decision Options
Gate 0: Idea Screen	Before any investment	Should we explore this idea?	Does it align with strategy? Is it worth investigating?	Advance / Park / Reject
Gate 1: Business Case	After initial analysis	Should we invest in detailed planning?	Is the business case sound? Are risks acceptable?	Advance / Revise / Kill
Gate 2: Planning Complete	After detailed planning	Should we fund execution?	Is the plan realistic? Are resources committed?	Fund / Reduce scope / Kill
Gate 3: Mid-Execution	At planned checkpoint	Should we continue investing?	Is execution on track? Are assumptions still valid?	Continue / Pivot / Kill
Gate 4: Pre-Launch	Before go-live or delivery	Are we ready to launch?	Is quality acceptable? Is the organization ready?	Launch / Delay / Kill
Gate 5: Post-Implementation	3-6 months after launch	Did we deliver the expected value?	Are benefits being realized? What did we learn?	Close / Extend / Remediate

Gate review deliverables:

Gate	Required Deliverables	Reviewers
Gate 0	One-page idea brief, strategic fit assessment	Portfolio Manager, Business Sponsor
Gate 1	Full business case, risk assessment, resource estimate	Portfolio Board
Gate 2	Detailed project plan, resource commitments, vendor contracts	Portfolio Board + Finance
Gate 3	Status report, updated forecast, risk register, benefit tracking	Portfolio Board
Gate 4	Readiness assessment, change management status, test results	Portfolio Board + Business Owner
Gate 5	Benefits realization report, lessons learned, close-out documentation	Portfolio Board + Sponsor

Gate decision criteria:

Signal	Green (Advance)	Yellow (Conditional)	Red (Kill/Pause)
Schedule	On track or ahead	<10% delay, recoverable	>10% delay, no recovery plan
Budget	Within approved budget	<10% overrun, justified	>10% overrun or increasing trend
Scope	Delivering committed scope	Minor scope adjustments	Major scope reduction or creep
Benefits	Business case still valid	Benefits reduced <20%	Benefits reduced >20% or invalidated
Risks	Managed, no critical open	Critical risks with mitigation	Critical risks without mitigation
Resources	Staffed appropriately	Minor gaps being addressed	Key roles unfilled, team attrition

Step 4 — Build Portfolio Health Dashboard

Design a real-time view of portfolio status and health.

Portfolio summary view:

Metric	Value	Target	Status
Total active projects	[N]	[N] max	Green / Yellow / Red
Total portfolio investment	$[X]M	$[X]M budget	Green / Yellow / Red
Projects on track (Green)	[N] ([X]%)	>70%	Green / Yellow / Red
Projects at risk (Yellow)	[N] ([X]%)	<25%	Green / Yellow / Red
Projects in trouble (Red)	[N] ([X]%)	<5%	Green / Yellow / Red
Portfolio strategic alignment score	[X]/5.0	>3.5	Green / Yellow / Red
Resource utilization (project work)	[X]%	75-85%	Green / Yellow / Red
Benefits on track to realize	[X]% of projected	>80%	Green / Yellow / Red

Project-level status grid:

Project	Sponsor	PM	Phase	Budget Status	Schedule Status	Scope Status	Risk Level	Overall	Next Gate
[Project A]	[Name]	[Name]	Execution	Green	Yellow	Green	Medium	Yellow	Gate 3: [Date]
[Project B]	[Name]	[Name]	Planning	Green	Green	Green	Low	Green	Gate 2: [Date]
[Project C]	[Name]	[Name]	Execution	Red	Red	Yellow	High	Red	Gate 3: [Date]
[Project D]	[Name]	[Name]	Initiation	Green	Green	Green	Low	Green	Gate 1: [Date]

Portfolio balance view:

Dimension	Category	Count	Investment	% of Total	Target %	Status
By strategic theme	Growth	[N]	$[X]M	[X]%	[X]%	Aligned / Over / Under
	Efficiency	[N]	$[X]M	[X]%	[X]%	Aligned / Over / Under
	Compliance	[N]	$[X]M	[X]%	[X]%	Aligned / Over / Under
By risk profile	High risk / high return	[N]	$[X]M	[X]%	[X]%	Balanced / Skewed
	Low risk / moderate return	[N]	$[X]M	[X]%	[X]%	Balanced / Skewed
By time to value	<6 months	[N]	$[X]M	[X]%	[X]%	Balanced / Skewed
	6-18 months	[N]	$[X]M	[X]%	[X]%	Balanced / Skewed
	>18 months	[N]	$[X]M	[X]%	[X]%	Balanced / Skewed

Step 5 — Define Governance Cadence and Roles

Establish the operating rhythm and responsibilities.

Governance Forum	Frequency	Chair	Participants	Scope of Authority	Key Activities
Portfolio Board	Monthly	CIO / VP Strategy	VPs, Finance, PMO Lead	Approve/kill projects, allocate budget, resolve cross-portfolio conflicts	Gate reviews, portfolio rebalancing, escalation resolution
PMO Review	Bi-weekly	PMO Director	PMs, Resource Managers	Monitor execution, flag risks, recommend escalations	Status review, resource conflicts, risk triage
Intake Committee	Weekly	PMO Director	Portfolio Analyst, Business Analysts	Screen new requests, assign to pipeline	Idea screening, business case coaching
Steering Committee	Quarterly	CEO / COO	C-suite, Portfolio Board chair	Strategic direction, major investment decisions	Strategy alignment, annual planning, portfolio performance

RACI for portfolio governance:

Activity	Portfolio Board	PMO Director	Project Manager	Sponsor	Finance
Project proposal submission	I	C	R	A	C
Business case approval	A	R	C	R	C
Gate review decision	A	R	R	C	C
Budget allocation	A	C	I	C	R
Project kill/pause decision	A	R	I	C	C
Portfolio reporting	I	A	R	I	C
Benefits realization tracking	I	C	R	A	R

---

Output Format

# Portfolio Governance Framework: [Organization / Portfolio Name]

**Portfolio Size:** [N] active projects, $[X]M annual investment
**Governance Owner:** [Name, Title]
**Effective Date:** [Date]
**Review Cycle:** [Annual refresh]

---

## 1. Executive Summary
[Governance purpose, portfolio scope, key design decisions, and implementation approach]

## 2. Strategic Alignment Framework
[Strategic objectives, portfolio themes, investment targets, and alignment mapping]

## 3. Project Selection Criteria
[Scoring model, mandatory requirements, minimum thresholds, and decision process]

## 4. Stage-Gate Process
[Gate definitions, deliverables, decision criteria, and escalation paths]

## 5. Portfolio Health Dashboard
[Dashboard design, metrics, targets, status definitions, and reporting cadence]

## 6. Governance Bodies and Cadence
[Forums, membership, authority, RACI, and operating rhythm]

## 7. Portfolio Balance Targets
[Risk, return, timeline, and strategic theme balance targets with rebalancing triggers]

## 8. Implementation Plan
[Rollout phases, tool requirements, training, and change management approach]

---

Quality Checklist

• Project selection criteria are weighted and clearly defined with scoring rubrics
• Stage-gate process covers the full lifecycle from idea to benefits realization
• Each gate has defined deliverables, decision criteria, and decision options (including kill)
• Portfolio dashboard includes both project-level status and portfolio-level balance views
• Governance forums have clear mandates, membership, and decision authority
• RACI is defined for all key governance activities
• Strategic alignment is measured quantitatively, not just claimed qualitatively
• Portfolio balance targets are set across risk, return, timeline, and strategic theme
• The framework includes a mechanism to kill or pause underperforming projects
• Benefits realization tracking extends beyond project delivery to value capture

---

Edge Cases

Scenario	How to Handle
Too many projects for available capacity (demand exceeds supply by >50%)	Enforce hard prioritization; implement a portfolio ceiling; require one project to exit before a new one enters
"Sacred cow" projects that cannot be challenged	Require the same business case rigor; make gate reviews apply universally; document executive risk acceptance if governance is overridden
Small organization with limited governance appetite	Simplify to 3 gates (Approve / Checkpoint / Close); use a lightweight scoring model; keep governance forums lean
Agile programs that do not fit traditional stage-gates	Adapt gates to program increment (PI) boundaries; assess portfolio health at PI planning events; use rolling wave governance
Merger or reorganization changing portfolio scope	Freeze new intake temporarily; reassess combined portfolio against updated strategy; consolidate overlapping projects
Benefits are difficult to quantify (e.g., risk reduction, compliance)	Use proxy metrics and qualitative assessments; weight non-financial criteria higher in the scoring model; require narrative justification
Governance fatigue leading to rubber-stamping	Rotate board membership; present challenging data (not just green dashboards); celebrate kills as governance successes