The 20% Cut Across 46 Initiatives

First, fix categorisation. MoP's Categorise step is not administrative: if 18 initiatives are grouped by department, 15 by theme and 13 by type, any scoring or ranking compares unlike things. I would re-categorise all 46 consistently by strategic objective, with mandatory or regulatory status and value and risk attributes recorded separately. Then prioritise using a value-and-risk approach: score each initiative on strategic contribution, financial and non-financial value, risk and affordability. MoP supports weighted scoring and two-way prioritisation; 'must/want' is useful for the two regulatory projects, which should be flagged as mandatory rather than scored against discretionary work. The ERP upgrade needs a separate decision because its £40 million sunk cost is irrelevant to the forward decision and its 30% budget share distorts the ranking. Quick wins should be one criterion, not the method. The board should agree the scoring model before seeing results, otherwise the method will be seen as a device to protect favourites.

Do not salami-slice. A 20% cut applied equally across 46 initiatives keeps weak projects alive, protects the ERP by default and demoralises teams. Use the prioritisation to stop or defer low-value work, then balance the remaining portfolio. MoP's Balance step considers dimensions such as risk, time horizon, business unit, transformation versus efficiency, and mandatory versus discretionary. A practical sequence: protect the two regulatory projects; take a separate decision on the ERP (recover, replace or stop); stop pet projects that fail the value test; select quick wins that do not crowd out strategic work; hold a contingency rather than allocating the full £96 million. Run what-if scenarios at £96 million and at a lower figure to show the board the consequences. Balance also means checking dependencies and change capacity, not just money. The board should record explicitly what it is not doing and why, so the executive committee and regulator see a deliberate portfolio, not an across-the-board haircut.

With five staff, the Portfolio Office cannot do everything. It should act as a decision-support function, not a decision-maker. Priorities: (1) complete the consistent categorisation and a single portfolio register; (2) build a dependency map, especially around the ERP and shared resources; (3) produce a value and risk dashboard and two or three what-if scenarios for the 20% cut; (4) support benefits tracking for the highest-value initiatives; (5) establish a decision log and ensure board decisions are communicated. The office should facilitate workshops with sponsors to challenge value claims, not score projects behind closed doors. It should also define what it will stop doing: monthly narrative reports of uneven quality are less useful than a reliable data set. MoP's portfolio office services include portfolio definition support, delivery support and a centre of excellence; given the constraints, definition support and decision support come first. The board must give the office a clear mandate and access to project data.