264 lines
13 KiB
Markdown
264 lines
13 KiB
Markdown
---
|
||
name: portfolio-roadmapping-bets
|
||
description: Use when managing multiple initiatives across time horizons (now/next/later, H1/H2/H3), balancing risk vs return across portfolio, sizing and sequencing bets with dependencies, setting exit/scale criteria for experiments, allocating resources across innovation types (core/adjacent/transformational), or when user mentions portfolio planning, roadmap horizons, betting framework, initiative prioritization, innovation portfolio, or resource allocation across horizons.
|
||
---
|
||
# Portfolio Roadmapping Bets
|
||
|
||
## Table of Contents
|
||
1. [Purpose](#purpose)
|
||
2. [When to Use](#when-to-use)
|
||
3. [What Is It?](#what-is-it)
|
||
4. [Workflow](#workflow)
|
||
5. [Common Patterns](#common-patterns)
|
||
6. [Guardrails](#guardrails)
|
||
7. [Quick Reference](#quick-reference)
|
||
|
||
## Purpose
|
||
|
||
Create strategic portfolio roadmaps that balance exploration vs exploitation, size bets by effort and impact, sequence initiatives across time horizons, and set clear exit/scale criteria for disciplined resource allocation.
|
||
|
||
## When to Use
|
||
|
||
**Use this skill when:**
|
||
|
||
### Portfolio Context
|
||
- Managing 5+ initiatives requiring sequencing and trade-offs
|
||
- Balancing quick wins vs strategic bets vs R&D exploration
|
||
- Allocating scarce resources (budget, people, time) across competing priorities
|
||
- Planning across multiple time horizons (H1: 0-6mo, H2: 6-12mo, H3: 12-24mo+)
|
||
|
||
### Decision Complexity
|
||
- Initiatives have dependencies requiring careful sequencing
|
||
- Exit criteria needed to kill or scale experiments
|
||
- Risk/return profiles vary widely (low-risk incremental vs high-risk transformational)
|
||
- Portfolio balance matters (70% core, 20% adjacent, 10% transformational)
|
||
|
||
### Stakeholder Communication
|
||
- Executives need portfolio-level view of roadmap with strategic rationale
|
||
- Teams need clarity on what's now vs next vs later
|
||
- Investors or board want visibility into innovation pipeline and resource allocation
|
||
|
||
**Do NOT use when:**
|
||
- Single initiative with clear priority (use one-pager-prd or project-risk-register instead)
|
||
- Purely operational prioritization without strategic horizons (use prioritization-effort-impact)
|
||
- No resource constraints or trade-offs (just do everything)
|
||
|
||
## What Is It?
|
||
|
||
**Portfolio Roadmapping Bets** is a framework for managing a portfolio of initiatives across time horizons using betting language to:
|
||
- **Size bets**: Estimate effort (S/M/L) and impact (1x/3x/10x potential)
|
||
- **Sequence bets**: Order initiatives based on dependencies, learning, and strategic timing
|
||
- **Set bet criteria**: Define what success looks like (scale) and when to exit (kill)
|
||
- **Balance portfolio**: Ensure healthy mix across risk profiles and horizons
|
||
- **Review bets**: Periodic check-ins to kill losers, double-down on winners
|
||
|
||
**Quick Example:**
|
||
|
||
**Theme:** Grow marketplace revenue 3x in 18 months
|
||
|
||
**H1 Bets (Now, 0-6 months):**
|
||
- **Bet 1**: Improve search relevance (Medium effort, 1.5x GMV) - Scale if CTR +20%
|
||
- **Bet 2**: Add "Buy It Now" pricing (Small, 1.3x GMV) - Exit if <5% adoption in 60 days
|
||
|
||
**H2 Bets (Next, 6-12 months):**
|
||
- **Bet 3**: Launch seller analytics dashboard (Large, 1.8x GMV) - Depends on Bet 1 data pipeline
|
||
- **Bet 4**: Experiment with auction format (Medium, 3x potential) - Exit if fraud risk >2%
|
||
|
||
**H3 Bets (Later, 12-24 months):**
|
||
- **Bet 5**: Build AI recommendation engine (X-Large, 10x potential) - Depends on Bets 1+3 data
|
||
|
||
**Portfolio Balance**: 60% core (Bets 1-2), 30% adjacent (Bets 3-4), 10% transformational (Bet 5)
|
||
|
||
## Workflow
|
||
|
||
Copy this checklist and track your progress:
|
||
|
||
```
|
||
Portfolio Roadmapping Bets Progress:
|
||
- [ ] Step 1: Define portfolio theme and constraints
|
||
- [ ] Step 2: Inventory and size all bets
|
||
- [ ] Step 3: Sequence bets across horizons
|
||
- [ ] Step 4: Set exit and scale criteria
|
||
- [ ] Step 5: Balance and validate portfolio
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
**Step 1: Define portfolio theme and constraints**
|
||
|
||
Clarify the strategic theme (north star), time horizons (H1/H2/H3 definitions), resource constraints (budget, people, time), and portfolio balance targets (e.g., 70/20/10 rule). See [Portfolio Theme & Constraints](#portfolio-theme--constraints) for guidance.
|
||
|
||
**Step 2: Inventory and size all bets**
|
||
|
||
List all candidate initiatives, size each by effort (S/M/L/XL) and impact potential (1x/3x/10x), categorize by type (core/adjacent/transformational), and identify dependencies. For simple cases use [resources/template.md](resources/template.md). For complex cases with 15+ bets or multiple themes, study [resources/methodology.md](resources/methodology.md).
|
||
|
||
**Step 3: Sequence bets across horizons**
|
||
|
||
Assign each bet to H1 (now), H2 (next), or H3 (later) based on dependencies, strategic timing, learning sequencing, and capacity constraints. See [Sequencing & Dependencies](#sequencing--dependencies) for sequencing heuristics.
|
||
|
||
**Step 4: Set exit and scale criteria**
|
||
|
||
For each bet, define what success looks like (scale criteria: double down, expand scope) and what failure looks like (exit criteria: kill, deprioritize, pivot). See [Exit & Scale Criteria](#exit--scale-criteria) for examples.
|
||
|
||
**Step 5: Balance and validate portfolio**
|
||
|
||
Check portfolio balance (are we too conservative or too aggressive?), validate resource feasibility (can we actually staff this?), and self-assess using [resources/evaluators/rubric_portfolio_roadmapping_bets.json](resources/evaluators/rubric_portfolio_roadmapping_bets.json). Minimum standard: ≥3.5 average score. See [Portfolio Balance Checks](#portfolio-balance-checks).
|
||
|
||
## Common Patterns
|
||
|
||
### By Portfolio Type
|
||
|
||
**Product Portfolio** (multiple features/products):
|
||
- H1: Ship quick wins and critical bugs
|
||
- H2: Strategic features with cross-product dependencies
|
||
- H3: Platform bets and R&D exploration
|
||
- Balance: 60% incremental, 30% substantial, 10% breakthrough
|
||
|
||
**Technology Portfolio** (platform, infrastructure, tech debt):
|
||
- H1: Stability, security, performance quick wins
|
||
- H2: Major migrations and platform upgrades
|
||
- H3: Next-gen architecture and tooling
|
||
- Balance: 50% maintain, 30% improve, 20% transform
|
||
|
||
**Innovation Portfolio** (R&D, experiments, ventures):
|
||
- H1: Validated experiments ready to scale
|
||
- H2: Active experiments with checkpoints
|
||
- H3: Early-stage exploration and research
|
||
- Balance: 70% core business, 20% adjacent, 10% transformational (McKinsey Horizons)
|
||
|
||
**Marketing Portfolio** (campaigns, channels, experiments):
|
||
- H1: Proven channels with optimization
|
||
- H2: New channel experiments and tests
|
||
- H3: Brand building and long-term positioning
|
||
- Balance: 70% performance marketing, 20% growth experiments, 10% brand
|
||
|
||
### By Bet Size
|
||
|
||
**Small Bets** (1-2 weeks, 1-2 people):
|
||
- Low effort, low-to-medium impact
|
||
- Use for quick wins, experiments, bug fixes
|
||
- Example: A/B test new pricing page (2 weeks, 1.2x conversion potential)
|
||
|
||
**Medium Bets** (1-3 months, 3-5 people):
|
||
- Moderate effort, moderate-to-high impact
|
||
- Use for features, improvements, small initiatives
|
||
- Example: Build seller dashboard (2 months, 1.8x seller retention)
|
||
|
||
**Large Bets** (3-6 months, 5-10 people):
|
||
- High effort, high impact
|
||
- Use for strategic initiatives, platform work, major features
|
||
- Example: Marketplace trust & safety system (5 months, 3x GMV via reduced fraud)
|
||
|
||
**X-Large Bets** (6-12+ months, 10+ people):
|
||
- Very high effort, transformational impact potential
|
||
- Use for platform rewrites, new business lines, moonshots
|
||
- Example: AI-powered recommendation engine (9 months, 10x engagement potential)
|
||
|
||
### By Risk Profile
|
||
|
||
**Core Bets** (Low Risk, Incremental Return):
|
||
- Optimize existing products/channels
|
||
- Proven approaches with clear ROI
|
||
- Example: Improve search relevance from 65% → 75% accuracy
|
||
|
||
**Adjacent Bets** (Medium Risk, Substantial Return):
|
||
- Extend to new use cases, segments, or capabilities
|
||
- Validated approach, new application
|
||
- Example: Launch seller analytics (proven feature, new user segment)
|
||
|
||
**Transformational Bets** (High Risk, Breakthrough Return):
|
||
- New business models, technologies, or markets
|
||
- Unproven approach, high uncertainty
|
||
- Example: Blockchain-based ownership system (unproven tech, could unlock new market)
|
||
|
||
## Portfolio Theme & Constraints
|
||
|
||
Define the strategic anchor for your portfolio:
|
||
|
||
**Theme**: The overarching goal (e.g., "Grow enterprise revenue 3x", "Achieve platform parity", "Launch in APAC")
|
||
|
||
**Time Horizons**:
|
||
- **H1 (Now)**: 0-6 months - High confidence, shipping soon
|
||
- **H2 (Next)**: 6-12 months - Medium confidence, in planning/development
|
||
- **H3 (Later)**: 12-24+ months - Lower confidence, exploration/research
|
||
|
||
**Resource Constraints**:
|
||
- Budget: $X available across all initiatives
|
||
- People: Y engineers, Z designers, etc. (capacity by function)
|
||
- Time: When must key milestones be hit? (launch date, board meeting, fiscal year)
|
||
|
||
**Portfolio Balance Targets**:
|
||
- Example: 70% core / 20% adjacent / 10% transformational (McKinsey Three Horizons)
|
||
- Example: 60% product features / 30% platform / 10% R&D
|
||
- Example: 50% H1 / 30% H2 / 20% H3 (de-risk near term while investing in future)
|
||
|
||
## Sequencing & Dependencies
|
||
|
||
**Types**: Technical (infrastructure), Learning (insights), Strategic (validation), Resource (capacity)
|
||
|
||
**Heuristics**: Dependencies first, learn before scaling, quick wins early, long bets start early, hedge portfolio
|
||
|
||
## Exit & Scale Criteria
|
||
|
||
**Exit** (kill): Time-based ("90 days"), Metric ("<5% adoption"), Cost (">$X"), Strategic ("market shifts")
|
||
**Scale** (double-down): Adoption (">20%"), Engagement (">3x baseline"), Revenue (">1.5x target"), Efficiency ("<$X CAC")
|
||
|
||
**Example**: AI chatbot bet | Exit: Deflection <30% after 60d OR sentiment <-20% | Scale: Deflection >50% AND sentiment >70%
|
||
|
||
## Portfolio Balance Checks
|
||
|
||
**Risk**: ✓ ~70% core, ~20% adjacent, ~10% transformational | ❌ >80% core (too safe) or >30% transformational (too risky)
|
||
**Horizon**: ✓ ~50-60% H1, ~25-30% H2, ~15-20% H3 | ❌ >70% H1 (no future) or >40% H3 (no near-term)
|
||
**Capacity**: Effort ≤ capacity × 0.8 (20% slack) | Example: 10 eng → 48 EM/6mo → max 38 EM in H1
|
||
**Impact**: Portfolio ladders to theme (risk-adjusted) | Example: "3x revenue" → bets sum to 4.7x potential → 50% fail = 2.35x expected → add more bets
|
||
|
||
## Guardrails
|
||
|
||
**Problem Framing**:
|
||
- ❌ Vague theme like "improve product" → ✓ Specific like "Reduce churn from 5% to 2% in 12 months"
|
||
- ❌ No constraints (infinite resources) → ✓ Explicit budget, people, time limits
|
||
- ❌ Missing portfolio balance targets → ✓ Define risk tolerance (e.g., 70/20/10)
|
||
|
||
**Bet Sizing**:
|
||
- ❌ Effort in person-days without context → ✓ Use S/M/L/XL relative sizing
|
||
- ❌ Impact as vague "high/medium/low" → ✓ Use multipliers (1x/3x/10x) or concrete metrics
|
||
- ❌ All bets are "high priority" → ✓ Force-rank or categorize by type
|
||
|
||
**Sequencing**:
|
||
- ❌ No dependencies identified → ✓ Map technical, learning, strategic dependencies
|
||
- ❌ All bets in H1 (wish list) → ✓ Realistic capacity-constrained sequencing
|
||
- ❌ No rationale for sequence → ✓ Explain why A before B (dependency, learning, quick win)
|
||
|
||
**Exit & Scale Criteria**:
|
||
- ❌ No criteria (just "we'll see") → ✓ Specific metrics and timelines for kill/scale decisions
|
||
- ❌ Only exit criteria (pessimistic) → ✓ Include scale criteria (what does wild success look like?)
|
||
- ❌ Unmeasurable criteria → ✓ Use quantifiable metrics with baselines
|
||
|
||
**Portfolio Balance**:
|
||
- ❌ All core (too safe) or all transformational (too risky) → ✓ Balanced risk distribution
|
||
- ❌ Sum of efforts exceeds capacity → ✓ Effort ≤ capacity × 0.8 (20% slack for unknowns)
|
||
- ❌ Expected impact below strategic goal → ✓ Portfolio ladders up to theme with risk adjustment
|
||
|
||
## Quick Reference
|
||
|
||
**Resources**:
|
||
- [resources/template.md](resources/template.md) - Portfolio roadmap structure and bet template
|
||
- [resources/methodology.md](resources/methodology.md) - Horizon planning, bet sizing frameworks, portfolio balancing techniques
|
||
- [resources/evaluators/rubric_portfolio_roadmapping_bets.json](resources/evaluators/rubric_portfolio_roadmapping_bets.json) - Quality criteria for portfolio roadmaps
|
||
|
||
**Success Criteria**:
|
||
- ✓ Strategic theme is clear and measurable
|
||
- ✓ All bets sized by effort (S/M/L/XL) and impact (1x/3x/10x)
|
||
- ✓ Bets sequenced across H1/H2/H3 with dependency rationale
|
||
- ✓ Exit and scale criteria defined for each bet
|
||
- ✓ Portfolio balanced across risk profiles and horizons
|
||
- ✓ Total effort ≤ team capacity (with 20% slack)
|
||
- ✓ Expected portfolio impact ≥ strategic goal (risk-adjusted)
|
||
|
||
**Common Mistakes**:
|
||
- ❌ No strategic theme → roadmap becomes random wish list
|
||
- ❌ All bets sized "Large" → no useful prioritization
|
||
- ❌ No exit criteria → sunk cost fallacy, zombie projects
|
||
- ❌ Portfolio imbalanced → all quick wins (no future) or all moonshots (no near-term value)
|
||
- ❌ Dependencies ignored → H1 bets blocked by H2 infrastructure
|
||
- ❌ Over-capacity → team burns out, quality suffers
|
||
- ❌ Under-ambitious → portfolio impact below strategic goal even if everything succeeds
|