Performance matrixes

The literature discussed thus far has looked at how to manage a portfolio of products and projects. In this final section of the chapter, assessing the current product portfolio will be

40 discussed. Portfolio analysis holds that the product portfolio is analyzed on predefined

dimensions. Most organizations already have a(n) (extensive) product portfolio in place which needs to be assessed in order to understand where the organization is standing right now and what actions need to be taken to get where the organization wants to go. This is where the so called performance matrixes come in.

Performance matrixes, as the name suggests, can be used to assess the performance of specific aspects concerning the organization and, more importantly, can be used to assess the current products in the portfolio. The most famous and influential performance matrixes are the famous BCG matrix (Table 7) and the GE/McKinsey matrix (Figure 10). The basic performance matrix shows two axes, with

varying labels, where products are placed accordingly. The term matrix is an indicator of the quadrants that can be identified. Taking the BCG matrix as an example, four quadrants are visible. Each quadrant has a specific name and

matching characteristics, based on the axis labels, for the products that are assigned to them. In this section a number of matrixes will be presented.

The BCG matrix is a great starting point for assessing the current portfolio. Using the matrix, questions can be answered concerning the potential of products in the portfolio. An organization can for

example find out that a product is in a market with low growth and market share

(a ‘dog’) and decide to pull the plug out of this product. The other extreme is to find a ‘star’ and take actions to turn this product into a ‘cash cow’. An extension of this matrix is to map these quadrants on strategic, high potential, key

operational and support products (Ward & Peppard, 2006) as shown between brackets in Table 7.

In the strategic category Ward and Peppard (2006) identify continuous innovation and vertical integration as key concept. Innovate to increase the value added to the business and integrate to make management understand how further enhancements can be made to add more value. In the key operational section the key issues are defensive innovation, only enhance when threats arise, high quality, having

significant business contribution, and effective resource utilization where the main issue is to

reduce the amount of resources required for maintaining the product. The high potential products’ issues are process R&D, minimal integration and cost control to prevent ‘over- engineering’ in search of the ultimate product, keep them

Figure 10 - GE/McKinsey matrix High Market growth Low STAR (STRATEGIC) WILDCAT or PROBLEM CHILD (HIGH POTENTIAL) CASH COW (KEY OPERATIONAL) DOG (SUPPORT) High Market Share Low Table 7 - BCG matrix

41 separated from main activities and

staying within budget. And finally the key issues regarding support products being disinvest/rationalize and

sustained quality and efficiency. Disinvest to reduce the organizations’ commitment to the product and sustain the quality of the system in proportion to the cost of failure and resources involved.

The GE/McKinsey matrix can be used to assess the strength of a business unit

involved in a particular industry. To this end the labels on the axes are the industry attractiveness (market size,

growth rate, opportunities) and the business unit strength (market share, production capacity, profit margins) which can lead to the grow, hold or harvest resource allocation recommendation based on the position in the matrix. Assessing a business unit might not seem directly related to PPM, however the possibility exists that ‘weak’ products stem from one and the same business unit. Assessing this business unit could lead to changes in strategy and through that changes in the product status.

With regard to PM, risk is a more central theme when

assessing the portfolio. A project brings about risks which should be outweighed by the benefits of

the project. An example is the matrix by Jeffery et al. (2004) in Figure 11 where the risk of a project is weighed against the value to the business, aiding in deciding whether or not to fund a particular project. Other labels for PM could be the time before a project finishes or

becomes profitable against the relative amount of resources required and the short- and long- term projects against cash flow forecast. Ward and Peppard (2006) also identify matrixes involving the number of product and the number of customers and the degree of dependence on the product for doing business and its potential to contribute to future business goals. As can be seen there is a great variety of labels and matrixes that can be created and in this section examples have been given on what can be expected from these matrixes. However, “the first stage in using any of these matrices is to understand the current position of the business unit or product” (Ward & Peppard, 2006). To this end, policy matrixes, see Figure

Risk Low High Value to the business Funding priority Do not fund Fund selectively Fund selectively Low High

Figure 11 - Visualization example (Jeffery et al., 2004)

42 12, come to play. Using these matrixes an organization can decide where to go with a product (line) or business unit. In the figure, for example, (i) indicates a path to develop the industry by innovation, whereas (ii) indicates gaining market share from competitors. Also with this The overall key issue (t-pmx-1) is to find the right axis labels and create various matrixes that can be used to assess the portfolio, processes, projects and even business units to be able to have a clear view on the related aspects for PPM decision-making. As Haines (2009) states “no one model is perfect”. The ‘simple’ allocation of a product to a quadrant in a matrix, can give insight in how this product influences the organization and thus gives a sound basis to decide how to handle this product in the future.

3.10 Summary

In this section the theoretic part of the knowledge base for this research has been constructed. Apart from PPM, PLM and PM, the subjects that have been discussed are the following:

 The reference framework for software product management

 The software product management maturity matrix and the recently created competence model

 Strategy and strategy development

 New product portfolio management

 Software product management

 Performance matrixes

With regard to these subjects it can be stated that they are clearly related to PPM in software organization and should be taken into account for implementation. The next chapter will discuss the practical part of the knowledge base by examining the state of affairs at UNIT4.

43

4 PPM STATE OF AFFAIRS AT UNIT4

The theoretical framework is purely based on findings from literature and have proven useful to get an understanding of PPM and its related subjects. However, theory and practice can differ substantially. Therefore PPM practice has been assessed at UNIT4, a large,

multinational software company with a great portfolio of product software. In this chapter a company profile will be sketched, a brief explanation of the contents will be given, the interviewees will be introduced and finally the results will be presented in the form of key issues that will lead to additional guidelines for PPM practice.