Cross-case analysis

Company A and Company B operate in vastly different industries, where Company A is focused on software solutions and Company B is mainly focused on heavy machinery.

Due to the different characteristics between these two companies, their practices, stake-holders and uncertainties related to innovation project portfolio management differ from each other. However, some similarities can also be identified between these two. Table 16 aims to summarize these differences and similarities in terms the three main themes:

1) stakeholders, roles and responsibilities, 2) portfolio uncertainties and 3) portfolio re-configuration.

Table 16. Cross-case comparison between Company A and Company B

Company A Company B

Stakeholders, roles and respon-sibilities

• Over 20 key stakeholders listed in table 9 (2 external)

• Approximately 10 actors in-volved in innovation project port-folio uncertainty management listed in table 11

• Some ambiguity in role and re-sponsibilities, and slightly unfor-mal procedures for risk manage-ment

• Over 30 key stakeholders listed in table 12 (6 external)

• Approximately 10 actors in-volved in innovation project port-folio uncertainty management listed in table 14

• Relatively high role clarity and formal procedures for risk

Both companies brought up a high number of innovation project portfolio stakeholders during the interviews. At Company B the number of stakeholders was slightly higher compared to Company A and contained more external stakeholders. The higher count of external stakeholders could be explained by the industry specific characteristics, as the value chain of heavy machinery is often more extensive compared to software solu-tions. Additionally, Company B collaborates with multiple external stakeholders in re-search and development projects, whereas Company A does not.

Although the count of portfolio stakeholders differs between the two companies, the count of actors involved in innovation project portfolio uncertainty management is roughly the same. The roles and responsibilities between these actors do seem to be quite com-pany specific, but the role of portfolio managers, sub-portfolio managers and project managers as well as various steering boards was evident in both cases. The perception of role clarity, however, differed between the two companies. Whereas Company B re-ported relatively high role clarity and formal procedures for risk management, Company A seemed to have conflicting views on the subject. As the interviewees mentioned the implicit nature of uncertainty management and somewhat ambiguous roles, the risk man-agement procedures at Company A could be classified as slightly unformal. However, in both companies the uncertainty management procedures were relatively new, meaning that some ambiguity could simply be explained by the novelty of the practices.

Even though both companies mentioned similar portfolio uncertainties during the inter-views, the uncertainties were divided differently across the external environment, organ-izational complexity and single projects. At Company A, all categories were represented relatively evenly, where both organizational complexity and single projects covered 30%

and external environment 40% of the uncertainties. At Company B, however, external environment represented over 68% and uncertainties related to the organizational com-plexity only covered approximately 11%. The remaining 21% fell under the category of single project uncertainties. The significance of external environment at Company B could be partly explained by the active collaboration with third parties, and the higher count of external portfolio stakeholders.

The percentage of uncertainties stemming from the organizational complexity is also vastly different between the two companies. Uncertainties related to human compe-tences and shortage of senior expertise only reported at Company A could be partly explained by the rather young age and quick growth rate of the company, as the employ-ees have typically had a relatively short time to build product specific know-how. Com-pany B on the other hand was established over 30 years prior to ComCom-pany A, and there-fore their organizational maturity level is quite different. Hence, the relative significance

of uncertainties related to organizational complexity could also be rationalized to the ma-turity level of the company.

At Company A, portfolio reconfiguring happens for the most part in the monthly roadmap specific steering groups. At Company B, however, the roadmap is reviewed only once a year. This difference in reconfiguration frequency could be explained by industry specific characteristics. As one of the interviewees at Company B points out:

“– – our industry is relatively slow cycled and a little, – – conservative, as the development cycles and product life cycles are vastly different [compared to some other industries]. – – if we think about starting to develop something completely new from the scratch, then it might easily take three to five years until it is in our customers production use." – I7

Hence, the project length at Company B is typically longer compared to more fast-paced software industry in which the Company A operates in. This industry specific difference related to project pace could also explain why portfolio dynamics was only mentioned as a portfolio uncertainty at Company A.

Even though the frequency of formal reconfiguration varies between the two companies, both also practice ad-hoc portfolio reconfiguration when necessary. Such occasional re-configuration is typically required when old projects are ending, and a new project needs to be kick-started based on the relative priority of the project ideas. In addition, major uncertainties like the chaos created by the COVID-19 outbreak forced both companies to review the innovation project portfolios and make quite drastic reconfigurations to the portfolio content.

According to the empirical data, both companies have almost the same uncertainty re-sponse actions related to portfolio reconfiguring. In other words, portfolios are refocused through occasional major clean-ups, and innovations projects are reprioritized, and re-sources reallocated when uncertainties arise and might create unexpected outcomes.

Additionally, projects are put on hold until more information is available or technology evolves, and unsuccessful projects are terminated and new ones added to the portfolio to respond to the uncertainties stemming from the dynamic business environment.