Skip to content

Quarterly portfolio review

90 minutes. Leadership + PO + Tech Lead. Three artefacts on the table: SLA performance, VRI trends, root-cause patterns. At least one kill — the discipline that keeps the portfolio honest. A review that produces only "keep" decisions is not a review.

When

  • Quarterly — calendar-locked at the start of the year.
  • Two weeks after Direction setting — direction is the field; portfolio decisions are moves on the field.

Who

  • Leadership — owns the bet at the portfolio level.
  • PO — brings the brief-level evidence per initiative.
  • Tech Lead — brings the technical/operational reality (DORA, ADRs).
  • (Optional) Client for engagements where the relationship supports it.

Time-box

90 minutes. Held in one block, not split.

Inputs

  • Pre-read pack sent 48 hours before: SLA performance · VRI trends · root-cause distribution · one row per active initiative (template).
  • All current Initiative Briefs (with kill criteria).
  • The last quarter's signal readings.

Agenda

TimeWhat
0–5 minOpening. Leadership states the quarter's bet in 5 sentences, in their own words. Not from slides. If they can't, that's the first finding.
5–20 minRead the three artefacts. SLA — met/approached/breached. VRI — what's moving? Root cause — what level is concentrating? One paragraph of reaction per artefact.
20–50 minWalk each initiative. ~5–10 min per row. Per initiative: bet, kill criterion, current signal, decision — KEPT · SHARPENED · KILLED.
50–55 minConcentration check. Active initiatives, first-cycle vs sustaining, against the half-capacity limit. If violated, force a kill or delay.
55–75 minInvestment shifts. What does the root-cause pattern tell us about where to invest in the chain itself next quarter? E.g., L2+L3 concentration says: invest in Discovery rigour. Concrete actions, dated.
75–85 minSign the outcome. Initiatives kept, sharpened, killed (at least one). Investment shifts named.
85–90 minNext review date confirmed.

Outputs

  • Signed outcome doc — published, archived next to prior quarters'.
  • Kill briefs for any killed initiatives — filed alongside the Initiative Briefs they retire.
  • A short investment-shift commitment — what changes in how the chain works this coming quarter.

What good looks like

The review produces at least one kill every quarter — without drama. Killing is the chain's most disciplined act; the team that kills initiatives at the right time has already saved more than they would have spent finishing.

The investment-shift conversation is specific. "Forty percent of high-severity bugs are scenario-gap this quarter. The investment is: amigos template refresh, Q3 PO training on scenario boundaries, one cycle audited for amigos quality." Not "we should invest in quality."

Anti-pattern

No initiative is killable. Either the portfolio is too small, or the team is over-attached. Fix: pick the lowest-conviction; kill. The discipline matters more than the optimal choice. A review that doesn't kill is a status meeting.

A second anti-pattern: VRI trends are all n/a. Measurement isn't in place. Fix: that is itself a portfolio-level decision — invest in VRI capture next quarter. Name it; date it.

A third: the bet cannot be stated in 5 sentences. The bet has decayed. Fix: pause; reconstruct the bet before walking initiatives. Otherwise the review is judging initiatives against an unstated standard.

See also

200apps · How We Work · NWIRE