For more than a decade, industrial companies have pursued the same ambition: to become serious software players. Some have made real progress. Many have not. And the pattern is now unmistakable: software outcomes are not primarily determined by technology choices. They are determined by portfolio governance—how decisions are made, how resources move, and where accountability sits.
Why a portfolio playbook is now essentialThe most useful starting point is the concept of technology lifecycle zones—popularized through several management frameworks (including BCG and Geoffrey Moore’s “Zone to Win”). The specifics differ, but the management implication is consistent: leaders must actively govern four distinct zones in parallel, each with its own mandate and success measures .
In practice, these zones typically include some version of:
Protect the core (where cash is generated)
Manage the base business (where efficiency and resilience matter)
Fuel growth to scale (where new software engines are built)
Incubate future options (where learning and experimentation dominate)
This is not a semantic exercise. The purpose is to enable what industrial organizations often struggle to do: prioritize go-to-market resources and engineering capacity across competing demands .
Without an explicit portfolio view, resource allocation becomes path-dependent and political. With it, trade-offs become visible and executable.
The CEO’s job: make the big bet and arbitrate across zones
A credible portfolio playbook is ultimately a CEO tool. The CEO must place the big bet on the next growth engine—what “fuel growth to scale” means in that enterprise—and continually arbitrate between the zones as evidence evolves .
This arbitration cannot be delegated to the technology function alone. The center of gravity is not architectural. It is commercial. Software scale requires decisions about:
where to invest and where to stop
which businesses merit priority access to distribution
which initiatives are strategic, versus merely interesting
how much risk the enterprise is willing to carry
The strongest operators institutionalize this discipline by having the CEO and CFO set funding envelopes annually across the zones and adjust them through a lightweight corporate system—rather than trying to “align” continuously through discussions that lack decision rights.
Portfolio management rationale: turning strategy into execution
Portfolio management exists for one reason: to connect strategy to capital and accountability.
Every material investment is explicitly linked to a strategic initiative. This eliminates the common pattern of “digital projects” that are directionally plausible but strategically unowned.
A strong portfolio system delivers three outcomes :
Align strategy and investments
Convert strategic objectives into execution
Strategy becomes measurable actions. Leaders gain mechanisms to challenge, re-prioritize, and re-allocate—without drama.Create transparency and discipline
Category leaders are held accountable, and the portfolio view becomes visible across the organization, reducing the ability to hide behind narratives.
This requires managing across three horizons: a multi-year strategic view, an annual resource allocation cycle, and quarterly reviews . The sequencing matters. Multi-year direction without annual resource allocation becomes aspiration. Annual allocation without quarterly learning becomes rigidity.
What separates mature portfolio management from periodic planning is fact-based discipline. Funding decisions are tied to capability needs, competitor moves, and risk—not to organizational persuasion.
Decision rights: the missing operating system
Most portfolio systems fail because they are treated as a governance overlay. In reality, portfolio management is a decision system. Without explicit decision rights, it becomes performance theater.
A scalable portfolio model establishes three clear roles:
1) Corporate Portfolio Office
This is not a reporting team. It is an empowered function that can:
move resources between categories
apply consistent planning processes
enforce transparency across business units
The office is the institutional memory of the portfolio and prevents the common industrial pattern of “starting over” every cycle.
2) Executive Committee / CFO
This level must:
arbitrate major reallocations
set the funding envelopes
ensure adherence to strategy
In practice, the CFO is often the pivotal actor, because portfolio discipline ultimately requires willingness to stop funding initiatives that have political support but weak evidence.
3) Category leaders
These leaders carry P&L responsibility and must deliver results within the allocation. They own the outcomes—not the rhetoric.
Critically, decision rights must operate at three levels :
Corporate level: align to strategy, balance risk/return, ensure coherence
Category level: own performance, KPIs, and category health
Business case level: validate assumptions, challenge resource use, monitor delivery
The anchor tool: a proprietary 2x2 matrix
Industrial groups often drown in complexity: dozens of products, overlapping roadmaps, and competing internal narratives. The portfolio needs an anchor.
The most effective tool is a proprietary 2x2 matrix based on market attractiveness versus relative strength, institutionalized as the backbone of investment decisions .
This matrix does not create insight by itself. It creates forcing function clarity:
Where should we invest aggressively?
Where should we harvest?
Where should we fix underlying capabilities?
Where should we exit?
Stop the “portfolio vs. non-portfolio” split
A surprisingly common failure mode is treating portfolio discipline as optional—applied to “strategic initiatives,” while other R&D runs independently.
The playbook is explicit: no split between “portfolio-relevant” and “non-portfolio” R&D. Everything must run through the same governance lens .
This isn’t control for control’s sake. It prevents the quiet accumulation of unowned products, orphaned prototypes, and “pet projects” that create complexity without compounding advantage.
Speed becomes structural: Agile, DevOps, and enabling architecture
The best-practice baseline includes embedding Agile and DevOps as default delivery models, and enabling speed through microservices, cloud, low-code platforms, and AI where appropriate .
The point is not to chase modern buzzwords. It is to ensure that the portfolio can reallocate resources without being trapped by monoliths, fragile release processes, and dependency lock-in. A portfolio that cannot shift capacity rapidly is not a portfolio. It is a collection of sunk costs.
Make learning travel across businesses
Industrial enterprises often behave like federations of disconnected companies. Portfolio management creates economic logic across them—but learning still tends to stay local.
The playbook demands explicit learning transfer: practices proven in one category must cascade to others. This can be:
agile practices from a software unit into hardware-adjacent teams
predictive maintenance capabilities moving from one business line to another
repeatable sales plays scaling across regions
What to measure: portfolio health KPIs
Without the right metrics, portfolio management devolves into narrative competition. The playbook therefore defines portfolio health through a small, decision-oriented KPI set :
Strategic alignment: % of spend linked to top priorities
Balance: allocation across protect / fuel / manage / incubate
Capital efficiency: return on invested capital by category
Speed and agility: cycle time for reallocating resources
Innovation vitality: % of revenue from products <3 years old
Transparency: quality of reporting and visibility across units
The industrial reality: multi-BU software fragmentation is normal
In most multi-BU industrial technology companies, software is already present everywhere—and rarely coherent. The majority of software activity and acquisitions often sit within a single BU, sales is executed regionally with overlays, and only a subset of companies attempt cross-BU platforms .This is not a failure of intent. It is a predictable outcome of vertical accountability. Portfolio governance is the mechanism that turns this fragmentation into manageable structure.
Some companies have taken clearer strategic steps, for example by committing to standalone software businesses (such as Schneider Electric with AVEVA) or establishing dedicated digital units (as in GE Vernova’s digital BU heritage) . The common thread is not the brand name; it is the willingness to assign real operating autonomy and P&L logic to software.
A final question leaders cannot avoid
Portfolio playbooks are ultimately designed to force one unavoidable leadership choice:
Should software amplify the core business—or become a core business?
There is no universal answer. But there is a universal cost to avoidance. Companies that do not decide remain trapped in a hybrid model where software carries the expectations of growth but inherits the constraints of hardware governance.
In an era where AI is accelerating competitive cycles and compressing differentiation, this becomes existential. The next phase of industrial software will not be defined by platforms, clouds, or algorithms. It will be defined by governance: decision rights, capital allocation, accountability, and operating autonomy.
Software does not scale because it is strategically important.
It scales when it is structurally enabled to win.
