Cross-cutting — Templates
Money already spent gets no vote.
About these templates
These four templates apply across the whole loop rather than to a single stage. They support the operating model, the initial dial-setting, and the ongoing communication and governance of the portfolio.
—
G1 — Roles and decision-rights matrix
Purpose: The definitive record of who does what in the portfolio — their role, their decision rights, and the thresholds at which decisions must be escalated.*
| Decision | Portfolio owner / chair | Portfolio board | Governing board / Executive | Portfolio office | Investment sponsor | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| New investment approval — below threshold | Decides | Informed | Informed | Prepares | Proposes | Threshold: [define in £] |
| New investment approval — above threshold | Recommends | Decides | Ratifies if above [£] | Prepares | Proposes | |
| Continuation / stop — below threshold | Decides | Informed | Informed | Prepares | Informed | |
| Continuation / stop — above threshold | Recommends | Decides | Ratifies if above [£] | Prepares | Consulted | |
| Reallocation within period | Decides (below threshold) | Decides (above threshold) | Ratifies above [£] | Logs | Informed | |
| Bucket resizing | Proposes | Decides | Ratifies | Documents | Informed | |
| Reference framework re-weighting | Proposes | Decides | Ratifies | Documents | Consulted | |
| Stop criterion override | Cannot override | Can override with stated rationale | Can override | Records decision | May request | |
| Escalation resolution | Decides below threshold | Decides above threshold | Final escalation | Tracks | Informed |
Complete the threshold values for this portfolio and review annually. A decision-rights matrix with blank thresholds is a matrix without authority.
—
G2 — The Dial-Setting Worksheet
Purpose: A deliberate, documented choice of the portfolio’s setting (Lean / Managed / Enterprise), based on current reality rather than aspiration. Review annually and when the portfolio’s scale or context changes materially.*
Step 1: Describe the current reality
| Dimension | Current state |
|---|---|
| Number of investments in the portfolio | [N — include in-flight and planned] |
| Total pool value | [£ per year] |
| Number of decision-makers | [Who actively participates in funding decisions] |
| Reporting relationships | [Who the portfolio answers to; how many governance layers above it] |
| Data quality | [Honest assessment: are the value estimates reliable? Are benefits tracked?] |
| Current process maturity | [Is the cadence kept? Are comparisons rigorous? Are stops made?] |
| Rate of change in environment | [How quickly does strategy or market context shift?] |
Step 2: Score the dials
For each dial, assess the current capability honestly — not the desired capability.
| Dial | Lean fits if… | Managed fits if… | Enterprise fits if… | Current fit |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cadence | Owner can hold the re-decision in their head; < monthly formally needed | Quarterly structured review is viable and necessary | Formal governance cycles; board-level scheduling required | Lean / Managed / Enterprise |
| Who decides | One person, or a very small group, can make the calls | A standing board is needed to represent all stakeholders | Tiered boards; nested decision rights by portfolio level | Lean / Managed / Enterprise |
| Formality | A page and a conversation is genuinely sufficient | A short pack and a meeting is needed | Full documentation, audit trail, and ratification required | Lean / Managed / Enterprise |
| Funding rigidity | Money can move freely as judgement changes | Periodic cycle governs when money moves | Formal gates; changes require board ratification | Lean / Managed / Enterprise |
Step 3: Select the setting
| Field | Content |
|---|---|
| Primary setting | Lean / Managed / Enterprise |
| Rationale | One paragraph: why this setting fits the current reality |
| Known tensions | Any dial that is set differently from the primary setting, and why |
| Review trigger | The condition that would prompt a setting change: [e.g. “Portfolio exceeds N investments” / “Board established” / “Annual review”] |
| Date | [Date of this assessment] |
| Owner | [Who approved this setting] |
—
G3 — Stakeholder and communication map
Purpose: Identify every stakeholder group with an interest in the portfolio’s decisions, and specify how and when they receive communication about those decisions.*
| Stakeholder group | Interest in the portfolio | Information they need | Frequency | Channel | Owner of communication |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Executive / governing board | Overall portfolio health; strategic alignment; major stops and starts | Portfolio balance view; funded set summary; significant decisions and their rationale | Each cycle | Board pack | Portfolio owner |
| Investment sponsors | Their investment’s status and funding; portfolio decisions that affect their investment | Funding decisions; stop-or-continue outcomes; reallocation decisions | At each decision point | Direct briefing | Portfolio owner / board chair |
| Investment teams | Funding certainty for the current period; priorities and sequencing decisions | Funding confirmation; Steer decisions that affect their work | Each period | Portfolio office communication | Portfolio office |
| Strategy function | What the portfolio is learning about what works | Lessons log; benefits-after-delivery findings; re-weighting rationale | At each Direction review | Structured learning report | Portfolio owner |
| Business stakeholders | What is being funded and why; what is not funded and why | Funded-set summary; declined investments with rationale | Each cycle | Published decision summary | Portfolio office |
Rules:
- Communication happens before stakeholders hear through other channels. A funding decision communicated after the affected sponsor has already heard informally is a trust damage, not a communication.
- The rationale for declines and stops is communicated directly and in the same terms as the rationale for approvals: the forward value, the comparison, the criteria. Not a judgement of quality.
—
G4 — Portfolio health and risk-balance card
Purpose: A summary card of the portfolio’s overall health and risk balance, produced at each Review cycle and presented to the governing board. One page.*
| Dimension | Metric | Current | Target / appetite | Status | Trend |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total pool committed | [£] | [£] | [£ — total available] | On / Over / Under | Up / Stable / Down |
| Investments in funded set | Count | [N] | [N target range] | In range / Out of range | |
| Above-line: new investments | Count and [£] | ||||
| Below-line: declined this cycle | Count | ||||
| Stopped this cycle | Count and [£] freed | ||||
| High-risk investments | % of pool | [%] | [% from appetite A3] | Within / Exceeds appetite | |
| Run-the-business | % of pool | [%] | [% from A4] | Within / Outside bucket | |
| Change-the-business | % of pool | [%] | [% from A4] | Within / Outside bucket | |
| Innovation / explore | % of pool | [%] | [% from A4] | Within / Outside bucket | |
| Investments with Amber/Red status | Count | [N] | 0–[N threshold] | In range / Requires action | |
| Unresolved escalations > 2 cycles | Count | [N] | 0 | Resolved / Outstanding | |
| Benefits realised (last 12 months) | [£ or qualitative] | [Claimed at go-live for same period] | On track / Below |
This card is the portfolio’s one-page account of itself. If the card cannot be completed honestly, that is itself a finding about data quality and the portfolio’s health.