Action Item · 14 Mar 2026
Schedule 1:1 meetings with target speakers before events
#networking#preparation#project-management#strategy#drug-development#earned-value#life-sciences#ppm
AI-Powered
Ask questions, explore insights, and discover knowledge captured across all summit sessions — powered by AI.
Ask anything about summit insights & sessions
Welcome to Key Insights! I have access to all summit insights, session summaries, key takeaways, and resources. Ask me anything.
Powered by Claude AI · Responses based on captured summit content
Structured summary you can share with your team
Generate a professional report covering key findings, action items, and strategic recommendations from the summit.
Share your summit experience on LinkedIn
Choose a tone for your post:
Based on Katherine Olig's governance framework, conduct a gap analysis between your organization's stated strategic priorities and the actual weights in your portfolio scoring model.
Action steps: (1) Map each scoring criterion to a specific strategic objective. (2) Identify criteria that do not connect to any current strategic priority — these are candidates for removal or re-weighting. (3) Add a "strategic contribution score" dimension if one does not exist. (4) Present findings to the portfolio governance board within 30 days.
"Strategy without governance is a wish. Governance without strategy is bureaucracy. The magic happens when you embed strategy so deeply into your governance framework that every gate review is a strategic conversation, not a status update."
— Katherine Olig, VP, Program Management, Boston Scientific
Katherine Olig (Boston Scientific) delivered a compelling keynote on embedding corporate strategy directly into portfolio governance frameworks. The session highlighted how many organizations still operate with a disconnect between strategic planning and project selection.
Key points: (1) Strategy should cascade into scoring models, not sit in a separate deck. (2) Governance gates must validate strategic alignment at every phase transition. (3) The PMO role is shifting from process police to strategic enabler.
The audience responded strongly to the concept of "strategy-weighted portfolios" — where each initiative carries a quantified strategic contribution score that dynamically adjusts as corporate priorities evolve.
Per Aimee Rodrigues' recommendation, begin your AI-in-PPM journey with low-stakes decisions to build organizational confidence.
Recommended pilot decisions: (1) Resource rebalancing between active programs based on current burn rates. (2) Timeline risk flagging for projects approaching milestone dates. (3) Portfolio balance analysis across therapeutic areas or technology platforms. Set a 60-day pilot window, measure decision speed improvement, and document lessons learned for the governance board.
Across multiple sessions at both Chicago and Philadelphia summits, a clear pattern emerged: organizations leveraging AI-driven portfolio analytics are shifting from quarterly portfolio reviews to near-continuous optimization.
The implication is profound — traditional stage-gate governance designed around periodic reviews becomes a bottleneck when AI can flag portfolio imbalances in real time. Leading PMOs are redesigning governance to support "always-on" portfolio intelligence while maintaining appropriate human oversight for high-stakes decisions.
The Decision Velocity Index (DVI) framework presented by Aimee Rodrigues measures the elapsed time from data availability to executive decision across five portfolio decision categories: go/no-go gates, resource allocation, priority changes, risk escalation, and strategic pivots.
Benchmark ranges: Leading (< 48 hours), Competitive (2-7 days), Lagging (> 2 weeks). Most medtech organizations fall in the Lagging category for go/no-go decisions but can reach Competitive for resource allocation with AI tooling.
To assess your organization: Map your last 10 portfolio decisions. Record data-available date and decision-made date. Calculate average DVI per category. Identify the longest-lag category as your first improvement target.
Following the resource optimization breakout, select one product line and run a 2-week pilot to create full cross-functional resource visibility.
Steps: (1) Identify all functions contributing to the selected product line (R&D, regulatory, quality, manufacturing, commercial). (2) Collect current allocation data from each function. (3) Map actual vs. planned utilization. (4) Identify the top 3 resource conflicts or hidden capacity pools. (5) Present the business case for scaling to the full portfolio.
Aimee Rodrigues (Planisware) presented a framework for combining lean portfolio management, agile delivery, and AI-driven analytics to accelerate decision velocity across R&D organizations.
The session introduced the "Decision Velocity Index" (DVI) — a metric tracking the time from insight to action across portfolio decisions. Organizations using AI-augmented portfolio tools showed a 3.2x improvement in DVI compared to traditional review cycles.
Practical takeaway: Start with low-risk decisions (resource rebalancing, timeline adjustments) to build confidence in AI-assisted decision-making before extending to high-stakes go/no-go gates.
Matthew Palicki (Rego Consulting) demonstrated that organizations with real-time cross-functional resource visibility achieve 23% higher portfolio throughput than those relying on spreadsheet-based capacity planning.
The breakthrough is not more resources — it is better visibility into existing capacity, skills, and availability across functional silos. Most organizations have 15-30% hidden capacity that becomes visible only with proper tooling and process transparency.
"Resilient portfolios are not built during crises — they are stress-tested before them. If your portfolio can only survive the scenario you planned for, you do not have a portfolio — you have a bet."
— Besaint Sahni, Head of Global PMO, CAIRE Inc. / Advanced Energy
The Risk-Capacity Heat Map template from BD's portfolio management team overlays two critical dimensions: (1) risk exposure concentration by therapeutic area or technology platform, and (2) resource capacity utilization by function.
Red zones indicate areas where high risk intersects with constrained capacity — these represent the highest portfolio vulnerability. The template includes scoring rubrics for both dimensions and a quarterly refresh cadence.
Implementation guide: Start with your top 10 programs. Score risk (1-5) across regulatory, technical, commercial, and operational dimensions. Score capacity utilization (%) for each contributing function. Plot on the heat map matrix. Present to portfolio governance board.
Gianluca Puliti (BD) and Jonathan Cote (BD) co-presented on how their organization manages enterprise-level risk alongside capacity constraints. The panel revealed that most medtech companies still manage risk at the project level, missing portfolio-level risk correlations.
A standout framework was their "Risk-Capacity Heat Map" — a visual tool that overlays resource bottlenecks with risk exposure across the portfolio. This enables leadership to see where capacity shortages amplify risk concentration.
The Q&A surfaced a common challenge: regulatory risk is often underweighted in standard risk scoring models, leading to surprise delays in submission timelines.
Karen Forsha (Terumo) and Carrie Nauyalis (Planview) revealed that 67% of PPM tool implementations that fail to deliver expected ROI cite change management — not technology — as the root cause.
Their research across 40+ medtech organizations identified three critical success factors: executive sponsorship beyond lip service, dedicated change champions embedded in each functional team, and a phased adoption approach that delivers quick wins within the first 90 days.
Lisamarie Manso's value stream mapping guide provides a step-by-step methodology for mapping drug development value streams from discovery through regulatory submission.
The guide identifies seven common value leak points: (1) Target-to-lead handoff, (2) Lead-to-candidate transition, (3) IND-enabling to first-in-human, (4) Phase transitions (I→II, II→III), (5) Data lock to submission, (6) Manufacturing tech transfer, (7) Submission to approval decision.
For each leak point, the guide provides diagnostic questions, common root causes, and proven interventions. Organizations that systematically address these leaks report 15-25% reduction in overall development cycle time.
Lisamarie Manso (ValueOps, Broadcom) made a compelling case for value stream management (VSM) as the next evolution beyond traditional PPM. The keynote contrasted project-centric thinking with flow-based delivery models.
Key insight: VSM forces organizations to measure what matters — time-to-value, flow efficiency, and waste ratios — rather than vanity metrics like on-time/on-budget percentages that mask real delivery health.
The session included a live demonstration of mapping a drug development value stream from target identification through regulatory submission, identifying seven handoff points where value leaks typically occur.
The growing divergence between FDA and EU MDR regulatory frameworks is creating a compounding risk that most portfolio managers underestimate. Mike Xie (Sol-Millennium) and Subhadip Jana (ADC Therapeutics) illustrated how dual submission strategies can consume 40% more resources than single-market approaches.
Organizations must factor regulatory divergence risk into portfolio scoring models, not treat it as a project-level issue. The most successful companies are building dedicated regulatory intelligence functions that feed directly into portfolio prioritization.
"High-performance teams do not happen by accident — they are architected. You need psychological safety, clear roles, shared accountability, and yes, the right technology. But culture eats tools for breakfast."
— Jen Hirsch, Founder & CEO, Plumtree Services