Milestone map
Milestone map
3 milestones
Map the R&D Portfolio and Classify Projects
2–3 weeks (3–4 hrs/week)
Select or design an R&D portfolio — a set of ≥6 projects spanning multiple stages (concept, development, testing, scale-up) and risk levels. Document each project's technology readiness level (TRL), estimated cost to completion, expected revenue or strategic value, probability of technical success, and time to market. Classify projects using the three-bucket model: incremental (low risk, near-term), platform (medium risk, mid-term), and breakthrough (high risk, long-term). A portfolio with no breakthrough projects lacks growth optionality; one with no incremental projects lacks near-term revenue.
Proof required
Submit your portfolio map: a table of ≥6 projects with TRL, cost to completion, expected value, probability of technical success, time to market, and three-bucket classification, plus a short rationale (≥100 words) for each project's classification.
What gets checked
- Portfolio contains ≥6 projects spanning all three buckets — not all incremental or all breakthrough
- Each project has quantitative estimates for cost to completion, expected value, and probability of technical success
- Three-bucket rationale for each project explains the classification — not just labelled without justification
Common mistakes
- Portfolio with all projects at the same TRL — a real R&D portfolio spans the full pipeline from concept to near-commercial
- Qualitative estimates ('high value', 'medium risk') without numbers — probability of success must be a percentage; cost must be in currency
Resources
Foundationstart here
Depthgo deeper
What a verifier looks for
- Confirm portfolio contains ≥6 projects spanning all three buckets — flag if all projects are in the same bucket.
- Confirm cost-to-completion and probability of technical success are numeric values — not qualitative labels.
- Confirm TRL is stated for each project using the NASA or equivalent standard.
Score, Prioritise, and Optimise Portfolio Mix
2–3 weeks (3–4 hrs/week)
Apply a portfolio scoring model to rank the ≥6 projects. Use an expected commercial value (ECV) model: ECV = (revenue × probability of commercial success) − (development cost × probability of technical success) − (launch cost). Alternatively, use a scoring matrix with weighted criteria (strategic fit, market attractiveness, competitive advantage, probability of success, NPV). Identify which projects to accelerate, maintain, and kill or defer. An optimised portfolio maximises expected value within the R&D budget constraint.
Proof required
Submit your portfolio scoring model (spreadsheet or table): ECV or weighted scoring matrix for all ≥6 projects, ranked output, and a portfolio recommendation stating which 2–3 projects to prioritise and which to kill or defer.
What gets checked
- ECV or weighted scoring is applied consistently to all projects — not selectively to those with obvious answers
- Portfolio recommendation identifies specific projects to accelerate AND specific projects to kill or defer — not just a ranked list
- Recommendation states the expected portfolio value or budget allocation — not just project rankings
Common mistakes
- Scoring model that always recommends continuing all projects — a portfolio analysis that kills nothing has not been honestly applied
- ECV model with no stated source for probability of commercial success — these estimates must be justified, not assumed
Resources
Foundationstart here
Depthgo deeper
What a verifier looks for
- Confirm ECV or scoring model is applied to all ≥6 projects — not selectively.
- Confirm portfolio recommendation names specific projects to kill or defer — not just a rank list with all projects continuing.
- Confirm probability of commercial success estimates are justified — not arbitrary percentages.
Write the Portfolio Analysis Report and Present Recommendations
2–3 weeks (2–3 hrs/week)
Write a complete R&D portfolio analysis report (2,000–3,000 words plus tables) covering: portfolio map, three-bucket classification rationale, scoring model and results, recommended portfolio mix, resource allocation implications, and risk of the recommended portfolio. Present recommendations to a reviewer with R&D management, technology strategy, or engineering management experience and respond to challenge questions about the scoring assumptions and the kill/defer decisions.
Proof required
Submit your R&D portfolio analysis report (2,000–3,000 words plus tables) and review record: reviewer name, role, ≥3 challenge questions about scoring assumptions or portfolio decisions, and your responses.
What gets checked
- Report covers all six sections: portfolio map, bucket classification, scoring model, recommended mix, resource allocation, and portfolio risk
- Kill/defer decisions are defended in the report — not just listed without rationale
- Reviewer has R&D management, technology strategy, or engineering management experience and challenged scoring assumptions or portfolio decisions
Common mistakes
- Report that presents scoring results without defending the kill decisions — the hardest decisions are what the analysis is for
- Reviewer without R&D or technology strategy background — challenge questions must probe the commercial probability estimates and the portfolio risk assessment
Resources
Foundationstart here
Depthgo deeper
What a verifier looks for
- Engineering Design Triad check: M1–M3 together produce a design artifact (portfolio map with TRL and three-bucket classification), an analysis artifact (ECV/scoring model + prioritisation matrix), and a documentation artifact (R&D portfolio analysis report + review record) — confirm all three types are present.
- Confirm report defends kill/defer decisions — not just ranked list output.
- Confirm portfolio risk section addresses what happens if the top-ranked project fails.
- Confirm reviewer has R&D management, technology strategy, or engineering management experience.
- The Proof Accessibility Rule applies — Stage-Gate free resources, HBR free articles, OECD free publications, and NASA TRL definitions are all accessible without institutional subscription.
Part of