High-yield PfMP® review: prioritization and scenario analysis, governance thresholds, portfolio health metrics, risk registers and reserves, communications playbooks, and a practical glossary.
Use this as your last-mile PfMP® review. Pair it with the Syllabus for coverage and Practice for speed.
For domain weights and exam structure notes, see Overview.
flowchart TD
A["Strategic goals + constraints"] --> B["Prioritization criteria + scoring"]
B --> C["Portfolio scenarios (what-if)"]
C --> D["Roadmap + sequencing + dependencies"]
D --> E["Governance decisions + thresholds"]
E --> F["Monitor portfolio health + benefits"]
F --> G["Rebalance + reallocate + update roadmap"]
G --> C
Best-answer reflex: choose the next step that keeps decisions traceable to strategy, governed by thresholds, and validated by measurable portfolio outcomes.
| Concept | Focus | Success signal |
|---|---|---|
| Project | deliver outputs | acceptance + constraints met |
| Program | realize benefits | outcomes achieved and sustained |
| Portfolio | select and balance investments | strategic alignment and optimized allocation |
| If the question is about… | Reach for… | Why (concept) |
|---|---|---|
| why invest? | strategic priorities + criteria | defines the “why” |
| what to pick? | scoring model + scenario comparison | enables selection |
| sequencing to value | roadmap | shows path + dependencies |
| authority and approvals | governance model + thresholds | who decides what |
| portfolio health | KPI dashboard + trend analysis | evidence of drift |
| risk posture | portfolio risk register + reserves | exposure and buffers |
| consistency | standards + PMIS | comparable data |
| stakeholder alignment | comms plan + engagement strategy | sustained support |
Value scoring (concept):
\[ \text{Score}=\sum_{i=1}^{n} w_i\cdot s_i \]
Where \(w_i\) is the weight and \(s_i\) is the standardized score for criterion \(i\).
Common “portfolio viable” questions:
flowchart LR
S["Strategic priority"] --> A["Component A"]
S --> B["Component B"]
A --> C["Shared platform enablement"]
B --> C
C --> D["Benefits realized"]
If a shared dependency is late, “just start everything” is rarely correct; you often need sequencing changes, contingency plans, or scope trade-offs.
Leading indicators:
Lagging indicators:
ROI (concept):
\[ \text{ROI}=\frac{\text{Net Benefit}}{\text{Cost}} \]
NPV (concept):
\[ \text{NPV}=\sum_{t=0}^{T}\frac{CF_t}{(1+r)^t} \]
Benefit-cost ratio (BCR), concept:
\[ \text{BCR}=\frac{\text{PV(Benefits)}}{\text{PV(Costs)}} \]
Expected monetary value (EMV), concept:
\[ \text{EMV}=\sum p_i\cdot I_i \]
Where \(p_i\) is probability and \(I_i\) is impact.
| Field | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Risk statement | cause → event → impact (on benefits/strategy) |
| Owner | accountable responder |
| Exposure | probability × impact (qual/quant) |
| Response | avoid/mitigate/transfer/accept + actions |
| Trigger | when to act |
| Residual risk | exposure after response |
Reserve logic (concept): base reserves on aggregate exposure and governance-approved thresholds, not on “whatever is left in the budget.”
| Term | Meaning (concept) | Common trap |
|---|---|---|
| Portfolio scenario | a candidate investment set | treating it as a fixed plan |
| Prioritization criteria | basis for selection | changing criteria midstream |
| Governance threshold | decision trigger | bypassing authority |
| Aggregated performance | portfolio-wide results | optimizing one component only |
| Dependency risk | coupling failure risk | ignoring interdependencies |
| Reserve | buffer for exposure | using it as discretionary funding |