Portfolio control becomes unreliable when leadership governs the projects it can see while unseen work consumes the same scarce capacity.
An executive team may believe it has a disciplined portfolio. Major initiatives are listed. Projects have sponsors. Priorities have been agreed. Resource assignments have been approved. A portfolio meeting reviews progress every month.
Yet delivery still slows. People remain overloaded. Projects are repeatedly postponed. Teams complain that nominal capacity is never actually available.
The immediate explanation is often weak planning or poor execution. A more uncomfortable possibility is that the formal portfolio is only part of the work the organisation is actually doing.
Blichfeldt and Eskerod's qualitative study of 30 companies, based on 128 interviews, found this pattern in organisations that were already experienced in project portfolio management. Management selected and prioritised formal projects, yet smaller projects and locally initiated work outside the enacted portfolio continued to consume scarce resources. The problem was not simply that too many formal projects had been approved. It was that management's model of demand did not match organisational reality.
That distinction changes the executive problem.
If portfolio governance sees only officially recognised initiatives, capacity plans can be internally consistent and still be wrong.
The Strategic Context
Portfolio management is normally built around an explicit boundary.
Inside the boundary are projects leadership recognises as portfolio components. These receive governance, prioritisation, reporting and resource decisions.
Outside the boundary sit activities that may be described as minor improvements, operational changes, urgent customer requests, compliance fixes, management actions, technical investigations, local experiments or "small jobs".
Individually, many of these activities are reasonable. Collectively, they can become a shadow portfolio.
The organisation therefore operates with two different realities:
the governed portfolio, representing what executives believe they have authorised; and
the consumed portfolio, representing everything that actually competes for the people, assets, funding and attention needed to execute change.
The gap between the two is strategically important because resource allocation is one of the mechanisms through which strategy is implemented.
A project can be formally prioritised and still fail to receive the capacity its priority supposedly guarantees.
Related article: Capacity Is a Strategic Constraint: Match Ambition to What the Organisation Can Absorb
What Leaders Commonly Misread
The first mistake is assuming that work must be formally labelled a project before it becomes portfolio demand.
From a capacity perspective, the label is irrelevant. If an activity consumes the same engineer, product owner, analyst, maintenance window, testing environment or executive decision time, it competes with the portfolio.
The second mistake is assuming hidden work is necessarily waste.
Some unplanned work is valuable. Frontline experimentation can create innovation. Operational teams need discretion. Small customer requests may protect important relationships. Safety or reliability issues can require rapid action.
The problem is not the existence of work outside the portfolio. The problem is pretending that it consumes no capacity.
The third mistake is solving the problem through exhaustive centralisation.
Blichfeldt and Eskerod identify the dilemma directly: including every small project in formal PPM may improve visibility but also create a substantial cognitive and administrative burden.
The choice is therefore not between "govern everything" and "ignore everything".
The organisation needs a boundary architecture.
The fourth mistake is measuring utilisation without measuring interruption.
A specialist who appears 70 per cent allocated to a priority project may be nominally available, yet dozens of small demands can fragment the remaining time and repeatedly interrupt deep work.
Capacity is not only the quantity of hours. It is also the reliability with which those hours can be protected.
Reframing the Issue
The strategic question is not:
Have we listed all our projects?
It is:
Have we accounted for all material demand on the resources that constrain strategic execution?
This reframing permits proportional governance.
Leadership does not need a Board paper for every local improvement. It does need to know how much discretionary work exists, where it concentrates and whether it is eroding the commitments made to strategic initiatives.
A useful distinction is between governance visibility and governance intensity.
All material demand should be visible enough to inform capacity decisions.
Not all work requires the same approval process, reporting burden or executive attention.
That is the balance mature portfolio management should seek.
The Hidden Portfolio Creates Four Enterprise Risks
1. False capacity
Portfolio plans allocate people who appear available in the formal system but are already supporting operational or informal work.
The plan begins with a structural error.
2. Informal reprioritisation
Executives may approve strategic priorities, but local urgency decides where people actually spend their time.
The organisation therefore has a declared priority system and a second behavioural priority system.
3. Delayed benefits
A strategic project may remain nominally active while repeatedly losing critical resources for short periods. The delays appear individually minor but accumulate across the schedule.
The cost is not only late delivery. Benefit realisation also moves.
4. Stress and fragmentation
Blichfeldt and Eskerod observed stress alongside project delay and lack of overview. This is consistent with a system in which people are repeatedly reallocated between competing commitments.
Leaders should treat persistent overload as information about the portfolio architecture, not merely a resilience issue for individuals.
Related article: Too Many Projects Is a Strategy Failure, Not a Scheduling Problem
The Boundary Problem
Every organisation needs to decide what belongs inside formal portfolio governance.
One approach is to use thresholds based on factors such as:
- strategic impact;
- resource consumption;
- cross-functional dependency;
- capital requirement;
- risk;
- customer impact;
- duration;
- regulatory significance.
A small activity that consumes one specialist for three months may deserve portfolio visibility even if its financial cost is low.
Conversely, a recurring local activity may be better managed through an explicit operational capacity allowance rather than being converted into a project.
The purpose of thresholds is not bureaucracy. It is to make the boundary intentional.
Decision Framework
A practical Portfolio Boundary Test can use five questions.
1. Does the work consume a constrained resource?
If yes, the portfolio needs at least demand visibility.
2. Can the work materially affect strategic outcomes?
If yes, it requires stronger governance.
3. Does it create or depend on other initiatives?
Cross-project dependencies make seemingly small work strategically relevant.
4. Is it recurring discretionary work rather than a true project?
If so, consider allocating a defined operating reserve instead of creating another governed initiative.
5. Would executives make different portfolio choices if they saw this demand?
If the answer is yes, the work is materially hidden.
This produces three possible treatments:
formal portfolio component, for material strategic work;
visible delegated work, for smaller initiatives that need to be counted but not centrally governed; and
operational reserve, for recurring discretionary demand.
From Strategy to Execution
Immediate action: compare formal portfolio resource assignments with actual time and demand experienced by critical teams. Focus first on scarce roles rather than attempting an enterprise-wide inventory.
Ask teams what repeatedly interrupts authorised work. The answer often reveals the hidden portfolio faster than a system audit.
Medium-term capability building: define portfolio-entry thresholds and a light-touch mechanism for recording smaller demand. Establish capacity reserves where recurring operational work is legitimate and predictable.
Portfolio governance should also distinguish between approved project capacity and protected project capacity. A resource allocation is meaningful only if the operating system can honour it.
Long-term strategic positioning: integrate portfolio demand with workforce, operations and investment planning. The goal is a realistic model of enterprise capacity, not a perfect database of every activity.
Related article: Portfolio Reporting Should Change Decisions, Not Produce More Data
Signals to Monitor
Watch for critical resources reporting much lower availability than portfolio plans assume; formal priorities being repeatedly interrupted by "small urgent jobs"; projects that remain active for long periods with little progress; project counts increasing slowly while workload complaints rise rapidly; locally initiated work with no visibility outside the function; and portfolio meetings that discuss resource shortages without examining non-portfolio demand.
Another warning sign is when managers describe minor initiatives as "not really a project" as a reason they should not be counted.
From a governance perspective they may be correct.
From a capacity perspective they may be completely wrong.
Questions for the Leadership Team
- What work consumes our scarcest portfolio resources but does not appear in our portfolio view?
- Which informal demands repeatedly override formally agreed priorities?
- Where do we need visibility without adding full governance overhead?
- How much capacity should deliberately remain available for local improvement and emergent work?
- Are our resource plans based on nominal allocation or observed availability?
- Which portfolio decisions would change if all material demand were visible?
- What behaviour do our current thresholds encourage people to hide or relabel?
Closing Perspective
Portfolio management cannot optimise a system it has defined too narrowly.
The answer is not to centralise every task. It is to recognise that the organisation's real portfolio is created by every material claim on the scarce resources needed for change.
Leadership needs enough visibility to make those claims explicit, enough delegation to preserve speed and enough discipline to protect strategic commitments.
The portfolio you govern should be an honest model of the portfolio the organisation is actually carrying.
About EraNorth Insights
EraNorth Insights publishes practical analysis on strategy, projects, operations, transformation and decision intelligence for professional and organisational use. About EraNorth.