Risk-Reward Bubble Diagrams in Project Portfolio Prioritization - Revision history

Tkokotas at 14:09, 18 December 2018

2018-12-18T14:09:11Z

← Older revision	Revision as of 14:09, 18 December 2018
Line 1:	Line 1:
		''Developed by Stefan Borch Bilfeldt''

Tkokotas at 13:20, 23 November 2018

2018-11-23T13:20:31Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:20, 23 November 2018
Line 97:		Line 97:
	<ref name="Schott"> Schott, Eric, ''VL Strategisches Projektmanagement: Portfoliostrukturierung'', 2015 </ref>		<ref name="Schott"> Schott, Eric, ''VL Strategisches Projektmanagement: Portfoliostrukturierung'', 2015 </ref>
	<ref name="Basu"> Basu, Ron, ''Managing Projects in Research and Development'', 2015 </ref>		<ref name="Basu"> Basu, Ron, ''Managing Projects in Research and Development'', 2015 </ref>

			[[Category:Project Management]][[Category:Uncertaity]][[Category:Risk]][[Category:Tool]]

Stefan at 15:53, 25 September 2016

2016-09-25T15:53:29Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:53, 25 September 2016
Line 3:		Line 3:
	Risk-Reward Bubble Diagrams are visual tools for achieving an overview of the different parameters of the project such as the added value of the project when selecting which projects to run. Hence, the Risk-Reward Bubble Diagrams are considered useful for portfolio structuring.		Risk-Reward Bubble Diagrams are visual tools for achieving an overview of the different parameters of the project such as the added value of the project when selecting which projects to run. Hence, the Risk-Reward Bubble Diagrams are considered useful for portfolio structuring.

	In the classical Risk-Reward Bubble Diagram, as suggested by Stage-Gate International among others, a chart is made with a measure of the Project Importance (e.g. Net Present Value, NPV) on one axis and a measure of the Ease of Project Completion on the other. Four squares, or quadrants, are now formed within the graph determining the desirability of each project. Projects in the quadrant yielding high value and high ease of completion are named “Pearls”, and are the most desirable whereas “White Elephants” projects with low value and low ease of completion are the least desirable. In between are the “Bread & Butter” projects with high ease but low value and the oysters that add high value but with little ease of completion.		In the classical Risk-Reward Bubble Diagram, as suggested by Stage-Gate International among others <ref name="CooperWP12" /> <ref name="Levine" />, a chart is made with a measure of the Project Importance (e.g. Net Present Value, NPV) on one axis and a measure of the Ease of Project Completion on the other. Four squares, or quadrants, are now formed within the graph determining the desirability of each project. Projects in the quadrant yielding high value and high ease of completion are named “Pearls”, and are the most desirable whereas “White Elephants” projects with low value and low ease of completion are the least desirable. In between are the “Bread & Butter” projects with high ease but low value and the oysters that add high value but with little ease of completion.

	On this graph, the projects are displayed as surfaces, where the size, shape, colour etc. may indicate the costs of the project, the uncertainty of the estimates, the strategic fit or other relevant parameters.		On this graph, the projects are displayed as surfaces, where the size, shape, colour etc. may indicate the costs of the project, the uncertainty of the estimates, the strategic fit or other relevant parameters.
Line 14:		Line 14:
	= History =		= History =
	[[File:Method popularity_fromPortfolioMangamentForNew.jpg\|400px\|thumb\|right\|Figure 1. - Popularity of different portfolio management methods. Source: Cooper: Portfolio Management for New Products.]]		[[File:Method popularity_fromPortfolioMangamentForNew.jpg\|400px\|thumb\|right\|Figure 1. - Popularity of different portfolio management methods. Source: Cooper: Portfolio Management for New Products.]]
	As with many other methods of this kind, tracing the Risk-Reward Bubble Diagram down to one “inventor” on a given day is practically impossible. The Bubble Diagram, however, is widely mentioned in literature from various authors <ref name="CooperPMNP" /> <ref name="Milosevic" /> <ref name="Levine" /> and is included in the PMI Standard for Portfolio Management under the name “Bubble Chart”. In the Portfolio Management Standard, the Bubble Diagram (Bubble Chart) is denoted as a graphical representation “''often used by organizations to balance and monitor their portfolios''” <ref name="PMI_PMS_standard" />. The content parameters used in a generic Bubble Diagram, however, may be any measure of any property of the project.		As with many other methods of this kind, tracing the Risk-Reward Bubble Diagram down to one “inventor” on a given day is practically impossible. The Bubble Diagram, however, is widely mentioned in literature from various authors <ref name="CooperPMNP" /> <ref name="Milosevic" /> <ref name="Levine" /> and is included in the PMI Standard for Portfolio Management under the name “Bubble Chart”. <ref name="PMI_PMS_standard" /> In the Portfolio Management Standard, the Bubble Diagram (Bubble Chart) is denoted as a graphical representation “''often used by organizations to balance and monitor their portfolios''” <ref name="PMI_PMS_standard" />. The content parameters used in a generic Bubble Diagram, however, may be any measure of any property of the project.

	The Risk-Reward Bubble Diagram, defining the displayed project properties in the Bubble Diagram, is mentioned by several authors, most notably Robert Cooper from Stage-Gate Inc. The Bubble Diagram is here considered “''… an adaptation of the four quadrant BCG (star; cash cow; dog; wildcat) diagrams which have seen service since the 1970s as strategy models…''” <ref name="CooperWP12" />.		The Risk-Reward Bubble Diagram, defining the displayed project properties in the Bubble Diagram, is mentioned by several authors, most notably Robert Cooper from Stage-Gate Inc. The Bubble Diagram is here considered “''… an adaptation of the four quadrant BCG (star; cash cow; dog; wildcat) diagrams which have seen service since the 1970s as strategy models…''” <ref name="CooperWP12" />.

Stefan: /* BCG Growth-Share Matrix */

2016-09-25T15:49:46Z

BCG Growth-Share Matrix

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:49, 25 September 2016
Line 83:		Line 83:
	Many people have related the Bubble Diagrams to the traditional BCG Growth-Share Matrix from the 1970’s, separating projects into stars, cash cows, question marks and dogs or even stated that these two methods were the same. In a direct comparison of the two diagrams, the Pearls from the Risk-Reward Bubble Diagram correspond to Stars, the Oysters correspond to the Question Marks, the Bread-and-Butter to the cash cows and the White Elephants to the Dogs. <ref name="Basu" /> There are, however, several differences. <ref name="Milosevic" /> First of all, the axes in the Growth-Share Matrix are given as market attractiveness versus competitive position, whereas several options and additional dimensions or displays of project properties can be included in the Risk-Reward Bubble Diagrams. In addition to this, the classical BCG Growth-Share Matrix focuses on the current-state analysis. The Bubble Diagram is highly based on the analysis of adding new projects into an existing portfolio and/or managing which projects are in the portfolio and is thus more future-oriented.		Many people have related the Bubble Diagrams to the traditional BCG Growth-Share Matrix from the 1970’s, separating projects into stars, cash cows, question marks and dogs or even stated that these two methods were the same. In a direct comparison of the two diagrams, the Pearls from the Risk-Reward Bubble Diagram correspond to Stars, the Oysters correspond to the Question Marks, the Bread-and-Butter to the cash cows and the White Elephants to the Dogs. <ref name="Basu" /> There are, however, several differences. <ref name="Milosevic" /> First of all, the axes in the Growth-Share Matrix are given as market attractiveness versus competitive position, whereas several options and additional dimensions or displays of project properties can be included in the Risk-Reward Bubble Diagrams. In addition to this, the classical BCG Growth-Share Matrix focuses on the current-state analysis. The Bubble Diagram is highly based on the analysis of adding new projects into an existing portfolio and/or managing which projects are in the portfolio and is thus more future-oriented.

	According to Cooper, who is considered a advocate in favour of the Risk-Reward Bubble Diagrams, the consideration of market attractiveness and business position can be apropriate for analysis of known businesses and markets. <ref name="CooperWP12" /> For new product projects or likewise where the the market and/or the business' ability to operate within the market is not necessarily known, this scale may not be as apropriate. Therefore, the additional options given in the Risk-Reward Bubble Diagram, e.g. the different and additional axes possibilities, might make the use of a Risk-Reward Bubble Diagram preferable over the BCG-matrix for, amongst others, new product projects.		According to Cooper, who is considered a advocate in favour of the Risk-Reward Bubble Diagrams, the consideration of market attractiveness and business position can be apropriate for analysis of known businesses and markets. <ref name="CooperWP12" /> For new product projects or likewise where the the market and/or the business' ability to operate within the market is not necessarily known, this scale may not be as apropriate. Therefore, the additional options given in the Risk-Reward Bubble Diagram, e.g. the different and additional axes possibilities, might make the use of a Risk-Reward Bubble Diagram preferable over the BCG-matrix for, amongst others, new product projects. Using a combination of these two, however, may be of benefit, as both a consideration of the market and the market position as a known as well as more unknown factors would be applied. Of course, the results when categorising the projects in the four quadrants would need a more careful consideration. If a project is placed in two different quadrants, i.e. a star in BCG-Matrix and an Oyster in the Risk-Reward Bubble Diagrams, a more careful consideration would be required. If the correspondances suggested by Basu <ref name="Basu" /> were to hold true, the differences would be minor but given the possibility of uncertainty within the market knowledge in the two models, larger differences may arise. Whereas the combination might provide synergy by uncovering a wider amount of project/portfolio considerations, it may introduce a certain amount of confusion, as one model simply can be more appropriate for the type of project/portfolio.

			On an entire portfolio level, the implementation of both models may be too extensive and introduce to many risks. Using different models on different parts of the portfolio, however, may make more sense - especially if the portfolio is rather large or consists of many rather different projects. It is nonetheles important to notice that a direct comparison between the two models, as suggested by Basu <ref name="Basu" />, may be misleading as the preliminary assumptions are different between the models.

	= Annotated Bibliography and References =		= Annotated Bibliography and References =

Stefan: /* BCG Growth-Share Matrix */

2016-09-25T15:34:24Z

BCG Growth-Share Matrix

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:34, 25 September 2016
Line 81:		Line 81:

	== BCG Growth-Share Matrix ==		== BCG Growth-Share Matrix ==
	Many people have related the Bubble Diagrams to the traditional BCG Growth-Share Matrix from the 1970’s, separating projects into stars, cash cows, question marks and dogs or even stated that these two methods were the same. In a direct comparison of the two diagrams, the Pearls from the Risk-Reward Bubble Diagram correspond to Stars, the Oysters correspond to the Question Marks, the Bread-and-Butter to the cash cows and the White Elephants to the Dogs. <ref name="Basu" /> There are, however, several differences. <ref name="Milosevic" /> First of all, the axes in the Growth-Share Matrix are given as market attractiveness versus competitive position, whereas several options and additional dimensions or displays of project properties can be included in the Risk-Reward Bubble Diagrams. In addition to this, the classical BCG Growth-Share Matrix focuses on the current-state analysis. The Bubble Diagram is highly based on the analysis of adding new projects into an existing portfolio and/or managing which projects are in the portfolio and is thus more future-oriented. According to Cooper, who is considered a advocate in favour of the Risk-Reward Bubble Diagrams, the consideration of market attractiveness and business position can be apropriate for analysis of known businesses and markets. <ref name="CooperWP12" /> For new product projects or likewise where the the market and/or the business' ability to operate within the market is not necessarily known, this scale may not be as apropriate. Therefore, the additional options given in the Risk-Reward Bubble Diagram, e.g. the different and additional axes possibilities, might make the use of a Risk-Reward Bubble Diagram preferable over the BCG-matrix for, amongst others, new product projects.		Many people have related the Bubble Diagrams to the traditional BCG Growth-Share Matrix from the 1970’s, separating projects into stars, cash cows, question marks and dogs or even stated that these two methods were the same. In a direct comparison of the two diagrams, the Pearls from the Risk-Reward Bubble Diagram correspond to Stars, the Oysters correspond to the Question Marks, the Bread-and-Butter to the cash cows and the White Elephants to the Dogs. <ref name="Basu" /> There are, however, several differences. <ref name="Milosevic" /> First of all, the axes in the Growth-Share Matrix are given as market attractiveness versus competitive position, whereas several options and additional dimensions or displays of project properties can be included in the Risk-Reward Bubble Diagrams. In addition to this, the classical BCG Growth-Share Matrix focuses on the current-state analysis. The Bubble Diagram is highly based on the analysis of adding new projects into an existing portfolio and/or managing which projects are in the portfolio and is thus more future-oriented.

			According to Cooper, who is considered a advocate in favour of the Risk-Reward Bubble Diagrams, the consideration of market attractiveness and business position can be apropriate for analysis of known businesses and markets. <ref name="CooperWP12" /> For new product projects or likewise where the the market and/or the business' ability to operate within the market is not necessarily known, this scale may not be as apropriate. Therefore, the additional options given in the Risk-Reward Bubble Diagram, e.g. the different and additional axes possibilities, might make the use of a Risk-Reward Bubble Diagram preferable over the BCG-matrix for, amongst others, new product projects.

	= Annotated Bibliography and References =		= Annotated Bibliography and References =

Stefan: /* BCG Growth-Share Matrix */

2016-09-25T15:34:02Z

BCG Growth-Share Matrix

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:34, 25 September 2016
Line 81:		Line 81:

	== BCG Growth-Share Matrix ==		== BCG Growth-Share Matrix ==
	Many people have related the Bubble Diagrams to the traditional BCG Growth-Share Matrix from the 1970’s, separating projects into stars, cash cows, question marks and dogs or even stated that these two methods were the same. In a direct comparison of the two diagrams, the Pearls from the Risk-Reward Bubble Diagram correspond to Stars, the Oysters correspond to the Question Marks, the Bread-and-Butter to the cash cows and the White Elephants to the Dogs. <ref name="Basu" /> There are, however, several differences. <ref name="Milosevic" /> First of all, the axes in the Growth-Share Matrix are given as market attractiveness versus competitive position, whereas several options and additional dimensions or displays of project properties can be included in the Risk-Reward Bubble Diagrams. In addition to this, the classical BCG Growth-Share Matrix focuses on the current-state analysis. The Bubble Diagram is highly based on the analysis of adding new projects into an existing portfolio and/or managing which projects are in the portfolio and is thus more future-oriented. According to Cooper, who is considered a advocate in favour of the Risk-Reward Bubble Diagrams, the consideration of market attractiveness and business position can be apropriate for analysis of known businesses and markets. <ref name="CooperWP12" /> For new product projects or likewise where the the market and/or the business' ability to operate within the market is not necessarily known, this scale may not be as apropriate. Therefore, the additional options given in the Risk-Reward Bubble Diagram, e.g. the different and additional axes possibilities, might make the use of a Risk-Reward Bubble Diagram preferable over the BCG-matrix.		Many people have related the Bubble Diagrams to the traditional BCG Growth-Share Matrix from the 1970’s, separating projects into stars, cash cows, question marks and dogs or even stated that these two methods were the same. In a direct comparison of the two diagrams, the Pearls from the Risk-Reward Bubble Diagram correspond to Stars, the Oysters correspond to the Question Marks, the Bread-and-Butter to the cash cows and the White Elephants to the Dogs. <ref name="Basu" /> There are, however, several differences. <ref name="Milosevic" /> First of all, the axes in the Growth-Share Matrix are given as market attractiveness versus competitive position, whereas several options and additional dimensions or displays of project properties can be included in the Risk-Reward Bubble Diagrams. In addition to this, the classical BCG Growth-Share Matrix focuses on the current-state analysis. The Bubble Diagram is highly based on the analysis of adding new projects into an existing portfolio and/or managing which projects are in the portfolio and is thus more future-oriented. According to Cooper, who is considered a advocate in favour of the Risk-Reward Bubble Diagrams, the consideration of market attractiveness and business position can be apropriate for analysis of known businesses and markets. <ref name="CooperWP12" /> For new product projects or likewise where the the market and/or the business' ability to operate within the market is not necessarily known, this scale may not be as apropriate. Therefore, the additional options given in the Risk-Reward Bubble Diagram, e.g. the different and additional axes possibilities, might make the use of a Risk-Reward Bubble Diagram preferable over the BCG-matrix for, amongst others, new product projects.

	= Annotated Bibliography and References =		= Annotated Bibliography and References =

Stefan: /* Procter & Gamble’s 3D Bubble Diagram */

2016-09-25T15:33:20Z

Procter & Gamble’s 3D Bubble Diagram

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:33, 25 September 2016
Line 63:		Line 63:
	The most notable difference to the classical Risk-Reward Bubble Diagram, shown in Figure 3, is the elliptical bubbles. These ellipses indicate the uncertainty on each of the axis parameters. The shape of the bubbles, thus, indicate the uncertainty, also denoted fuzziness, of the projects. This means, for instance, that a tall, slim bubble has little uncertainty in the probable NPV estimate (shown on the x-axis) but a given uncertainty in the Technical Success Probability estimate. Hence, the smaller the bubble, the higher the certainty of the estimates.		The most notable difference to the classical Risk-Reward Bubble Diagram, shown in Figure 3, is the elliptical bubbles. These ellipses indicate the uncertainty on each of the axis parameters. The shape of the bubbles, thus, indicate the uncertainty, also denoted fuzziness, of the projects. This means, for instance, that a tall, slim bubble has little uncertainty in the probable NPV estimate (shown on the x-axis) but a given uncertainty in the Technical Success Probability estimate. Hence, the smaller the bubble, the higher the certainty of the estimates.

	== Procter & Gamble’s 3D Bubble Diagram ==		=== Procter & Gamble’s 3D Bubble Diagram ===
	Procter & Gamble developed the elliptical Risk-Reward Bubble Diagram of 3M, showing the estimate uncertainties, further by adding Time to Launch as an additional axis. This 3D Diagram is created using CAD-tools and therefore loses some of its value when projected down into 2D, as it is shown in Figure 4.		Procter & Gamble developed the elliptical Risk-Reward Bubble Diagram of 3M, showing the estimate uncertainties, further by adding Time to Launch as an additional axis. This 3D Diagram is created using CAD-tools and therefore loses some of its value when projected down into 2D, as it is shown in Figure 4.

Stefan: /* Variants of the classical Risk-Reward Bubble Diagram */

2016-09-25T15:33:02Z

Variants of the classical Risk-Reward Bubble Diagram

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:33, 25 September 2016
Line 63:		Line 63:
	The most notable difference to the classical Risk-Reward Bubble Diagram, shown in Figure 3, is the elliptical bubbles. These ellipses indicate the uncertainty on each of the axis parameters. The shape of the bubbles, thus, indicate the uncertainty, also denoted fuzziness, of the projects. This means, for instance, that a tall, slim bubble has little uncertainty in the probable NPV estimate (shown on the x-axis) but a given uncertainty in the Technical Success Probability estimate. Hence, the smaller the bubble, the higher the certainty of the estimates.		The most notable difference to the classical Risk-Reward Bubble Diagram, shown in Figure 3, is the elliptical bubbles. These ellipses indicate the uncertainty on each of the axis parameters. The shape of the bubbles, thus, indicate the uncertainty, also denoted fuzziness, of the projects. This means, for instance, that a tall, slim bubble has little uncertainty in the probable NPV estimate (shown on the x-axis) but a given uncertainty in the Technical Success Probability estimate. Hence, the smaller the bubble, the higher the certainty of the estimates.

	Procter & Gamble’s 3D Bubble Diagram		== Procter & Gamble’s 3D Bubble Diagram ==
	Procter & Gamble developed the elliptical Risk-Reward Bubble Diagram of 3M, showing the estimate uncertainties, further by adding Time to Launch as an additional axis. This 3D Diagram is created using CAD-tools and therefore loses some of its value when projected down into 2D, as it is shown in Figure 4.		Procter & Gamble developed the elliptical Risk-Reward Bubble Diagram of 3M, showing the estimate uncertainties, further by adding Time to Launch as an additional axis. This 3D Diagram is created using CAD-tools and therefore loses some of its value when projected down into 2D, as it is shown in Figure 4.

Stefan: /* BCG Growth-Share Matrix */

2016-09-25T15:32:11Z

BCG Growth-Share Matrix

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:32, 25 September 2016
Line 81:		Line 81:

	== BCG Growth-Share Matrix ==		== BCG Growth-Share Matrix ==
	Many people have related the Bubble Diagrams to the traditional BCG Growth-Share Matrix from the 1970’s, separating projects into stars, cash cows, question marks and dogs or even stated that these two methods were the same. In a direct comparison of the two diagrams, the Pearls from the Risk-Reward Bubble Diagram correspond to Stars, the Oysters correspond to the Question Marks, the Bread-and-Butter to the cash cows and the White Elephants to the Dogs. <ref name="Basu" /> There are, however, several differences. <ref name="Milosevic" /> First of all, the axes in the Growth-Share Matrix are given as market attractiveness versus competitive position, whereas several options and additional dimensions or displays of project properties can be included in the Risk-Reward Bubble Diagrams. In addition to this, the classical BCG Growth-Share Matrix focuses on the current-state analysis. The Bubble Diagram is highly based on the analysis of adding new projects into an existing portfolio and/or managing which projects are in the portfolio and is thus more future-oriented. According to Cooper, who is considered a advocate in favour of the Risk-Reward Bubble Diagrams, the consideration of market attractiveness and business position can be apropriate for analysis of known businesses and markets. <ref name="~~WP12~~" /> For new product projects or likewise where the the market and/or the business' ability to operate within the market is not necessarily known, this scale may not be as apropriate. Therefore, the additional options given in the Risk-Reward Bubble Diagram, e.g. the different and additional axes possibilities, might make the use of a Risk-Reward Bubble Diagram preferable over the BCG-matrix.		Many people have related the Bubble Diagrams to the traditional BCG Growth-Share Matrix from the 1970’s, separating projects into stars, cash cows, question marks and dogs or even stated that these two methods were the same. In a direct comparison of the two diagrams, the Pearls from the Risk-Reward Bubble Diagram correspond to Stars, the Oysters correspond to the Question Marks, the Bread-and-Butter to the cash cows and the White Elephants to the Dogs. <ref name="Basu" /> There are, however, several differences. <ref name="Milosevic" /> First of all, the axes in the Growth-Share Matrix are given as market attractiveness versus competitive position, whereas several options and additional dimensions or displays of project properties can be included in the Risk-Reward Bubble Diagrams. In addition to this, the classical BCG Growth-Share Matrix focuses on the current-state analysis. The Bubble Diagram is highly based on the analysis of adding new projects into an existing portfolio and/or managing which projects are in the portfolio and is thus more future-oriented. According to Cooper, who is considered a advocate in favour of the Risk-Reward Bubble Diagrams, the consideration of market attractiveness and business position can be apropriate for analysis of known businesses and markets. <ref name="CooperWP12" /> For new product projects or likewise where the the market and/or the business' ability to operate within the market is not necessarily known, this scale may not be as apropriate. Therefore, the additional options given in the Risk-Reward Bubble Diagram, e.g. the different and additional axes possibilities, might make the use of a Risk-Reward Bubble Diagram preferable over the BCG-matrix.

	= Annotated Bibliography and References =		= Annotated Bibliography and References =

Stefan: /* Annotated Bibliography and References */

2016-09-25T15:31:58Z

Annotated Bibliography and References

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:31, 25 September 2016
Line 85:		Line 85:
	= Annotated Bibliography and References =		= Annotated Bibliography and References =
	<references>		<references>
	<ref name="CooperWP12">Cooper, Robert G., Edgett, Scott J., Kleinschmidt, Elko J., ''Portfolio Management: Fundamental for New Product Success'', 2002: A working paper from Stage-Gate Inc., a project management consulting company founded by Robert G. Cooper and Scott J. Edgett. The company has publiced several books. </ref>		<ref name="CooperWP12">Cooper, Robert G., Edgett, Scott J., Kleinschmidt, Elko J., ''Portfolio Management: Fundamental for New Product Success'', 2002: A working paper from Stage-Gate Inc., a project management consulting company founded by Robert G. Cooper and Scott J. Edgett. Robert G. Cooper is traditionally considered a strong advocate for, if not the inventor of, the Risk-Reward Bubble Diagrams. In the working paper, the Risk-Reward Bubble Diagram is presented as a method and the use of it as well as examples are presented. The company has publiced several books. </ref>
	<ref name="Levine"> Levine, Harvey A., ''Project Portfolio Management: A Practical Guide to Selecting Projects, Managing Portfolios, and Maximizing Benefits'', 2005: A book on project portfolio management written by PMI Fellow Harvey A. Levine, who has worked both as an author and a consultant within project management. </ref>		<ref name="Levine"> Levine, Harvey A., ''Project Portfolio Management: A Practical Guide to Selecting Projects, Managing Portfolios, and Maximizing Benefits'', 2005: A book on project portfolio management written by PMI Fellow Harvey A. Levine, who has worked both as an author and a consultant within project management. The book is highly focused on the value-bringing to the organization and widely uses, acknowledges and explains the principle of the scoring approach and the different methods within this. The Risk-Reward Bubble Diagram is here presented as a tool in extension to the rather extensive project scoring and ranking principles. Likewise, the managing of portfolios based on the scoring data is taken into consideration </ref>
	<ref name="Milosevic"> Milosevic, Dragan Z., ''Project Management ToolBox: Tools and Techniques for the Practicing Project Manager'' 2003: A book on many practical tools for project and portfolio management by Dragan M. Milosevic. </ref>		<ref name="Milosevic"> Milosevic, Dragan Z., ''Project Management ToolBox: Tools and Techniques for the Practicing Project Manager'' 2003: A book on many practical tools for project and portfolio management by Dragan M. Milosevic. The book is widely focused on project management and the portfolio management is here in a wider degree looked upon from the view of project manager's responsibilies. When looking into the portfolio management, the requirements from each project and the collaboration between these are hence seen from a project management perspective. Thus, the scoring approach is not as extensively covered and the Risk-Reward Bubble Diagrams are presented in a more general fashion as a tool for viewing the projects and their benefits in a portfolio context.</ref>

	<ref name="CooperPMNP"> Cooper, Robert G., Edgett, Scott J., Kleinschmidt, Elko J., ''Portfolio Management for New Product Development: Results of an Industry Practices Study'', 2001 </ref>		<ref name="CooperPMNP"> Cooper, Robert G., Edgett, Scott J., Kleinschmidt, Elko J., ''Portfolio Management for New Product Development: Results of an Industry Practices Study'', 2001 </ref>
	<ref name="PMI_PMS_standard"> Project Management Institute, ''THE STANDARD FOR PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT'', 2008 </ref>		<ref name="PMI_PMS_standard"> Project Management Institute, ''THE STANDARD FOR PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT'', 2008 </ref>
	<ref name="Schott"> Schott, Eric, ''VL Strategisches Projektmanagement: Portfoliostrukturierung'', 2015 </ref>		<ref name="Schott"> Schott, Eric, ''VL Strategisches Projektmanagement: Portfoliostrukturierung'', 2015 </ref>
			<ref name="Basu"> Basu, Ron, ''Managing Projects in Research and Development'', 2015 </ref>