Disclosing the Tacit Links between Risk and Success in Organizational Development Project Portfolios

Citation: Micán, C.; Fernandes, G.; Araújo, M. Disclosing the Tacit Links between Risk and Success in Organizational Development Project Portfolios. Sustainability 2022,14, 5235. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su14095235 Academic Editor: Michele Grimaldi Received: 25 March 2022 Accepted: 21 April 2022 Published: 26 April 2022 Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/). sustainability Article Disclosing the Tacit Links between Risk and Success in Organizational Development Project Portfolios Camilo Micán1,* , Gabriela Fernandes 2and Madalena Araújo 3 1School of Industrial Engineering, Universidad del Valle, Cali 760034, Colombia 2CEMMPRE, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Coimbra, 3030-788 Coimbra, Portugal; [email protected] 3ALGORITMI, Department of Production and Systems, University of Minho, 4800-058 Guimarães, Portugal; [email protected] *Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: Project portfolios aim to impact organizational strategic goals, influencing both the organization’s business model and its processes. Nonetheless, the actual impact is dependent on the portfolio’s success, which is affected by the materialization of risk factors. This study aims to examine the tacit conceptualization of project portfolio risk as a risk measure explicitly based on project portfolio success itself. In order to focus on the portfolios of organizational development projects, Social Representation Theory was adopted to analyze empirical evidence from twenty-eight semi-structured interviews conducted with project portfolio practitioners. Findings showed that strategic fit, future preparedness, and stakeholder satisfaction were dimensions of success within which project portfolio risk could be conceptualized. Additionally, results evidenced that risk factors influenced project portfolio success through systematic and non-systematic impacts on project portfolio outputs, and also had direct impacts on project portfolio outcomes. This paper provides empirical evidence to back up the conceptualization of project portfolio risk explicitly oriented to portfolio success as a multidimensional risk measure. It represents a new avenue for conducting portfolio risk analysis for both practitioners and academics, orienting the decision-making process based on the portfolio success rather than only on the success of each project. Keywords: project portfolio risk; risk management; project portfolio success; portfolio management; risk factors; organizational development portfolios 1. Introduction Increasing global competition and growing attention to environmental and social issues have led organizations to recognize that to be economically, operationally, and strategically sustainable, their business models and processes must be aligned with these competitive, environmental, and social changes [ 1 , 2 ]. In this regard, projects represent a common and suitable way to drive changes in organizations [1]. These organizational changes must fit into a coordinated cross-project structure that enables the organization to be competitive in the future while enhancing short-term performance and leading to long-term sustainability [ 2 , 3 ]. Project portfolios aim to achieve desired midor long-term organizational outcomes that impact business models and the processes of companies [2,4]. A project portfolio represents a set of projects and programs oriented towards achieving specific organizational objectives [ 2 , 5 ]. Portfolio management has been associated with the operationalization of organizational strategy [ 6 ], while seeking to address and integrate different stakeholders at the organizational level [ 7 ]. Thus, an appropriate project portfolio model can provide an opportunity to grow sustainably, improve strategic business performance, and achieve a sustainable competitive position in response to the changing environment in which organizations are immersed [ 2 , 8 ]. However, the portfolio’s results Sustainability 2022,14, 5235. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14095235 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability Sustainability 2022,14, 5235 2 of 19 may not satisfy expectations due to the materialization of ‘risk factors’ [ 5 , 9 ]. In line with the above, the concept of sustainability has risk management as one of its recognized impact areas [9]. Risk is related to decision-making processes specific to each organization, being connected to all organizational levels [ 10 ]. For instance, within project-based organizations, Zhao et al. [ 11 ] put forward that there are risk factors at different levels, rather than just at the project level, which can affect both projects and other organizational levels. The risk management paradigm in project contexts has evolved toward a global view that goes beyond a project-circumscribed perspective [9,11]. In this regard, the existence of specific portfolio-level ‘risk factors’ [ 5 , 9 , 12 ] has been recognized; for instance, Bai et al. [ 12 ] identified 20 risks over the project portfolio life cycle, revealing that six of them can be considered critical portfolio risks. It has been additionally identified that a risk approach at the project portfolio level could allow higher effectiveness, leading to positive impacts on the ‘project portfolio success’ [ 13 ]. This could also help focus on the most relevant risks for the project portfolio and, in turn, achieve the expected impact on the organizational strategy [5,14]. The construct ‘project portfolio risk’ could be tacitly conceptualized as a measure of impact on ‘project portfolio success’ due to changes in ‘risk factors’ derived from different levels. This is aligned with the fact that the risk construct may be associated with the exposure concept, which indicates the amount or measure of impact on expected results or the volatility or variability in results due to changes in risk factors [15,16]. However, an approach based on the mentioned tacit conceptualization of ‘project portfolio risk’ is still barely studied. By contrast, financial success measures have been used to conduct the risk assessment of organizational investments in project portfolios [17–19] within a general management approach [ 20 ]; and project success measures, such as time or cost of each project within the portfolio, have been incorporated into risk assessments of projects considering the interdependencies that derive from the portfolio environment [21–23], which follows a project success view. Therefore, from this background, the following research question was posed: How could ‘project portfolio risk’ be conceptualized as a measure of impact on ‘project portfolio success’ due to changes in ‘risk factors’? Recognizing the diversity of contexts, attributes, and particularities among different types of project portfolios, this study focused on the portfolios of organizational development projects. This type of project portfolio embraces a mixed set of projects directly related to the firm’s strategy or corporate-level goals and organizational strategic impacts [ 24 , 25 ]. It aims to achieve a midor long-term organizational outcome and, consequently, positively impact business models and processes [ 2 ]. To that end, organizational development portfolios are structures that respond to emerging changes in the external and internal environment. Therefore, this type of project portfolio considers the state of the company itself, including the competitive environment, marketing priorities, changing consumer demands, requirements of production technologies, etc. [25,26]. This study takes the epistemological stance of a constructivism-founded scientific paradigm for organizing the research [ 27 ]. Twenty-eight semi-structured interviews were conducted and analyzed to capture the practitioners’ perspectives on ‘risk factors’ and ‘project portfolio success’ framed within the ‘project portfolio risk’ construct. For that reason, Social Representation Theory (SRT) was adopted as the theoretical lens. The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. Firstly, a background on ‘project portfolio risk’, ‘risk factors’, ‘project portfolio success’, and SRT is presented. Then, the adopted research methodology is described. This is followed by the findings derived from the interviews, discussion of the main findings that emerged from the study, conclusions, limitations, and future work recommendations. Sustainability 2022,14, 5235 3 of 19 2. Literature Review 2.1. Risk in Project Portfolios The conceptualization of risk derived from Modern Portfolio Theory, developed by Harry Markowitz in 1952, is presented as the seminal theory insofar as project portfolio risk is a concern [ 28 ]. Modern Portfolio Theory has been used to establish a parallel between financial portfolios and project portfolios, specifically focusing on risk incorporation into the project portfolio selection process [ 17 , 19 ], thus adopting a general risk management approach [ 20 ]. These studies are focused on the risk associated with financial results, generally defining the risk as a unidimensional measure. In this regard, the risk is associated with variations in the portfolio’s financial results due to the variation derived from each project and, by considering the correlation between each pair of projects. In other words, total portfolio risk can be considered to be composed of independent project risk and interdependent project risk [19]. When looking for risk approaches oriented more towards project portfolio characteristics than general management, it has been posed that portfolio value cannot be measured only in monetary terms [ 13 , 29 , 30 ]. For instance, proposals oriented to integrate both monetary and non-monetary factors have been made [ 30 ]. To this end, a discrete comparison of alternatives has been explored [ 1 , 30 ], where attributes associated with the risk for each project are considered as criteria in the portfolio selection process. Other proposals have focused on estimating the risk as changes in the scope, time, or cost of projects due to some risk factor interdependency and project interdependency, or as changes in the cumulative cost of the projects within the portfolio [ 20 , 22 , 23 , 31 ]. Hence, a perspective on risk in which the ‘project portfolio risk’ is associated with the success of the projects within the portfolio is proposed here. For this reason, these proposals have been developed under a project management approach [ 20 ], recognizing, in most cases, the multidimensional nature of project success in a way that tacitly considers the ‘project portfolio risk’ as a measure of impact on the success of the projects within the portfolio due to project interdependency and changes in project ‘risk factors’ during the project portfolio execution. For instance, considering interdependencies between projects, several studies have focused on how the risk is propagated across the projects within the portfolio [ 22 , 23 ]. However, portfolio-level ‘risk factors’ and the condition that the ‘project portfolio risk’ goes beyond the sum of the individual risk for each project within the portfolio, although highlighted, have not been explicitly incorporated into risk conceptualization under this approach. Hofman et al. [ 5 ], Ghasemi et al. [ 9 ], and Bai et al. [ 12 ] present the identification and categorization of project-portfolio level ‘risk factors’ from a full spectrum of project portfolios. In addition, Ghasemi et al. [ 9 ] pose a risk assessment model oriented towards establishing the ‘project portfolio risk’ as the impact on the ‘project portfolio success’ as a unidimensional measure due to changes in projectand portfolio-level ‘risk factors’. Thus, extending the fact that project portfolios represent the bridge between projects and organizational strategy, an alternative approach for ‘project portfolio risk’ emerges which would allow for incorporating the specific portfolio level into the analysis, i.e., portfoliolevel ‘risk factors’ and ‘project portfolio success’ as the expected portfolio measures that are impacted by the ‘risk factors’. The adoption of this alternative approach oriented explicitly towards the portfolio level could help disclose the tacit role of the ‘project portfolio risk’ as the bridge between the project-managementand general-management-based risk approaches identified in the literature. 2.2. Risk Factors in Project Portfolios Risk categorization contributes to the effectiveness and quality of risk analysis, as well as leading to a risk-based decision process [ 4 , 5 ]. Hence, different categorization schemes for ‘risk factors’ associated with projects within a project portfolio have been identified in the literature. These categorization schemes have mainly aimed at classifying ‘risk Sustainability 2022,14, 5235 4 of 19 factors’ by their sources. Alternative categorization schemes have recently been posed, for instance, the identification and categorization of critical risks to project portfolios over the life cycle [12]. According to the structured literature review conducted by Micán et al. [ 21 ], risk factor categories based on risk factor sources could be synthesized into four categories: (1) the Project Portfolio Management (PPM) level, considering aspects related to portfolio information management, conflicts at the portfolio level, and lack of portfolio management capabilities; (2) Project interactions, considering the resource interdependency between projects as ‘risk factors’ and the dependency of outputs between projects; (3) External conditions, in which are grouped ‘risk factors’ derived from external conditions to the parent organization; and (4) Organizational conditions, considering aspects related that organizational decisions or processes, including project management process and decisions related to the structure of the portfolio, which can influence the project portfolio results. Alternatively, the conceptualization of systematic and non-systematic risks derived from Modern Portfolio Theory (MPT) has been adopted to conceptualize the ‘project portfolio risk’ sources [ 32 , 33 ]. This means that, to classify the ‘risk factors’ by the extent of their impact, the non-systematic risk is associated with individual risk contributions from each project risk factor, and systematic risk is derived from those ‘risk factors’ which have an impact on the whole project portfolio [17]. However, the representation of systematic risk has different interpretations; for example, Costa et al. [ 32 ] pose it as being exclusively associated with environmental factors, while Drake and Byrd [ 33 ] mention that, besides the factors of the environment, it includes the risk derived from the interdependency of ‘risk factors’ and project interactions as risk factor sources. In addition, although the conceptualization of systemic and non-systemic risk for project portfolios has been widely adopted for incorporating risk into the project portfolio selection process [ 17 ], it is scarcely considered for risk analysis in the project portfolio execution phase. 2.3. Project Portfolio Success Five ‘project portfolio success’ dimensions are generally described in the literature [34,35] : (i) strategic fit, (ii) future preparedness, (iii) average project success, (iv) synergy exploitation, and (v) portfolio balance, where success dimensions i, iii, iv and v are based on the PPM goals defined by Cooper et al. [ 36 ] for portfolios of product development projects, which later were adopted for other types of project portfolios. Table 1summarizes these five ‘project portfolio success’ dimensions. In addition, the dimension related to economic success was incorporated in some works as a ‘project portfolio success’ dimension [ 34 , 35 ], while other publications regard this dimension as a business success dimension, and therefore a positive consequence of ‘project portfolio success’ more than a ‘project portfolio success’ dimension itself [37]. Table 1. Project portfolio success dimensions. Success Dimension Description Strategic fit The degree to which the project portfolio reflects the company’s strategy, bearing in mind aspects such as structure, technology, or environment [ 34 , 37 ]. Future preparedness Long-term benefits and opportunities offered by the project portfolio. This dimension is based on the creation of new markets, new or improved technologies, capabilities or processes, positive impacts on brand value or employer reputation, and the ability to adapt and react to technological or market changes [34]. Average project success Associated with two main aspects: (1) the projection of performance measures, measured using criteria such as budget, schedule, quality, and customer satisfaction; (2) the market and commercial performance of each project, measured using financial performance criteria [34,35]. Sustainability 2022,14, 5235 5 of 19 Table 1. Cont. Success Dimension Description Synergy exploitation Cross-project coordination includes synergies related to technologies, the market, knowledge, and resources [ 37 , 38 ]. However, practices focused on this dimension ‘are not often put into practice due to the complexity of the numerous interdependencies within the portfolio’ [37] (p. 809). Portfolio balance Short-term and long-term benefits, well-adjusted risk level, appropriate equilibrium between project types and between use of new and existing technologies, resource adequacy [9,34]. 2.4. Social Representation Theory Social representations can be defined as systems of cognitive elements—opinions, knowledge, and beliefs—particular to a culture, a social category, or a group, with regard to objects in the social environment [ 39 , 40 ]. Social Representation Theory (STR) was originally developed to analyze the relationship between individuals and society for psychological studies. However, SRT can be equally applied to understand the relationship between a subject and an object [ 40 , 41 ]. Thus, for instance, it has been incorporated to conduct qualitative analysis in different fields [ 39 , 42 – 44 ]. In this regard, the adoption of SRT has grown in different areas of knowledge, including the management field [41]. Three main orientations can be identified within SRT, which are [45] the sociogenetic model, the sociodynamic model, and the structural model. This research adheres to a sociogenetic model. According to the sociogenetic model, a social representation involves two distinct but complementary processes: anchoring and objectifying. Anchoring is defined as the process by which new information is interpreted by linking it with familiar knowledge. Objectification is defined as the process by which the object is reproduced and described in a concrete and selective manner [ 39 , 40 ]. The schematization of the object is defined as the figurative core [40]. In a sociogenetic model for SRT operationalization, monographic and qualitative approaches to data collection and analysis constitute the main methodological framework [ 40 ], and the researchers mainly opted for observations or interviews [45]. 3. Research Methodology 3.1. Research Design In this study, the project portfolio was considered to be an organization or an organizational subsystem. A constructivism-founded scientific paradigm for organization research was adopted. In organizational design science, the goal of research using this approach is to develop knowledge to guide design processes [ 27 ]. In the constructivist view of organizational design science, constructivist epistemologies and organizational design science complement each other to generate further knowledge [27]. SRT was adopted as the theoretical lens, adhering to a sociogenetic model for SRT operationalization. The constructs ‘risk factors’ and ‘project portfolio success’ were defined as objects, while practitioners were established as subjects, with a goal of understanding the relationship between the practitioners and their notion of what constitutes these constructs. In light of this, an exploratory qualitative research process was undertaken. Social representation was focused on describing the objectification of the two constructs under analysis: ‘risk factors’ and ‘project portfolio success’. 3.2. Data Collection A semi-structured interview method can provide or build explanations for a specific, clear topic so that issues previously defined can be addressed [ 46 ]. In this regard, the literature review on ‘risk factors’ from a portfolio perspective and ‘project portfolio success’ was used as background for the interview design. Thus, the four risk factor categories Sustainability 2022,14, 5235 6 of 19 proposed by Micán et al. [ 21 ] (see Section 2.2) were defined as initial themes regarding the construct ‘risk factors’, defining them as risk factor categories, and the five ‘project portfolio success’ dimensions described in Table 1(see Section 2.3) were established as initial themes concerning the construct ‘project portfolio success’. Next, an interview guide or protocol was defined and followed. The interviews comprise the broader-scope research project within which this study is framed, so therefore, the interview protocol included additional issues to the two constructs reported in this paper. Appendix Adescribes the interview blocks and questions. The interview protocol consisted of four main blocks of questions (blocks two to five in Appendix A). This paper reports in detail data associated with the constructs ‘risk factors’ and ‘project portfolio success’. These constructs were mainly associated with blocks two and three. However, information regarding those constructs might also have been mentioned by interviewees in the fourth or fifth interview blocks. ‘What criteria/dimension might represent project portfolio success dimensions?’ was the main question in block two. ‘Could you identify types of risks, groups of risks, or categories of risk that should be considered at the project portfolio level?’ was the main question in block three. Prior to the interview, all participants received a briefing document by email, which clarified the research scope, the main interview questions, anonymity and confidentiality concerns, and the key terms adopted. Where appropriate, supplementary questions were used to prompt more detailed responses to the above questions. The interviews were recorded with the prior authorization of each interviewee. Handwritten notes were taken during interviews. This study was focused on the professional experience of the interviewees. Twenty-eight interviews were carried out. The interviews lasted 53 minutes on average. The interviewees’ target profile was Colombian professionals with experience as, or related to, project portfolio managers or as head of a project portfolio office, and with experience in portfolios of organizational development projects. Organizational development projects, also described as internal development projects, can be composed of a mix of business process development, internal information technology development, organizational change or re-engineering, and investments in new equipment, major software, and other capital projects [ 24 ]. Thus, given the nature of organizational development project portfolios, most interviewees expressed professional experience associated with different types of projects or mixed projects. For instance, referring to her current role, interviewee seven mentioned: ‘I have managed four types of projects: engineering, understood as processes automation; infrastructure, associated with civil and architecture works; technological, related to software solutions; and management, those that have regulatory compliances’. Similarly, referring to a previous professional experience, interviewee nine mentioned: ‘There were projects of all kinds, large organizational projects, infrastructure projects, and others’. Hence, 17 interviewees expressed having experience in managing mixed projects (MX), while seven, three, and one of the interviewees mentioned that their primary professional experience was associated with engineering projects (EN), technology information projects (TI), and new product projects (NP), respectively. Additionally, considering the classification of organizations proposed by Müller et al. [ 47 ], 50%, 28%, and 22% of the interviewees had their primary experience in process-oriented, project-oriented, and project-based organizations, respectively. Table 2shows a detailed characterization of the interviewees. Sustainability 2022,14, 5235 7 of 19 Table 2. Characterization of interviewees. No. Duration (min) Project Management Experience (Years) PPM Experience (Years) Primary Experience: Type of Projects Primary Experience: Type of Organization Role 1 60 10 7 MX Project-based Project portfolio manager 2 59 6 4 MX Project-based Project portfolio manager 3 49 4 2 EN Project-based Project portfolio manager 4 50 20 3 TI Project-oriented Project manager 5 47 8 4 EN Project-based Project portfolio manager 6 61 9 1 MX Project-based Project portfolio manager 7 60 11 4 MX Process-oriented Project portfolio manager 8 56 10 2 MX Process-oriented Project portfolio manager 9 73 15 5 MX Project-oriented Project portfolio manager 10 45 11 5 MX Project-oriented Project portfolio manager 11 50 10 3 EN Project-based Project portfolio manager 12 57 8 3 MX Process-oriented Head of improvement office 13 48 5 2 NP Project-oriented Project portfolio manager 14 60 13 10 MX Process-oriented Project portfolio manager 15 51 20 8 MX Project-oriented Head of PMO 16 66 7 3 MX Project-oriented Project portfolio manager 17 46 12 1 TI Process-oriented Project portfolio manager 18 31 20 5 MX Process-oriented Executive director 19 73 15 5 MX Process-oriented Head of PMO 20 46 3 1 EN Process-oriented Project portfolio manager 21 59 4 1 MX Process-oriented Project portfolio manager 22 41 15 7 EN Process-oriented Project portfolio manager 23 49 7 3 MX Project-oriented Executive director 24 47 15 10 EN Process-oriented Head of PMO 25 42 7 3 MX Process-oriented Head of PMO 26 32 7 3 MX Process-oriented Project portfolio manager 27 47 10 4 EN Process-oriented Project portfolio manager 28 73 18 7 TI Project-oriented Head of PMO 3.3. Data Analysis The qualitative analysis of the answers was geared towards identifying the aspects that compound the figurative core of the constructs under analysis, identifying the main arguments for which each theme was considered relevant or not relevant by the interviewees. It involves, therefore, identifying the qualitative arguments that establish whether or not a theme is part of the figurative core. To analyze the empirical data, a thematic analysis was conducted. Thematic analysis (TA) is defined as an adequate theory-building technique that is focused on analyzing patterns or themes [ 48 ]. Thematic analysis has been integrated into data analysis in studies developed under SRT within different theoretical orientations (see [ 49 ]). It has also been incorporated to conduct a qualitative analysis of interview data in studies developed under SRT [ 39 ]. TA approaches can be classified as coding reliability approaches, codebook approaches, or reflexive approaches, which differ in the way themes are conceptualized (Terry et al.) [ 50 ]. For this research, a reflexive TA approach was adopted. In reflexive TA a theme is conceptualized as analytic outputs that represent shared meaning-based patterns, organized around a core concept or idea [ 48 ]. A six-step procedure was conducted [ 48 ]: (i) familiarization; (ii) generating codes; (iii) constructing themes; (iv) revising; (v) defining themes; and (vi) producing the report. The familiarization step was carried out based on listening to a sample of interview records and reading all the interview transcriptions and handwritten notes. The data from interviewees were initially grouped according to the four ‘risk factors’ categories and five ‘project portfolio success’ dimensions identified in the literature (see Sections 2.2 and 2.3). Sustainability 2022,14, 5235 8 of 19 This grouping strategy served to identify whether the interviewees mentioned new or complementary risk categories or success dimensions. In the code generating step, it was established that the analysis process would be carried out in blocks of four interviews at a time. A first possible set of codes derived from the analysis of the first block of four interviews was pre-defined. Consequently, the codes were updated in each cycle of analysis; to do so, codes were merged, added, or split according to each new group of data. For this step, a sentence was defined as the unit of data analysis. Then, as a result of this step, six codes were generated for ‘Risk factors’ and seven codes for ‘project portfolio success’. Table 3shows an example of codes derived from interview analysis. In the case of the construct ‘project portfolio success’, the codes correspond directly to the success dimensions mentioned by the interviewees. Table 3. Constructs, codes, and themes. Construct Codes Themes * T1 T2 T3 T4 Risk factors Projects and programs X Portfolio X Organization X Impact on several projects X Impact on portfolio X Impact on portfolio outcomes X Project portfolio success Strategic fit X Future preparedness X Stakeholder satisfaction X Economic impact X Average Project success X Portfolio balance X Synergies exploitation X * T1: Sources framed in the project portfolio as an organizational unit; T2: Risk as an extension of the impact generated; T3: Success dimensions linked to portfolio outcomes; T4: Success dimensions not linked to portfolio outcomes. Based on the codes defined, the steps of constructing themes, revising themes, and defining themes were carried out to obtain groups of data with shared meaning-based patterns regarding the constructs under study. This process was oriented so as to ensure that each theme was related to a central meaning. Each interview was transcribed. The coding process was supported by NVIVO software. These four themes grouped the information provided by interviewees regarding ‘risk factors’ and ‘project portfolio success’. However, these themes do not entirely represent the figurative core for ‘project portfolio risk’ derived from both constructs. In this regard, the theme ‘Success dimensions not linked to portfolio outcomes’ refers to success dimensions mentioned by interviewees that were associated with PPM success rather than project portfolio success itself. In other words, the interviewees did not associate the success dimensions that are part of this theme as representing project portfolio results from an organizational view. Therefore, based on the ‘project portfolio risk’ conceptualization adopted, this theme was discredited as part of the figurative core from the perspectives of Colombian practitioners. Thus, themes ‘Sources framed in the project portfolio as an organizational unit’, ‘Risk as an extension of the impact generated’, and ‘Success dimensions linked to portfolio outcomes’ represent the figurative core for ‘project portfolio risk’, based on the ‘risk factors’ and ‘project portfolio success’ constructs in portfolios of organizational development projects from the perspectives of Colombian practitioners. Consequently, these three themes were defined as the primary objectification groups for ‘project portfolio risk’ emerging from Colombian practitioners’ perspectives. The findings regarding these objectification groups are reported in Section 4. Sustainability 2022,14, 5235 9 of 19 3.4. Internal and External Validity The transcription and coding processes for all interviews were carried out by the same researcher (interviewer), thus ensuring consistency of coding. To check the internal validity of the coding process, the remaining two researchers involved in the project were asked to audit the trail of the key coding decisions arising from the research process. Relating to external validity, the small and segmented samples frequently used in qualitative research limit the generalizability of such studies [ 46 ]. Thus, as in the study carried out by van der Hoorn and Whitty [ 51 ], theoretical and managerial contributions are tempered by the qualitative nature of this study and the characteristics of the sample. Participants were selected by convenience sampling, the most common sampling strategy in this type of study, as the interviewees’ participation is associated with their availability and interest in participating rather than an aleatory selection of participants [52,53] . Therefore, a statistical index cannot be established regarding the representativeness of the sample. The literature suggests that a sample size between 5 and 30 interviewees allows for understanding of commonalities within an objective group [46,54]. Previous studies affirm that sample size increases when the participant group is heterogenous [ 46 , 53 , 55 ]. However, as the interviewees’ profile was exclusively oriented towards Colombian portfolio practitioners with experience in portfolios of organizational development projects, the participant group can be considered homogeneous. Therefore, the sample size of twenty-eight interviews conducted in this study is adequate for understanding commonalities within the interviewees’ group, i.e., identifying the figurative core regarding the two constructs under study. Nevertheless, the sample’s homogeneity limits the results’ generalizability. Regarding this concern, two main threats to the external validity of the findings and implications must be considered: i) the geographical focus represented in the fact that only Colombian professionals were interviewed, and ii) the focus on a specific type of project portfolio, namely, organizational development project portfolios. 4. Findings 4.1. Project Portfolio Risk Factors Concerning the objectification of the ‘risk factors’, two primary objectification groups emerged: sources framed in the project portfolio as an organizational unit, and risk as an extension of the impact generated. These primary groups compounded to form the figurative core of the ‘risk factors’. Concerning the first primary representation, the practitioners expressed that risk could be derived from: each project, where the projects represent the constituent components of the portfolio; risk sources associated with the project portfolio level in which the project portfolio is, in itself, a unit of management; and risk derived from the interaction of the portfolio with the organization, or even derived at the organizational level, recognizing the interaction of the project portfolio with other organizational units. Risk sources associated with problems with portfolio-financing capital and problems derived from portfolio structure, which are part of the category of organizational conditions, were the risks most often acknowledged by the interviewees concerning risk sources derived from the organizational level. For example, interviewee 9 mentioned that ‘a stakeholder with high organizational influence can affect or modify the portfolio structure in the wrong way [ . . . ] generating risk for the portfolio’s success’. Likewise, risks such as changes in the competitive environment and changes in external conditions related to norms and reference models, which are part of the category of external conditions, were frequently highlighted by the interviewees. Concerning risk related to the category of PPM level, ‘project portfolio risk’ associated with an inadequate distribution of information, imbalanced management of stakeholder expectations, or lack of capability at both PPM and project management levels were all repeatedly mentioned. Interviewee 1 commented on lack of capability: ‘I had cases where a good project manager was promoted to portfolio manager but the abilities required Sustainability 2022,14, 5235 16 of 19 Finally, the findings help differentiate between portfolio risk, the financial risk taken on by the organization derived from the investment in the portfolio, and the risk associated with the projects. In practical terms, the suggested risk conceptualization either substitutes the financial perspective of portfolio risk, which is usually considered for project portfolio selection or the risk assessment for each project, or complements it. In this regard, coordination mechanisms between ‘project portfolio risk’ and other organizational risk systems, i.e., operational, strategic, or project risk approaches, should be considered. 6. Conclusions This paper provides empirical evidence to back up the constructs of ‘risk factors’ and ‘project portfolio success’ in portfolios of organizational development projects and discloses how they could be linked under the construct ‘project portfolio risk’ as a measure of impact on ‘project portfolio success’ due to changes in ‘risk factors’. The suggested ‘project portfolio risk’ conceptualization allows for recognition, from a risk perspective, that organizational development project portfolios are designed to influence strategic performance and help to achieve a sustainable competitive position. According to the practitioners’ objectification, the ‘risk factors’ were represented as risk factor categories rooted at the portfolio, project, and organizational levels, and which can lead to general impacts either on all projects within the portfolio (systematic impacts), on a specific project or projects, which, in turn, affect the ‘project portfolio risk’ (non-systematic impacts), or directly on the expected project portfolio outcomes. When adopting the ‘project portfolio success’ as a set of dimensions on which the ‘project portfolio risk’ could be measured, it was posed that ‘project portfolio risk’ could be measured based on the effectiveness of the portfolio. As such, according to the practitioners’ objectification, strategic fit, future preparedness, and stakeholder satisfaction were proposed as multidimensional outcomes on which the ‘project portfolio risk’ could be measured. A Social Representation Theory lens helped us to understand the objectification of the constructs, and consequently to identify a figurative core for these constructs. However, from a methodological standpoint, a limitation of this study is the analysis of the anchoring process of these constructs. The empirical results here reported can neither be directly extended to other types of portfolios nor assumed as representative of portfolio practitioners’ perspectives in other countries. This limitation is in line with the research paradigm adopted in this research: a constructivism-founded scientific paradigm for organization research. In this regard, ‘the constructivist view of organizational design science confronts researchers with the issues of generalizing local knowledge and justifying generalization’ [ 27 ] (p. 1240). Although the suggested ‘project portfolio risk’ conceptualization corresponds to local knowledge, it provides valuable insight and knowledge regarding how the risk associated with organizational development project portfolios could be represented when the inherent strategic nature of this type of portfolio is considered. Thus, rather than providing a generalized conceptualization, the findings and implications of this study open the path for further research in the field, including both exploratory and confirmatory studies. Thus, for instance, replicating the study considering a different and larger sample and aggregating the results would help to see how the suggested ‘project portfolio risk’ conceptualization would evolve. Future research is required for exploring the incorporation of the ‘project portfolio risk’ conceptualization here reported into ‘project portfolio risk’ assessment and risk response planning. Further research could also be conducted on defining how to establish specific metrics for assessing the ‘project portfolio risk’ based on ‘project portfolio success’. Author Contributions: Conceptualization, C.M., G.F. and M.A.; Data curation, C.M.; Formal analysis, C.M.; Funding acquisition, C.M., G.F. and M.A.; Investigation, C.M.; Methodology, C.M.; Project administration, C.M.; Resources, C.M., G.F. and M.A.; Software, C.M.; Supervision, G.F. and M.A.; Validation, G.F. and M.A.; Visualization, C.M.; Writing—original draft, C.M.; Writing—review and editing, G.F. and M.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Sustainability 2022,14, 5235 17 of 19 Funding: This research was sponsored by Colfuturo-Colciencias, Colombia, by FEDER funds through the program COMPETE–Programa Operacional Factores de Competitividade–and by national funds through FCT–Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia–, under the remit of projects UID/EMS/00285/2020 and UIDB/00319/2020. Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable. Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study. Data Availability Statement: Not applicable. Acknowledgments: The authors gratefully acknowledge the contributions of the twenty-eight interviewees who participated in the study. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results. Appendix A Table A1. Interview blocks and questions. Block Objective Questions 1Clarify the interview scope and the interviewee’s background Do you want to know more about the research project or about the interview? Can you give me a short introduction of your professional background regarding project management and portfolio management? 2 Identify perceptions of dimensions that could be associated with project portfolio success. What criteria/dimension might represent project portfolio success dimensions? Do you perceive <<name of a project portfolio success dimension identified in the literature>> as relevant for project portfolio risk assessment? 3 Identify perceptions of categories in which project portfolio risk could be analyzed Could you identify types of risks, groups of risks, or categories of risks that should be considered at the project portfolio level? Do you perceive <<name of a PPR category identified in the literature >> as a relevant category for project portfolio risk assessment? 4 Identify perceptions of components for Project Portfolio Risk Assessment (PPRA) that should be considered for designing and conducting PPRA. Could you identify the main aspects or components that should be considered for an adequate PPRA? Do you perceive <<name of a PPR component identified in the literature>> as a component of project portfolio risk assessment? 5 Obtain additional information considered important from the interviewee’s perspective regarding PPR assessment Do you consider that there are other aspects that should be measured or considered as part of PPRA? Do you want to add anything? References 1. Dobrovolskiene, N.; Tamošiuniene, R. Sustainability-Oriented Financial Resource Allocation in a Project Portfolio through Multi-Criteria Decision-Making. Sustainability 2016,8, 485. [CrossRef] 2. Richard, S.; Pellerin, R.; Bellemare, J.; Perrier, N. A Business Process and Portfolio Management Approach for Industry 4.0 Transformation. Bus. Process Manag. J. 2021,27, 505–528. [CrossRef] 3. Brook, J.W.; Pagnanelli, F. Integrating Sustainability into Innovation Project Portfolio Management—A Strategic Perspective. J. Eng. Technol. Manag. 2014,34, 46–62. [CrossRef] 4. PMI. The Standard for Portfolio Management, 4th ed.; Project Management Institute, Inc.: Delaware, PA, USA, 2017. 5. Hofman, M.; Spalek, S.; Grela, G. Shedding New Light on Project Portfolio Risk Management. Sustainability 2017 ,9, 1798. [CrossRef] 6. de Oliveira Lacerda, R.T.; Ensslin, L.; Ensslin, S.R. A Performance Measurement Framework in Portfolio Management: A Constructivist Case. Manag. Decis. 2011,49, 648–668. [CrossRef] 7. Annosi, M.C.; Marchegiani, L.; Vicentini, F. Knowledge Translation in Project Portfolio Decision-Making: The Role of Organizational Alignment and Information Support System in Selecting Innovative Ideas. Manag. Decis. 2020 ,58, 1929–1951. [CrossRef] Sustainability 2022,14, 5235 18 of 19 8. Martins, C.L.; López, H.M.L.; De Almeida, A.T.; Almeida, J.A.; De Oliveira Bortoluzzi, M.B. An MCDM Project Portfolio Web-Based DSS for Sustainable Strategic Decision Making in an Electricity Company. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2017 ,117, 1362–1375. [CrossRef] 9. Ghasemi, F.; Sari, M.H.M.; Yousefi, V.; Falsafi, R.; Tamošaitien ˙ e, J. Project Portfolio Risk Identification and Analysis, Considering Project Risk Interactions and Using Bayesian Networks. Sustainability 2018,10, 1609. [CrossRef] 10. Crovini, C.; Santoro, G.; Ossola, G. Rethinking Risk Management in Entrepreneurial SMEs: Towards the Integration with the Decision-Making Process. Manag. Decis. 2020,59, 1085–1113. [CrossRef] 11. Zhao, X.; Hwang, B.G.; Low, S.P. Enterprise Risk Management Implementation in Construction Firms: An Organizational Change Perspective. Manag. Decis. 2014,52, 814–833. [CrossRef] 12. Libiao, B.; Liu, J.; Huang, N.; Zheng, K.; Hao, T. Critical Interactive Risks in Project Portfolios from the Life Cycle Perspective. Asia-Pac. J. Oper. Res. 2022, 2250007. [CrossRef] 13. Teller, J. Portfolio Risk Management and Its Contribution to Project Portfolio Success: An Investigation of Organization, Process, and Culture. Proj. Manag. J. 2013,44, 36–51. [CrossRef] 14. Olsson, R. Risk Management in a Multi-Project Environment: An Approach to Manage Portfolio Risks. Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag. 2008,25, 60–71. [CrossRef] 15. Yousefi, V.; Haji, S.; Saparauskas, J.; Kiani, S. The Impact Made on Project Portfolio Optimisation by the Selection of Various Risk Measures. Eng. Econ. 2018,29, 168–175. [CrossRef] 16. Crouhy, M.; Galai, D.; Mark, R. The Essentials of Risk Management; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 2014; Volume 1. 17. Tang, B.J.; Zhou, H.L.; Cao, H. Selection of Overseas Oil and Gas Projects under Low Oil Price. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 2017 ,156, 160–166. [CrossRef] 18. Quenum, A.; Thorisson, H.; Wu, D.; Lambert, J.H. Resilience of Business Strategy to Emergent and Future Conditions. J. Risk Res. 2021,24, 870–888. [CrossRef] 19. Tamošaitien ˙ e, J.; Yousefi, V.; Tabasi, H. Project Portfolio Construction Using Extreme Value Theory. Sustainability 2021 ,13, 855. [CrossRef] 20. Ahmadi-Javid, A.; Fateminia, S.H.; Gemünden, H.G. A Method for Risk Response Planning in Project Portfolio Management. Proj. Manag. J. 2020,51, 77–95. [CrossRef] 21. Micán, C.; Fernandes, G.; Araújo, M. Project Portfolio Risk Management: A Structured Literature Review with Future Directions for Research. Int. J. Inf. Syst. Proj. Manag. 2020,8, 67–84. [CrossRef] 22. Yang, Q.; Zou, X.; Ye, Y.; Yao, T. Evaluating the Criticality of the Product Development Project Portfolio Network from the Perspective of Risk Propagation. Phys. A Stat. Mech. Its Appl. 2022,593, 126901. [CrossRef] 23. Zou, X.; Yang, Q.; Wang, Q. Analysing the Risk Propagation in the Project Portfolio Network Using the SIRF Model. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Operations Research and Enterprise Systems, ICORES 2021, Online Streaming, 4–6 February 2021; pp. 226–232. 24. Elonen, S.; Artto, K.A. Problems in Managing Internal Development Projects in Multi-Project Environments. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2003,21, 395–402. [CrossRef] 25. Bushuyev, S.; Bushuieva, V.; Onyshchenko, S.; Pavlova, N. Agile-Transformation Organizational Development Based on Portfolio Management. In Proceedings of the 11th IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Data Acquisition and Advanced Computing Systems: Technology and Applications, Cracow, Poland, 22–25 September 2021; pp. 444–451. 26. Bushuyev, S.; Onyshchenko, S.; Bushuyeva, N.; Bondar, A. Modelling Projects Portfolio Structure Dynamics of the Organization Development with a Resistance of Information Entropy. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Sciences and Information Technologies, Lviv, Ukraine, 22–25 September 2021; pp. 293–298. 27. Avenier, M.J. Shaping a Constructivist View of Organizational Design Science. Organ. Stud. 2010,31, 1229–1255. [CrossRef] 28. Xu, W.; Liu, G.; Li, H.; Luo, W. A Study on Project Portfolio Models with Skewness Risk and Staffing. Int. J. Fuzzy Syst. 2017 ,19, 2033–2047. [CrossRef] 29. Sanchez, H.; Robert, B. Measuring Portfolio Strategic Performance Using Key Performance Indicators. Proj. Manag. J. 2010 ,41, 64–73. [CrossRef] 30. Wu, L.H.; Wu, L.; Shi, J.; Chou, Y.T. Project Portfolio Selection Considering Uncertainty: Stochastic Dominance-Based Fuzzy Ranking. Int. J. Fuzzy Syst. 2021,23, 2048–2066. [CrossRef] 31. Neumeier, A.; Radszuwill, S.; Garizy, T.Z. Modeling Project Criticality in IT Project Portfolios. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2018 ,36, 833–844. [CrossRef] 32. Costa, H.R.; Barros, M.d.O.; Travassos, G.H. Evaluating Software Project Portfolio Risks. J. Syst. Softw. 2007 ,80, 16–31. [CrossRef] 33. Drake, J.R.; Byrd, T.A. Risk in Information Technology Project Portfolio Management. J. Inf. Technol. Theory Appl. 2006,8, 3. 34. Voss, M. Impact of Customer Integration on Project Portfolio Management and Its Success-Developing a Conceptual Framework. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2012,30, 567–581. [CrossRef] 35. Teller, J.; Kock, A. An Empirical Investigation on How Portfolio Risk Management Influences Project Portfolio Success. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2013,31, 817–829. [CrossRef] 36. Cooper, R.G.; Edgett, S.J.; Kleinschmidt, E.J. Portfolio Management: Fundamental to New Product Success. PDMA Toolb. New Prod. Dev. 2002,9, 331–364. [CrossRef] Sustainability 2022,14, 5235 19 of 19 37. Meskendahl, S. The Influence of Business Strategy on Project Portfolio Management and Its Success—A Conceptual Framework. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2010,28, 807–817. [CrossRef] 38. Petro, Y.; Gardiner, P. An Investigation of the Influence of Organizational Design on Project Portfolio Success, Effectiveness and Business Efficiency for Project-Based Organizations. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2015,33, 1717–1729. [CrossRef] 39. Bergquist, P.; Ansolabehere, S.; Carley, S.; Konisky, D. Backyard Voices: How Sense of Place Shapes Views of Large-Scale Energy Transmission Infrastructure. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2020,63, 101396. [CrossRef] 40. Rateau, P.; Moliner, P.; Abric, J.; Moliner, P. Social Representation Theory. In Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology: Volume 2; Van Lange, P., Kruglnski, A., Higgins, T., Eds.; SAGE Publications: London, UK, 2012; pp. 477–498. 41. Joia, L.A.; Melon, M. The Social Representation of Success in IT Projects. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 2020 ,13, 1578–1599. [CrossRef] 42. Baquiano, M.J. Understanding Coastal Resource Management Using a Social Representations Approach. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2016,133, 18–27. [CrossRef] 43. Anderson, N.M.; Williams, K.J.H.; Ford, R.M. Community Perceptions of Plantation Forestry: The Association between Place Meanings and Social Representations of a Contentious Rural Land Use. J. Environ. Psychol. 2013,34, 121–136. [CrossRef] 44. Craciun, C.; Flick, U. I Will Never Be the Granny with Rosy Cheeks: Perceptions of Aging in Precarious and Financially Secure Middle-Aged Germans. J. Aging Stud. 2014,29, 78–87. [CrossRef] 45. Rateau, P.; Lo Monaco, G. La Théorie Des Représentations Sociales: Orientations Conceptuelles, Champs d’Applications et Méthodes. Rev. CES Psicol. 2013,6, 1–21. 46. Saunders, M.; Lewis, P.; Thornhill, A. Research Methods for Business Students, 8th ed.; Pearson Education: London, UK, 2019. 47. Müller, R.; Drouin, N.; Sankaran, S. Modeling Organizational Project Management. Proj. Manag. J. 2019 ,50, 499–513. [CrossRef] 48. Braun, V.; Clarke, V.; Hayfield, N.; Terry, G. Thematic Analysis. In Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences; Liamputtong, P., Ed.; Springer: Singapure, Singapure, 2019; pp. 843–860. 49. Ceballos, L.M.; RojasDeFrancisco, L.; Monroy Osorio, J.C. The Role of a Fashion Spotlight Event in a Process of City Image Reconstruction. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2020,17, 100464. [CrossRef] 50. Terry, G.; Hayfield, N.; Clare, V.; Braun, V. Thematic Analysis. In The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research in Psychology; SAGE Publications Ltd.: London, UK, 2017; pp. 17–36. 51. van der Hoorn, B.; Whitty, S.J. The Five Modes of Comportment for Project Managing: Disclosing the Tacit in Project Work. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2019,37, 363–377. [CrossRef] 52. Mac Donald, K.; Rezania, D.; Baker, R. A Grounded Theory Examination of Project Managers’ Accountability. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2020,38, 27–35. [CrossRef] 53. Guest, G.; Bunce, A.; Johnson, L. How Many Interviews Are Enough?: An Experiment with Data Saturation and Variability. Field Methods 2006,18, 59–82. [CrossRef] 54. Creswell, J.W. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches; SAGE Publications: Southern Oaks, CA, USA, 2014. 55. Michael, P. Patton, Michael Quinn. Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods: Integrating Theory and Practice; SAGE Publications: Southern Oaks, CA, USA, 2014. 56. Kock, A.; Schulz, B.; Kopmann, J.; Gemünden, H.G. Project Portfolio Management Information Systems’ Positive Influence on Performance—The Importance of Process Maturity. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2020,38, 229–241. [CrossRef] 57. Jonas, D.; Kock, A.; Gemünden, H.G. Predicting Project Portfolio Success by Measuring Management Quality—A Longitudinal Study. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 2013,60, 215–226. [CrossRef] 58. Martinsuo, M.; Geraldi, J. Management of Project Portfolios: Relationships of Project Portfolios with Their Contexts. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2020,38, 441–453. [CrossRef] 59. Ninan, J.; Mahalingam, A.; Clegg, S. External Stakeholder Management Strategies and Resources in Megaprojects: An Organizational Power Perspective. Proj. Manag. J. 2019,50, 625–640. [CrossRef] 60. Abbasi, D.; Ashrafi, M.; Ghodsypour, S.H. A Multi Objective-BSC Model for New Product Development Project Portfolio Selection. Expert Syst. Appl. 2020,162, 113757. [CrossRef] 61. Hofman, M.; Grela, G. Project Portfolio Risk Categorisation—Factor Analysis Results. Int. J. Inf. Syst. Proj. Manag. 2018 ,6, 39–58. [CrossRef]