A Portfolio of Strategies

Noted authority on government reform, Bill Eggers (et al), observes that trying to accomplish too many initiatives or a lack of balance or coherence between initiatives can sabotage recovery strategies and, therefore, the entire recovery process.

Eggers recommends following a process to evaluate potential recovery strategies and select a limited, balanced grouping of the most promising. In his view, there are four justifications for eliminating a strategy from consideration:
  • The strategy is not politically feasible
  • The potential net savings aren’t large enough (Eggers cautions that potential savings are often overestimated and sometimes by a large margin)
  • The savings are significant, but it has excessive negative side-effects over the long-term, either in terms of operations or finances.
  • The savings are significant, but the strategy is not consistent with other strategies or larger considerations about the organization’s direction.


Egger recommends developing a formal scoring sheet that compares potential strategies on various dimensions of risk (e.g., political risk, environmental risks, personnel risks, etc.), complexity, time-to-benefit, and net cost savings. These comparisons can be used to select which strategies to go with. The resulting “portfolio” of strategies should include strategies with shorter-term pay-offs as well as those that have longer-term, but more profound impacts.


Go on to Comprehensive, Yet Concise Format

Back to the recovery process diagram

Back to the recovery homepage