Scoring & Optimization
The CFO of a mid-sized pharma company faces a familiar dilemma. Twenty-two capital requests totaling $480M compete for a $300M annual envelope. Six are compliance-driven and arguably non-discretionary. Four are capacity expansions with strong NPV cases. Three are technology transfers tied to clinical timelines outside the PMO's control. The remaining nine are a mix of efficiency improvements, digital initiatives, and sustaining capital. The old approach: the loudest site director wins. The ProBeya approach: every project is scored on the same criteria, scenarios are modeled, and the efficient frontier reveals the portfolio that maximizes strategic value within the budget constraint.
The Scoring and Optimization module brings quantitative rigor to portfolio decisions. It provides weighted multi-criteria scoring, portfolio ranking, scoring completeness analysis, what-if scenario planning with deep cloning, side-by-side comparison, and efficient frontier computation for optimal project mix selection.
The Pharma Scoring Model
ProBeya supports six scoring categories that map to the decision dimensions that pharma steering committees actually evaluate:
| Category | What It Measures | Pharma Example |
|---|---|---|
| Strategic | Alignment with corporate strategy | Does this capacity expansion support the biologics growth platform? |
| Financial | Return on investment | NPV, IRR, payback period for a new packaging line |
| Risk | Implementation and business risk | Technology readiness, regulatory complexity, supply chain exposure |
| Technical | Technical feasibility and maturity | Is the process proven at commercial scale, or is this first-of-kind? |
| Regulatory | Regulatory impact and compliance | Does this project address an open FDA 483 observation? |
| Resource | Resource availability and capability | Do we have the commissioning engineers to execute this project? |
Designing Scoring Criteria
Criteria are defined per portfolio with configurable weights (decimal, 0 to 1) that must sum to 1.0 or less. Each criterion has a score range (default 1-5, configurable up to 0-100), sort order, and active/inactive flag.
A well-designed pharma scoring model might look like this:
| Criterion | Category | Weight | Range | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Strategic Alignment | Strategic | 0.20 | 1-5 | Degree of alignment with corporate 5-year manufacturing strategy |
| Regulatory Urgency | Regulatory | 0.20 | 1-5 | Proximity to regulatory commitment or observation deadline |
| Financial Return | Financial | 0.15 | 1-5 | NPV/IRR attractiveness relative to cost of capital |
| Technical Readiness | Technical | 0.15 | 1-5 | Technology maturity level (TRL) and scale-up confidence |
| Execution Risk | Risk | 0.15 | 1-5 | Inverse of aggregate risk score (lower risk = higher score) |
| Resource Feasibility | Resource | 0.15 | 1-5 | Availability of key resources in the required timeframe |
Run scoring completeness before generating portfolio rankings. Incomplete scoring skews results because missing scores are excluded from weighted totals, making partially-scored projects appear artificially strong or weak. The scoring completeness matrix shows every project-criterion pair as scored or unscored, making gaps visible before decisions are made.
Scoring Projects
Projects are scored against criteria individually or in batch:
- Single score: upsert one score per project-criterion pair with rationale text and auto-incremented version
- Batch score: multiple criteria scores for one project in a single call
Score range validation ensures no score falls outside the criterion's min/max bounds. Each score is versioned, and only the latest version per criterion is used in calculations. The rationale field is critical for audit purposes: it documents why a project received a specific score, not just the number.
Project Scorecard
The scorecard view returns all criteria for the portfolio, the latest score per criterion, the computed weighted total, and radar chart data for visual rendering. The radar chart is particularly effective in steering committee presentations: it instantly reveals a project's strengths and weaknesses across the six scoring dimensions.
Portfolio Ranking
The getPortfolioRanking procedure ranks all active projects by weighted total score. The algorithm:
- Fetches criteria and all project scores
- Keeps only the latest version per project-criterion pair
- Computes weighted totals using the
computeWeightedTotalfunction - Returns projects sorted by weighted total with names and scores
Worked Example: Ranking a Pharma Portfolio
| Rank | Project | Strategic | Regulatory | Financial | Technical | Risk | Resource | Weighted Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | FDA 483 Remediation (Site B) | 3 | 5 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3.55 |
| 2 | Fill-Finish Expansion (Site A) | 5 | 3 | 5 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 3.70 |
| 3 | Technology Transfer (Product X) | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3.10 |
| 4 | MES Deployment (Site C) | 3 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3.25 |
| 5 | Warehouse Expansion (Site A) | 2 | 1 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 3.25 |
Notice that the FDA 483 Remediation ranks first despite a low financial return score because regulatory urgency carries 20% weight. This is the scoring model working as designed: compliance-driven projects surface to the top when the criteria reflect organizational priorities.
What-If Scenario Planning
Scenarios enable portfolio managers to explore alternative project selections without affecting the live portfolio:
- Create: A new scenario auto-populates from current portfolio membership
- Clone: Deep-copy a scenario with all project overrides under a new name
- Toggle project: Include or exclude individual projects
- Override values: Set budget overrides, priority overrides, and notes per project
- Delete: Removes the scenario and all overrides (cascade)
Scenario Comparison
The compare procedure generates a side-by-side view of two to three scenarios:
- Per-scenario summary: included/excluded project counts, total budget, budget constraint
- Per-project matrix: for each project across scenarios, shows inclusion status, budget override, priority override, and notes
- Original budget: the actual project budget for reference
Create at least three scenarios for major portfolio decisions: a baseline (current approved portfolio), an aggressive option (maximize strategic value, accept higher risk), and a conservative option (minimize risk, defer discretionary investments). Present all three to the steering committee with the delta analysis. This frames the decision as a choice between explicit tradeoffs rather than an opaque recommendation.
Scenario Promotion
The promote procedure sets a scenario as the new base scenario. It clears the base flag on all other scenarios in the same portfolio and sets the selected one as base. This is how portfolio decisions are operationalized: the steering committee selects a scenario, the PMO promotes it, and the resulting project mix becomes the approved portfolio.
Efficient Frontier
The computeEfficientFrontier procedure identifies the set of portfolios that maximize value for each level of budget spend:
- Takes a budget range (minimum to maximum) and number of steps (up to 50)
- For each budget level, computes the optimal project combination
- Returns a curve of budget-vs-value points
The efficient frontier answers the fundamental portfolio question: "For any given budget, what is the maximum strategic value we can achieve, and which specific project mix delivers it?"
The getOptimalProjectMix procedure recommends a specific project selection given a maximum budget and optional resource capacity constraint.
When to Use the Efficient Frontier
| Portfolio Size | Recommendation |
|---|---|
| < 5 projects | Manual scenario comparison is sufficient |
| 5-10 projects | Efficient frontier provides useful insight but manual validation is still practical |
| 10+ projects | Efficient frontier is essential; the combinatorial space is too large for intuitive selection |
| 20+ projects | Efficient frontier with resource constraints is the only rigorous approach |
Investment Analysis
The computeInvestmentAnalysis procedure computes standard financial metrics for individual projects:
- NPV (Net Present Value) -- Present value of future cash flows minus initial investment
- IRR (Internal Rate of Return) -- Discount rate at which NPV equals zero
- Payback Period -- Time to recover the initial investment
- ROI (Return on Investment) -- Net benefit divided by total cost
These metrics help justify project inclusion in the portfolio and provide the financial language that CFOs and investment committees expect. For pharma capital projects, NPV and IRR are particularly important because the investment horizon is long (5-15 years for facility assets) and the discount rate (weighted average cost of capital) significantly affects the ranking of projects with different cash flow profiles.
The efficient frontier is most powerful when combined with scoring. First, score all projects to establish strategic value. Then, run the efficient frontier with the budget constraint. The result is a portfolio that is both strategically optimal and financially feasible, a combination that manual selection rarely achieves when the portfolio exceeds ten projects.
Changing criteria weights after projects have been scored will change the ranking. Re-communicate rankings to all stakeholders whenever weights are modified. In pharma organizations where scoring results are presented to investment committees, a weight change after the committee has reviewed initial rankings can undermine credibility.
Permissions
| Action | Required Role |
|---|---|
| Define scoring criteria | PMO or Admin |
| Score projects | PMO Reviewer or Admin |
| View rankings | Any portfolio member |
| Create/manage scenarios | Portfolio Manager, PMO, or Admin |
| Compare scenarios | Any portfolio member |
| Promote scenario | Portfolio Manager or Admin |
| Run optimization | PMO or Admin |
| View investment analysis | Any portfolio member |
Related Features
- PPM Overview -- Module-level context and full capability map
- Demand Intake -- Demand scoring feeds into portfolio scoring criteria
- Budgets & Costs -- Budget data drives optimization constraints and efficient frontier computation
- EVM -- EVM performance data informs portfolio-level investment decisions
- Projects -- The projects being scored, ranked, and optimized