Chapter 5

both → the better in one the worse at the other → need to find a balance. Multiple options (sequential, structured, contextual) → good ppm can help → also. combining it w/ stage gate make it shorter

Innovation + Portfolio success through good portfolio structuring (strategic buckets) → achieving ambidexterity. Goal of ppm implementing corporate strategy , max value , balance portfolio and Strategic Alignment of Projects. 

→ big process done by structuring and then steering

Stage Gate tries to filter out bad innovation projects by putting decision gates into the innovation process. These get progressively stricter over time. Projects passing get more and more certain and resources invested into them, trying to control success :)

Using strategic buckets can help allocate resources to different degrees of innovation, such as 50% incremental and 50% radical, with stage-gate criteria for each degree to ensure fairness. This creates a level playing field and allows for easy adjustments to the degree of innovation by reallocating the percentages.

Oily Shelf opinion: i think ultimately best would be to use strategic buckets where you can first divide your project into various degrees of innovation. Now you can assign an amount of resources to those buckets, let's say 50% incremental and 50% radical. The stage-gate can stay in place; it is only important to have criteria for each degree. Because every degree has different objectives, effects and timings. We end up w/ a plain playing field and projects of the same type compare on fair terms against each other. We even can simply change our degree  of innovation by simply reassigning the % :)