In the U.S. Department of War’s budgeting process, cross-cutting portfolios—those that indirectly support multiple missions—are often underfunded, in part because the process is not structured to defensibly articulate and prioritize their critical role in mission success. The authors of this report describe a structured process that can help support resource allocation in cross-cutting portfolios.

A Portfolio Assessment Approach to Inform Resource Allocation Decisions

Sara Stullken, Jim Mignano, Lauren A. Mayer, Sarah Zabel, Don Snyder, Rachel Slover

ResearchPublished Aug 5, 2026

Cover: A Portfolio Assessment Approach to Inform Resource Allocation Decisions
Download PDF
Additional Downloads

Includes Research Summary; Tool for Portfolio Assessment to Inform Resource Allocation Decisions

The U.S. Department of War (DOW) uses the annual Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution (PPBE) process to determine which missions, capabilities, and programs it will fund each year. However, cross-cutting portfolios—those that indirectly support multiple missions—are often underfunded, in part because the PPBE process is not structured to defensibly articulate and prioritize their critical role in mission success.

The authors of this report developed an approach to guide the assessment of cross-cutting portfolios, along with a tailorable, prototype Excel workbook that implements this approach. They then tested and iteratively refined the evaluation approach through a pilot assessment of a subset of the enterprise information technology (EIT) portfolio. The approach structures the evaluation of capability gaps and associated investments, and informs the selection and prioritization of investments within a portfolio. It is designed to ensure that investments credibly address capability gaps and align with mission and strategy.

This report is intended to support those responsible for managing portfolios and programs in DOW, who must provide oversight and input to the PPBE process. Those responsible for cross-cutting portfolios with connections to multiple mission sets may find this report and evaluation approach it describes particularly useful.

Key Takeaways

Five evaluation criteria can help guide the assessment of cross-cutting portfolios

  • Evaluators should assess whether each capability gap within a portfolio is in scope: whether the portfolio is informed by strategy and clearly defined, the capability gaps are relevant to the portfolio’s stated mission, stakeholders are identified, and the motivation for review is documented.
  • Evaluators should assess whether each capability gap is critical: how essential filling each capability gap is to warfighting missions.
  • Evaluators should assess whether each capability is urgent, either because of immediate or pressing threats or because of long lead times to build required personnel or resources.
  • Evaluators should assess whether each investment is supportable: whether each investment was developed using mature, transparent, and defensible processes and methods.
  • Evaluators should assess whether each investment is strategic: whether each investment aligns with leadership priorities and supports strategic objectives and whether the method of prioritizing investments is objective and leads to clearly differentiated tiers of investment.

Recommendations

  • Owners and reviewers of cross-cutting portfolios should apply this assessment approach. A first step should be for the Department of the Air Force (DAF) to extend the example assessment of EIT used in this report to the entire DAF EIT portfolio.
  • Stakeholders involved in capability and requirements development for cross-cutting portfolios should use the evaluation criteria and compile the relevant supporting documentation identified to strengthen decision traceability and improve portfolio management.

Topics

Document Details

Citation

Chicago Manual of Style

Stullken, Sara, Jim Mignano, Lauren A. Mayer, Sarah Zabel, Don Snyder, and Rachel Slover, A Portfolio Assessment Approach to Inform Resource Allocation Decisions. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2026. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA3667-1.html.
BibTeX RIS

Research conducted by

This research was sponsored by the DAF Program Assessment and Evaluation Office and conducted by the Resource Management Program of RAND Project AIR FORCE.

This publication is part of the RAND research report series. Research reports present research findings and objective analysis that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors. All RAND research reports undergo rigorous peer review to ensure high standards for research quality and objectivity.

This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.

RAND is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.