How to Handle Competing Project Priorities: A Practical Guide

Poor resource allocation is one of the most consistent causes of portfolio underperformance. It is rarely a shortage of skilled people that creates the problem. More often, it is a lack of visibility: no one has a complete picture of who is working on what, which projects are underresourced, and where bottlenecks are building. By the time the problem becomes visible, it has already caused delays.

The goal of resource allocation in a project portfolio is not to keep everyone busy. It is to direct available capacity towards the work that delivers the most value, in a way that is sustainable and responsive to changing priorities.

Why resource allocation is a portfolio-level challenge

Individual project managers allocate resources within their projects. But the decisions that determine whether any project is adequately resourced are made at portfolio level: how many projects are approved to run in parallel, which projects take priority when resources are shared, and how the organisation manages the gap between resource demand and supply.

Portfolio-level resource management requires a view that no individual project manager has: the aggregate picture of all resource commitments across all projects, measured against total available capacity.

1. Maintain a central resource register

A central resource register is a record of all available resources across the organisation, including their skills, current allocations, and upcoming availability. Without it, resource planning at portfolio level is guesswork.

The register does not need to be complex. At minimum, it should capture: who is available, what their skills and roles are, what they are currently allocated to, and when their current commitments end. This information, maintained centrally and kept current, is the foundation of everything else.

2. Align resource decisions to strategic priority

When resources are scarce, they should flow towards the highest-priority projects first. This sounds obvious, but it requires two things that many organisations lack: a clear and agreed project priority ranking, and the governance authority to enforce it when individual business units push back.

Portfolio management software makes this easier by displaying resource demand alongside project priority scores, so the implications of resource decisions are immediately visible. If a lower-priority project is consuming resources that a higher-priority project needs, that tension is surfaced rather than hidden.

3. Model demand before committing

One of the most common resource allocation mistakes is committing resources to a new project without modelling its impact on existing commitments. A project that looks fully resourced on its own frequently turns out to share key people with three other projects, creating a bottleneck that was invisible until delivery started.

Before approving a new project for the portfolio, model its resource demand against current supply. Identify which individuals or roles will be most affected, whether there is genuine capacity to absorb the demand, and whether any existing project commitments will need to flex to accommodate it.

4. Identify and manage bottlenecks

Bottlenecks are specific individuals, roles, or teams whose demand consistently exceeds their supply. They are the constraint that limits the whole portfolio’s throughput. Common bottlenecks in project portfolios include: solution architects, data engineers, senior business analysts, and change managers.

Identifying bottlenecks early allows the portfolio team to take proactive action: bringing in contractors, training additional people, sequencing projects to avoid simultaneous demand peaks, or explicitly using bottleneck availability as a constraint when approving new projects.

5. Review allocation at portfolio checkpoints

Resource allocation is not a set-and-forget activity. Projects slip, requirements change, and priorities shift. A resource plan that was accurate at the start of a quarter is unlikely to remain so by the end of it.

Building resource review into the regular portfolio checkpoint ensures that allocations remain current. At each review: check planned versus actual allocation, identify any emerging overcommitments or underutilisation, and confirm that resourcing still reflects the current project priority order.

6. Plan for uncertainty with buffer capacity

In theory, a fully allocated team is maximally efficient. In practice, full allocation leaves no room for unplanned work, sick leave, or the inevitable scope changes that affect every project. Organisations that allocate 100 percent of capacity routinely find that delivery timelines slip because there is no buffer to absorb variation.

A common practice is to plan for 80 to 85 percent allocation of available capacity, leaving 15 to 20 percent as a buffer for unplanned demand, urgent priority changes, and team overhead. The right number varies by organisation, but the principle holds: a portfolio that is theoretically fully utilised will, in practice, be consistently late.

Common resource allocation mistakes

• Approving projects without checking resource capacity. Every new project approval is also a resource commitment. Treat them as inseparable.
• Relying on individuals to flag their own overcommitment. Most people will not escalate until they are significantly over capacity. The portfolio view should surface this before they need to.
• Treating all resources as interchangeable. A data engineer cannot be substituted for a change manager. Skills-based capacity planning is essential for portfolios with specialist roles.
• Not tracking part-time allocations. A person who is 20 percent allocated to five projects is effectively 100 percent allocated and has zero buffer. Part-time commitments must be tracked as carefully as full-time ones.
• Failing to update the resource plan after a reprioritisation. When project priorities change, resource allocation should change with them. These two activities must be linked.