From feature tracker to portfolio manager

Ronny Mees
6 days ago
3 min read

How product management in medium-sized businesses brings clarity to the capital question

Over the past few months, I've had many conversations with interim managing directors and CFOs in the mechanical engineering sector. The tone is remarkably similar. Capacity utilization isn't dramatically bad, but it's not good either. Orders are being postponed, and costs remain high. At some point, this sentence comes up:

"We work hard. But where in the portfolio do we actually make our money?"

This is not a criticism of product management. It's a structural problem.

The situation is sobering.

The beginning of 2026 feels tighter for many medium-sized businesses than in previous years. Capacity utilization is around 80 percent. Revenue forecasts are slightly declining, R&D budgets are lower but still at a high level. Product variety also remains high. I see companies with a thousand or more active variants. These platforms have evolved organically over time and include customized solutions for valued customers—customers whom they naturally don't want to lose.

Everything can be explained. But controllability suffers. This is precisely where product management becomes strategically relevant.

The real question

The crucial question is not: "Which features do we build next?" but rather: "Where is our capital working – and where isn't it?" When several hundred thousand to several million euros flow annually into R&D, variant maintenance, and new development, it is effectively a matter of capital allocation. It's just rarely treated as such.

In my workshops, I like to ask a simple question: "If we had to reallocate our R&D budget today, where would we get the best return on investment?" The answers often remain at the business unit level. They rarely extend to the product line or platform level, and almost never to the variant level. That's precisely where the truth—and/or the loss—lies.

What I see in practice

Three patterns keep recurring:

1. Winners and capital ties exist side by side – without transparency. One line delivers stable EBIT. Another ties up capital, creates complexity, and is continued out of habit or for "good customers".

2. Customers pay more where their “job” is done better, not where the technical specification is longer.

3. Complexity quietly erodes margins. Margins are lost to product variants, rework, service costs, and spare parts inventory. Each of these factors can be explained individually, but together they add up to a significant expense. Product management can and should address this directly: by providing structure for decisions, not simply by coordinating releases.

The leadership question takes precedence over the roadmap

Many discussions get bogged down at the feature and release level. That's understandable and concrete. But the real leadership question lies beyond that:

Which platform are we developing?
Which product line are we consolidating?
Which variants are we letting expire?
Where do we consciously invest – and where do we no longer invest?

This requires:

A clear portfolio view including revenue, margin, and capital commitment.
A clear understanding of which customer job a product can truly solve better, cheaper, or faster than other products or processes.
Transparent criteria for larger investments.

It's not complicated, but it's consistent.

Where it typically gets stuck

There is no true product profit calculation at the line or variant level.
Historical decisions are no longer questioned.
Technical feasibility replaces strategic prioritization.

This is very human, especially for technically oriented organizations, but it costs flexibility.

A pragmatic approach

If you are responsible for a portfolio – whether as a product manager, CTO, CPO or interim manager – you can start with simple first steps:

Let me show you a simple heatmap: revenue, margin, capital per product line.
Ask 3 to 5 customers with all their stakeholders listed in the job map: "What specific job does our product solve for you?"
For larger initiatives, insist on a business case that includes return on investment and customer focus.

That's often enough to change the discussion.

Why am I writing this right now?

Because 2026 is not a year for knee-jerk reactions, but for clarity and consolidation. Those who don't understand their portfolio as an investment strategy will be driven by cost and capacity pressures. Those who manage it regain their ability to act. Product management is designed for this, when it is allowed to fulfill this role.

Want to know more?

I've compiled the requirements, typical pitfalls, and an implementation roadmap into a structured white paper. If you're interested, simply comment "White paper" or contact me directly. And if you feel this discussion is currently lacking in management, share the idea internally. Sometimes an external perspective is all it takes to spark a conversation.

I'd be interested to know: Where is the biggest blind spot in your portfolio? (I'd prefer you answer in person, as it doesn't need to be known to the whole world ;-) )