  Budgetary constraints force organizations to pursue only a subset of possible
innovation projects. Identifying which subset is most promising is an
error-prone exercise, and involving multiple decision makers may be prudent.
This raises the question of how to most effectively aggregate their collective
nous. Our model of organizational portfolio selection provides some first
answers. We show that portfolio performance can vary widely. Delegating
evaluation makes sense when organizations employ the relevant experts and can
assign projects to them. In most other settings, aggregating the impressions of
multiple agents leads to better performance than delegation. In particular,
letting agents rank projects often outperforms alternative aggregation rules --
including averaging agents' project scores as well as counting their approval
votes -- especially when organizations have tight budgets and can select only a
few project alternatives out of many.
