The focus of strategy research has long revolved around strategy formulation rather thanstrategy implementation, despite the evidence indicating that intended strategies are rarelyachieved. Project portfolio management, PPM, assumes a crucial role in enabling strategyimplementation and can be regarded as a representation of the organization's actual pursuedstrategy. Existing research on PPM has predominantly centered around portfolios in the contextof new product development, NPD, and research and development, R&D. However, there hasbeen relatively less exploration of PPM within internal development departments, warrantingfurther investigation. To contribute to the understanding on strategy implementation throughPPM and its conditional factors, this qualitative case study expands the existing research bystudying the PPM process within an internal development department. The study wasconducted at the Business Improvement department, which oversees improvement projects forthe service branch of EnergyComp, a company specializing in the development of complexenergy solutions. Using an abductive research approach, a literature review was conducted inparallel with data collection and analysis. The empirical data was mainly collected throughsemi-structured interviews at the company, but also through meetings and companydocumentation. The results of the study show that PPM actions connected to projects, portfolio and resourceallocation are undertaken to effectively implement the organization's strategy within theinternal development department. Common to all areas is the importance of accurate andavailable information that effects the decisions connected to strategy implementation. On aproject level, Insufficient information poses challenges in accurately assessing project success,resulting in measurements that fail to cover all strategic objectives. In the context of theportfolio, the absence of project information and uncertainties can lead to a misalignmentbetween the actual prioritization criteria employed in the selection process and the strategicobjectives of the organization. Additionally, it may contribute to a less detailed and formalstrategic plan. Furthermore, the cost associated with adjusting the portfolio is directly linked tothe effort and expenses involved in obtaining project information. Regarding resources,insufficient information on supply and demand creates challenges in considering projectdependencies and synergies during the evaluation of project groups. Moreover, limitedtransparency across functional boundaries within the organization leads to a system wheredecision rules cannot be established at the portfolio level. Instead, it encourages bottom-uppriority decisions. Furthermore, a biased assessment by stakeholders in the functionaldepartments may result in an inadequate screening process, leading to an increased workloadin the portfolio structuring process. Finally, the large variation in project types, coupled withdiverse impact targets spanning individual and multiple functions, makes it difficult to createrelevant project categories for budgeting and portfolio structuring.