Value & Decide — Templates

Money already spent gets no vote.

About these templates

The Decide stage spans two chapters: How We Value (Chapter 5) and How We Choose the Mix (Chapter 6). Four templates support the full Decide process: the scoring model, the model selector, the portfolio balance and risk-return view, and the capacity-versus-demand view.

—

C1 — Scoring model

Purpose: Apply the reference framework (A2) to each investment in the pool to produce a comparable weighted score. Run this for every investment — new and in-flight — at each comparison cycle.*

Investment	Value (score / weight)	Strategic fit (score / weight)	Risk (score / weight)	Cost (score / weight)	Weighted total	Forward value	Notes
[Investment name]	[1–5] / [%]	[1–5] / [%]	[1–5] / [%]	[1–5] / [%]	[computed]	[£/€ or qualitative]	[Uncertain bet? In-flight?]

How to complete:

1. Score each criterion 1–5 using the definitions in A2. Apply the same definitions to every investment in the pool.
2. Multiply each score by the criterion’s weight (expressed as a decimal: 35% = 0.35).
3. Sum the weighted scores for the total. The total is the basis of comparison; it is not a recommendation — the comparison also requires the capacity view (C4) and the balance view (C3).
4. Record who scored each investment, and the date. Scoring sessions should include at least two scorers to reduce individual bias; significant disagreements should be discussed and resolved before the comparison.
5. For uncertain bets, the value score reflects the option value of the next learning tranche, not a projected full return.

—

C2 — Prioritisation-model selector

Purpose: Choose the right valuation model for the investment and setting. The scoring model (C1) is the default; this selector identifies when to supplement or replace it.*

Investment characteristic	Recommended model	When to supplement
Heterogeneous portfolio (different types, sizes, sectors)	Weighted scoring (C1)	Add financial appraisal where strong financial data exists
High-flow product or technology queue	Cost of Delay / WSJF	Supplement with weighted scoring for strategic fit
Investment with measurable financial return and defensible estimates	Financial appraisal (ROI / NPV / payback)	Add weighted scoring for strategy alignment
Uncertain bet / experiment	Option value: value the next learning tranche	Do not use financial appraisal — the return is not estimable
Portfolio-level balance view	Value-versus-effort map	Use alongside the scoring model, not instead of it

Model notes:

1. Cost of Delay: Estimate the value lost per week of delay. Divide by duration/effort to get WSJF. Use for sequencing decisions within a category.
2. Financial appraisal: ROI = (net benefit / total cost). NPV discounts future cash flows at the organisation’s cost of capital. Payback = time to recover the investment. Use only where the value is genuinely financial and estimable.
3. Option value: What is the next increment of learning worth? What does it cost? The ratio is the return on the tranche. Record the stop criteria for the tranche.

—

C3 — Portfolio balance and risk-return view

Purpose: Look at the proposed funded set as a whole and assess whether it is balanced across the four dimensions. Use this at the choosing stage to check the mix, not to score individual investments.*

Dimension	Current proportion	Target range	Gap	Action required
High risk / high return investments	[%]	[%]–[%]	[+/-]	[Reduce / increase / accept]
Medium risk / medium return	[%]	[%]–[%]	[+/-]
Low risk / low return	[%]	[%]–[%]	[+/-]
Near-term horizon (< 1 year)	[%]	[%]–[%]	[+/-]
Medium horizon (1–3 years)	[%]	[%]–[%]	[+/-]
Long / uncertain horizon	[%]	[%]–[%]	[+/-]
Run-the-business	[%]	Set by bucket or appetite	[+/-]
Change-the-business	[%]	Set by bucket or appetite	[+/-]
Innovation / explore	[%]	Set by bucket or appetite	[+/-]

Concentration check:

1. What shared technology, platform, or supplier dependency do three or more funded investments share?
2. What strategic assumption do three or more funded investments depend on simultaneously?
3. Is any single team, skill, or capability required by more than [threshold — set per organisation] of the funded set?

If any concentration exceeds the appetite limit in A3, note the action required before finalising the funded set.

—

C4 — Capacity-versus-demand view

Purpose: Confirm that the proposed funded set can be staffed and delivered. The funding line is drawn against capacity, not appetite.*

Scarce capability / resource	Available supply (FTE or units)	Demand from proposed funded set	Surplus / deficit	Resolution
[e.g. Solution architects]	[N]	[N]	[+/-]	[Defer investment X / hire / contract]
[e.g. Data engineering]	[N]	[N]	[+/-]
[e.g. Executive sponsor time]	[N hours/month]	[N hours/month]	[+/-]

Rules:

1. Complete this view for every scarce resource identified at the demand stage and by the Steer process.
2. Do not finalise the funded set until the capacity view shows no unresolved deficits.
3. Where a deficit cannot be resolved, reduce the funded set — descope or defer investments — until the deficit clears. Do not proceed on the assumption that capacity will appear.