Defensible portfolio prioritisation for Finance & Leadership
Managing a portfolio means juggling competing priorities, limited resources, and scrutiny from finance and senior leaders. Without a transparent method, political arguments dominate. The result is decisions that are hard to defend and often misaligned with outcomes.
The challenge
Annual planning cycles and in-year reprioritisations are both vulnerable to political pressure. Leaders need a repeatable, transparent framework that makes trade-offs clear and defensible.
A transparent scoring model
Clarity.’s OnePlan provides a model leaders can apply consistently:
- Align to outcomes: Map each initiative to the business, policy, or service outcome it supports.
- Score consistently: Rate every initiative on Value, Risk, Speed, and Cost.
- Visualise the trade-offs: Use simple visuals so everyone sees why some projects progress while others pause.
- Document assumptions: Record evidence and uncertainties to build an audit trail.
- Frame with the Value Map Framework: Present WHY, WHAT, HOW, and NOW on a single page.
Why this works
- Defensible: Leaders and finance teams see transparent evidence, not political manoeuvring.
- Simple: Easy to explain in a boardroom or assurance review.
- Repeatable: Works across annual cycles and mid-year adjustments.
Example in practice
A leadership team faces ten competing initiatives with limited budget. Using the scoring model, they rate each against outcomes, risks, speed, and cost. Visualising the results, they clearly see which projects offer the highest value for the least risk. A one-page Value Map Framework summary explains the recommendation, making it easy for finance and executives to approve.
Making confident choices simple
By applying a consistent scoring model, leaders can present portfolios that are transparent, defensible, and aligned with outcomes. This is how Clarity. ensures portfolio decisions move quickly and hold credibility under scrutiny.