Workshop: Priority matrix

Workshop two turns the inventory into the funded portfolio. Same rules: your real organization if possible, Alder otherwise; the scoring is designed for a leadership team in a room for two hours, not an analyst in a spreadsheet for two weeks.

1. 1Score value 1–5 per candidate: the lever math from this module, low-end estimates, anchored to a line item ('5' should mean a board-visible line moves). Do this as a group with the owner's case one-pagers in hand — divergent scores are the useful part; argue them to consensus, note the argument.
2. 2Score feasibility 1–5: data readiness (from the inventory), error-tolerance fit, integration surface (how many systems touched), owner energy, and change load on the affected team. Feasibility is where inventories get honest — a beloved candidate scoring 2 is the workshop doing its job.
3. 3Plot the 2×2 (value × feasibility): top-right = quick-win candidates; top-left (high value, hard) = bet candidates; bottom-right (easy, meh) = fill-in only if an owner is pulling; bottom-left = archive without ceremony. Expect ~19 rows to plot as: 6 top-right, 3 top-left, the rest below the line.
4. 4Select the portfolio with the proportions: 4–6 quick wins, 1–2 bets (pick the bet by which board worry it attacks, then by score), 2–3 options funded as two-week probes. For each selection, write the kill criterion + review date on the spot — a selection without one isn't selected yet. Sequence quick wins for compounding (what does each leave behind?).
5. 5Name the funding source before you call it 'funded.' A portfolio without a source is a wish list. Say which: reallocation from existing budgets, a new envelope, or a next-cycle AOP (annual operating plan) ask — usually a blend. Alder's version: reallocated from the deferred TMS upgrade, plus a new-envelope ask of ~$400K for year one. This is a budget-politics step, not an accounting formality; the source you name decides who has to say yes.
6. 6Write the one-page portfolio memo: the 2×2 as exhibit A, the funded list with owners/dates/kill criteria, the proportions sentence, the funding source, the two hardest calls you made and why. Run it through the hostile-CFO prompt before calling it artifact #2 — the memo is the middle third of your capstone roadmap.

QUICK WINS (40% of spend)             KILL CRITERION            REVIEW
1 exception-email triage          60% auto-route @ wk6        Sep 15
2 quote-tender extraction         extraction err <5% @ wk8    Oct 01
3 contract-risk summarizer        legal adopts 80% @ wk8      Oct 01
4 invoice-dispute draft replies   deflect 25% @ wk10          Oct 15
5 driver-log audit assist         flags match auditor @ wk6   Sep 15
STRATEGIC BET (45%)
6 predictive ETA, top-20 lanes    beats dispatcher on 30%     Q2 gate
                                  of lanes, else stop
OPTIONS (10%, 2-wk probes -> decision)
7 dock-detention data capture     'is the TMS field viable?'  Aug 15
8 warehouse-slotting optimizer    vendor category eval        Aug 30
5% reserved for enablement & governance (charged per-initiative, M5)
funding source: reallocated from the deferred TMS upgrade plus a
new-envelope ask of ~$400K (year-one) - see funding-source step
sequencing note: #2's document pipeline is reused by #3, #4;
#1's eval habits and baselines de-risk #6.