Portfolio Scoring Tool | Chris Cognasso

How This Works

Score your initiative across seven weighted factors. Each factor reflects a real governance question that determines whether an initiative deserves funding, sequencing, or reconsideration. The seventh factor — Adoption Readiness — is the one most portfolio models ignore. It is also the one most responsible for post-go-live failure.

0 of 7 scored

Strategic Value

Theme alignment · Sponsor commitment · Business case strength

25% — ▼

A project that cannot be tied directly to the organization's top strategic priorities will be the first to be traded away when capacity is constrained — regardless of how well it is executed. Strategic alignment is the foundation. Without it, nothing else in this score matters.

Directly addresses a top-tier strategic priority. Executive sponsor is actively engaged — visibly modeling the change, making decisions, and removing blockers. 100

Strong strategic alignment. Sponsor is engaged and present, though not yet driving adoption behaviors personally. 80

Moderate alignment — supports strategy but not a top priority. Sponsor has endorsed the initiative but is not actively leading it. 60

Weak alignment. This project would not survive a rigorous strategic prioritization exercise. Sponsor is a name on a charter, not a force behind the work. 35

No clear strategic thread. This initiative exists because someone had influence or momentum, not because it advances the organization's goals. 10

From the field

At JPMorgan during the WaMu acquisition, the difference between workstreams that succeeded and those that struggled was almost always traceable to sponsor engagement. Not endorsement. Engagement. A sponsor who signs the charter and appears at go-live is providing permission, not sponsorship.

Financial Return

ROI · NPV · Payback period

20% — ▼

Financial return is a necessary input, not a sufficient justification. A project with excellent ROI that is organizationally unabsorbable will still fail to deliver its projected value. Score financial return honestly — then let the other six factors determine whether that return is actually reachable.

Excellent ROI. NPV greater than $5M, payback within 18 months. Benefits are quantified, validated by finance, and owned by an operational leader. 100

Good ROI. NPV $2–5M, payback within 18–24 months. Benefits are documented and reasonably quantified. 75

Moderate ROI. NPV $500K–2M or payback 24–36 months. Benefits are identified but estimates carry meaningful uncertainty. 50

Low direct ROI, or payback exceeds 36 months. May be justified by regulatory requirement, risk mitigation, or strategic positioning rather than direct return. 25

No quantified financial return. Benefits are aspirational, unmeasured, or unowned. This is a significant governance risk regardless of the initiative's merit. 10

From the field

The most common failure mode is not bad ROI — it is benefits that remain aspirational statements in a business case long after go-live. No one validates them. No one is accountable for them. The investment closes and the benefit is assumed rather than confirmed.

Delivery Confidence

Feasibility · Team capability · Track record

20% — ▼

Portfolio predictability — the percentage of initiatives completing within acceptable variance of forecast — is the foundation of executive trust. A high-scoring initiative that has a poor chance of delivery is not a portfolio asset. It is a budget sink and a credibility risk.

High confidence. The team has delivered comparable work. Requirements are documented, stable, and testable. The plan is realistic and has been stress-tested. 100

Good confidence. Minor unknowns exist but the team is capable and the approach is sound. The plan has appropriate contingency built in. 75

Moderate confidence. The scope is understood but the team is stretched, the technology is new, or the timeline is aggressive. Risks are identified and mitigation plans exist. 50

Low confidence. Significant unknowns. The team has not delivered work of this complexity before, or the requirements are contested and unstable. 25

Critical risk. This initiative has characteristics of projects that fail. Approve only with mandatory gate reviews and explicit escalation protocols. 10

Risk Exposure

Probability × impact · Regulatory · Vendor dependency

15% — ▼

This score inverts: lower risk exposure produces a higher score. A high-risk initiative may still be worth funding — but the governance forum needs to know exactly what it is accepting and who owns the mitigation. Risk that is unnamed is risk that is unmanaged.

Low risk exposure. Risks are identified, owned, and actively mitigated. No regulatory exposure. Minimal vendor dependency. Rollback plan exists. 100

Moderate risk. Some known risks with mitigation plans in place. Limited regulatory exposure. Vendor dependencies are contractually managed. 80

Elevated risk. Multiple risk vectors. Regulatory requirements are present and must be met. Significant vendor dependency with limited fallback options. 55

High risk. Known risks are not yet mitigated. Regulatory non-compliance exposure. The initiative is vendor-dependent in ways that limit the organization's control. 30

Critical risk exposure. This initiative carries risks that, if they materialize, will affect other portfolio members or expose the organization to significant legal, financial, or operational harm. 10

Resource Availability

People · Skills · Competing demand

10% — ▼

Capacity management requires making demand and supply visible simultaneously — which most organizations do not do. They manage demand through project approvals and supply through headcount, but rarely connect the two. The gap between them is where overcommitment lives. Score this factor against actual availability, not nominal availability.

All critical roles are available and dedicated. No significant competing demand for key skills during the initiative's critical path. 100

Most roles available. One or two key resources are shared with other initiatives, but sequencing is manageable and the schedule accounts for it. 75

Several key resources are shared across multiple initiatives. This creates a real capacity constraint that the project plan must explicitly address — not assume away. 50

Critical skill gaps or significant resource contention. This initiative will compete directly with other funded work for the same people. Something will slip. 25

Resources are not available to staff this initiative without pulling from work already in flight. Funding this as currently scoped would require an explicit portfolio trade-off decision. 5

From the field

At the Pentagon, capacity management was embedded in the congressional budget defense process — which forced a discipline that most commercial organizations never develop. Most organizations can tell you how many projects are approved. Very few can tell you how many their people can actually absorb.

Time to Value

When do benefits actually start flowing?

5% — ▼

This factor does not penalize long-horizon strategic investments — it surfaces their horizon explicitly so the portfolio governance forum can make a conscious sequencing decision. A three-year initiative is not inherently wrong. It just needs to earn its place in a portfolio that also has near-term delivery commitments.

Benefits begin within 6 months of launch. Fast time-to-value initiatives reduce risk and build executive confidence in the portfolio. 100

Benefits begin 6–12 months after launch. Reasonable horizon with manageable execution risk. 75

Benefits begin 12–18 months after launch. The initiative will need sustained sponsorship through a significant pre-value period. 50

Benefits begin 18–24 months after launch. This initiative requires a long runway and carries meaningful risk of sponsor disengagement before value materializes. 25

Benefits begin more than 24 months after launch. This is a strategic bet. It must be explicitly governed as one — with clear milestones and off-ramp criteria. 10

Adoption Readiness

Change capacity · Saturation · OCM preparation

5% — ▼

This is the factor that most portfolio scoring models omit entirely — and the one most responsible for post-go-live failure. Great technology plus poor adoption equals wasted investment. A project that delivers technically but is not absorbed behaviorally has not delivered. Score this dimension against the organization's actual change capacity, not the project's change plan.

Change management is fully funded, a change lead is assigned, manager readiness is in progress, and resistance has been assessed. The organization is actively preparing for behavioral change, not just system launch. 100

A change plan exists and is partially funded. The approach addresses behavior change, not just communications and training. Sponsor engagement is planned but not yet fully active. 75

A change plan has been drafted but is not yet funded. Communications and training are planned; behavioral reinforcement and manager readiness are not yet addressed. 50

No formal change management plan. The assumption is that good training and communications will be sufficient. This assumption has a poor track record. 25

Significant resistance is expected and no mitigation is planned. This initiative is technically feasible and organizationally unready. Approving it in this state produces low utilization, workaround behavior, and benefits that never materialize. 5

Change Saturation Check — How loaded is the target population right now?

Low saturation — the affected group has manageable change load. This initiative can be absorbed without significantly competing with in-flight changes. ✓

Moderate saturation — the affected group is carrying other changes simultaneously. Sequencing and timing must be actively managed. ⚠

High saturation — the affected group is already absorbing significant change from other initiatives. Launching this now is a portfolio risk, regardless of how well this initiative is designed. ⛔

From the field

At Seattle Public Schools, the initial go-live approach checked technical readiness thoroughly and people readiness almost not at all. The system went live. The training happened. The communications went out. And the old behavior came back. Rebuilding the change plan around manager-led adoption and integrated readiness checkpoints is what ultimately drove the adoption results.

Score Complete

Based on 7-factor weighted assessment

About This Model

This scoring model is built around a simple premise: a ranked list is not a governed portfolio. Governance is what happens when the list meets reality — capacity constraints, organizational change capacity, sponsor behavior, and the physics of how much change people can absorb simultaneously.

The seven factors and their weightings reflect thirty-five years of portfolio governance across government, federal, financial services, and enterprise programs. Strategic Value (25%) and Financial Return (20%) carry the most weight because they answer the fundamental portfolio question: is this the right work? Delivery Confidence (20%) and Risk Exposure (15%) answer the execution question. Resource Availability (10%) surfaces the capacity constraint. Time to Value (5%) makes the horizon explicit. And Adoption Readiness (5%) — the factor most portfolio models omit — is the one most responsible for the gap between what the portfolio promises and what it delivers.

Use this tool to surface the governance conversation. The score does not make the decision. The governance forum does.

Composite Score

—

Not Yet Scored

Score all seven factors to receive an assessment and governance recommendation.

Factor Breakdown

Strategic Value —

Financial Return —

Delivery Confidence —

Risk Exposure —

Resource Availability —

Time to Value —

Adoption Readiness —

Is this initiative worth funding?