A one-page template for prioritizing a project portfolio by capability contribution rather than value versus effort, so the ranking reflects the strategy. It is the practical companion to the project prioritization framework pillar, which explains the method and works a full example.
The idea in a line: rank initiatives by how much they build a capability your strategy depends on, and let value and effort drop to inputs for sequencing.
Step A. Set the capability weights (once a cycle, by the strategy owners)
From your Where to Play and How to Win choices, name the handful of capabilities you must build to win where you have chosen to compete. Weight each by strategic importance, and record the gap between current and target maturity.
| Priority capability (traced to the strategic choice) | Weight (1–5) | Current → target maturity | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
Any capability that cannot be traced back to the strategic choice gets no weight. These weights are the strategy made explicit; they are not reopened in the prioritization meeting.
Step B. Score each initiative
Two passes, in this order. The first decides what gets funded; the second decides what order the funded work runs in. Keeping them apart is the whole point: it is what stops value and effort from creeping back into the ranking.
B1. Rank by contribution
| Initiative | Capability it moves | Gap closed (0–1) | Contribution (weight × gap) |
|---|---|---|---|
B2. Sequence the funded set
| Initiative | Value | Effort | Depends on |
|---|---|---|---|
- Contribution leads the ranking.
- Value and effort are inputs to sequencing, not to the ranking.
- Dependencies are hard constraints: an enabler is sequenced before anything that needs it, whatever its value density.
- No weighted capability, no score: an initiative that moves nothing the strategy named scores zero, and competes in a separate, smaller pool of routine improvements.
Step C. Read the portfolio
- Rank by contribution. Draw the capacity line.
- Above the line is funded this cycle; below the line is backlog, revisited next cycle.
- Sanity check: is your highest-contribution initiative (often the foundational one) near the top, or deferred again? If it is at the bottom, you are ranking on value and effort, not capability contribution.
How to use it
Fill Step A with the people who own the strategy; fill Step B with the sponsors and architects; decide at the portfolio governance table. If the weights in Step A are hard to set, that is a finding, not a template problem: it usually means the strategic choice itself has not been made clearly enough to prioritize against. The full method, the failure it fixes ("Portfolio Theatre"), and a worked before-and-after example are in the Portfolio Theatre pillar.