Stockholm Subway
€200m decisionReached clarity on a critical signalling go/no-go decision in weeks rather than months.
View case study → (opens in a new tab)Why the decision stalls
Something is putting the portfolio under pressure. The difficult part is deciding what should change.
Every initiative has a sponsor, a rationale and someone ready to defend it. Leadership expects the PMO to prepare a credible recommendation, but the PMO cannot decide alone which commitments should proceed, change or stop.
That is why portfolio pruning often turns into negotiations between individual sponsors instead of a decision about which complete portfolio best fits today's priorities, funding and delivery capacity.
Delay does not make the trade-off disappear. It can commit more funding and delivery capacity, turn assumptions into promises and leave leadership with fewer politically viable options.
This pattern is well documented in research on escalation of commitment and portfolio governance: Sleesman et al. and Unger et al.
The PMO can prepare credible choices. Leadership must own the trade-offs and choose.
The Sprint changes the question
Not: “Which sponsor will give something up?”
Instead: “Which portfolio should leadership choose?”
What the Sprint delivers
An agreed portfolio leadership can act on
Proceed
Stop
Defer
Review
A complete portfolio choice. Leadership compares realistic portfolio options against agreed priorities, funding and delivery capacity, then decides what proceeds, stops, defers or needs a defined review.
An agreed portfolio with a clear rationale. It reflects agreed priorities, fits available funding and delivery capacity, and can be explained to sponsors, finance and senior leadership.
Illustrative portfolio choices
You are no longer left carrying an impossible recommendation alone. The PMO brings a credible basis for the decision; leadership sees the trade-offs and owns the choice.
Where a decision is not ready: the remaining decision is clearly framed with an owner, a specific question and a decision date.
The economic case
The value can come from one important portfolio decision
The Sprint does not need to transform the whole portfolio to be worthwhile. A credible economic case may come from avoiding further spend on work that no longer fits, freeing scarce capacity, making room for higher-value priorities or reaching an important decision sooner.
Avoid further spend
Stop, defer or resize work that no longer warrants the same level of funding or delivery effort before more is committed.
Free funding and capacity
Make people and investment available for the priorities leadership has chosen, rather than leaving them tied to inherited commitments.
Move higher-value work forward
Create room for strategic, regulatory, transformation or AI initiatives that would otherwise remain delayed or unfunded.
Reach the decision sooner
Shorten repeated cycles of analysis, sponsor negotiation and executive discussion by giving leadership credible portfolio choices to decide between.
What the review helps establish
You do not need to build the economic case before booking. The review helps identify where the decision could create or protect value, test whether that value is likely to justify the investment and judge whether a focused Sprint would be proportionate.
Evidence behind the approach
Decision science, purpose-built technology and measurable results
Since 2013, TransparentChoice has helped organisations make complex portfolio and investment decisions using structured prioritisation and decision support.
Energinet
€6m+ savedEliminated obsolete initiatives and aligned IT investment more closely with strategy.
View case study → (opens in a new tab)American Planning Association
About 2× impactReported roughly doubling the strategic ROI and impact of its project portfolio.
View case study → (opens in a new tab)During the decision review, Stuart can point you to the examples most relevant to your portfolio, decision and circumstances.
When the Sprint fits
Use it when something has changed or an important portfolio decision is approaching
The Sprint fits when new demands, approaching deadlines or portfolio constraints mean existing commitments need to be reconsidered against current priorities, funding and delivery capacity.
- Annual planning: Existing commitments and new proposals exceed the available budget or delivery capacity, and choices need to be made before budgets and capacity are locked for another cycle.
- A PPM implementation or reset: Leadership needs to agree which commitments still fit before new tooling and governance are embedded.
- A savings target: Leadership needs credible choices before broad, across-the-board reductions become the default response.
- A major new priority: AI, transformation or regulatory work needs funding and people already committed elsewhere, before the new priority is simply layered onto an overcommitted portfolio.
- A strategy or leadership change: Inherited commitments need to be reconsidered against a new direction.
- A capacity constraint: Reduced capacity or mandatory work means the organisation cannot sustain every commitment.
How to start
Start with a 30-minute decision review. You do not need a fully framed decision or confirmed sponsorship to book it. Describe the situation as it stands today, and Stuart will help clarify the decision, the deadline and whether a Sprint is the right response. It is best to do this while meaningful options remain open.
If you decide to proceed, the paid Sprint begins once a senior decision owner is ready to lead the portfolio decision with the relevant leaders involved.
How the Sprint works
Three focused stages to reach the decision in about three weeks
The Sprint is a fixed-scope paid engagement. It does not require a software purchase or changes to your existing PPM system.
We handle most of the preparation. Your organisation provides the information already available, focused input from the portfolio lead and participation from the leaders making the decision.
-
Frame the decision
Define the decision, deadline and participants.
We work with the senior decision owner and portfolio lead, using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to make value, priorities and trade-offs explicit.
Output: an agreed decision scope, definition of value and decision model. -
Build realistic choices
Create feasible portfolio choices within the real constraints.
We organise the available information in TransparentChoice's purpose-built platform, apply funding, delivery-capacity and mandatory-work constraints, and use proprietary genetic algorithms to evaluate thousands of portfolio combinations in seconds. We prepare a focused set of feasible portfolio choices for leadership to compare.
Output: credible scenarios with visible value, trade-offs, constraints and assumptions. -
Test, decide and document
Compare the choices, agree the outcome and document it.
Leaders challenge assumptions and see the consequences for value, funding and delivery capacity. Where a critical trade-off remains unresolved, we generate additional scenarios so leaders can test the consequences before deciding.
Output: a leadership-owned decision on what proceeds, stops, defers or remains under review, with the rationale, trade-offs, owners and dates documented.
Who delivers the Sprint
Senior TransparentChoice specialists remain directly involved in the decision design, preparation, analysis and executive discussion.
Stuart Easton
Founder & CEO
Stuart helps leadership teams define value, expose difficult trade-offs and reach a clear, owned decision. He is a guest lecturer on project prioritisation at the University of Oxford.
Dan Dures
VP of Customer Success
Dan helps turn the agreed scope into a practical engagement that works with the organisation's existing information, stakeholders and operating context.
What your organisation contributes
PMO or portfolio lead: Coordinates existing information and focused working sessions.
Senior decision owner: Frames the decision and ensures the relevant leaders participate.
Current information: We begin with the portfolio, financial and capacity information already available; it does not need to be complete or perfect.
One defined scope: One portfolio and the related decisions about what should proceed, stop, be deferred or remain under review. Any broader work is scoped and agreed separately.
A foundation for future portfolio decisions
Your team retains the decision criteria, scenario model and decision materials, creating a reusable foundation for future portfolio decisions when priorities, funding or capacity change.
The Sprint stands alone. No ongoing subscription or support is required. Optional platform access, follow-on Sprints and ongoing support are available if useful later.
Decision review
Start with a 30-minute decision review with Stuart Easton
The review is the first step. In 30 minutes with Stuart, clarify what is changing or approaching, the decision leadership may need to make, what may block progress and whether a focused three-week Sprint is the right response. By the end of the review, you should also know when the decision needs to be made and who needs to own it.
Start before budgets, capacity and sponsor commitments are fixed. The review is most useful while leadership can still reshape the portfolio, rather than manage the consequences of commitments already made. You do not need confirmed sponsorship; a senior decision owner only needs to be in place before the paid Sprint begins.
Stuart Easton
Founder & CEO, TransparentChoice
Guest lecturer on project prioritisation at Oxford
He will lead the review personally.
No fee for this review
No presentation or data clean-up required
No sensitive portfolio details required
Written note afterwards
No obligation
Calendar not loading or no suitable time? Open the booking calendar in a new tab, or send us a note and we will help arrange the review.
What the review covers and what happens next
After the review, you will receive a concise written note capturing:
- The decision leadership needs to make, the deadline and who needs to own it
- The main obstacle to progress
- Where the decision could create or protect value
- Whether the Sprint fits and the recommended next step
If it does, within two business days you will also receive:
- A recommended scope and the decision outcome the Sprint will target
- A proposed delivery approach and timetable
- An indicative price, with the assumptions behind it
The proposed scope, timetable and price will reflect the size and complexity of the decision, including the number of initiatives, information available and stakeholders involved. A relatively contained portfolio decision will be scoped and priced as a smaller engagement.
You can then decide whether to proceed. When another approach would be more practical, Stuart will say so.
No presentation or data clean-up is required. If useful, come ready to describe what is changing, approaching or no longer fitting.
The review is confidential. The review can stay at a high level; you do not need to share sensitive portfolio information.