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)When to reconsider the portfolio
The portfolio may have made sense when it was agreed. Then circumstances change.
The organisation may now need something different from what it originally committed to.
- Annual planning exposes more demand than funding or capacity What should we actually commit to?
- A savings target or funding reduction arrives What stops, defers or receives less?
- A major new priority is approved What gives way so it can actually proceed?
- Mandatory or regulatory work enters the portfolio What changes around the non-negotiable commitment?
- Leadership or strategy changes Which inherited commitments still deserve funding?
- Capacity falls or commitments exceed capacity What can we realistically deliver?
- A PPM implementation or reset begins Which commitments should the new portfolio process actually carry forward?
- A major investment underperforms Continue, rescope, reduce or stop, and what happens to the funding and capacity?
Not every change requires a Sprint. It becomes relevant when leadership still needs to choose what should proceed, stop, defer or remain under review.
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.
You prepare credible choices. Leadership owns the trade-offs and chooses.
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 clear, agreed portfolio. Leadership decides what proceeds, stops, defers or remains under review, with a clear rationale showing how the choice fits agreed priorities, funding and delivery capacity. The rationale 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)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, and the working lead provides the focused input we need. If the Sprint proceeds, the relevant leaders participate at the points needed to frame and make the decision.
-
Frame the decision
Define the decision, deadline and participants.
Working with the senior decision owner and working lead, we use the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to make value, priorities and trade-offs explicit and confirm who else needs to be involved.
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 software, apply funding, delivery-capacity and mandatory-work constraints, and use proprietary genetic algorithms to evaluate thousands of combinations in seconds. We then prepare a focused set of feasible choices for leadership.
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 decision design, preparation and analytical support. Whether we join leadership discussions directly or support your team behind the scenes is agreed during scoping.
Where confidentiality, security or governance requirements make it appropriate, TransparentChoice software can be deployed in the client’s own environment and used by an internal champion, allowing the underlying portfolio data and internal decision discussions to remain within the organisation.
Working with an existing consulting or implementation partner. Where appropriate, the Sprint can be delivered alongside an existing consulting, transformation or PPM implementation partner. The partner may lead the client relationship and coordinate parts of the engagement, while TransparentChoice provides the decision framework, modelling, technology and specialist support.
The senior decision owner remains within the client organisation and owns the decision. Roles between the client, partner and TransparentChoice are agreed during scoping.
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
If a Sprint is the right response, we agree the scope, ownership and participants before delivery begins.
Working lead: Coordinates existing information and focused working sessions. This can be someone within the organisation or, where appropriate, an existing consulting or implementation partner.
Senior decision owner: Frames the decision and ensures the relevant leaders participate.
Current information: We begin with whatever portfolio, financial and capacity information is 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 software 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 stands on its own. In 30 minutes with Stuart, clarify what is putting the portfolio under pressure, the decision leadership may need to make, what may block progress and the most practical next step. By the end of the review, you should also know when the decision needs to be made and who needs to own it.
If you are already working with a consulting or implementation partner, they can join the review and be included in any subsequent Sprint.
Earlier action usually preserves more options, but the review can also help when budgets, capacity or sponsor commitments are already fixed, by identifying what can still change and the decision leadership now needs to make.
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
- The recommended next step, including whether a Portfolio Decision Sprint would be useful
If a Sprint appears useful and you want to explore it, 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
Scope, timetable and price reflect the size and complexity of the decision, including the number of initiatives, available information 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.
The review is confidential. The review can stay at a high level; you do not need to share sensitive portfolio information.