| A | INITIAL ISSUE | 05.26 |
| B | ADDED GLOW. REGRETTED IT. | 07.26 |
| C | REDRAWN IN INK, PER REVIEW | 07.26 |
| D | PLAIN LANGUAGE. CASE FILES. | 07.26 |
Every company has more technology ideas than capacity to build them. This page is a working model of a system that decides. Requests come in, get scored with an industry-standard prioritization framework, and only what fits the quarter gets committed. Everything on this sheet is live: drag the controls, click the cases.
Why I built this
Working in Enterprise Architecture, technology portfolio intake and prioritization are a key component of my work. This tool demonstrates the three things a portfolio owner actually does: score demand honestly, commit within real capacity, and account for the value that ships.
0
Active cases
0
Departments served
$0.00M
Value committed / qtr
0
Eng-weeks planned
Change what the business values and the ranking changes with it. The red line is where capacity runs out. Click any case to open its file and see exactly why it ranks where it does.
Prioritizing this work means understanding what it plugs into. The sixteen cases touch 34 systems across the estate — ERP and land, CRM, real-time operations, the data platform, workflow, and compliance. Open any case in Fig. 2 to see the stack behind it.
The method is standard. The discipline is applying it to everything, every time.
| STD-01 | WSJF · Weighted Shortest Job FirstScaled Agile Framework (SAFe) | Priority scoring: cost of delay ÷ job size |
| STD-02 | Cost of DelayReinertsen, Principles of Product Development Flow | Value + strategic + time-criticality numerator |
| STD-03 | Confidence weightingRICE scoring model (Intercom) | Discounts poorly scoped cases |
| STD-04 | Greedy knapsack allocationClassical combinatorial optimization | Fills finite capacity in rank order |
Five dimensions computed from the live plan, not asserted on a slide: does delivered work hit its value target, how fast demand clears, whether the team is sanely loaded, how much available value the plan captures, and how well-scoped the portfolio is.
Overall
Reliable
Fast
Supported
Valuable
Clean
Lookback results for delivered cases. The estimates are accountable.
| Case | Promised | Realized | Finding |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vendor onboarding & compliance portalSPC-1078 | $430K | $470K | Met · 109% |
| Drilling-cost benchmarking modelSPC-1096 | $790K | $610K | Short · 77% |
| Contractor-safety analyticsSPC-1128 | $340K | $355K | Met · 104% |
The portfolio thinking is the point, but the implementation is mine too, end to end.
The scoring engine is a pure TypeScript module with typed interfaces for cases, weights, and plans. The same functions rank the cases in every figure on this page and in the live console, so the drawing can never disagree with the tool.
The interface is React with spring physics driving the re-ranking, the diagrams are hand-authored SVG animated with native browser primitives, and the whole site ships as a static export. No backend, no database, nothing to patch: it runs from any CDN and the plan recomputes client-side in under a millisecond.
Motion respects prefers-reduced-motion, the console exports its plan to CSV, and the case files you can open in Fig. 2 read from the same data model the engine scores.
Demonstration project · portfolio data is synthetic · the scoring engine is real