Chapter 8 — Opportunity Pipeline & Prioritization

Overview

Create a transparent backlog of AI opportunities and rank them consistently to focus investment where it matters most. Effective prioritization is as much about what you say "no" to as what you green-light—it builds trust with stakeholders and ensures limited resources drive maximum value.

This chapter provides proven frameworks for scoring, ranking, and managing an AI opportunity portfolio that aligns with strategic priorities while maintaining team morale and stakeholder confidence.

The Prioritization Challenge

Common Anti-Patterns

Organizations often fall into these traps when defining AI initiatives:

graph TB
    A[Poor Prioritization] --> B[HiPPO Decisions<br/>Highest Paid Person Opinion]
    A --> C[First-Come-First-Served<br/>No strategic alignment]
    A --> D[Everything Priority 1<br/>Team paralysis]
    A --> E[Opaque Criteria<br/>Loss of trust]
    A --> F[Analysis Paralysis<br/>Endless debates]

    B --> G[Failed Projects<br/>Political decisions<br/>Low morale]
    C --> G
    D --> G
    E --> G
    F --> G

    style A fill:#f8d7da
    style G fill:#f8d7da

The Cost of Poor Prioritization:

Symptoms of Poor Prioritization

graph LR
    A[Warning Signs] --> B[Teams can't explain<br/>current priorities]
    A --> C[Frequent<br/>re-prioritization]
    A --> D[No visible pipeline<br/>beyond current quarter]
    A --> E[Stakeholder<br/>escalations]
    A --> F[High project<br/>failure rate]

    style A fill:#fff3cd
    style B fill:#f8d7da
    style C fill:#f8d7da
    style D fill:#f8d7da
    style E fill:#f8d7da
    style F fill:#f8d7da

RICE Scoring Framework

RICE = (Reach × Impact × Confidence) ÷ Effort

graph TB
    A[RICE Score] --> B[Reach<br/>Users/Processes Affected]
    A --> C[Impact<br/>Degree of Change]
    A --> D[Confidence<br/>Data Quality]
    A --> E[Effort<br/>Person-Months]

    B --> B1[How many users<br/>per time period?<br/>Example: 6,000/month]
    C --> C1[Impact per user?<br/>3=Massive, 1=Medium, 0.25=Minimal<br/>Example: 2.0]
    D --> D1[How confident?<br/>100%=High, 50%=Low<br/>Example: 80%]
    E --> E1[Person-months<br/>to deliver MVP?<br/>Example: 8]

    B1 --> F[RICE = 6000×2×0.8÷8<br/>= 1,200]
    C1 --> F
    D1 --> F
    E1 --> F

    style A fill:#d4edda
    style F fill:#d4edda

RICE Scoring Guide

RICE Comparison Example

Portfolio of 6 Opportunities:

Prioritization Decision Flow:

graph TD
    A[Evaluate Opportunity] --> B{RICE Score >500?}
    B -->|Yes| C[High Priority<br/>Fund Immediately]
    B -->|No| D{RICE Score >100?}
    D -->|Yes| E{Dependencies<br/>Clear?}
    E -->|Yes| F[Medium Priority<br/>H2 Queue]
    E -->|No| G[Defer Until<br/>Dependencies Met]
    D -->|No| H{Strategic<br/>Imperative?}
    H -->|Yes| I[Backlog<br/>Reconsider Q+2]
    H -->|No| J[Reject<br/>Communicate Why]

    style C fill:#d4edda
    style F fill:#fff3cd
    style G fill:#f8d7da
    style I fill:#e1f5ff
    style J fill:#f8d7da

WSJF Framework (SAFe)

WSJF = Cost of Delay ÷ Job Duration

graph TB
    A[WSJF Score] --> B[Cost of Delay]
    A --> C[Job Duration]

    B --> D[User/Business Value<br/>1-5 scale]
    B --> E[Time Criticality<br/>1-5 scale]
    B --> F[Risk Reduction<br/>1-5 scale]

    D --> G[Sum Cost of Delay<br/>÷ Duration]
    E --> G
    F --> G
    C --> G

    G --> H[Higher WSJF<br/>= Higher Priority]

    style A fill:#d4edda
    style H fill:#d4edda

WSJF Scoring Scale

WSJF Example Comparison

When to Use WSJF:

• Regulatory or compliance-driven work
• Time-sensitive opportunities with hard deadlines
• Need to balance value with urgency
• Agile/SAFe environments
• Portfolio contains mix of strategic bets and quick wins

Prioritization Process

Four-Step Framework

graph LR
    A[1. Intake<br/>Standardized Form] --> B[2. Initial Scoring<br/>Workshop]
    B --> C[3. Review & Ranking<br/>Portfolio Committee]
    C --> D[4. Selection & Planning<br/>Wave Assignment]

    D --> E{Outcome}
    E --> F[Discovery Sprint]
    E --> G[MVP Build]
    E --> H[Backlog]

    style E fill:#fff3cd
    style F fill:#d4edda
    style G fill:#d4edda
    style H fill:#e1f5ff

Step 1: Standardized Intake

Intake Form Template:

Intake Processing Flow:

graph TD
    A[Opportunity Submitted] --> B{Complete<br/>Information?}
    B -->|No| C[Return to<br/>Submitter]
    C --> A
    B -->|Yes| D{Business<br/>Sponsor?}
    D -->|No| E[Reject - No<br/>Ownership]
    D -->|Yes| F[Schedule<br/>Scoring Workshop]
    F --> G[Assign Reviewer]
    G --> H[Feasibility<br/>Pre-Check]
    H --> I[Ready for<br/>Committee]

    style E fill:#f8d7da
    style I fill:#d4edda

Step 2: Initial Sizing & Scoring

Scoring Workshop (30-60 minutes per opportunity):

Dependency Mapping:

graph TB
    A[Opportunity:<br/>Support AI Assistant] --> B{Dependencies}

    B --> C[Data Platform<br/>Status: In Progress<br/>ETA: Q2]
    B --> D[Knowledge Base Cleanup<br/>Status: Not Started<br/>ETA: Unknown]
    B --> E[Support System API<br/>Status: Available<br/>ETA: Now]

    C --> F{Blocker?}
    D --> G{Blocker?}
    E --> H{Blocker?}

    F --> I[⚠️ Partial Blocker<br/>Can start with subset]
    G --> J[❌ Critical Blocker<br/>Must address]
    H --> K[✅ No Blocker<br/>Ready to proceed]

    style I fill:#fff3cd
    style J fill:#f8d7da
    style K fill:#d4edda

Step 3: Review & Ranking

Portfolio Review Meeting (monthly, 2 hours):

Ranking Decision Flow:

graph TD
    A[Scored Opportunities] --> B{Strategic Fit?}

    B -->|No| C[Reject<br/>Communicate why]
    B -->|Yes| D{Feasibility?}

    D -->|Low| E[Defer<br/>Identify blockers]
    D -->|Medium/High| F{Risk-Adjusted Value?}

    F --> G[Rank by Score]
    G --> H[Capacity Matching]

    H --> I[Wave 1:<br/>Start Now]
    H --> J[Wave 2:<br/>Next Quarter]
    H --> K[Backlog:<br/>Future]

    style C fill:#f8d7da
    style E fill:#fff3cd
    style I fill:#d4edda
    style J fill:#fff3cd
    style K fill:#e1f5ff

Step 4: Selection & Planning

Selection Criteria:

graph LR
    A[Apply Filters] --> B[1. Strategic Alignment<br/>Top-3 themes?]
    B --> C[2. Minimum Value<br/>Exceeds threshold?]
    C --> D[3. Feasibility<br/>Dependencies OK?]
    D --> E[4. Capacity<br/>Team available?]
    E --> F[5. Risk Appetite<br/>Portfolio balanced?]
    F --> G{Pass All<br/>Filters?}

    G -->|Yes| H[Approve for Build]
    G -->|No| I[Defer or Reject]

    style H fill:#d4edda
    style I fill:#f8d7da

Wave Planning:

Portfolio Views

1. Horizon View

graph LR
    subgraph "Horizon 1: Now (0-6 months)"
    A1[Support AI Assistant<br/>$3M value]
    A2[Document Automation<br/>$2M value]
    A3[Sales Forecasting<br/>$1.5M value]
    end

    subgraph "Horizon 2: Next (6-18 months)"
    B1[Recommendation Engine<br/>$5M value]
    B2[Predictive Maintenance<br/>$4M value]
    B3[Chatbot Platform<br/>$2.5M value]
    end

    subgraph "Horizon 3: Later (18+ months)"
    C1[Autonomous Processing<br/>$8M value]
    C2[Advanced Personalization<br/>$6M value]
    end

    A1 --> B1
    A2 --> B3

    style A1 fill:#d4edda
    style A2 fill:#d4edda
    style A3 fill:#d4edda
    style B1 fill:#fff3cd
    style B2 fill:#fff3cd
    style B3 fill:#fff3cd
    style C1 fill:#e1f5ff
    style C2 fill:#e1f5ff

Horizon Characteristics:

2. Value-Feasibility Matrix

quadrantChart
    title AI Opportunity Portfolio
    x-axis Low Feasibility --> High Feasibility
    y-axis Low Value --> High Value
    quadrant-1 Quick Wins (Do First)
    quadrant-2 Strategic Bets (Invest Carefully)
    quadrant-3 Long Shots (Defer or Kill)
    quadrant-4 Table Stakes (Do Efficiently)
    Support AI: [0.75, 0.85]
    Document Automation: [0.90, 0.65]
    Sales Forecast: [0.70, 0.75]
    Chatbot: [0.85, 0.40]
    Recommendation: [0.50, 0.80]
    Predictive Maint: [0.60, 0.70]

Matrix Interpretation:

3. Dependency View

graph TB
    A[Data Platform<br/>Foundation<br/>Q1-Q2] --> B[Support AI<br/>Q2]
    A --> C[Document Automation<br/>Q2]
    A --> D[Sales Forecast<br/>Q3]

    E[Knowledge Graph<br/>Q2] --> B
    F[Integration Layer<br/>Q1] --> B
    F --> C

    G[CRM Enhancement<br/>Q2-Q3] --> D

    H[MLOps Platform<br/>Q1-Q2] --> B
    H --> C
    H --> D

    style A fill:#fff3cd
    style E fill:#f8d7da
    style F fill:#d4edda
    style G fill:#fff3cd
    style H fill:#fff3cd

Dependency Management:

4. Risk-Balanced Portfolio

Risk Distribution:

pie title Portfolio Risk Distribution
    "Low Risk (Quick Wins)" : 45
    "Medium Risk (Strategic)" : 40
    "High Risk (Exploratory)" : 15

Case Study: Financial Services Company

Background

FinServ Inc., a mid-sized bank, struggled with AI prioritization:

• 15+ AI ideas from different departments
• No clear process for evaluation
• Political decision-making (HiPPO syndrome)
• 3 failed pilots, team morale low
• Executives frustrated with lack of progress

The Problem:

graph TD
    A[Chaotic State] --> B[New VP wants X]
    A --> C[COO wants Y]
    A --> D[No clear criteria]
    A --> E[Team confusion]
    A --> F[Best ideas ignored]

    B --> G[Political Battles<br/>Resource Conflicts<br/>Failed Projects]
    C --> G
    D --> G
    E --> G
    F --> G

    style A fill:#f8d7da
    style G fill:#f8d7da

The Solution

Phase 1: Framework Design (2 weeks)

Established clear prioritization framework:

• Scoring Method: RICE with risk modifiers
• Minimum Threshold: $500K annual value
• Review Cadence: Monthly portfolio review
• Decision Rights: Portfolio committee (CTO, CFO, business leaders)

Phase 2: Intake & Scoring (3 weeks)

graph LR
    A[15 Ideas] --> B[Standardized<br/>Intake Form]
    B --> C[Business<br/>Sponsor Required]
    C --> D[RICE Scoring<br/>Workshops]
    D --> E[Dependency<br/>Mapping]
    E --> F[Risk<br/>Assessment]
    F --> G[Portfolio<br/>Committee Review]

    style A fill:#fff3cd
    style G fill:#d4edda

Initial Scoring Results:

Phase 3: Review & Decisions (1 week)

Portfolio committee met and made decisions:

graph TD
    A[15 Opportunities] --> B{Portfolio<br/>Committee<br/>Review}

    B --> C[Wave 1: Top 3<br/>Fraud, Loan, Document<br/>$9M value]
    B --> D[Wave 2: 4 opportunities<br/>Pending dependencies<br/>$5M value]
    B --> E[Backlog: 5 opportunities<br/>Good ideas, capacity constraints<br/>$3M value]
    B --> F[Rejected: 3 opportunities<br/>Below threshold or misaligned<br/>$1.2M value]

    style C fill:#d4edda
    style D fill:#fff3cd
    style E fill:#e1f5ff
    style F fill:#f8d7da

Results After 6 Months

Business Outcomes:

Process Improvements:

graph LR
    A[Before] --> B[After]

    A --> A1[Chaotic<br/>No process<br/>Political]
    B --> B1[Structured<br/>Transparent<br/>Value-driven]

    A1 --> C[8 weeks to decide<br/>Low trust<br/>Team frustration]
    B1 --> D[2 weeks to decide<br/>High trust<br/>Team alignment]

    style A1 fill:#f8d7da
    style B1 fill:#d4edda
    style C fill:#f8d7da
    style D fill:#d4edda

Key Success Factors

1. Executive Sponsorship: CTO championed the process
2. Simple Framework: RICE was easy to understand and apply
3. Transparency: Published scores and rationale for all decisions
4. Consistency: Same criteria for all opportunities, no exceptions
5. Regular Cadence: Monthly reviews prevented backlog buildup
6. Clear Thresholds: $500K minimum value created automatic filter

Lessons Learned:

Implementation Checklist

Setup Phase

• Choose prioritization framework (RICE recommended)
• Define minimum value threshold (e.g., $500K annual value)
• Create intake form template
• Establish portfolio review committee (sponsor, tech, business, finance)
• Set review cadence (monthly recommended)
• Define decision rights and escalation paths

Intake Phase

• Publish intake form and submission process
• Require business sponsor for all submissions
• Collect necessary information for scoring
• Conduct preliminary feasibility check
• Identify dependencies and blockers
• Document assumptions and constraints

Scoring Phase

• Facilitate scoring workshop for each opportunity (30-60 min)
• Calculate RICE (or chosen framework) scores
• Document assumptions and confidence levels
• Map dependencies across opportunities
• Create individual scorecards
• Identify risks and mitigation strategies

Review Phase

• Prepare portfolio dashboard for review meeting
• Present new opportunities with scores and context
• Facilitate discussion on tradeoffs
• Make decisions: Approve / Defer / Backlog / Reject
• Document rationale for each decision
• Assign owners and next steps

Communication Phase

• Publish prioritized backlog (transparent to all)
• Share decision rationale with stakeholders
• Notify submitters of decision and next steps
• Update portfolio dashboard
• Communicate to broader organization
• Celebrate approved initiatives

Ongoing

• Monthly portfolio reviews with consistent agenda
• Update scores as new information emerges
• Track progress on approved initiatives
• Retire or re-evaluate backlog items quarterly
• Continuously improve process based on feedback
• Maintain trust through consistent application

Key Takeaways

1. Prioritization is about saying no, not just yes. Focus creates value.

2. Use a simple, consistent framework. RICE works well for most organizations.

3. Transparency builds trust. Publish your criteria and rationale.

4. Require business sponsors. No sponsor = no real commitment.

5. Set minimum thresholds. Don't waste time on small opportunities.

6. Review regularly. Monthly cadence prevents backlog buildup and maintains momentum.

7. Balance the portfolio. Mix quick wins with strategic bets and risk levels.

8. Document decisions. Future you will thank current you for clear rationale.

Further Reading

• "Inspired" by Marty Cagan (product prioritization)
• "Escaping the Build Trap" by Melissa Perri
• "The Lean Startup" by Eric Ries (validated learning)
• Intercom's RICE Framework: https://www.intercom.com/blog/rice-simple-prioritization-for-product-managers/
• SAFe WSJF: https://scaledagileframework.com/wsjf/