A quarter is a capacity budget, not a wish list. Three good initiatives that compete for the same two people are one initiative and two disappointments.
Short answer: Rank candidate initiatives against your actual constraint — usually a specific team rather than money. For each, name the assumption it rests on, the owner who does it and what they stop doing, and what you would see within six weeks that means stop. Then track them wherever you already track things.
Voting surfaces the most confident advocate. Impact-effort grids are useful until two items land in the same square, which is where the actual disagreement lives. Scoring frameworks produce a number that looks decisive and is mostly the weights you chose beforehand.
The common flaw is that all three rank items against each other in the abstract, rather than against the constraint that will actually decide the quarter — which is almost always a specific team, a specific amount of cash, or a specific dependency nobody has named out loud.
1. What does this depend on being true? Every initiative rests on an assumption — that demand exists, that the team can be hired, that the price will hold. Write it down. The initiative resting on the shakiest assumption is not automatically last, but it should be the one with the earliest checkpoint.
2. Who exactly does it, and what do they stop doing? Capacity is the binding constraint far more often than money. An initiative with no named owner and no displaced work is a wish.
3. What would tell us within six weeks that this was wrong? A priority with no failure condition gets defended to the end of the quarter. One with a stated kill criterion gets corrected in time to spend the rest of the quarter on something else.
The output of this decision is a small ordered set of commitments with owners and a measurable each — which is exactly the shape of EOS Rocks, a Scaling Up quarterly theme, or a set of OKRs. The ranking is the strategy work; the tracking is the operating system's job and it is better at it than a spreadsheet.
That division is deliberate. We do not run your weekly meeting, and a tool that tracks priorities cannot tell you whether they were the right ones.
This question routes to Growth Portfolio Framework — one of 29 engagements the platform runs. It does not produce advice in general; it produces this analysis for your business:
✓ Ranks the candidate initiatives against your own capacity and cash, not a generic scoring rubric
✓ Names the assumption each one rests on, and which is least safe
✓ Assigns an owner and a measurable to each so it can be tracked where you already track things
✓ States a kill criterion per initiative — what you would see that means stop
✓ Exports as goals, owners and KPIs for EOS, Scaling Up, OKRs or a spreadsheet
You watch the analysis get built before you pay anything. Read a complete report here if you would rather see the depth first.
Fewer than the number of people who want one. The practical ceiling is the number of genuinely separate owners you have, because two initiatives sharing an owner are sequential whether or not the plan says so. Most teams of ten or fewer can carry three.
It is the decision those formats ask you to arrive with. Rocks and OKRs are containers — good ones — for commitments that have already been chosen and ranked. This is the choosing and the ranking.
Then the disagreement is the most valuable thing in the room, and it is usually about an unstated assumption rather than the priorities themselves. Surfacing what each option depends on being true tends to resolve more arguments than another round of voting.
Describe the situation in your own words and we will tell you which analysis answers it — before you sign up for anything.
Describe my situation →Prefer to skip ahead? Go straight to the free diagnostic.