Portfolio prioritization
Decision
Section titled “Decision”Staffing Billing Control remains the lead. Staffing Workers’ Compensation Control remains second. Timecard exception control is the strongest unpromoted candidate. Onboarding and credentialing control and incident and safety compliance control remain candidates, not standalone services.
The ranking allocates validation and sales attention. It does not prove market demand or authorize stronger claims. Every score below is a working hypothesis that must change when buyer, delivery, or outcome evidence changes.
Weighted scorecard
Section titled “Weighted scorecard”Score each criterion from 1 to 5:
- 1: adverse or unsupported
- 3: plausible, mixed, or partly evidenced
- 5: strong and repeatedly supported
Calculate each contribution as criterion weight × score ÷ 5. Attractiveness contributes 60 points and feasibility contributes 40.
Attractiveness — 60 points
Section titled “Attractiveness — 60 points”| Service concept | Consequence 15 | Urgency 10 | Buyer and budget 10 | Measurability 10 | Buyer demand 10 | Competitive room 5 | Subtotal 60 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Staffing Billing Control | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 53 |
| Staffing Workers’ Compensation Control | 5 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 50 |
| Timecard exception control | 4 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 45 |
| Onboarding and credentialing control | 4 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 42 |
| Incident and safety compliance control | 5 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 42 |
Feasibility — 40 points
Section titled “Feasibility — 40 points”| Service concept | Delivery evidence 15 | Integration access 10 | Reuse leverage 10 | Authority fit 5 | Subtotal 40 | Total 100 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Staffing Billing Control | 4 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 35 | 88 |
| Staffing Workers’ Compensation Control | 4 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 30 | 80 |
| Timecard exception control | 2 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 29 | 74 |
| Onboarding and credentialing control | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 27 | 69 |
| Incident and safety compliance control | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 22 | 64 |
“Delivery evidence” is a prioritization input, not an evidence status. Use the canonical claim register before deciding what can be said in sales or public material.
Current ranking and next evidence
Section titled “Current ranking and next evidence”| Rank | Portfolio decision | Why it holds this position | Next evidence needed |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Lead — Staffing Billing Control | Direct finance buyer, recurring urgency, measurable workflow, public operational proof, and high reuse potential | Establish buyer-approved baselines; measure approved-time-to-delivery and held value through a paid engagement; seek permission for outcome proof |
| 2 | Second validated service concept — Staffing Workers’ Compensation Control | Material consequence and a private delivery demonstrate that the control can be implemented | Confirm repeatable budget and urgency with independent staffing risk buyers; run a bounded paid Sprint; measure a controlled process outcome; harden and obtain proof permission before public claims |
| 3 | Candidate — Timecard exception control | Closest adjacency to billing, urgent deadlines, shared systems, and strong component reuse | Confirm whether Finance, Payroll, or Operations owns the budget; inspect representative exception data; show that timecard control changes a baseline buyers will fund |
| 4 | Candidate — Onboarding and credentialing control | Prior delivery patterns exist, but buyer ownership is less clear and the market is crowded | Separate onboarding from credentialing jobs; identify the funded consequence; validate differentiation; prove durable operation around screening, approval, and payroll handoffs |
| 5 | Candidate — Incident and safety compliance control | High consequence and some reusable risk controls, but the service may overlap workers’ compensation and depends on difficult data and authority boundaries | Identify a standalone buyer and budget; define the boundary from workers’ compensation; validate regulatory data access, review responsibility, and a measurable outcome |
Decision thresholds
Section titled “Decision thresholds”| Score | Default treatment | Required action |
|---|---|---|
| 80–100 | Eligible for a named service and focused validation | Apply all promotion gates; choose the lead by relative rank, demand, and strategic fit |
| 70–79 | Active candidate | Run the smallest experiment that can resolve the weakest high-weight criterion |
| 60–69 | Hold as an expansion or research candidate | Do not build standalone campaigns; validate only when an existing client or strong signal lowers the learning cost |
| Below 60 | Retire or park | Stop active work unless new evidence materially changes a weighted criterion |
Scores never override a hard boundary. A concept is ineligible if it requires FZF to replace a system of record, sell transactional labor, price by volume, provide financing, or make consequential client decisions.
Promote, hold, or retire
Section titled “Promote, hold, or retire”Promote to a named service
Section titled “Promote to a named service”Promote only when all conditions are true:
- Total score is at least 80, with no criterion below 3.
- A specific buyer confirms the job, consequence, urgency, and decision path.
- At least one accepted measure can be baselined inside the proposed workflow boundary.
- Delivery review confirms viable data access, safe recovery, and explicit human authority.
- The concept passes the evidence promotion gate in Validation and evidence.
- A paid Sprint or equivalent buying behavior demonstrates demand; interviews alone are insufficient.
- The service is meaningfully distinct from an existing service rather than a feature, workflow angle, or account expansion.
Keep a concept as a candidate when the score is 60–79, evidence conflicts, the buyer is unclear, or a required integration is inaccessible. Record the exact unknown and next experiment. Do not keep “interesting” candidates without a falsifiable question.
Retire
Section titled “Retire”Retire active consideration when any of these is true:
- The score remains below 60 after two focused learning cycles.
- No buyer owns a measurable consequence or will fund a Sprint.
- The value depends on outcomes outside FZF’s influence and no direct process measure is acceptable.
- Safe delivery requires authority FZF should not hold.
- The concept is better handled as an extension of a current service.
- Competitive alternatives solve the job adequately and FZF has no durable difference.
Archive the decision and evidence; do not silently recycle the same concept under a new name.
Review cadence
Section titled “Review cadence”Review this scorecard quarterly and after any paid Sprint, material win/loss pattern, delivery failure, new public proof, or integration change. Change a score only with a dated source or explicit decision rationale. Recalculate totals and update the portfolio summary on the Portfolio brief in the same change.