Capacity allocation between competing AI initiatives

In plain terms

Decide which initiative gets scarce capacity and which waits. The Portfolio Board decides because this is a portfolio decision; Layer 1 executes it and names what was deferred.

What is being judged

Which initiative’s outcome matters more, given that both cannot proceed at current capacity. That is a portfolio judgment and it is the only Tier 1 decision in Layer 1 precisely because the underlying question is not an infrastructure one.

The naming requirement is the substance of the decision. An allocation that records what was funded and not what was deferred leaves no evidence that a choice was made. The deferred initiative is what makes this reviewable, and it is what converts a silent operational tradeoff into a governed decision.

Infrastructure teams are routinely asked to make this call, and doing so is not a Layer 1 decision. Where Layer 1 makes it by default, the symptom is that whoever asked first gets the capacity, and the portfolio consequence never reaches the Portfolio Board.

What this decision does not cover

It does not approve capacity expansion, which is L1-02 as an operating resource or L1-03 as an investment. It does not sequence the portfolio generally, which is L5-02.

When it fires

On event. When concurrent demand exceeds available capacity for a workload class. When Layer 1 capacity headroom falls below the escalation trigger, which is three months of runway at current growth. On a lead time change that makes a planned allocation undeliverable.

On cycle. Per planning cycle alongside L5-02 sequencing.

What you need before deciding

Current provisioned capacity and headroom by workload class. Lead times for expansion, which frequently make the allocation question moot in one direction. The competing initiatives and the strategic outcomes they trace to. Whether expansion under L1-02 or L1-03 would resolve the contention faster than deferral.

How this goes wrong

First-come capacity: allocated to whoever requested first or loudest, with no record of what was deferred. Portfolio decisions are being made inside an infrastructure ticket queue. The Layer 1 anti-pattern, detected by asking which initiative did not get capacity last quarter and receiving no answer. Allocation without naming: the record states what proceeded and omits what did not. Deferral without a date: an initiative is deferred indefinitely rather than to a stated point, which is a stop decision made without the Portfolio Board deciding to stop.

Related decisions

Upstream L5-01 funding, L5-02 sequencing, Layer 1 capacity model.

Alternative L1-02 and L1-03 capacity expansion.

Downstream the deferred initiative’s re-entry at L5-02.

Instrument references

COBIT BAI04 managed availability and capacity, ITIL 4 capacity and performance management. Both address capacity as an operational discipline. Neither treats contention between initiatives as a portfolio decision, which is why it defaults to infrastructure in practice.