Prioritize and fund an AI initiative

In plain terms

Decide this initiative proceeds and is resourced. A traceable strategic outcome is an entry condition, so funding cannot set strategy by accumulation.

What is being judged

Whether this initiative serves a stated outcome better than the alternatives competing for the same capacity, and whether the organization can actually deliver it in the period.

The entry condition is what distinguishes this decision from ordinary portfolio management. Without it, the Portfolio Board funds good proposals, initiatives get delivered, and someone later writes a strategy describing the sum of what was funded. The document is accurate and directed nothing. The hard part is declining a good proposal that serves no stated outcome, and Layer 6 identifies this as the largest transition in the framework for exactly that reason.

Three further judgments. Capacity, bounded by Layer 1 lead times rather than by budget. Governance readiness, because an initiative requiring maturity the organization lacks needs a L6-06 approval before it needs funding. The deferred alternative, named in the record, because a funding decision that does not name what it displaced is a decision nobody can review.

What this decision does not cover

It does not decide whether the capability should use AI, which is L6-03 and belongs to the Business Owner. It does not authorize anything to run. It does not sequence, which is L5-02.

When it fires

On event. At initiative proposal. On a material change to scope or cost. When an initiative stops or resets under L5-08 and re-enters the queue.

On cycle. Per planning cycle.

What you need before deciding

The strategic outcome the initiative traces to, from L6-01. The capability decision record from L6-03, per recommendation R4 below. The materiality determination, since a material initiative carries an artifact set that affects cost. Capacity constraints and lead times from Layer 1. Benefit realization from comparable completed initiatives.

How this goes wrong

Funding as strategy: the entry condition is not enforced, and the Portfolio Board becomes the place strategy is actually set. Traceability by assertion: every initiative traces to an outcome because the outcomes are broad enough to accommodate anything, which is a Layer 6 failure surfacing here. Funding past a maturity gap: an initiative requiring Level 3 Control is funded while Control sits at Level 1, and no L6-06 approval exists naming the gap.

Related decisions

Upstream L6-01 strategy, L6-03 capability decision, L6-06 maturity gap approval, L1 capacity constraints.

Downstream L5-02 sequencing, L5-04 and L5-05 gates.

Reverse L5-08 stop or reset.

Instrument references

COBIT APO05 managed portfolio and EDM02 benefits delivery. PMI portfolio management standard. Both specify prioritization against strategic alignment. Neither makes a traceable outcome a hard entry condition, which is the difference between alignment as a criterion and alignment as a gate.