What needs to be finished first
A list of competing initiatives with short description and rough effort assumption is available with at least five entries.
If WSJF is already used, scoring scales and CoD profile must stay consistent with existing practice.
What needs to be ready before start
Table (initiative, value type, CoD per week or month, effort duration, CoD3 profile, CD3, owner); profile template for Urgent/Standard/Fixed-Date/Intangible; whiteboard for discussion; clear time-window assumptions.
A facilitator with business-economics background (portfolio lead or finance business partner); 3-6 stakeholders representing value assumptions (sales, product, compliance); one engineering representative for effort duration; a decider for disputed assessments.
Per initiative: assumed business value, risk, time window, known external dates; current bottlenecks; list of already-rated initiatives for calibration.
Half day
Share the table. Define a CoD per time unit scale (for example Euro per week or relative Fibonacci points). Explain profile classification (Urgent, Standard, Fixed-Date, Intangible). Choose one reference initiative as an anchor.
The one question this method answers
How much does each week cost us when this initiative is not delivered, and in which order should we maximize avoided loss?
Marker: Phase
| Step | Duration | Action | Hint |
|---|---|---|---|
1Phase 1: Clarify value types | 20 min | For each initiative, define which value types are relevant: revenue, cost savings, risk mitigation, opportunity cost, compliance penalty. Record mixed cases as a linear combination. | If no one can name a value type, the initiative is too early for CoD and should go back to discovery. |
2Phase 2: Estimate CoD per initiative | 60 min | Estimate CoD per time unit for each initiative, either in euros or relatively (Fibonacci). Use a reference initiative explicitly for scaling. Use a range (min-max) instead of a single-point estimate when disagreement remains. | Avoid false precision. CoD is an order of magnitude, not an exact cent value. But require ranges narrower than tenfold. |
3Phase 3: Classify profiles | 30 min | Set urgency profile per initiative: Urgent (CoD rises immediately), Standard (linear), Fixed-Date (jump at deadline), Intangible (long flat period, then increase). Profile affects sequence. | Fixed-Date profiles often mis-rank the sequence when a date is not firm. Validate external dates. |
4Phase 4: Duration and CD3 | 40 min | Determine rough effort duration per initiative (weeks or T-shirt sizes). Calculate CD3 = CoD divided by duration and sort descending. | Prioritize critical-path assumptions over FTE effort for duration. Otherwise duration and CD3 are distorted. |
5Phase 5: Validate and commit sequence | 30 min | Validate the sequence against external dates, dependencies, and strategic topics. A deliberately different order is allowed, but must be documented with rationale. | If the sequence is completely re-sorted, either the CoD estimate is weak or there are factors not captured in CoD. State both explicitly. |
What comes out at the end
CoD table with initiative, value type, CoD per time unit (with range), profile, effort duration, CD3, owner, rationale. Plus a sequence list for the next portfolio slot with an assumption log.
Add one new entry per portfolio review with date. Keep old CoD values and sequence visible. Corrections appear as edit logs, not overwrites, to preserve learning on estimation quality.
Compact working template for Cost of Delay with context, input, output artifacts, and next step.
Evaluates the economic value per unit of time of an initiative.
When and for what do we use this method?
Which data, observations, decisions, or materials are available?
Short notes along the runsheet.
Owner, date, and success signal.
Concrete filled scenario, fictional example
Concrete filled scenario, fictional example
| Initiative | Value type | CoD per week (range) | Profile | Duration | CD3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EU-compliance data audit | Compliance risk | 80-120k EUR | Fixed-Date 30.09. | 8 weeks | 12.5 |
| Mobile checkout refactor | Revenue | 25-40k EUR | Standard | 12 weeks | 2.7 |
| Self-service refund | Cost savings | 8-12k EUR | Standard | 6 weeks | 1.7 |
| Onboarding personalization | Intangible | 0 now, around 30k from Q1 | Intangible | 10 weeks | 0.8 |
Sequence: EU-compliance > Mobile checkout > Self-service refund > Onboarding personalization.
Assumptions: EU-compliance date is hard-confirmed by Legal on 02.05.2026. Onboarding personalization CoD increases only with successful competitor launch.
Recognize symptoms and steer against them
CoD values are written with two decimal places in euros, and no one can explain their source.
Revert to ranges or relative points. Remove decimals from the document so discussion stays focused on orders of magnitude.
Multiple initiatives claim a fixed date while actual date is based on internal wishes.
For each fixed-date claim, require an external artifact (contract, law, competitor launch). Without evidence, downgrade to standard.
Duration is summed as person-days instead of calendar time, inflating CD3.
Demand critical-path duration. Engineering representative validates with real team size and parallelization.
After calculation, a committee chooses a different sequence without visible rationale.
Overwriting is allowed, but rationale must be documented. Otherwise CoD loses value at the next cycle.
One initiative is assessed on penalty avoidance, another on revenue, a third on engagement, with no shared unit.
Make conversion assumptions explicit or estimate consistently in one unit, such as euros per week, with assumptions per conversion.
CoD list is created once and portfolio re-prioritization happens ad hoc later.
Embed CoD as a recurring portfolio review step. Reassess at least top 10 initiatives per slot.
Done signals checkable in under a minute
Go to the profile for purpose, similar methods, and sources or continue to the next method in the catalog.