Compeer Cost of Delay Game

Compete for the next six-week focus. Think enterprise first.

See what happens in the round, practice the comparison, and build a six-minute story the room can score.

10–12 minute guided path
Seven short animated lessons
Practice after every lesson

The decision rule

Compare the priority scores

6-week fit

Four business scores1235Business points = 11

Implementation effort3Technology scores effort.

Priority scoreBusiness points ÷ effort3.67

The ranking is a decision signal. Scope, readiness, and available capacity still determine what starts.

Choose your path

Move straight through or start where you need help

Learn · The economic decision

Limited capacity makes comparison necessary

Sponsors bring opportunities from across Compeer. The game compares relative business value with the implementation effort required to begin delivering it.

Several sponsor requests arrive while Tiger Team capacity stays limited.
Business value and implementation effort appear as two parts of one comparison.
The group shifts from departmental advocacy to an enterprise decision.

Jordan, the Tiger Team product lead character, in a meeting setting — Read the descriptive transcript
The Cost of Delay Game gives a group with many business opportunities and limited Tiger Team capacity an economic way to compare what should receive attention next. Sponsors advocate for clear business value, then evaluate every request from an enterprise perspective. The aim is not to make one department win at another department’s expense. The aim is to begin valuable work sooner with implementation effort in view.
Next stepUse what you just learned

Try it

Make the next decision

What does the game help the group compare?

Relative business value and implementation effortThe request with the largest dollar estimateThe idea with the most supporters in the meeting

Learn · What to expect in Webex

One facilitator keeps the comparison moving

Sponsors present and answer questions. Business scoring happens one column at a time, votes appear together in chat, and technology scores implementation effort after scope is clear.

The facilitator timeboxes six-minute sponsor stories and questions.
Sponsors choose an anchor, compare requests, and submit votes together in chat.
The group discusses differences before technology scores implementation effort.

Maya, the facilitator character, guiding a collaborative meeting — Read the descriptive transcript
The round runs in Webex with one facilitator and a shared spreadsheet. Each sponsor receives six minutes for the prepared story, with questions as the story unfolds. The group then works through one business scoring column at a time. They first identify at least one request that should receive a 1, compare the other requests using modified Fibonacci values, reveal chat votes together, and discuss the spread. Technology scores implementation effort after everyone is aligned on the scope.
Next stepUse what you just learned

Try it

Make the next decision

Put the meeting flow in order.

1The group identifies at least one anchor of 1 for the current lens.
2Sponsors present six-minute stories and answer questions.
3Technology compares implementation effort for the aligned scope.
4Sponsors compare the other requests using modified Fibonacci values.
5The group discusses differences and agrees on the column scores.
6Prepared chat votes are submitted together.

Prepare · Define the first outcome

A smaller valuable outcome has an advantage

The strongest first request is not the tiniest task. It is the smallest outcome that delivers meaningful value and can reasonably fit the six-week window.

Daniel begins with a broad request that is too large for one six-week window.
A technology partner identifies the part that carries most of the value.
Daniel presents that completed outcome and leaves optional scope for later.

Daniel, the sponsor character, preparing an initiative request — Read the descriptive transcript
Large requests often need to be divided before the round. The useful question is not how to make the work look artificially small. It is which completed first outcome could deliver a meaningful share of the value. Work that cannot fit may return with a clearer slice, move through another delivery path, or remain in the queue. This game is one prioritization avenue, not the only avenue for every kind of work.
Next stepUse what you just learned

Try it

Make the next decision

Which version of the syndicated-document routing request is best shaped for the round?

Automate every integration and every optional routing path.Complete the one integration expected to deliver most of the value within six weeks.Complete the smallest technical task, even if users receive no useful outcome.

Prepare · Four business lenses

Each lens answers a different value question

Revenue and savings estimates inform the discussion. The game itself uses four relative scores that become business points.

The same request is examined for strategic value, risk, timing, and savings.
The sponsor supports estimates with operational samples and defensible assumptions.
The four relative scores remain separate from the supporting dollar estimates.

The facilitator, sponsor, technology partner, and Tiger Team lead characters together — Read the descriptive transcript
The presentation gives the group evidence for four comparisons: strategic value, risk reduction, time criticality, and cost savings or avoidance. Sponsors may estimate revenue, productivity, or savings to support the story. Those estimates should use real data where it exists and reasonable samples where the future is uncertain. Do not count the same benefit as both revenue and savings. The group converts the evidence into relative scores during the game.
Next stepUse what you just learned

Try it

Make the next decision

Match each evidence statement to its business lens.

Could enable new business or free capacity for higher-value work.Could reduce compliance exposure, inconsistency, or human error.Could lose value if a deadline or seasonal window passes.Could reduce or avoid an existing operating expense.

Practice · Anchor and reveal

Score the column, not one request at a time

The group establishes at least one anchor of 1, compares the remaining requests to that anchor, and reveals votes together to reduce early influence.

Blank cards stay face down while sponsors consider the current lens.
At least one request receives 1; tied requests may also receive 1.
Votes appear together and the room discusses the reasons for the spread.

Maya, the facilitator character, beside blank planning cards — Read the descriptive transcript
Business scoring proceeds one column at a time. For the current lens, the group first chooses the request or requests with the least relative value and assigns 1. Multiple requests may share that value. Every other score uses the modified Fibonacci scale: 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 20, or 50. Sponsors prepare their votes in chat and submit together. The facilitator guides discussion until the group agrees on the score.
Next stepUse what you just learned

Try it

Make the next decision

Round 7 practice set

A–E keep the same meaning

These anonymized requests remain consistent through scoring, effort, and ranking.

Tax-preparer insightExtract preparer information from tax returns to identify market opportunities.

Syndicated-document routingRetrieve SyndTrak documents and route them to the correct internal location.

Financial spreadingExtract financial data and spread 95 fields into Track.

Crop-document verificationCompare production reports and send mismatches to a person for review.

Policy-guide refreshKeep an existing policy assistant current using the lowest-cost refresh path.

The facilitator keeps one business lens active. The group compares all five requests in that column before moving to the next lens. Revenue and savings estimates support the discussion, while the four relative scores create business points.

Example of the shared scoring sheet moving through one business column at a time
Practice request	Strategic value	Risk reduction	Time criticality	Cost savings	Business points	Implementation effort	Priority score
ATax-preparer insight	Score now	Next	Next	Next	After four	Technology next	Calculated last
BSyndicated-document routing	Score now	Next	Next	Next	After four	Technology next	Calculated last
CFinancial spreading	Score now	Next	Next	Next	After four	Technology next	Calculated last
DCrop-document verification	Score now	Next	Next	Next	After four	Technology next	Calculated last
EPolicy-guide refresh	Score now	Next	Next	Next	After four	Technology next	Calculated last

Current column: Strategic value. Compare new business potential and increased throughput across every request.

Practice the time-criticality column

Which request anchored the verified Round 7 column at 1?

A · Tax-preparer insightCurrent market opportunity. Legal confirmation still affects readiness.B · Syndicated-document routingMore than 21,000 annual requests. API availability and timing were unresolved.C · Financial spreadingAbout 1,500 targeted documents. No fixed deadline was documented.D · Crop-document verificationPeak workload pressure occurs in December and January.E · Policy-guide refreshThe refresh path was under evaluation with no fixed deadline documented.

12358132050

Practice · Technology adds effort

Implementation effort can change the order

Technology compares implementation effort after the solution path and scope are understood. Business points divided by effort creates the priority score.

Priya confirms that every technology voter is sizing the same scope.
Implementation effort enters the calculation and the ranking reorders.
Readiness and available capacity determine whether the next step is build, discovery, replay, or another path.

Priya, the technology partner character, assessing implementation effort — Read the descriptive transcript
After the business group finishes the four value columns, technology compares implementation effort. Everyone must be sizing the same scope. Add the four business scores to get business points, then divide those points by implementation effort. A high priority score identifies a strong next investment signal. It does not erase legal, access, readiness, discovery, or sequencing questions. A small winner may also leave room for another request during the six-week window.
Next stepUse what you just learned

Try it

Make the next decision

Which anonymized Round 7 request ranks first?

Request	Business points	Effort	Priority score
A · Tax-preparer insightExtract preparer information from tax returns to identify market opportunities.	10	1	10.0
B · Syndicated-document routingRetrieve SyndTrak documents and route them to the correct internal location.	14	3	4.67
C · Financial spreadingExtract financial data and spread 95 fields into Track.	12	3	4.0
D · Crop-document verificationCompare production reports and send mismatches to a person for review.	18	5	3.6
E · Policy-guide refreshKeep an existing policy assistant current using the lowest-cost refresh path.	9	5	1.8

What does the top score mean?

The entire request is guaranteed a complete build.It is the strongest priority signal before readiness and capacity checks.

Prepare · Six minutes, one connected story

Give the room evidence it can compare

The approved template gives each sponsor six one-minute sections, beginning with the request and process before moving through the four value lenses.

Daniel opens with the problem, affected workflow, and specific request.
The process flow gives technology the context needed to ask scope questions.
Four concise evidence stories prepare the room for relative comparison.

Daniel, the sponsor character, rehearsing a concise presentation — Read the descriptive transcript
The sponsor presentation follows six content sections at about one minute each. Begin with the problem or opportunity and the specific request. Show the affected process and handoffs. Then present the evidence for strategic value, risk reduction, time criticality, and cost savings or avoidance. A clear presentation does not guarantee selection. It gives the group enough shared understanding to compare the request fairly and gives technology enough context to discuss scope and effort.
Next stepUse what you just learned

Try it

Make the next decision

Put the six one-minute presentation sections in order.

1Strategic value, revenue potential, or throughput
2Problem or opportunity and the specific AI request
3Risk, compliance, quality, and accuracy
4Business process flow and affected handoffs
5Cost savings or cost avoidance
6Time criticality, deadline, or value lost by waiting

The idea to carry into the room

Prepare a valuable first outcome the enterprise can compare

ValueSupport each lens with defensible evidence.

ScopeAsk for a completed six-week outcome.

ComparisonScore the enterprise view, not only your request.

Next stepBuild, discovery, replay, and another path can all be valid.

Compete for the next six-week focus. Think enterprise first.

Compare the priority scores

Move straight through or start where you need help

Limited capacity makes comparison necessary

Make the next decision

One facilitator keeps the comparison moving

Make the next decision

A smaller valuable outcome has an advantage

Make the next decision

Each lens answers a different value question

Make the next decision

Score the column, not one request at a time

Make the next decision

A–E keep the same meaning

One business column at a time

Practice the time-criticality column

Implementation effort can change the order

Make the next decision

Give the room evidence it can compare

Make the next decision

Prepare a valuable first outcome the enterprise can compare