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 throughout the lessons
The decision rule
Compare the priority scores
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 value comparison necessary
Sponsors bring opportunities from across Compeer. The game compares relative business value with the implementation effort required to deliver each request.
- 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.
Read the transcript
Across Compeer, good ideas arrive from many directions. But in the next six-week focus, the Tiger Team has limited capacity. Only a few requests can get attention, so we cannot choose based on who asks loudest or which department benefits most. The Cost of Delay Game gives the group a shared way to compare. Sponsors explain the business value: what a request advances, protects, makes timely, or saves. Technologists estimate the effort required to deliver it. Then the group compares value and effort together, from an enterprise view, so the most valuable work can deliver sooner.
Try it
Make the next decision
What does the game help the group compare?
Learn · What to expect in Webex
The facilitator keeps the value comparison moving forward
Sponsors present and answer questions. Business scoring happens one column at a time, votes appear together in chat, and technologists score implementation effort after they understand the scope.
- 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 technologists score implementation effort.
Read the transcript
The round takes place in Webex, led by one facilitator, while everyone follows the same shared scoring spreadsheet. Each sponsor receives six minutes to present a prepared story, and the group asks clarifying questions as the story unfolds. Next, the group works through the business scoring criteria carefully, completing one column before moving together to the next. They begin by choosing at least one request that clearly belongs at a score of 1, creating a common anchor. With that anchor established, sponsors compare the remaining requests, choose from the modified Fibonacci scale, and submit their votes together in Webex chat. The facilitator brings differences into discussion. Sponsors explain their reasoning, consider new information, and agree on the final column score. Only then do technologists compare implementation effort, grounded in a shared understanding of what each request requires. The result is a shared enterprise view of what the team should deliver next.
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.
- 3Technologists compare implementation effort at the end.
- 4Sponsors compare requests to the anchor and submit modified Fibonacci votes together in chat.
- 5The group discusses its reasoning and agrees on the column scores.
Prepare · Define the first outcome
A smaller valuable outcome has an advantage
The strongest request is not the tiniest task. It is the smallest completed outcome that delivers meaningful business value with the least amount of technical effort.
- A valuable request can collect future possibilities, optional features, and nice-to-have scope.
- Keep the completed outcome and essential business value while separating scope that can wait.
- Sponsors test whether the scope is realistic; technologists compare implementation effort after it is understood.
Read the transcript
Large requests often arrive carrying every future possibility at once, making a valuable idea look too costly for the next six-week focus. The goal is not to make the work look artificially small. It is to identify the smallest completed outcome that delivers meaningful business value. Start by naming the result people actually need. Then separate must-have capabilities from optional features and nice-to-have scope that can wait. As the first outcome becomes clearer, implementation effort can fall while the essential value remains. Sponsors may estimate likely effort while shaping the request, using what they know to test whether the scope is realistic. Technologists make the implementation-effort comparison after the group understands the same outcome and solution boundary. The result may be ready for delivery, need discovery, follow another delivery path, or remain in the queue. Smaller valuable outcomes can create meaningful value sooner without unnecessary scope.
Try it
Make the next decision
Which option identifies the smallest valuable increment for a business need?
Prepare · Four business lenses
Each lens answers a different value question
Revenue and savings estimates inform the discussion. The game itself uses four relative scoring dimensions 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 scoring dimensions remain separate from the supporting dollar estimates.
Read the transcript
A strong value story helps the group see why a request matters. Use four lenses to explain the same request. Strategic value asks what the request advances. Connect the outcome to a business priority, and explain who benefits and how. Risk reduction asks what the request protects. Describe the exposure, the consequence, and how the proposed outcome reduces that risk. Time criticality asks why timing matters. Explain a deadline or opportunity, and what changes if delivery happens later. Cost savings or avoidance asks what the request saves. Show the cost reduced or prevented, and make the estimate traceable. Support the story with real data where it exists. When the future is uncertain, use reasonable samples and clearly stated assumptions. Keep the estimates distinct. Do not count the same benefit once as revenue and again as savings. Dollar estimates support the discussion; they are not the scores. The group agrees on relative scores, one lens at a time. Now match the evidence to its lens.
Try it
Make the next decision
Match each evidence statement to its business lens.
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.
- Players submit modified Fibonacci votes in chat only when the facilitator signals, so votes appear together and do not bias other players.
- At least one request receives 1; tied requests may also receive 1.
- The room discusses the spread and the reasons behind different votes.
Read the transcript
Fair scoring starts with a shared comparison. Work through one business value column at a time, using the same lens for every request. For that lens, identify at least one request with the least relative value and give it a one. That request becomes the anchor. More than one request can receive a one. A tie is valid when the group sees the same relative value through the current lens. Compare the remaining requests with the anchor using the modified Fibonacci scale: one, two, three, five, eight, thirteen, twenty, or fifty. Choose your vote before seeing anyone else’s. Prepare it in Webex chat, but wait for the facilitator’s signal before submitting. When the signal comes, everyone submits together. Revealing the votes at the same time helps prevent early answers from influencing the group. Different votes are a starting point for discussion. Explain the evidence behind your comparison, listen to other perspectives, and agree on the score. Record the agreed scores for the column, then repeat the process for the next lens. Once all four value columns are complete, technologists compare implementation effort.
Practice · Technologists add effort
Implementation effort can change the order
Technologists compare implementation effort after the solution path and scope are understood. Business points divided by effort creates the priority score.
- The facilitator confirms that every technologist 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.
Read the transcript
After the group completes all four business value columns, technologists compare implementation effort. Value and effort play different roles in the final ranking. Before estimating, confirm the outcome and solution boundary. Everyone must be sizing the same scope, so the effort comparison reflects the same work. Add strategic value, risk reduction, time criticality, and cost savings or avoidance. Their total becomes the request’s business points. Next, divide business points by implementation effort to calculate the priority score. Compare that result across requests, rather than ranking by business points alone. A request with ten points and effort of one scores ten. A request with eighteen points and effort of five scores three point six. The smaller request ranks higher. A high score is a priority signal, not an automatic commitment. Check legal and access requirements, readiness, discovery needs, and sequencing before committing to delivery. Readiness and available capacity help determine the next step: build, discovery, replay, or another delivery path. A smaller winner may leave room for another request. Use the ranking to guide an enterprise decision, then check what can move forward in the six-week focus. Now compare the requests and choose what the highest score means.
Try it
Make the next decision
Which anonymized Round 7 request ranks first?
| Request | Business points | Effort | Priority score |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10 | 1 | 10.0 | |
| 14 | 3 | 4.67 | |
| 12 | 3 | 4.0 | |
| 18 | 5 | 3.6 | |
| 9 | 5 | 1.8 |
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.
- Open with the problem or opportunity, who is affected, and the specific completed outcome.
- The process flow gives technologists the context needed to ask scope questions.
- Four concise evidence stories prepare the room for relative comparison.
Read the transcript
A clear sponsor presentation gives the room evidence it can compare. Use the approved template to connect six sections, with about one minute for each. Start with the problem or opportunity. Explain who is affected, then name the specific completed outcome you are asking the Tiger Team to help deliver. Next, show the affected process and its handoffs. Give technologists enough context to ask scope questions, and make the solution boundary clear. For strategic value, connect the outcome to a business priority. Explain who benefits and how, so the group can compare the request from an enterprise view. For risk reduction, describe the exposure and its consequence. Show how the proposed outcome reduces that risk, using evidence the group can discuss. For time criticality, identify the deadline or opportunity. Explain what changes if delivery happens later, rather than relying on a general claim that the request is urgent. For cost savings or avoidance, show the cost reduced or prevented. Use real data or reasonable samples, state assumptions, and do not count the same benefit twice. Rehearse the six sections as one connected story. Clear evidence does not guarantee selection; it enables fair comparison. Now put the presentation sections in order.
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