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
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 video description
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.
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 video description
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. Sponsors compare the remaining requests and submit modified Fibonacci votes together in chat. The group discusses the reasoning and agrees on the column scores. Technologists compare implementation effort at the end, after everyone understands the scope.
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 outcome that delivers meaningful business value with the least amount of technical effort.
- Requests may include too many optional or nice-to-have elements.
- Focus on the biggest business value for the least technical effort.
- Move optional or nice-to-have scope out of the initial request and consider it later.

Read the video description
Large requests often include optional or nice-to-have elements that increase effort without adding the most important value. The useful question is not how to make the work look artificially small. It is which completed outcome could deliver the most meaningful business value for the least technical effort. Sponsors can estimate likely effort while shaping the request, but technologists determine the implementation-effort score after the scope is understood. Work may return with a clearer increment, move through another delivery path, or remain in the queue.
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 video description
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.
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 video description
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. Players enter their votes in chat but submit only when the facilitator signals, so the votes appear together and do not bias other players. The facilitator guides discussion of the spread and reasoning until the group agrees on the score.
Try it
Make the next decision
A–E keep the same meaning
These anonymized requests remain consistent through scoring, effort, and ranking.
One business column at a time
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 scoring dimensions create business points.
| 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 | Technologists next | Calculated last |
| BSyndicated-document routing | Score now | Next | Next | Next | After four | Technologists next | Calculated last |
| CFinancial spreading | Score now | Next | Next | Next | After four | Technologists next | Calculated last |
| DCrop-document verification | Score now | Next | Next | Next | After four | Technologists next | Calculated last |
| EPolicy-guide refresh | Score now | Next | Next | Next | After four | Technologists next | Calculated last |
- ATax-preparer insightFirst business columnScore this request now
- BSyndicated-document routingFirst business columnScore this request now
- CFinancial spreadingFirst business columnScore this request now
- DCrop-document verificationFirst business columnScore this request now
- EPolicy-guide refreshFirst business columnScore this request now
Column 1 of 4: 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?
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 video description
After the business group finishes the four value columns, technologists compare 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.
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.
- Daniel opens with the problem, affected workflow, and specific request.
- The process flow gives technologists the context needed to ask scope questions.
- Four concise evidence stories prepare the room for relative comparison.

Read the video description
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 technologists enough context to discuss scope and effort.
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