Canvas

Decision Governance & Criteria Canvas

A practical, fillable canvas that makes funding, go/no‑go, and prioritization decisions explicit: who decides, what criteria matter, what evidence is required, timing and gates, recommended budget ranges, and escalation paths. Includes examples, a scoring rubric, and guidance for consistent, transparent decisions.

Decision Governance & Criteria Canvas

Use this canvas to make early-stage investment and prioritization decisions clear, consistent, and evidence-driven. The goal is to reduce opaque one-off choices, speed good decisions, and ensure discovery work receives appropriate support while limiting wasted implementation spend.

How to use

  1. Gather the project owner, sponsor, and one reviewer (can be a technical or business stakeholder).
  2. Work through each section below. Be concise but specific — capture the minimum evidence needed to make the decision.
  3. Score criteria using the simple rubric provided and record the recommended action (fund, pilot, hold, stop).
  4. Record timing and escalation steps so the decision can be revisited with new evidence.

Canvas sections (fillable)

1. Decision summary

Short name, one-sentence purpose, primary owner (role & person), and decision date.

  • Project name: __________________________
  • Purpose / outcome sought: __________________________
  • Decision owner (role / name): __________________________
  • Decision type: (select one) Funding / Go‑NoGo / Prioritization / Reprioritize

2. Decision roles & accountability

Define who has authority, who advises, and who must be informed.

  • Authority (final decision): Role / Person
  • Advisor(s): Role(s)
  • Reviewer / Evidence verifier: Role
  • Communications / who must be informed: Stakeholders

3. Decision criteria (examples & definitions)

Choose 3–6 criteria relevant to this decision. Use the same definitions across your portfolio for consistency.

  • Impact: Expected customer, revenue, strategic, or operational benefit if successful. (High / Medium / Low)
  • Risk: Likelihood and severity of failure or negative outcomes. (High / Medium / Low)
  • Evidence confidence: How strong is the current evidence supporting assumptions? (High / Medium / Low)
  • Cost to learn: Budget and time required to run the next meaningful experiment. (Low / Medium / High)
  • Strategic fit: Alignment with strategic goals or portfolio balance. (High / Medium / Low)
  • Scalability: If validated, how easily can this scale? (High / Medium / Low)

Tip: Keep criteria definitions consistent at the portfolio level so different teams can be compared fairly.

4. Scoring rubric (recommended)

Score each chosen criterion 1–5. Multiply by weights if some criteria matter more. Example:

  • 1 = very poor / very high risk / no evidence
  • 3 = moderate / plausible / some evidence
  • 5 = strong / low risk / solid evidence

Example weightings: Impact 30%, Risk 25%, Evidence confidence 25%, Cost to learn 10%, Strategic fit 10%.

5. Required evidence

List the minimum evidence or deliverables required for this decision. Be explicit about acceptable formats and who verifies them.

  • Primary evidence (what would convince the reviewer): e.g., prototype demo, pilot results, customer interviews (n=20), usage metrics, cost model.
  • Secondary evidence: technical feasibility review, legal/regulatory sign-off, data availability check.
  • Verifier (who checks evidence): Role / Person

6. Timing & gates

When will the decision be reviewed again? Define stage gates and expected timeline.

  • Decision date: __________________
  • Next review / re-evaluation (date or trigger): __________________
  • Gates: e.g., Proof of concept complete, Safety/Compliance review, Pilot results reach X metric.

7. Recommended budget range & duration

Provide a recommended funding envelope linked to the experiment or next stage of work, with clear limits and what the money buys.

  • Recommended range (min–max): $________ to $________
  • Intended duration: weeks / months
  • Key spend categories: personnel, prototypes, data collection, external services

8. Proposed action

Choose and justify one action. Record any conditions or follow-ups required.

  • Fund to next learning milestone (with X budget)
  • Pilot at limited scale
  • Hold pending X evidence
  • Stop
  • Conditions / follow-ups: __________________

9. Escalation & dispute path

Define who to escalate to if the recommendation is blocked or contested and expected timeline for resolution.

  • Escalate to (role): e.g., Portfolio Lead, Innovation Council, CFO
  • Decision arbitration timeframe: e.g., 5 business days
  • Escalation criteria: e.g., disputes about strategic fit, >$X budget, regulatory uncertainty

10. Example (illustrative)

Project: QuickPilot AI scheduling

  • Owner: Product Manager
  • Criteria: Impact=4, Risk=3, Evidence=2, Cost=2, Strategic fit=4 (weighted score => recommendation: Fund a $50k 8-week pilot to reach X metric)
  • Required evidence: 100 pilot scheduling events, 10 user interviews, performance < 2% failure rate
  • Escalation: Portfolio Lead for >$50k or disagreement on strategic fit

Practical tips

  • Favor the minimum evidence that meaningfully reduces the riskiest assumption — not exhaustive documentation.
  • Keep the canvas visible in the project workspace so decisions and conditions are easy to find.
  • Use consistent criteria weights across similar projects to enable portfolio trade-offs.
  • Record decisions and revisit them on schedule — learning should change funding, not surprise it.

Quick printable template

Use the sections above as fields in your meeting notes or attach this canvas to the project record. A simple exported table of the filled fields makes decisions searchable across the portfolio.

Discuss Ask the Librarian

Discussion

Comments and conversation will live here.