Everything cannot be first
A transformation portfolio typically arrives as a list of initiatives, each with a sponsor and a case. Every item is justified. The list is unachievable in the timeframe proposed, and the usual response is to start most of it and hope capacity appears.
The alternative is to make sequence an explicit decision, argued and documented, rather than an outcome of who lobbied hardest.
Four criteria for ordering
- Dependency. Some initiatives are prerequisites. A customer analytics program that depends on data not yet consolidated will fail regardless of its own quality.
- Capacity. Not budget — people. Specifically the small number of people who understand the current estate. That constraint is real and is usually absent from the plan.
- Evidence. Early initiatives should produce proof the organization can point at. Credibility funds the rest of the program.
- Reversibility. Prefer decisions that can be unwound cheaply first, and defer the irreversible ones until you know more.
Sequence is usually decided by whoever argued most persuasively in a single meeting. It deserves more scrutiny than that.
The case for finishing
Three initiatives completed create more organizational conviction than twelve in progress. Partially delivered change is often worse than no change: the old process is disrupted, the new one is incomplete, and staff run both.
Revisit deliberately
Sequence should be reviewed on a fixed cycle, with evidence, and changed when the evidence justifies it. It should not be renegotiated continuously in response to whichever problem is loudest that month.
Say what is not happening
The most valuable output of a sequencing exercise is the explicit list of what will not start this year. Without it, deferred initiatives continue to consume attention, planning effort and expectation.