There is a classic depiction of the interrelationships between cost, quality, and delivery ("pick two") which suggests that each can be easily traded for the other. Yet often, this mindset only examines such trades at a particular point in time, and may ignore the longer-term ramifications of decisions available when the tradeoffs are performed. The mental models of those in decision-making roles are often clouded by underlying assumptions and biases, such as believing that synergy will produce an on-demand value stream, that estimates are reliable, that intuitive decision-making can substitute for disciplined elaboration of details, and that innovations can be scheduled when needed. Unfortunately, the impacts of poor decision-making can often be traced directly to significant downstream costs - usually after opportunities to avoid those costs are sunk by prior strategies and tactics.

As a result, early project decision gates should follow a standardized workflow pattern to guide candidates through a more rigorous commitment and portfolio management effort. A good pattern to follow for project selection are the criteria used by Google in their 10 to the 100 Project. That effort evaluates ideas competing for their designated investment pool according to these factors:

• Scope: How broadly will the proposed solution benefit the business?
• Impact: How deeply will the business be affected by the proposed solution?
• Urgency: How pressing and perishable is the need for this solution?
• Attainability: How affordable, achievable, and cost-effective will the solution be to implement, and how quickly will this solution begin providing a positive return on investments?
• Sustainability: What will it take to ensure that this solution's impacts will persist over time?

Evaluating the size of these prizes, the probability of their success, the levels of required investment, and the expected delivery timing for such candidates become increasingly important in shaping subsequent project decision gates, as alternative options for investments become clarified, and tensions between stakeholder objectives escalate. Each of these requires better information and control of relevant factors than you likely are to have early in a project's lifecycle, so this uncertainty must also be taken into account over time. Ranking and factoring each of the above elements across multiple opportunities can thus be a daunting task, and will depend upon the clarity and precision of the corresponding business vision and strategies, and the cohesion of the underlying concepts and elements which the opportunities are based upon. Scoring systems such as Technology Readiness Level and Manufacturing Readiness Level assessments can be helpful to calibrate things like attainability, especially when these assessments are performed by independent evaluators who will not directly benefit from the assessment results themselves.

As an example of the challenges in evaluating such decisions, consider this exchange on solar power economics, and the challenges of communications which it reveals. Or the tensions between rationality and beliefs, which stretch the ability to change and accommodate entrenched positions everywhere. Or the 'seeing the same thing differently' phenomenon you see here.

Once the above factors are evaluated, the highest priority candidates can be evaluated according to three additional tests, to validate that selected candidates are ready for immediate investments:

1. Is the vision for the proposed project clear and viable?
2. Is the business positioned to capture the potential from the proposed project?
3. Is the proposed project the best use of available resources?

No endeavor should be committed to unless these questions can be satisfactorily answered, or the corresponding risks are identified and mitigated over time.