Six factors

A portfolio company always has more candidate initiatives than time or budget to run them, so prioritization needs a real framework, not just instinct:

  • Value: how much EBITDA or equity value does this actually move?
  • Confidence: how sure are we this works, versus how much is hypothesis?
  • Time to value: weeks, or years, before the impact shows up?
  • Investment required: what does it cost to attempt?
  • Data readiness: do we already have the data this needs, or does the initiative depend on building that first (a direct link forward to Lesson 32)?
  • Execution risk: how likely is this to actually get delivered, given the team and systems available?

Running Meridian's own initiative through it

Run Meridian's account-health-scoring initiative from Lesson 26 through this: high value (NRR is the thesis's weakest point), moderate confidence (proactive intervention on churn risk is a proven pattern elsewhere, unproven at Meridian specifically), fast time to value (scoring itself can ship in a quarter), low-to-moderate investment, data readiness a real question (does usage data actually exist at the account level yet?), and moderate execution risk. That data-readiness gap is exactly why Lesson 32 exists before Lesson 33 does.

Illustrative placement of three candidate initiatives against just two of the six factors. Confidence and value are independent axes; the framework's other four factors still need their own read.

Checkpoint

  • Six-factor prioritization: value, confidence, time to value, investment required, data readiness, execution risk.
  • Data readiness: deserves its own line item, an otherwise-excellent initiative can stall entirely on data that doesn’t exist yet.

If anything here still feels unclear, ask before moving to Lesson 28.