ICM · Research & Decision Studio · portfolio-compass · Model 1.1.0 · Illustrative inputs
Strategic prioritisation
Portfolio compass
Make preferences visible, inspect the efficient frontier and test ranking fragility.
Portfolio / preferenceIllustrative composition
The interactive model requires JavaScript. This saved default illustration remains readable if the runtime is unavailable. Values are computed from the canonical model at build time; they describe fictional inputs, with full calculation precision.
ICM · Portfolio compass · Model 1.1.0 · Default illustrative record
Default illustrative result
Reliability platform leads with 72.13 preference points. The first display name remains first in 8 of eight tested weight shifts. 4 alternatives are non-dominated on all four raw criteria. Scores reflect stated preferences and this alternative set.
| Metric | Value | Unit | Calculation boundary |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preferred by supplied weights | Reliability platform | ||
| Leading preference score | 72.12719298245614 | /100 | |
| Non-dominated alternatives | 4 | ||
| Leader under tested shifts | 100 | % | Eight individual weight shifts for the first display name, not a probability or strict dominance. |
| Rank | Alternative | Preference score/100 | Capital costUSDm | Impact/100 | Readiness/100 | Execution risk/100 | Pareto status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Reliability platform | 72.12719298245614 | 24 | 78 | 85 | 25 | Non-dominated |
| 2 | Customer analytics | 62.857142857142854 | 18 | 68 | 90 | 30 | Non-dominated |
| 3 | Energy retrofit | 59.324561403508774 | 42 | 82 | 72 | 32 | Non-dominated |
| 4 | Corridor expansion | 35 | 90 | 96 | 52 | 60 | Non-dominated |
| Alternative | Capital costpoints | Strategic impactpoints | Readinesspoints | Execution riskpoints | Total scorepoints |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reliability platform | 22.916666666666668 | 12.5 | 21.710526315789473 | 15 | 72.12719298245614 |
| Customer analytics | 25 | 0 | 25 | 12.857142857142858 | 62.857142857142854 |
| Energy retrofit | 16.666666666666668 | 17.5 | 13.157894736842104 | 12 | 59.324561403508774 |
| Corridor expansion | 0 | 35 | 0 | 0 | 35 |
| Changed criterion | Weight shiftpercentage points | Tested weight% | Leading alternatives | Score/100 | Base leader rank | Complete ordering |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Capital cost | -20 | 5 | Reliability platform | 66.91666666666667 | 1 | Reliability platform → Energy retrofit → Customer analytics → Corridor expansion |
| Capital cost | 20 | 45 | Reliability platform | 77.33771929824562 | 1 | Reliability platform → Customer analytics → Energy retrofit → Corridor expansion |
| Strategic impact | -20 | 15 | Reliability platform | 83.3311644495855 | 1 | Reliability platform → Customer analytics → Energy retrofit → Corridor expansion |
| Strategic impact | 20 | 55 | Reliability platform | 60.92322151532678 | 1 | Reliability platform → Energy retrofit → Corridor expansion → Customer analytics |
| Readiness | -20 | 5 | Reliability platform | 68.203216374269 | 1 | Reliability platform → Energy retrofit → Customer analytics → Corridor expansion |
| Readiness | 20 | 45 | Reliability platform | 76.05116959064327 | 1 | Reliability platform → Customer analytics → Energy retrofit → Corridor expansion |
| Execution risk | -20 | 0 | Reliability platform | 67.20846233230134 | 1 | Reliability platform → Customer analytics → Energy retrofit → Corridor expansion |
| Execution risk | 20 | 35 | Reliability platform | 78.68550051599587 | 1 | Reliability platform → Customer analytics → Energy retrofit → Corridor expansion |
| Criterion | Preference | Weight% | Minimum | Maximum |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Capital cost | Lower is preferred | 25 | 18 | 90 |
| Strategic impact | Higher is preferred | 35 | 68 | 96 |
| Readiness | Higher is preferred | 25 | 52 | 90 |
| Execution risk | Lower is preferred | 15 | 25 | 60 |
Inputs behind this result
| Assumption and unit | Exact supplied value |
|---|---|
| Capital cost weight | 25 |
| Strategic impact weight | 35 |
| Readiness weight | 25 |
| Execution risk weight | 15 |
| Alternative | Capital costUSDm | Strategic impact0 to 100 | Readiness0 to 100 | Execution risk0 to 100 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reliability platform | 24 | 78 | 85 | 25 |
| Corridor expansion | 90 | 96 | 52 | 60 |
| Customer analytics | 18 | 68 | 90 | 30 |
| Energy retrofit | 42 | 82 | 72 | 32 |
Transparent method
- Weights are normalised to sum to one. Cost and risk are minimised, impact and readiness maximised.
- Each raw criterion maps linearly to 0 to 1 over the current alternative set; equal values receive 0.5.
- Weighted score = 100 × sum of normalised weight × normalised criterion value.
- A Pareto alternative is not weakly dominated on all four raw criteria with strict dominance on at least one.
- Sensitivity shifts each normalised weight by ±20 percentage points, capped at 0 or 100%, and scales other weights proportionally.
- Canonical decimal normalisation, contributions, ranking and sensitivity redistribution use exact rational arithmetic. Released weight follows positive supplied weights; equal-thirds redistribution is used only when every other weight is exactly zero.
- Tied exact scores use literal name order independent of browser language for consistent display; the model displays every equal leading alternative and implies no strict preference.
Limits
- Compensatory preferences. Scores are not probabilities, returns or forecasts.
- Normalisation changes with the alternative set. Scores cannot be compared across changed sets.
- No portfolio allocation optimiser, synergy effects or binding budget constraints.
- Exact arithmetic concerns the supplied decimal values and preference rule. Numeric chart displays are approximations, and neither measured criteria nor accepted preferences become certain through the computation.
- Numerical input precision: use zero or absolute values of at least 0.000000001. Smaller nonzero inputs are rejected explicitly.