The pipeline contained more defensible projects than the balance sheet could fund, and every business unit could argue its case. The engagement introduced a single comparison basis and a documented sequencing logic that survived contact with the board.

The situation

Four business units, four sets of assumptions, and four internally consistent investment cases that could not be compared with one another. Capital went to whichever case was argued best in the room, which correlated poorly with return and strongly with seniority.

How the work ran

Six months, and unusually narrow by design. One comparison basis, one set of criteria, and a sequencing logic written down before the next cycle opened so it could not be renegotiated case by case. The hardest conversations were about good projects that would wait rather than weak ones that would stop. Related material is collected in the insights archive.

What changed

Eighteen per cent of the annual programme was reallocated to higher-return projects, and investment case review time halved. The framework has since run two further cycles without amendment. Discuss a capital review.