AI investment & economics

Portfolio capital allocation

Decide what to fund, hold or stop; inspect the evidence behind each initiative.

Current decision

2 of 12 initiatives have negative risk-adjusted value

Selected: KYC document intelligence. Kill at -$0.7M risk-adjusted annual value.

Portfolio risk-adjusted value: $7.4M
Annual spend: $10.4M

Select an initiative, then compare funding or reallocation against the current book.

Same instrument · 3 industries choosing a scenario replaces its inputs; save or share your current changes first

Portfolio change receipt

Pinned book $7.4M → current $7.4M risk-adjusted annual value. $0.0M.

Budget: $5.0M → $5.0M

Funded: 5 → 5 initiatives

Captured value: $7.6M → $7.6M

Before and after for every initiative

Before and after for every initiative
Baseline call	Current call	Risk-adjusted value change	Funding change
Scale	Scale	$0.000M	Funded → Funded
Hold	Hold	$0.000M	Not funded → Not funded
Scale	Scale	$0.000M	Funded → Funded
Kill	Kill	$0.000M	Not funded → Not funded
Hold	Hold	$0.000M	Not funded → Not funded
Kill	Kill	$0.000M	Not funded → Not funded
Scale	Scale	$0.000M	Funded → Funded
Hold	Hold	$0.000M	Not funded → Not funded
Hold	Hold	$0.000M	Funded → Funded
Hold	Hold	$0.000M	Not funded → Not funded
Hold	Hold	$0.000M	Not funded → Not funded
Hold	Hold	$0.000M	Funded → Funded

The receipt includes added and removed initiatives and changes to stage probabilities. It compares modeled decisions; it does not claim realized return.

Expected annual value

$26.7M

Sum of unadjusted upside

Run rate spend

$10.4M

Annualized

Risk adjusted value

$7.4M

Value × P(success) − spend

Recommend to kill

2/12

Negative risk adjusted ROI

Value × risk · bubble = run rate spend

Read chart values or select a point

Initiatives plotted by expected value (vertical) against risk (horizontal); bubble size is run rate spend; color is the kill / hold / scale call.
Item	Risk score	Expected annual value
	25%	$3.2M
	55%	$2.1M
	30%	$4.0M
	75%	$1.4M
	50%	$1.8M
	60%	$0.9M
	30%	$2.6M
	60%	$1.6M
	45%	$2.2M
	60%	$3.0M
	50%	$1.9M
	55%	$2.0M

Scale Hold Killbubble size = spend · select or focus a point for detail

KYC document intelligence

Finserv · pilot

Kill

Expected value

$1.4M

P(success)

30%

Run rate spend

$1.1M

Risk score

0.75

How this number is computed

Risk adjusted ROI = expected value ($1.4M) × stage probability (30% for pilot) − run rate spend ($1.1M) = -$0.7M/yr.

Call: negative risk adjusted ROI → kill.

2 to cut this quarter

2 of 12 carry a negative risk adjusted ROI. Keeping them funds optionality theatre, the capital they hold is the capital the Scale column needs.

If you act on this · the call → expected lift → how you'd measure it

The call

Fund the efficient core, stop negative return initiatives, and redeploy capacity toward stronger scale candidates.

Expected lift · illustrative

Improves portfolio value by moving resources from weak initiatives to higher return opportunities.

How you'd measure it

Risk adjusted value, value per dollar, kill decision cycle time, realized vs modeled ROI, funding efficiency.

Steering committee takeaway: A portfolio where nothing is stopped is not governed. It is unattended.

How this is built & assumptions

Stage probabilities (defaults): discovery 15% · pilot 30% · scaling 60% · production 85%, editable in the Assumptions drawer.

Risk adjusted ROI = expected annual value × stage probability − run rate cost. Kill if < 0; scale if proven stage and ≥ 1.5× spend with risk < 0.6; else hold. Plan variance flagged beyond ±10%.

Stack: Next.js (static) + shared design system; deterministic client side math over authored, anonymized finserv + telecom initiatives.

Limitations: the financials are illustrative and use modeled assumptions. Real portfolio governance would require finance approved forecasts, initiative level probability estimates, delivery capacity data, and benefits tracking.

Method, evidence and limitations

Prefer to read? The two minute case study · problem → approach → metric → outcome

Problem

Without portfolio discipline, AI funding spreads across initiatives that may never justify their cost. This artifact treats AI initiatives like investment options, each with value, risk, stage probability, spend, and a clear recommendation.

Approach

The dashboard models a portfolio of AI initiatives through risk adjusted value, stage gate status, funding allocation, efficient frontier analysis, and reallocation from lower return work into stronger scale candidates.

Why this way

This connects AI delivery to capital allocation, portfolio governance, budget discipline, value capture, and executive decision rights.

The metric

Risk adjusted ROI per initiative (expected value × stage probability − run cost) and the efficient frontier of cumulative value vs cumulative spend.

The trade-off

Funding the single highest value initiative can starve three efficient ones; the greedy funder and the frontier knee show where diminishing returns begin.

Outcome

A defensible funding decision within a budget, what to fund, what to kill, and where the freed capital goes, with the value captured quantified.