Limited resources create an invisible barrier to progress. Time, budgets, people: organizations grapple with these constraints daily. How do we decide what to pursue when we can't do it all?
At Triumph Tech, we created the Intentional Prioritization Framework (IPF) to address this challenge. It's a simple system that models scarcity explicitly, forcing teams to make deliberate choices about where to invest effort.
What sets IPF apart isn't just highlighting what you're working on. Many planning tools do that. IPF emphasizes revealing what you're choosing not to work on. This transparency uncovers hidden assumptions, aligns stakeholders, and drives more sustainable outcomes.
Why Model Scarcity?
Every leader knows the mantra: "We can't boil the ocean." Yet without structure to enforce this, plans often balloon into unrealistic wish lists. Traditional tools like Kanban boards, OKRs, or Gantt charts excel at tracking work in progress but rarely force you to confront what's being sidelined.
IPF addresses this gap. Inspired by opportunity cost and zero-sum budgeting, it builds in artificial scarcity to mirror real-world limitations. Teams not only define their focus areas but explicitly acknowledge deprioritized ones.
This "what we're not doing" list is revelatory. It exposes risks ("We're ignoring maintenance. Could that lead to downtime?"), fosters accountability, and builds trust through transparency.
How IPF Works
IPF uses "sliders" to represent focus areas, with a mathematical constraint to enforce scarcity.
1. Identify Your Sliders
List three to six primary categories of work your team could undertake. Each slider represents a potential investment area on a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 is complete deprioritization and 10 is full commitment.
Categories might represent:
- Internal departments you serve (Sales Support vs. Operations Support)
- Balance between new development and tech debt (Innovation vs. Maintenance)
- Internal vs. external priorities (Employee Tools vs. Customer-Facing Features)
For example, a software engineering team might use: New Feature Development, Bug Fixes and Issues, Existing Feature Polish, and Next-Generation Rewrite.
2. Calculate Your Resource Pool
Compute a limited pool of "resource points":
Total Points = (Number of Sliders × 10) × Scarcity Multiplier
With 4 sliders and a 0.7 multiplier: (4 × 10) × 0.7 = 28 points.
The default 0.7 multiplier functions as a choice-forcing dial. This 30% reduction enforces scarcity, making allocations more challenging and revealing what must be sidelined. Teams can't simply max out every slider; they must confront real trade-offs.
3. Allocate Points and Make Trade-Offs
Distribute points across sliders without exceeding your pool. This zero-sum game compels tough decisions:
A slider at 8 signals strong focus, but one at 5 explicitly flags reduced attention. Documenting this creates a clear record of trade-offs, like accepting less polish to accelerate new features and the next-gen rewrite.
4. Customize the Scarcity Multiplier
The multiplier simulates the gap between work requested and resources available. Smaller values heighten the difficulty of trade-offs, ensuring teams can't easily satisfy every priority.
Adjust based on context, but keep the multiplier at 0.7 or lower. Higher values make choices too easy, undermining the framework's purpose of surfacing what you're not doing.
- Team maturity: Use 0.7 as a starting point for most teams. Seasoned teams comfortable with hard choices can drop to 0.6 or lower.
- Environment: Stable periods work well at 0.7. High-demand phases with excessive requests vs. limited capacity benefit from 0.6 or lower to amplify tough decisions.
- Cycle length: Short sprints can use 0.7; long-term planning often benefits from 0.6 to force bolder prioritization.
- Feedback loops: If your team consistently hits all targets without tension, lower the multiplier. The framework should feel challenging.
5. Review and Adapt
Revisit allocations regularly. Quarterly works well. Compare planned vs. actual outcomes, and use this iterative process to refine your scarcity model over time.
The Power of Revealing What You're Not Doing
Most frameworks spotlight the "yes." IPF makes the "no" equally visible.
Consider a marketing team with the following chart.
The high campaign score shows ambition, but the lower scores reveal deliberate choices: "We're not diving deep into analytics or optimization this quarter to prioritize launches."
Calling out deprioritized work surfaces misalignments early. ("I thought analytics was crucial. Let's discuss why it's at 5.")
The added transparency on what you're not focusing on can feel scary at first. But it's an accurate picture of the tough decisions you're already making, whether you document them or not. A few things to keep in mind and communicate to others:
Priorities are not fixed. They will change quarter to quarter. You may not focus much attention on the finance department this quarter, but that can flex next quarter if needed. IPF captures a moment in time, not a permanent verdict.
Leadership gains visibility and shared ownership. Documenting your plan gives leadership the ability to see your choices and provide input. They can adjust a slider up, but that means they also need to suggest what slider goes down. This visibility provides you with backup when someone asks why a certain project wasn't worked on. You've established mutual agreement on priorities.
Use multiple charts for different perspectives. A department can and should have several IPF allocations. One might show the breakdown by department. Another by strategy alignment (administrative vs. ministry). Yet another by type (new features, current feature polish, tech debt). Different lenses reveal different trade-offs.
This transparency also:
- Mitigates risks by prompting discussions about potential fallout
- Enhances communication by setting clear expectations with stakeholders
- Builds psychological safety by reducing guilt over unfinished work
- Drives efficiency by avoiding "priority inflation" where everything feels urgent
Real-World Examples
Support Team
Consider this example showing a support team allocating across departments.
The lower Worship Arts score reveals a choice to deprioritize creative enhancements, while Communications and Family Ministries show a greater investment. These visible trade-offs spark discussions about balance.
Engineering Team
Below the chat shows an Engineering team balancing innovation and stability. The lower optimization score shows a deliberate trade-off for stability and security, transparently addressing potential long-term risks while acknowledging that performance improvements will wait.
Product Team
Below we see a Product team weighing internal vs. external priorities. The reduced focus on staff efficiency (5) and moderate self-service investment (7) underscore a ministry-first strategy, with clear documentation of what's being deprioritized.
Conclusion
IPF isn't about restriction. It's about empowerment. By modeling scarcity, teams make informed trade-offs, celebrate focused wins, and openly address what's on the back burner. In a landscape of infinite demands, this kind of transparency is rare and valuable.