How I turn an AI use-case list into a portfolio leaders can act on

If you lead AI work across departments, turn the idea list into a portfolio by giving each case an accountable business owner and a decision it needs next. I start steering with the unowned cases and the credible quick wins. I then review the evidence behind the priorities and assign the open follow-ups. Access to the portfolio belongs in reviewed code because the demand it records can be sensitive.

I ask each department to describe the process it wants to change and how it would recognise an improvement. A proposed assistant is still a solution idea until somebody can explain whose work changes and what result they would accept.

I compare expected impact with delivery effort, keeping the supporting evidence alongside the assessment. A confident estimate with no supporting observation stays visibly uncertain. Where several cases depend on the same missing capability, I record the dependency so leaders can see what would be unlocked by funding it.

The enterprise AI readiness check helps identify prerequisites that need investigation before a case becomes a delivery commitment. I bring those gaps into the portfolio as assigned follow-ups.

I open with unowned cases. Without a business owner who can accept the outcome, the next useful decision is whether to assign responsibility or park the case. A high impact estimate does not supply that responsibility.

Then I show the quick wins, with their evidence visible. I use that label where the scope is bounded and the prerequisites have been checked. Small apparent effort alone is insufficient; an unresolved dependency can keep a simple idea waiting indefinitely. Each candidate should link through to the reason for its status.

From there I use a department view to check whether a promising selection is hiding gaps elsewhere. An impact/effort view helps discuss trade-offs, while a shared filter state keeps the discussion attached to the same selection of cases. The steering record names the decision made for each case discussed.

I distinguish evidence that has been checked from assumptions still awaiting a response. The portfolio needs to show where coverage is missing and let the reader inspect the source behind an assessment. An attached document does not establish that its contents support the proposed benefit.

Open follow-ups need a consolidated view with accountable owners. I write each as a question that can be closed with evidence, including when the answer is needed. The next review checks whether that answer changes the case's status.

When the unresolved question is how to deliver the capability, I use build vs buy vs partner to structure the decision. The chosen route and the remaining dependency go back into the case record.

The portfolio can expose departmental plans and unresolved concerns. I keep eligibility to access it separate from the role somebody has inside it. A membership change should pass through code review so there is a recorded decision that another maintainer can inspect.

The merge is the authority for the change. I also require permission changes to take effect for sessions already open; otherwise the reviewed decision and the access people retain can disagree. The handover needs to explain who reviews access changes and where that decision is recorded.

I keep the following fields with each use case. Each entry names the question it answers and who is responsible for keeping the answer useful.

Process and intended outcome Whose work should change, and what observable improvement would justify it? The business owner supplies the answer and agrees how the outcome would be accepted.

Accountable owner Who can commit the department to the next decision? The department lead assigns the owner or records that the case is unowned.

Impact and effort What benefit is plausible, and what delivery work would it require? The business owner supports the benefit claim; the delivery lead records the effort assessment and its uncertainty.

Prerequisites and delivery route What must be available before work starts, and how might the capability be delivered? The delivery lead records the dependencies and the open build, buy or partner decision.

Evidence coverage Which assumptions have been checked, and where can a reviewer inspect the support? The case owner links the evidence and names the assumptions that remain open.

Status and next decision Is this case ready for a bounded next step, waiting on a dependency, or parked? The steering chair records the decision and the condition for revisiting it.

Open follow-up What question blocks the next decision, who will answer it, and by when? The assigned follow-up owner supplies the answer with supporting evidence.

Access review Who needs to see or change this record, and where was that permission approved? The portfolio maintainer links the reviewed access decision.

The worked entry below is hypothetical. It describes no client initiative.

Process and intended outcome: Help a training team find approved learning material. The business owner would accept the outcome when the team can retrieve the relevant approved source during its normal work.

Accountable owner: The training lead accepts responsibility for the next decision.

Impact and effort: The proposed benefit is less searching. The delivery lead leaves the effort assessment open until the source material has been checked.

Prerequisites and delivery route: Availability of approved material is unresolved. The delivery lead defers the delivery route until that dependency is understood.

Evidence coverage: The request describes the intended workflow; evidence that the source material is usable is missing. The case owner keeps that gap visible.

Status and next decision: Waiting on evidence. The steering chair withholds the quick-win label pending the source check.

Open follow-up: The training lead will confirm which material is approved before the next steering review and attach the source reference.

Access review: The portfolio maintainer records the reviewed decision about who can view and edit the case before sharing it.

A portfolio review cannot establish that an AI system works reliably in production. The selected case still needs evaluation against its intended use, and its owner needs to accept the evidence before delivery proceeds.

It also cannot resolve missing authority. If nobody in the room can assign an owner or make the funding decision, I record the decision required and the person who needs to join the next review.

Through Advisory & Sprints, I offer an AI readiness or portfolio review. You receive an assessment of the current decision gaps and a reviewed set of priorities, with assigned follow-ups for the evidence still needed. We agree which leadership decisions the review should support before starting.

The AI Compass section of my Bahlsen case study describes the work behind this field note.