Southern California Edison / Decision support
Making portfolio priorities and delivery risks visible
A strategic dashboard connecting why an initiative matters with what it needs to move forward: funding, capacity, dependencies, and decisions.
- Context
- Southern California Edison
- Contribution
- Dashboard & evaluation framework
- Project type
- Published dashboard
Information architecture
5 connected views
Evaluation model
12 weighted factors
Core question
Where does attention matter?
01 / The problem
A healthy budget can hide a delivery problem
An initiative can be strategically important, within budget, and still difficult to deliver. Schedule pressure, scarce engineering capacity, and unresolved dependencies tell different parts of the story. A single status label compresses those differences too far.
The SCE dashboard brings priorities, delivery plans, financial information, and risk into one interface. Its published scenario makes the tension concrete: the budget is on target while the schedule is at risk. The useful question becomes what needs investigation, rather than whether the whole portfolio is green or red.
Competing priorities
Grid modernization, storage deployment, cybersecurity, and workforce readiness need a visible basis for comparison.
Hidden constraints
A milestone can depend on shared capacity or an upstream deliverable outside the project.
Unclear intervention
A warning becomes useful when people can trace it to work and a decision.
02 / My contribution
Connecting strategic value to delivery detail
I built five complementary views: a portfolio cockpit, initiative roadmap, sprint view, financial and resource overview, and RAID log. They create a path from the overall signal to its context.
Expose the criteria
A twelve-factor Strategic Value Index exposes the weighting behind the portfolio score.
Connect time horizons
The annual roadmap and current sprint connect longer initiatives to immediate work.
Keep constraints visible
Capacity, dependencies, and risk stay distinct from spending so one favorable measure cannot represent delivery health.
03 / How it works
Follow a signal to a better question
Explore how the dashboard connects priority, delivery pressure, and decisions.
Strategic value
Make the basis for priority visible
Inspect the criteria behind the portfolio score.
Define the factors
The model includes regulatory compliance, grid modernization, decarbonization, storage deployment, cybersecurity, and workforce readiness. These dimensions make the evaluation broader than cost alone. Naming them also gives reviewers specific assumptions to discuss when an initiative's importance changes.
A guided interpretation of the published dashboard, using its displayed scenarios. This is not a live operational feed.
Read all model notes
Prioritize
- Define the factors — The model includes regulatory compliance, grid modernization, decarbonization, storage deployment, cybersecurity, and workforce readiness. These dimensions make the evaluation broader than cost alone. Naming them also gives reviewers specific assumptions to discuss when an initiative's importance changes.
- Apply the weights — Each factor has a weight and a score from one to five. The Strategic Value Index sums weight multiplied by score. Showing the components alongside the total helps a reviewer distinguish the importance assigned to a factor from the portfolio's assessment against it.
- Read with context — The index sits beside schedule, budget, ESG, and dependency signals. That arrangement keeps a strong strategic score from becoming an automatic instruction to proceed. A reviewer can consider why work matters and what could prevent it from moving forward in the same conversation.
Diagnose
- Notice the mismatch — These two signals answer different questions. Spending performance does not establish whether dependencies are ready or milestones are achievable. Keeping both indicators visible helps focus the review on the source of schedule pressure instead of treating the budget position as reassurance about everything else.
- Locate the pressure — The published roadmap covers 2025, with overlapping BESS deployment, grid modernization, and digital transformation activity. This view establishes timing context for the portfolio discussion. The current sprint then supplies a closer view of work awaiting action, in progress, or under review.
- Inspect capacity — The artifact marks Engineering as over-allocated and Solutions Architecture as available. That contrast creates a useful question about skill and capacity constraints. It does not establish that people are interchangeable; reassignment would still require understanding the work, responsibilities, and expertise involved.
Act
- Find the blocker — This sprint example names the dependency behind stalled work. It turns a general progress concern into a specific follow-up: understand the upstream readiness and its effect on the analytics module. The dashboard surfaces that relationship without claiming to resolve the technical dependency itself.
- Separate the concerns — The RAID view distinguishes a possible regulatory delay, a cybersecurity issue, and a prioritization decision. They should not be collapsed into one warning category. One requires monitoring a future condition, another requires addressing an existing issue, and the third records a choice already represented in the artifact.
- Explain the choice — The published example postpones a hydro upgrade in favor of BESS because of higher strategic value. Its purpose here is to show the relationship between evaluation and decision context.
Choose a perspective, then select a stage. Keyboard: arrow keys switch perspectives.
Illustrative scenario · editable ratings
Explore the prioritization model
Change a rating to see how the twelve source weights shape the Strategic Value Index. The weights stay fixed; the scenario is yours to explore.
Rating scale: 1 lower · 5 higher. Each step changes the score by that factor’s weight.
Strategic priorities 6 factors1.95 points
Readiness & resilience 6 factors1.05 points
Scenario score
Balanced scenario · all ratings at 3
Largest contributions
Weighted points in the current scenario.
- Regulatory Compliance0.4515% weight × rating 3
- Grid Modernization0.3612% weight × rating 3
- Decarbonization Targets0.3010% weight × rating 3
SVI = Σ (weight × rating)
Source weights total 100%. A one-point change to Regulatory Compliance moves the score by 0.15; the same change to Workforce Readiness moves it by 0.05.Model weights and the published-example preset come from the original SCE dashboard. The starting ratings are illustrative. This tool explains the model; its scenarios are not verified project results or recommendations.
04 / Key decisions
The choices behind the solution.
Use a shared index with visible inputs
Why it mattersA common structure makes the reasoning inspectable.
The tradeoffThe score still depends on the chosen weights and the quality of each assessment.
Keep delivery signals separate
Why it mattersSchedule, spending, capacity, and dependencies reveal different constraints.
The tradeoffReviewers must interpret the combination instead of relying on a single overall status.
Pair overview with operational detail
Why it mattersSprint and RAID views give warnings a concrete context.
The tradeoffThose details need current, consistent information to remain useful in practice.
05 / What it produced
A concrete way to examine the portfolio
The published output demonstrates five connected views, an explicit evaluation model, and specific examples of delivery pressure. Readers can inspect the relationship between strategic importance and practical execution.
The artifact does not establish adoption, verified savings, or improved delivery performance. Its strongest evidence is the working dashboard and the reasoning it makes visible.
Portfolio cockpit
Strategic value, schedule, budget, ESG, and dependency indicators.
Delivery views
Initiative timing, sprint stages, financial position, and resource context.
Evaluation framework
Weighted criteria and a RAID view connecting concerns to decisions.
Clarity comes from preserving the tension
I approach unfamiliar systems by identifying the decision, separating the signals, and explaining their relationship. The response can then adapt when new evidence exposes a different constraint.
Project context & references
2024 · Roadmap displayed for 2025 · Published dashboard
Next / Hyperautomation Blueprint