Use case · C50
Reduce a marketing budget by 20%
Which reduction method keeps a coherent portfolio after a 20% cut?
Direct answer
A deep cut requires comparing uniform reduction, return ranking, zero-based budgeting and option portfolios against the abandoned outcomes and the broken dependencies.
01Choose the recomposition method and explicitly accept the outcomes that are abandoned.
02The rule, the evidence and the next review date stay visible.
How to use this
Move from the question to the deliverable.
Which reduction method keeps a coherent portfolio after a 20% cut?
Choose the recomposition method and explicitly accept the outcomes that are abandoned.
Critical comparison of cuts
Critical comparison · SQ-53
Compare four ways to remove €120k
At 20%, the cut changes the system. The abandoned outcomes, broken dependencies and ability to reinvest must be compared.
The same illustrative portfolio of €600k and €6.2m of expected pipeline, reduced to a €480k envelope.
- 01Build
Produce a complete portfolio for each reduction method.
- 02Assess
Measure retained outcome, broken dependencies, workload and reversibility.
- 03Compare
Make abandoned outcomes and capabilities visible.
- 04Condition
Set the thresholds that permit a later reallocation.
Four methods, four portfolios at €480k
Zero-based recomposition retains the most outcome but requires a full rebuild. The options portfolio protects learning better.
| Method | Pipeline retained | Dependencies broken | Workload | Reversibility | Limit |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Uniform cut | €4.96m | 4 | −18% | Low | Weakens every link |
| Return ranking | €5.28m | 3 | −22% | Medium | Favours the short term |
| Zero-based recomposition | €5.55m | 1 | −25% | Medium | High trade-off cost |
| Options portfolio | €5.42m | 1 | −20% | High | More cautious initial outcome |
01Zero-based recomposition retains 89.5% of the pipeline and becomes the central reference.
02The options portfolio is preferred if market uncertainty dominates and €40k can be released through gates.
03The uniform cut is rejected: it breaks four dependencies for the lowest retained outcome.
Fictitious comparison. Return ranking can underfund shared capabilities whose contribution is indirect.
Coherence controls
Minimum conditions before validation.
The status, the evidence and the owner must be available for review.
The status, the evidence and the owner must be available for review.
The status, the evidence and the owner must be available for review.
The status, the evidence and the owner must be available for review.
Usable deliverable
Critical comparison of cuts
Explore the decision further with an interactive control, or start from a structured template to produce your deliverable.