Which portfolio fits the shared platform team?
Choose commitments against a single capacity limit.
“reconcile staffing needs and make adjustments as needed.” (opens the source)
The question
Northstar has 18 platform engineer-weeks available this quarter. Each estimate includes integration work and cannot be split this quarter. Compliance is mandatory. Analytics needs Identity in the same quarter; the AI evaluation programme also needs Identity. Benefits are not yet reliable enough to rank the two optional programmes by return.
| Engineer-weeks | |
|---|---|
| Compliance | 4 |
| Identity | 6 |
| Analytics | 5 |
| AI evaluation | 8 |
All four programmes draw on the same 18-week team capacity.
The sponsor must choose the optional business outcome. The programme manager must present feasible bundles and the commitment that each bundle displaces.
“Show the feasible bundles, then make the revised commitment clear.”
Not saved by this site. Your browser may restore text when you navigate back.
A strong answer, step by step
Open each step in turn. This is one strong answer, not the only one.
Step 1: Count the full demand
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Show 23 weeks of demand against 18 weeks available.
The strong move. A portfolio needs one shared capacity constraint.
Accept each programme estimate independently.
Tempting, but it misses something. The four separate promises require 23 weeks from the same 18-week team.
See how a strong candidate says it
“All four need 4 + 6 + 5 + 8 = 23 weeks. That exceeds the 18-week limit by five. Separate team promises would double-book the same capacity.”
Why it works: A portfolio needs one shared capacity constraint.
Step 2: Offer a real choice
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Present the 15-week and 18-week bundles with their trade-offs.
The strong move. Feasibility can be established even when benefit ranking still needs a sponsor decision.
Choose AI solely because its title sounds strategic.
Tempting, but it misses something. The programme name provides no evidence that its benefit is worth displacing Analytics.
See how a strong candidate says it
“Compliance + Identity + Analytics needs 15 weeks, leaving three. Compliance + Identity + AI evaluation needs 18, leaving none. I would ask the sponsor to choose between those outcomes and state the displaced programme.”
Why it works: Feasibility can be established even when benefit ranking still needs a sponsor decision.
Step 3: Replan the portfolio
Compliance now needs 7 engineer-weeks. Capacity and all other estimates stay unchanged. There is no approved overtime or extra team.
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Keep Analytics feasible; defer or reduce an explicitly re-estimated AI scope.
The strong move. A changed mandatory commitment changes what can be promised.
Keep the old 18-week AI bundle total.
Tempting, but it misses something. Compliance now needs seven weeks, so the AI bundle needs 21 weeks against 18 available.
See how a strong candidate says it
“With Compliance at seven weeks, the Analytics bundle needs 18 and still fits. The AI bundle needs 21 and does not fit. I would update the sponsor’s options before teams accept dates.”
Why it works: A changed mandatory commitment changes what can be promised.
Step 4: Protect the commitment
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Make each new request expose its capacity trade-off.
The strong move. A portfolio decision must survive later intake.
Add a small request without changing the portfolio.
Tempting, but it misses something. Even a small addition consumes capacity already committed to the selected bundle.
See how a strong candidate says it
“I would record the selected bundle, dependencies, capacity assumption and deferred work. Any new request must name the work it replaces or bring approved capacity with a new estimate.”
Why it works: A portfolio decision must survive later intake.
The answer, in short
- Decision
- Commit only the revised feasible bundle.
- Because
- Compliance, Identity and Analytics use all 18 available weeks.
- What would change it
- Approved capacity or a smaller, newly estimated scope could reopen the AI choice.
Common traps
- Double-booking a shared team.
- Treating estimated benefits as known returns.
Check your answer
- I counted total demand.
- I respected both dependencies.
- I revised the mandatory cost.
- I named the displaced commitment.
Last reviewed Nov 10, 2026