In 30 seconds
- Puts a price on waiting.
- Divide by duration to prioritize (CD3).
- Makes urgency explicit instead of political.
Try it
| Rank | Item | Cost of delay / week | Duration (weeks) | CD3 | Remove |
|---|
CD3 = cost of delay ÷ duration. Do the highest score first. Rough numbers are fine; relative order is what matters.
The idea
Don Reinertsen argued in The Principles of Product Development Flow (2009) that if you quantify only one thing, it should be cost of delay. It turns "what's most important?" into "what costs most to wait for?"
Prioritizing with CD3
CD3 = cost of delay / duration. Do the highest score first. Short, high-value items jump the queue; long, low-value ones wait. SAFe's WSJF is a relative version of the same idea. See prioritization techniques.
Urgency profiles
| Profile | Example |
|---|---|
| Expedite | Production outage |
| Fixed date | Regulatory deadline |
| Standard | Most features |
| Intangible | Tech improvements that matter later |
Myth vs reality
Myth · Cost of delay must be precise.
Reality · Rough estimates still beat gut feel.
Myth · Only revenue counts.
Reality · Risk reduction and learning count too.
Myth · It's only for big organizations.
Reality · Any team can use rough numbers.
FAQ
How do we estimate it?
Ask what we'd lose per week in revenue, cost, risk or opportunity.
Is WSJF the same?
WSJF is a relative scoring version used in SAFe.
Can it guide technical debt?
Yes, by estimating the ongoing cost of not fixing it.