Fairness can sometimes be a misguided goal. What seems fair to individual units may serve the organization poorly. Therefore, clarifying or agreeing on what "optimal" means for the organization may be beneficial. Doing so can enable units to grasp the rationale behind resource decisions. Even if they still perceive it as unfair, they can understand it, which increases the likelihood of acceptance.

I typically resort to the V-F-D framework. (1) Viability: What is the Viability of the projects that each of the business are working on. Stack rank them on which ones have more impact to the business (2) Feasibility: How feasible are these initiatives given the constraints of the organization? Are any of them low hanging fruit? Or they all North Star visions with longer times to realize? (3) Desirability: Are the stakeholders screaming for one initiative more than the other? Which is more impactful to the doers (field) vs the talkers (HQ)?

I would develop a set of criteria for value, cost, and time taken to deliver. 1. Unified Framework: Establish clear, objective criteria based on value, cost, and time. Make sure all business units understand and agree to these criteria upfront. 2. Alignment with Strategic Goals: Tie the evaluation process to the company's overarching strategy, ensuring resources are allocated to projects that drive the most impact. 3. Stakeholders Engagement: Involve key decision-makers from each unit in the evaluation process to ensure their input is considered, and they feel part of the solution. 4. Flexibility: Be prepared to reassess priorities as circumstances change, allowing for adaptive decision-making when new opportunities or challenges arise.

My method would be to: 1. Set Clear Priorities: I use criteria like impact and ROI to make fair decisions. 2. Standardize the Process: I keep the process consistent and transparent. 3. Involve All Stakeholders: I make sure each unit has a voice in decisions. 4. Use Data to Guide Us: I rely on data to assess and adjust resource needs. 5. Communicate Clearly: I explain decisions openly to keep trust high. This way, I ensure everyone feels resources are allocated fairly.

Having weight and importance parameters is really important for any portfolio or initiative. All initiatives should be cross-checked against these parameters, which could include factors such as revenue, ROI, customer experience (Cx), complexity, and more. For example, if the current strategy is to be customer-oriented, then Cx may have more weight than complexity. By maintaining a holistic view of importance and weight across all portfolios, the decision-making process becomes more streamlined and effective.

In a scenario where business units are clashing over resources, prioritization of clients, projects and tasks is essential with the involvement of the leadership. Exceptions criteria should be established on the basis of which the priority of tasks could be re-evaluated. The establishment of this priority matrix will require data driven insights facilitated through open communication that will help in documenting the criteria.

Decision criteria are crucial for making effective decisions. Decision being the choice between alternatives. Criteria for business success in this case and not business unit success only. Business unit based success criteria will aleays lead to deadlock. Ensure the criteria are weighted and scoring against the criteria is based on data.

When business units clash over resources, I focus on structured, transparent decision-making. I start by aligning resource allocation with strategic priorities, ensuring decisions are tied to measurable business impact. I facilitate open, data-driven discussions to bring clarity and address competing needs objectively. Collaboration is key: I encourage teams to find shared solutions, optimizing resource use without compromising on priorities. Finally, I communicate decisions clearly and ensure they remain adaptable as priorities evolve. My approach is simple: fairness is about impact, not equality.

As an Enterprise Architect, I find that resource conflicts often arise from unclear definitions of “resources.” For example, a prior conflict between the security and BI teams over access to BI analytics skills was resolved by creating a cross-functional analytics pool, enabling flexible, on-demand support. Since analytics tools are relatively uniform, skills were easily transferable, optimizing productivity. Data-sharing posed challenges but was addressed with appropriate architectural solutions, allowing secure collaboration. By clearly defining resources, segmenting tasks, and aligning resources effectively, businesses can reduce redundancy and foster fair, efficient decision-making across units.