Portfolio Health Score Matrix(4.1.5)

This is the executive overview. Instead of clicking through project after project, this heatmap shows every project's health across three dimensions simultaneously: how much of its recorded activity is actual issue progress (velocity), how clean its output is (quality), and how much of its finished work reached done through its workflow rather than straight from a to-do status (workflow adherence). A single glance shows which projects score well on all three and where the gaps are.

What you can conclude

• A project scoring low on velocity, quality, and workflow adherence simultaneously has gaps across all three dimensions: it is the project a reviewer would ask about first.
• A project with high velocity but low quality is recording plenty of issue progress but reopening a large share of it; a reviewer could ask what sends that work back after it closes.
• A project with low workflow adherence but healthy velocity and quality is moving a large share of its issues into done straight from a to-do status. The question to ask is whether that work skipped steps its workflow lays out, or whether the workflow allows a direct close by design.
• A uniformly high-scoring portfolio is one where, across projects, most recorded activity is issue progress, reopens are a small share of issue updates, and most finished work reached done through the workflow.

How this chart works

Heatmap showing scores (0–100) for each project across three dimensions: Velocity (the share of a project's recorded activity that is issue creates and updates, rather than views, comments, and administrative changes), Quality (1 − reopen rate, where a reopen leaves a terminal status classified as delivered; revivals of abandoned or duplicate closures are not reopens), and Workflow adherence (of the moves into a done status the project recorded in the week, the share that did not come straight from a to-do status; done follows your terminal-status settings, so a closure classified as abandoned or duplicate is not counted). Workflow adherence reads only the recorded status changes, never who made them, and the MetaFrazo Governance Score uses the same measure.

Each cell is the average of that project's weekly scores across the complete weeks of the selected window, not a single measurement. Hover a cell to see the range those weeks span and how many weeks it covers, since a steady project and a volatile one can average to the same number. A cell reads "—" when the underlying weeks carried too few events to support that score, or, for workflow adherence, when the project moved no issue into a done status in any of them; that is a coverage gap, not a zero. A week in which the project's only recorded events were its own creation, change, archiving, unarchiving, trash, restore or deletion is not one of its weeks, so a project deleted during the range does not reappear for its deletion. Use the date and project filters to focus on specific periods or teams.

The week in progress is not counted: each cell averages complete weeks only, so it does not change as the current week fills, and a project with no complete week in the selected range has no row.