Complete

Stage 1 — Board Structure Map

Stark Industries PMO · workspace created · 3 boardsThree boards form the structural skeleton of the PMO system. The Intake Board receives form submissions; the Portfolio Board is the PM strategic layer; the Execution Board is where tactical work lives. Each has a distinct structure — the contrast between Portfolio (Status-based pipeline) and Execution (Sprint-based groups) satisfies the assignment's "structured differently" requirement directly.

The Three Boards

Tier 1 · Form backing boardIntake Board

Name → Project name
Requestor name
Requestor email
Department (dropdown)
Business problem (long text)
Budget range (dropdown)
Desired timeline (date)
Success criteria (long text)
Status (hidden from form)
Date (hidden from form)

Tier 2 · PM strategic viewPortfolio Board

Project name
Requestor / Department
Business problem
Status (4 labels)
Assigned PM
Evaluation Deadline
SLA Progress
Timeline
AI Summary
Completeness Score
Connected Exec Board

Tier 3 · Sprint 1 & Sprint 2 groupsExecution Board

Task name
Assigned to
Status (4 labels)
Due date
Sprint (dropdown)
Connected portfolio item

Workspace Map

flowchart LR
  WS[" Stark Industries PMO\nWorkspace"]
  INTAKE[" Intake Board\n10 columns\nForm backing"]
  PORTFOLIO[" Portfolio Board\n11 columns\nPM strategic view"]
  EXEC[" Execution Board\n6 columns\nSprint 1 & 2"]

  WS --> INTAKE
  WS --> PORTFOLIO
  WS --> EXEC

  INTAKE -->|"Form submission\ncreates item"| PORTFOLIO
  PORTFOLIO -->|"Connect Boards\nStage 6"| EXEC
  EXEC -.->|"Status rolls up\nStage 6"| PORTFOLIO

Key talking point: The Execution Board uses Sprint-based groups (Sprint 1 / Sprint 2) while the Portfolio Board uses a Status-based pipeline. This structural contrast satisfies the assignment requirement that the boards be "structured differently" — and it's a deliberate architectural choice, not an accident of the template.