Priority Scoring

Purpose

Apply consistent, objective scoring for roadmap sequencing and strategic comparisons:

• •Standardized formula across all prioritization decisions
• •Weighted scoring balancing signal strength, strategy, impact, and complexity
• •Numerical rankings enabling roadmap sequencing
• •Transparent methodology for stakeholder alignment

Note: PRDs use timeline-based prioritization rather than this scoring formula. This skill is primarily used for:

• •Comparing strategic options
• •Ranking backlog items for roadmap placement
• •Strategy sessions evaluating trade-offs

When to Use This Skill

Activate automatically when:

• •roadmap-updating workflow sequences initiatives
• •Strategy sessions evaluate option trade-offs
• •User explicitly requests priority calculation
• •Comparing competing features or initiatives

Scoring Formula

Standard formula:

Priority Score = (0.2 × SignalStrength) + (0.4 × StrategicFit) + (0.3 × Impact) - (0.1 × Complexity)

Component weights:

• •SignalStrength (20%): Evidence from customers, partners, and internal teams
• •StrategicFit (40%): Alignment with current strategic priorities
• •Impact (30%): Expected influence on key business metrics
• •Complexity (10%, negative): Estimated difficulty and risk

Score range: 0.0 to 10.0 (higher = higher priority)

Component Definitions

1. SignalStrength (0-10 scale)

Definition: Evidence quality and quantity supporting this item.

Calculation:

SignalStrength = (0.4 × CustomerScore) + (0.3 × RecencyScore) + (0.2 × DiversityScore) + (0.1 × FrequencyScore)

CustomerScore (0-10): Based on unique customer/account mentions:

• •1 account: 3.0
• •2 accounts: 5.0
• •3 accounts: 7.0
• •4+ accounts: 9.0
• •6+ accounts: 10.0

RecencyScore (0-10): Based on most recent mention:

• •<7 days ago: 10.0
• •7-14 days ago: 8.0
• •14-30 days ago: 6.0
• •30-60 days ago: 4.0
• •60-90 days ago: 2.0
• •

  90 days ago: 1.0

DiversityScore (0-10): Based on source type mix (customers, partners, internal functions):

• •1 source type: 4.0
• •2 source types: 7.0
• •3+ source types: 10.0

FrequencyScore (0-10): Based on total mention count:

• •1-2 mentions: 3.0
• •3-5 mentions: 6.0
• •6-10 mentions: 8.0
• •11+ mentions: 10.0

2. StrategicFit (0-10 scale)

Definition: Alignment with current strategic priorities.

Evaluation criteria:

High Strategic Fit (8-10):

• •Directly advances top-tier strategic goals
• •Addresses core differentiators
• •Supports primary growth vectors
• •Enables strategic positioning

Medium Strategic Fit (5-7):

• •Supports strategic goals indirectly
• •Table-stakes feature (necessary but not differentiating)
• •Addresses secondary growth vectors
• •Competitive parity (match competitor features)

Low Strategic Fit (1-4):

• •Tangential to current strategy
• •One-off request not fitting larger themes
• •Nice-to-have without strategic rationale
• •Distracts from core priorities

Scoring method:

1. •List current strategic priorities (from strategy memos, roadmap themes)
2. •Assess item alignment with each priority
3. •Score based on strength and breadth of alignment

3. Impact (0-10 scale)

Definition: Expected influence on key business metrics.

Primary metrics:

• •Churn reduction
• •Revenue growth / expansion
• •Time-to-first-value (TTFV)
• •User engagement / activation
• •Customer satisfaction (NPS)

Scoring tiers:

Transformative Impact (9-10):

• •20%+ improvement in primary metric
• •Addresses #1 churn reason or growth blocker
• •Unlocks new market segment or revenue stream

Significant Impact (7-8):

• •10-20% improvement in primary metric
• •Addresses top-3 churn reason or growth driver
• •Measurable revenue or retention improvement

Moderate Impact (5-6):

• •5-10% improvement in primary metric
• •Incremental improvement in satisfaction or engagement
• •Small but measurable business impact

Minor Impact (3-4):

• •<5% improvement
• •Difficult to measure impact
• •Improves experience but unclear business effect

Minimal Impact (1-2):

• •No clear metric impact
• •Pure convenience or polish
• •Uncertain benefit

4. Complexity (0-10 scale, negative weight)

Definition: Estimated difficulty, time, and risk.

Evaluation dimensions:

Technical Complexity:

• •Single system/surface: Low (2-3)
• •Multiple systems: Medium (4-6)
• •Cross-platform + integrations: High (7-8)
• •Major architectural change: Very High (9-10)

Time Estimate:

• •<1 week: Low (2)
• •1-2 weeks: Low-Medium (3-4)
• •2-4 weeks: Medium (5-6)
• •4-6 weeks: High (7-8)
• •

  6 weeks: Very High (9-10)

Risk Level:

• •Well-understood, proven patterns: Low (2-3)
• •Some unknowns, moderate dependencies: Medium (4-6)
• •Many unknowns, high dependencies: High (7-8)
• •Unproven approach, critical path: Very High (9-10)

Complexity Score:

Complexity = (0.4 × TechnicalComplexity) + (0.4 × TimeEstimate) + (0.2 × RiskLevel)

Scoring Process

1. Load Item Data

Required inputs:

• •Item title and description
• •Signal data from meeting synthesis (if available):
  • •Unique customer count
  • •Mention count
  • •Most recent mention date
  • •Source diversity (customer/partner/internal)
• •Strategic context (current priorities)
• •Estimated time and complexity

2. Calculate Component Scores

Apply formulas for each component as defined above.

3. Apply Priority Formula

Calculate:

Priority Score = (0.2 × SignalStrength) + (0.4 × StrategicFit) + (0.3 × Impact) - (0.1 × Complexity)

Round to one decimal place.

4. Generate Scoring Report

Output format:

# Priority Scoring Report

**Item**: {Title}

## Component Scores

**SignalStrength**: {score}/10
- Customer mentions: {N} accounts
- Most recent: {N} days ago
- Source diversity: {N} types
- Total mentions: {N}

**StrategicFit**: {score}/10
- Alignment assessment: {High/Medium/Low fit}

**Impact**: {score}/10
- Primary metric: {metric name}
- Expected improvement: {% or absolute}
- Impact tier: {Transformative/Significant/Moderate/Minor/Minimal}

**Complexity**: {score}/10 (negative weight)
- Technical complexity: {score}/10
- Time estimate: {weeks} weeks
- Risk level: {score}/10

## Final Priority Score

**{Final Score}/10**

**Interpretation**: {High/Medium/Low priority}
**Recommendation**: {Roadmap placement suggestion}

5. Rank Items

When scoring multiple items:

1. •Calculate priority score for each
2. •Sort by score (descending)
3. •Group into priority tiers:
   • •High Priority (8.0-10.0): Near-term roadmap
   • •Medium Priority (5.0-7.9): Mid-term backlog
   • •Low Priority (<5.0): Long-term or deferred

Integration with Workflows

Roadmap Updating Integration

Invoked by:

• •roadmap-updating workflow

Usage:

• •Re-score existing items when priorities shift
• •Compare new items against existing roadmap
• •Re-sequence based on updated scores

Strategy Session Integration

Invoked by:

• •strategy-session workflow (for option evaluation)

Usage:

• •Score strategic alternatives
• •Compare trade-offs numerically
• •Support decision-making with objective criteria

Success Criteria

Priority scoring complete when:

• •All component scores calculated
• •Formula applied correctly
• •Final score rounded to one decimal
• •Scoring report generated with rationale
• •Item ranked relative to others (if batch scoring)

Related Skills

• •meeting-synthesis: Provides signal data for SignalStrength calculation
• •prd-validation: Ensures PRDs meet quality standards
• •product-planning: Uses priority context for roadmap sequencing

Anti-Rationalization Blocks

Common excuses that are explicitly rejected: