Use one scoring frame for every idea
Consistency makes tradeoffs visible.
Separate quick wins from strategic bets
| Profile | Meaning | Action |
|---|---|---|
| High fit / low effort | Quick win | Pilot now |
| High value / high effort | Strategic bet | Validate assumptions first |
| Low fit / high value | Process problem | Redesign before AI |
| Low value / low effort | Distraction | Usually deprioritize |
Do not hide risk inside one total score
Keep risk visible as its own dimension. A use case can score highly on economic value while still requiring explicit approval gates, logging or limited scope.
Build a sequence, not a ranking
Some opportunities become easier after another is implemented. For example, clean CRM capture can enable stronger account-health summaries later. Map dependencies before finalizing the roadmap.
Frequently asked questions
Should ROI be the biggest weighting?
No. ROI without readiness or control can produce a bad first project. Economic value matters, but it should not erase feasibility or risk.
How do you compare revenue-generating and cost-saving use cases?
Express each in a common economic range, but keep confidence separate. Revenue estimates are often more uncertain than measured labor effort.
How often should priorities be revisited?
Revisit after major process, system or policy changes and after each pilot, because evidence from one implementation can change the feasibility of others.