← All free resources

AI Opportunity Prioritization Scorecard

Compare opportunities using explicit evidence and a discussion rubric.

For: Sponsors, portfolio owners, and cross-functional teams
Use when: When several ideas compete for limited capacity
Suggested time: 30 minutes · Version 1.0 · October 5, 2026

Use this guide to structure a discussion, then record your answers in the editable template or printable PDF. Use synthetic or authorized information. A named person owns each decision.

1. Check prerequisites before scoring

Hold an opportunity if its owner, permitted information, or decision boundary is unresolved. A high score cannot override a missing prerequisite.

Owner
Who can carry the work through delivery and operation?
Permitted sources
Can the team use the required information in an approved environment?
Decision boundary
What can the system do, and what needs human approval?
See a completed companion example

Illustrative responses for a fictional workflow. These are planning assumptions, not client results.

Owner
Service-desk lead owns the policy-answer pilot.
Permitted sources
Synthetic cases first; real data requires a separate organizational decision.
Decision boundary
Draft only; a specialist approves replies and handles individual decisions.

2. Compare evidence

Rate each dimension from 1 to 3. Record unknowns as unknown; investigate them before ranking. Use equal weights as a discussion default, or declare your weights before scoring.

Value
1: unclear outcome; 2: plausible benefit with a named user; 3: recurring problem supported by a baseline.
Feasibility
1: dependencies unresolved; 2: scoped path but untested; 3: bounded path demonstrated with representative cases.
Source readiness
1: unreliable or unavailable; 2: usable with cleanup; 3: current, permissioned, and owned.
Capacity
1: no support owner or available time; 2: time agreed but limited; 3: delivery and support capacity confirmed.
Control readiness
1: unresolved high-consequence action; 2: draft-only path with controls to test; 3: boundaries and escalation demonstrated.
See a completed companion example

Illustrative responses for a fictional workflow. These are planning assumptions, not client results.

Value
Policy answers: 3 if the two-week baseline confirms recurring search and rework.
Feasibility
Policy answers: 2 until retrieval and citation behavior are tested.
Source readiness
Policy answers: 2 until duplicate versions are removed.
Capacity
Policy answers: 2 with protected specialist review time.
Control readiness
Policy answers: 2 before escalation tests.

3. Make a decision

Do not turn the total into an automatic approval. Compare weak dimensions, prerequisites, alternatives, and uncertainty. Record the evidence that would change your choice.

Decision
Pilot, investigate, defer, or stop? Why?
Next evidence
What is the cheapest useful uncertainty to resolve?
Owner and review
Who acts next and when?
See a completed companion example

Illustrative responses for a fictional workflow. These are planning assumptions, not client results.

Decision
Investigate policy-source readiness, then run a bounded pilot.
Next evidence
Test retrieval on ten difficult synthetic questions.
Owner and review
Service-desk lead reviews in two weeks.

Record the next decision.

What will you do next, who owns it, and when will you review the evidence? Keep unresolved assumptions visible.

Continue with these tools.

By Vic Akosile · Built Into Work. Use and adapt for your own work or your team’s work; credit the source when sharing adaptations. These tools are discussion aids, not validated assessments. Fictional examples and proposed targets do not establish readiness for real use.