Imported from philippusvorster-valtech/strategy-plugin (valtech-strategy/skills/prioritisation-workshop/SKILL.md). Install upstream with npx skills add philippusvorster-valtech/strategy-plugin --skill prioritisation-workshop. Copyright stays with the author.

Prioritisation Workshop Skill

Purpose

Prioritisation is one of the most politically charged and intellectually difficult things a client organisation can do. Most fail not because they lack ideas, but because they lack a shared, defensible basis for choosing between them.

This skill exists to:

1. Diagnose where the client currently is in their prioritisation maturity
2. Select the right workshop method for that maturity level and context
3. Produce ready-to-use workshop materials (facilitation guide, Miro template instructions, HTML scoring tool)
4. Help the strategist move the client forward — not just run a session, but build a more mature prioritisation capability

The Prioritisation Maturity Model

Five levels. Each represents a distinct state of organisational capability. The goal is never just to run a workshop at the client's current level — it is to use the workshop to move them to the next.

Level 1 — Instinctive

What it looks like: Prioritisation is informal, undocumented, and driven by whoever shouts loudest or holds the most organisational power. There is no shared framework. Decisions feel arbitrary to those not in the room. The backlog (if one exists) is a graveyard of good intentions. Stakeholders debate items individually rather than against a set of principles.

Organisational signals:

• No consistent scoring or criteria in use
• HiPPO (Highest Paid Person's Opinion) drives decisions
• No visibility of the full opportunity set in one place
• Frequent reprioritisation with little explanation
• Teams feel unclear on what success looks like

What they need: Exposure to the concept of shared criteria. A safe, facilitated environment to surface what they each value — and to see that they disagree. The goal is not consensus on a list, it is agreement that a process is needed.

Recommended method: 2x2 Impact vs Effort Matrix Workshop posture: Educate and align

Level 2 — Structured

What it looks like: The organisation has started using frameworks but inconsistently. Some teams use MoSCoW, others use gut feel. There may be a backlog tool (Jira, Notion, spreadsheet) but the criteria for what goes where are vague or unenforced. Prioritisation happens in silos — product, marketing, tech, and commercial rarely align.

Organisational signals:

• Frameworks exist but aren't consistently applied
• Different teams use different criteria
• Prioritisation is periodic, not continuous
• Stakeholders can articulate rough priorities but not defend them rigorously

What they need: A shared, cross-functional prioritisation session that surfaces the criteria conflict between teams. Agreement on a single scoring approach they will all use going forward.

Recommended method: ICE Scoring (Impact, Confidence, Ease) Workshop posture: Align and standardise

Level 3 — Criteria-Led

What it looks like: The organisation has agreed criteria and applies them consistently. There is a visible, maintained prioritisation backlog. Sessions are structured and cross-functional. However, the criteria tend to be operational rather than strategic — they optimise for delivery efficiency rather than strategic value. The link between prioritisation decisions and business outcomes is implicit rather than explicit.

Organisational signals:

• Consistent scoring framework in use
• Regular, structured prioritisation cadence
• Cross-functional participation in sessions
• Criteria are delivery-focused (effort, feasibility, dependency) rather than value-focused
• Limited connection to commercial outcomes or customer data

What they need: A shift from operational criteria to strategic and value criteria. Weighted scoring that ties directly to business objectives and customer outcomes.

Recommended method: Weighted Criteria Scoring (custom axes) Workshop posture: Elevate from operational to strategic

Level 4 — Value-Driven

What it looks like: Prioritisation is explicitly connected to value — customer outcomes, revenue, NPS, retention, or other measurable business impact. The organisation uses data to inform scoring. There is a clear link between what gets prioritised and what the strategy says matters. Opportunity sizing exists, at least at a rough level. Desirability, feasibility, and viability are considered together.

Organisational signals:

• Value metrics are defined and used in scoring
• Customer insight (research, data) informs opportunity assessment
• Strategic objectives are explicitly referenced in sessions
• Opportunity sizing, even if rough, is part of the conversation
• Post-delivery retrospectives feed back into future prioritisation

What they need: Refinement of the opportunity assessment process. Better integration of customer jobs-to-be-done framing. A more rigorous value vs complexity overlay with strategic fit as a third dimension.

Recommended method: Value vs Complexity with Strategic Fit Overlay Workshop posture: Sharpen and systematise

Level 5 — Commercially Optimised

What it looks like: Prioritisation is a continuous, data-informed process tightly integrated with commercial planning, experimentation, and strategy review. Decisions are made against a clear investment thesis. There is a portfolio view across the full opportunity set. Experimentation results feed directly into prioritisation. The organisation can articulate expected return on every significant initiative.

Organisational signals:

• Full opportunity scoring against commercial value and strategic fit
• Experimentation (A/B, pilots) gates larger investment decisions
• Portfolio-level view with explicit trade-off logic
• ROI or value realisation tracked post-delivery
• Prioritisation is continuous, not periodic
• Clear governance with defined decision rights

What they need: Optimisation, not transformation. Focus on refining the model, improving the quality of opportunity data, and strengthening the link between prioritisation and commercial governance.

Recommended method: Opportunity Scoring / Jobs-to-be-Done Lens with commercial value modelling Workshop posture: Optimise and govern

Phase 1: Maturity Diagnostic

Run this diagnostic with the strategist before designing any workshop. Each question has weighted response options. Total the scores and map to a maturity level.

The 7 Diagnostic Questions

Q1. How do you currently decide what to work on next?

• We go with what leadership or the loudest stakeholder says (1)
• We have rough conversations and try to reach agreement (2)
• We use a framework but not everyone applies it consistently (3)
• We score opportunities against agreed criteria every sprint/quarter (4)
• We have a continuous, data-informed process tied to business objectives (5)

Q2. Do you have a shared set of prioritisation criteria that everyone agrees on?

• No — everyone has their own view (1)
• Sort of — there's rough agreement but nothing documented (2)
• Yes — we have criteria but they're mainly about delivery effort (3)
• Yes — criteria include strategic value and customer impact (4)
• Yes — criteria are tied to commercial metrics and reviewed regularly (5)

Q3. How much does customer insight or data influence your prioritisation?

• It doesn't — we go on instinct and internal opinion (1)
• Occasionally — when someone happens to bring research to a session (2)
• Sometimes — we reference existing research but don't systematically apply it (3)
• Often — customer data and research are standard inputs to scoring (4)
• Always — jobs-to-be-done, behavioural data, and experimentation results are core to every decision (5)

Q4. Can you connect your top priorities directly to a commercial outcome?

• No — the link is implicit at best (1)
• We could make the case but it's not documented (2)
• For some items yes, but not systematically (3)
• Yes — we size the value of opportunities before prioritising (4)
• Yes — every significant initiative has an explicit value hypothesis that we validate through experimentation (5)

Q5. How cross-functional is your prioritisation process?

• It's done by one team or one person (1)
• Product or tech leads it; others are consulted afterwards (2)
• We have multi-team sessions but commercial and strategy are rarely in the room (3)
• Cross-functional including commercial, product, tech, and design (4)
• Fully integrated — prioritisation is a shared governance process with clear decision rights across functions (5)

Q6. How often do you revisit and re-score your prioritisation?

• Rarely — the list stays stable until a crisis forces a change (1)
• When something big happens or a stakeholder pushes back (2)
• Quarterly or at the start of each major phase (3)
• Each sprint or on a regular cadence tied to delivery (4)
• Continuously — with a live portfolio view that updates as conditions change (5)

Q7. What happens after something is delivered — does it feed back into your prioritisation?

• No — we move on to the next thing (1)
• Sometimes we do a retrospective but it doesn't affect the backlog (2)
• We review outcomes but it's not systematic (3)
• We track value realisation and use it to calibrate future scoring (4)
• Post-delivery data feeds directly into our opportunity model and future prioritisation decisions (5)

Scoring & Maturity Mapping

Phase 2: Workshop Method Selection

Based on maturity level AND context type, select the right method:

Phase 3: Workshop Method Guides

Method 1: 2x2 Impact vs Effort Matrix

For: Level 1 clients. First exposure to structured prioritisation.

Setup:

• X axis: Effort (Low → High)
• Y axis: Impact (Low → High)
• Four quadrants: Quick Wins (low effort/high impact), Strategic Bets (high effort/high impact), Fill-Ins (low effort/low impact), Thankless Tasks (high effort/low impact)

Facilitation sequence:

1. List all items to be prioritised on sticky notes (10 min)
2. Dot-vote on Impact score for each (5 min)
3. Facilitator plots items on the matrix with group input (15 min)
4. Discuss and debate placement — this is where the value is (20 min)
5. Identify top 3–5 Quick Wins and top 2–3 Strategic Bets (10 min)
6. Agree next steps and owners (10 min)

What to watch for: HiPPO effect — one stakeholder moving all items without group challenge. Name it if it happens.

Method 2: ICE Scoring

For: Level 2 clients. Introducing consistent, defensible scoring.

Axes:

• Impact (1–10): How much will this move the metric that matters?
• Confidence (1–10): How sure are we this will work?
• Ease (1–10): How easy is this to implement? (inverse of effort)

ICE Score = Impact × Confidence × Ease

Facilitation sequence:

1. Agree the primary metric ICE is optimising for (10 min)
2. Score each item individually — no discussion yet (10 min)
3. Share scores and surface outliers (15 min)
4. Debate and align on outliers only — not every item (20 min)
5. Rank by ICE score; discuss any overrides needed (10 min)
6. Agree top tier and rationale (10 min)

Method 3: Weighted Criteria Scoring

For: Level 3 clients. Moving from operational to strategic criteria.

Setup:

1. Define 4–6 scoring criteria (e.g. Strategic Fit, Customer Value, Revenue Impact, Delivery Complexity, Time to Value, Risk)
2. Weight each criterion (weights must total 100%)
3. Score each item 1–5 against each criterion
4. Weighted score = sum of (score × weight) for each criterion

Facilitation sequence:

1. Agree criteria and weights as a group — this is politically important and takes time (20 min)
2. Score independently, then share (15 min)
3. Debate outliers and misalignments (20 min)
4. Rank by weighted score (5 min)
5. Sense-check: does the ranked list feel right? If not, why not? (That question is as valuable as the scores) (10 min)
6. Document criteria and weights for future sessions (5 min)

Method 4: Value vs Complexity with Strategic Fit Overlay

For: Level 4 clients. Explicit value sizing with strategic alignment.

Axes:

• X axis: Complexity (Low → High)
• Y axis: Value (Low → High)
• Overlay: Strategic Fit (colour or size of dot — high/medium/low)

Value definition (agree before scoring):

• Revenue potential, cost saving, NPS impact, retention, or a composite

Facilitation sequence:

1. Define and agree value metrics (10 min)
2. Rough-size value for each item — ranges acceptable (15 min)
3. Assess complexity — include tech, org, and market complexity (15 min)
4. Plot items; overlay strategic fit (15 min)
5. Identify priority zones: High value / Low complexity / High fit (10 min)
6. Discuss portfolio balance — are there enough strategic bets? (10 min)
7. Agree investment tiers (10 min)

Method 5: Opportunity Scoring / Jobs-to-be-Done Lens

For: Level 4–5 clients. Grounding prioritisation in customer outcomes.

Based on: Tony Ulwick's Opportunity Algorithm Formula: Opportunity Score = Importance + max(Importance − Satisfaction, 0)

Setup:

1. Define the Jobs-to-be-Done (functional, emotional, social)
2. Survey or workshop to score each job on:
   • Importance (1–10): How important is this to the customer?
   • Satisfaction (1–10): How satisfied are they with current solutions?
3. High importance + low satisfaction = highest opportunity score

Facilitation sequence:

1. Map the key jobs customers are trying to do in this space (20 min)
2. Score importance and satisfaction for each — use data where available, expert estimation where not (15 min)
3. Calculate opportunity scores and rank (5 min)
4. Map current initiatives against the opportunity scores — where are we investing vs where the real opportunity is? (20 min)
5. Identify gaps and misalignments (10 min)
6. Reframe backlog or initiative list against top opportunities (10 min)

Method 6: Desirability / Feasibility / Viability

For: Level 2–3 clients in CX or post-discovery contexts.

Three lenses:

• Desirability: Do customers want this? Is there evidence of need?
• Feasibility: Can we build or deliver this with current capability?
• Viability: Does this make commercial sense?

Facilitation sequence:

1. Score each item 1–5 on each lens independently (10 min)
2. Share and discuss — focus on items with high desirability but low viability or feasibility (20 min)
3. Identify items that score high across all three — these are your prioritised set (10 min)
4. For high desirability / low feasibility items: park as future capability investments (10 min)
5. Agree delivery order for the high-scoring set (10 min)

Phase 4: Miro Template Guidance

Each workshop method maps to a Miro board structure. Build these as templates in your Miro workspace using the following layouts.

Universal Board Sections (all methods):

1. Welcome & Context frame — brief, objectives, ground rules
2. Item Input frame — where participants add items to prioritise
3. Scoring frame — the method-specific scoring area
4. Output frame — ranked list, decision log, next steps
5. Parking Lot — items deferred or out of scope

Method-specific layouts:

2x2 Matrix: Large 2x2 grid. Sticky notes plotted by participants. Quadrant labels in corners. Dot voting stickers for impact pre-sort.

ICE Scoring: Table with rows (items) and columns (I / C / E / Total). Each cell has a number input. Auto-sort by total where possible. Colour coding: green (top third), amber (middle), red (bottom third).

Weighted Criteria: Criteria in columns with weight shown in header. Items in rows. Score cells. Weighted total column. Weight-setting frame above the table where weights are agreed first.

Value vs Complexity: Large 2x2 with value on Y, complexity on X. Dot stickers sized by strategic fit (large = high fit). Zones marked: Prioritise / Plan / Reconsider / Park.

Opportunity Scoring: Table with Importance and Satisfaction columns. Opportunity score calculated column. Opportunity map: scatter plot of importance vs satisfaction with opportunity score shown.

DFV: Three overlapping circles (Venn) or three-column scoring table. Items scored per lens. High-scoring items surfaced in output frame.

Facilitation Principles (All Methods)

• Score before you discuss. Individual scoring before group discussion prevents anchoring and surfaces real disagreement.
• Debate outliers only. Don't relitigate every item. Focus energy on items where scores diverge significantly.
• Name the politics. When a stakeholder is pushing an item for reasons unrelated to the scoring criteria, name it directly and return to the criteria.
• The ranked list is an input, not an output. The most valuable moment in any prioritisation workshop is when the group looks at the ranked list and says "that doesn't feel right." That conversation is where the real strategic thinking happens.
• Always end with a decision log. Not just a ranked list — a record of what was decided, why, and who agreed. This prevents revisiting settled decisions in two weeks.
• Leave with a next level goal. Every session should end with an explicit commitment to one practice improvement — one thing that will make the next prioritisation session more mature than this one.