Initial Prioritization Based on Frequency, Severity, and Business Impact

The Framework That Prevents Analysis Paralysis and Political Chaos

Why Prioritization Is Where Most Consultants Fail

Here’s what happens without rigorous prioritization:

Scenario A: The Squeaky Wheel Gets the Grease

The VP who yells loudest gets their problem prioritized
High-impact problems with quiet champions get ignored
Solutions address political noise, not business value
You become a political pawn, not a trusted advisor

Scenario B: Analysis Paralysis

Every problem seems important
Endless debates about what to tackle first
Six months later, nothing’s been implemented
Organization concludes “consultants just study things”

Scenario C: The Democratic Fallacy

“Let’s vote on priorities”
Everyone votes for their own department’s problems
Ties everywhere, no clear direction
Lowest-common-denominator compromises that satisfy nobody

Scenario D: The Gut-Feel Approach

“This feels like the biggest problem”
No data, pure intuition
Can’t defend decisions when challenged
Executive sponsor gets cold feet at budget time

What you need instead: A transparent, data-driven prioritization framework that:

✅ Makes decisions defensible to skeptics
✅ Balances multiple criteria objectively
✅ Surfaces non-obvious high-value opportunities
✅ Creates organizational consensus
✅ Guides resource allocation clearly
✅ Can be explained in 3 minutes to executives

That’s what this deep dive delivers.

The Core Principle: Multi-Dimensional Scoring

You cannot prioritize effectively using a single dimension.

“What’s the biggest problem?” fails because “biggest” is ambiguous:

Biggest time waste?
Biggest financial cost?
Biggest risk?
Biggest strategic impact?
Biggest number of people affected?

The answer changes depending on which lens you use.

You need a framework that weights multiple dimensions and produces a composite score.

The three core dimensions are:

FREQUENCY – How often does this problem occur?
SEVERITY – How bad is it when it happens?
BUSINESS IMPACT – What’s the organizational consequence?

But these alone aren’t enough. You also need:

SCOPE – How many people/departments are affected?
TREND – Is this getting worse, staying stable, or improving?
STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT – Does this align with company priorities?

And for complete prioritization, consider implementation factors:

SOLVABILITY – How feasible is it to solve?
COST TO SOLVE – What’s the investment required?
TIME TO VALUE – How quickly do we see results?
ORGANIZATIONAL READINESS – Are we ready to tackle this?

Your prioritization framework combines these dimensions with appropriate weightings to produce a defensible rank order.

The Prioritization Framework: Detailed Breakdown

DIMENSION 1: FREQUENCY

Definition: How often does this problem occur?

Why it matters:

Daily problems compound faster than monthly problems
Frequency multiplies cost (10 hours/month × 12 = 120 hrs/year)
High-frequency problems affect more people more often
Solving frequent problems has immediate, visible impact

Scoring Scale (1-5):

5 – Continuous/Daily:

Happens multiple times per day or continuously
Examples:
- “System is slow every afternoon”
- “Customer service gets these calls 20+ times/day”
- “Sales team runs into this on every deal”

4 – Weekly:

Happens multiple times per week
Examples:
- “We deal with this 2-3 times per week”
- “Every Friday this issue comes up”

3 – Monthly:

Happens 1-4 times per month
Examples:
- “Month-end close always has this problem”
- “Monthly reporting requires this manual process”

2 – Quarterly:

Happens a few times per quarter
Examples:
- “Quarterly planning reveals this gap”
- “We see this during busy season”

1 – Annually/Rarely:

Happens once or twice per year
Examples:
- “Annual audit surfaces this issue”
- “When we onboard new products, we see this”

Scoring Examples:

PROBLEM: Manual monthly reporting
FREQUENCY SCORE: 3 (Monthly - happens 12 times/year)

PROBLEM: Customer service can't find order history
FREQUENCY SCORE: 5 (Daily - happens 20+ times/day)

PROBLEM: Sales proposals require 4-level approval
FREQUENCY SCORE: 4 (Weekly - 40 proposals/month, ~10/week)

PROBLEM: Annual inventory audit requires 2 weeks of manual work
FREQUENCY SCORE: 1 (Annually)

Key insight: Don’t confuse frequency with importance. An annual problem might be more severe than a daily problem. That’s why you need multiple dimensions.

DIMENSION 2: SEVERITY

Definition: When this problem occurs, how bad is the impact?

Why it matters:

Some problems are minor annoyances (30 seconds lost)
Some problems are catastrophic (lost customer, compliance violation)
Severity determines urgency independent of frequency
Low-frequency, high-severity problems (like security breaches) still demand attention

Scoring Scale (1-5):

5 – Critical/Catastrophic:

Compliance violation or legal exposure
Security breach or data loss
Major customer churn
Revenue loss >$50K per incident
Significant reputational damage
Safety risk
Examples:
- “Customer data exposed due to process gap”
- “Regulatory reporting error could result in fines”
- “Major customer churned due to service failure”

4 – Major:

Significant customer dissatisfaction
Revenue loss $10K-$50K per incident
Major rework required
Employee burnout/turnover
Operational disruption
Examples:
- “Customer onboarding failure causes escalation to VP”
- “Billing error requires full month reconciliation”
- “Key analyst quit citing this as primary reason”

3 – Moderate:

Customer frustration (but not churn)
Revenue delay (not loss)
Requires workarounds
Inefficient use of skilled labor
Examples:
- “Takes 8 hours when it should take 1 hour”
- “Requires manual intervention from manager”
- “Customer calls asking for status update”

2 – Minor:

Inconvenience or annoyance
Small time waste (<30 min)
Quality of life issue
Examples:
- “Have to log in twice”
- “Report formatting is ugly”
- “Takes 3 clicks when it should take 1”

1 – Negligible:

Barely noticeable
No real impact
Cosmetic issue
Examples:
- “Button is slightly misaligned”
- “Would be nice if it worked differently”

Scoring Examples:

PROBLEM: Manual monthly reporting (16 hours wasted, analyst burnout)
SEVERITY SCORE: 3 (Moderate - significant time waste, contributes to turnover)

PROBLEM: Customer PII exposed in shared documents
SEVERITY SCORE: 5 (Critical - compliance risk, reputational damage)

PROBLEM: Expense report approvals take 5 days
SEVERITY SCORE: 2 (Minor - annoying but not business-critical)

PROBLEM: Customer onboarding delays cause 15% churn in first 90 days
SEVERITY SCORE: 4 (Major - direct revenue impact)

Key insight: Severity is independent of frequency. A rare but catastrophic problem (5/1) may score higher than a daily nuisance (1/5).

DIMENSION 3: BUSINESS IMPACT

Definition: What is the total organizational consequence of this problem?

Why it matters:

This is where you quantify actual cost
Separates “feels bad” from “costs money”
Creates ROI justification for solutions
Most compelling dimension for executive buy-in

Sub-categories of Business Impact:

Financial Impact:

Direct labor cost (time × loaded rate)
Error/rework cost
Lost revenue
Delayed revenue
Increased costs (overtime, expedited shipping, etc.)

Customer Impact:

Churn rate increase
Customer satisfaction scores
NPS impact
Expansion/upsell delays
Support ticket volume

Strategic Impact:

Competitive disadvantage
Market opportunity missed
Innovation capability constrained
Decision-making speed reduced

Employee Impact:

Burnout and turnover
Recruitment difficulty
Morale and engagement
Productivity loss

Risk Impact:

Compliance violations
Security vulnerabilities
Reputation damage
Legal exposure

Scoring Scale (1-5):

5 – Extreme Impact (>$250K/year or critical strategic/risk):

Annual cost >$250K quantified
Critical compliance risk
Major competitive disadvantage
Significant customer churn
Examples:
- “Customer churn from this problem: $500K LTV/year”
- “Regulatory violation could result in $1M+ fine”
- “Strategic decision delays cost market opportunities”

4 – High Impact ($100K-$250K/year or major strategic/risk):

Annual cost $100K-$250K
Moderate compliance risk
Notable competitive disadvantage
Measurable customer dissatisfaction
Examples:
- “Labor cost + opportunity cost = $180K/year”
- “Lost deals due to slow response time: $150K/year”
- “Employee turnover costs: $120K/year”

3 – Medium Impact ($25K-$100K/year or moderate strategic impact):

Annual cost $25K-$100K
Some competitive impact
Internal efficiency drag
Examples:
- “Manual process costs $60K/year in labor”
- “Process delays reduce throughput by 15%”
- “Quality of life issues affect morale”

2 – Low Impact ($5K-$25K/year):

Annual cost $5K-$25K
Minor efficiency loss
Limited scope
Examples:
- “2 hours/month waste = $1,560/year”
- “Small frustration, minimal cost”

1 – Minimal Impact (<$5K/year):

Annual cost <$5K
Negligible business effect
Nice-to-have improvement
Examples:
- “Cosmetic annoyance”
- “Theoretical inefficiency with no real cost”

Scoring Examples:

PROBLEM: Manual monthly reporting
BUSINESS IMPACT SCORE: 3 (Medium)
- Direct labor: $25K/year
- Opportunity cost: $25K/year  
- Analyst turnover contribution: ~$15K/year
- Strategic impact: Delayed financial visibility
- Total: $65K+/year

PROBLEM: Customer onboarding delays
BUSINESS IMPACT SCORE: 5 (Extreme)
- Churn impact: $360K/year (15% increase × 240 customers × $10K LTV)
- Delayed expansion: $50K/year
- CS overhead: $20K/year
- Reputation impact: Unmeasured
- Total: $430K+/year

PROBLEM: Report formatting is inconsistent
BUSINESS IMPACT SCORE: 1 (Minimal)
- Time to manually reformat: 1 hr/month = $780/year
- No strategic/customer impact
- Total: <$1K/year

PROBLEM: Sales proposal approval delays
BUSINESS IMPACT SCORE: 4 (High)
- Lost deals (5% competitive loss): $600K/year
- Sales cycle extension cost: $50K/year
- Sales team frustration: Turnover risk
- Total: $650K+/year (but scored 4 due to some uncertainty in attribution)

Key insight: This is your most important dimension for executive buy-in. “This costs us $400K/year” gets budget approved. “This is annoying” doesn’t.

DIMENSION 4: SCOPE

Definition: How many people, departments, or processes are affected?

Why it matters:

Wide-scope problems affect more stakeholders
Building coalitions is easier with wide-scope problems
Solving wide-scope problems has multiplicative benefit
Narrow-scope problems may not justify investment

Scoring Scale (1-5):

5 – Company-wide:

Affects all or most departments
Impacts >50% of employees
Touches core business processes
Examples:
- “Email system outage”
- “ERP performance issues”
- “Expense reporting process”

4 – Cross-functional (3+ departments):

Affects multiple departments
Impacts 25-50% of employees
Spans functional boundaries
Examples:
- “Order-to-cash process issues”
- “Customer data fragmentation”
- “Inter-department handoff failures”

3 – Departmental (entire department):

Affects one full department
Impacts 10-25% of employees
Contained to one function
Examples:
- “Finance team’s monthly close process”
- “Marketing’s lead management workflow”

2 – Team-level:

Affects one team within department
Impacts <10% of employees
Localized issue
Examples:
- “Customer Success onboarding specialists workflow”
- “Accounts payable team’s invoice process”

1 – Individual:

Affects one or very few individuals
Highly specialized role/task
Examples:
- “CFO’s personal reporting dashboard”
- “One analyst’s specialized tool”

Scoring Examples:

PROBLEM: Manual monthly reporting
SCOPE SCORE: 3 (Departmental)
- Primarily affects Finance team (2 analysts + director)
- Secondary impact on Operations, Warehouse (data providers)
- Tertiary impact on Executive team (consumers)
- Could argue for 4 if emphasizing cross-functional nature

PROBLEM: Customer data fragmentation across systems
SCOPE SCORE: 5 (Company-wide)
- Affects Sales (CRM data)
- Affects Customer Success (support data)
- Affects Marketing (campaign data)
- Affects Finance (billing data)
- Affects Product (usage data)
- Affects Executive team (reporting)

PROBLEM: Warehouse barcode scanner is old and slow
SCOPE SCORE: 2 (Team-level)
- Affects 4 warehouse staff
- No impact outside warehouse

PROBLEM: One executive's preferred report format not automated
SCOPE SCORE: 1 (Individual)
- Affects one person's workflow
- Minimal broader impact

Key insight: Scope affects both cost (more people = more cost) and coalition-building (more stakeholders = easier buy-in).

DIMENSION 5: TREND

Definition: Is this problem getting better, worse, or staying the same?

Why it matters:

Problems getting worse are urgent (compound interest working against you)
Problems improving may not need intervention
Trend indicates whether problem is self-correcting or accelerating
Future state matters as much as current state

Scoring Scale (1-5):

5 – Rapidly Worsening:

Getting significantly worse month-over-month
Accelerating impact
Will become critical if not addressed
Examples:
- “System performance degrading as data grows”
- “Customer complaints increasing 20% per quarter”
- “Error rate climbing as staff turnover increases”

4 – Worsening:

Getting worse gradually
Clear upward trend
Examples:
- “Manual process taking longer as volume grows”
- “More people affected as company scales”
- “Technical debt accumulating”

3 – Stable:

Staying roughly the same
No clear trend
Examples:
- “Monthly process same difficulty year-over-year”
- “Problem persists but doesn’t worsen”

2 – Improving:

Getting better gradually
May self-correct
Examples:
- “Team learning workarounds”
- “Volume decreasing naturally”
- “Technology upgrades in flight”

1 – Rapidly Improving:

Resolving on its own
Other initiatives addressing it
Examples:
- “New system launching next quarter will solve this”
- “Process being redesigned by another team”
- “Problem was one-time event, won’t recur”

Scoring Examples:

PROBLEM: Manual monthly reporting
TREND SCORE: 4 (Worsening)
- Company growing, more transactions = more work
- Complexity increasing with new product lines
- Analyst turnover means less institutional knowledge
- Getting harder over time

PROBLEM: Legacy warehouse system slow
TREND SCORE: 5 (Rapidly worsening)
- Data volume growing 30%/year
- Performance degrading proportionally
- Vendor no longer supports system
- Will become critical bottleneck within 12 months

PROBLEM: Sales team doesn't use CRM consistently
TREND SCORE: 2 (Improving)
- New sales manager enforcing CRM usage
- Training program rolled out last quarter
- Compliance improving from 60% to 75%
- May resolve without additional intervention

PROBLEM: Customer onboarding used outdated content
TREND SCORE: 1 (Rapidly improving)
- New onboarding materials launched last month
- Customer Success team actively updating
- Problem mostly resolved

Key insight: A small problem with a “5” trend may be higher priority than a large problem with a “2” trend. Attack problems before they become crises.

DIMENSION 6: STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT

Definition: How well does solving this problem align with company strategic priorities?

Why it matters:

Executive sponsors care about strategy
Alignment makes funding easier
Signals organizational priorities
Builds momentum for implementation

Scoring Scale (1-5):

5 – Critical to Strategy:

Directly enables strategic initiative
CEO/Board priority
Competitive necessity
Examples:
- “Enables market expansion (strategic priority #1)”
- “Required for enterprise customer segment (growth strategy)”
- “Supports digital transformation initiative”

4 – High Strategic Value:

Supports major strategic goal
Executive team priority
Competitive advantage
Examples:
- “Improves customer experience (strategic focus area)”
- “Accelerates time-to-market (competitive need)”
- “Enables data-driven decision-making (cultural priority)”

3 – Moderate Strategic Value:

Supports operational excellence
Department-level priority
Indirectly enables strategy
Examples:
- “Improves efficiency (always good, not strategic focus)”
- “Reduces cost (helpful but not strategic differentiator)”

2 – Low Strategic Value:

Nice to have
Not tied to strategic goals
Operational optimization only
Examples:
- “Makes one team more comfortable”
- “Fixes annoyance with no strategic implication”

1 – No Strategic Alignment:

Unrelated to strategy
May even distract from priorities
Examples:
- “Solves problem in legacy business we’re sunsetting”
- “Optimizes process that’s being redesigned anyway”

Scoring Examples:

PROBLEM: Customer onboarding delays causing churn
STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT SCORE: 5 (Critical)
- Company strategy is land-and-expand
- Fast onboarding critical to expansion success
- Retention is CEO priority #2
- Directly supports strategic goal

PROBLEM: Manual monthly reporting
STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT SCORE: 3 (Moderate)
- CFO wants better financial visibility (mentioned in strategic plan)
- Supports "data-driven culture" initiative
- Not CEO-level priority but supports strategy

PROBLEM: Warehouse barcode scanner slow
STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT SCORE: 2 (Low)
- Operational efficiency problem
- Not tied to strategic priorities
- Warehouse performance not a focus area

PROBLEM: Old CRM reports need reformatting
STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT SCORE: 1 (None)
- Company migrating to new CRM next year
- Investing in old system waste
- No strategic relevance

Key insight: Strategic alignment is your political lever. If CEO says “customer retention is priority #1” and you’re solving a retention problem, you get budget.

The Composite Scoring Framework

Now we combine the six dimensions into a single prioritization score.

The Weighted Formula

Not all dimensions are equally important. Apply weights:

PRIORITY SCORE = 
  (Frequency × 2) + 
  (Severity × 3) + 
  (Business Impact × 4) + 
  (Scope × 2) + 
  (Trend × 2) + 
  (Strategic Alignment × 2)

Maximum possible score: 75 points

Why these weights?

Business Impact (4x): Most important – this is money/value
Severity (3x): High severity demands attention even if infrequent
Frequency, Scope, Trend, Strategic Alignment (2x each): Important modifiers

You can adjust weights based on organizational priorities:

Cost-cutting focus → Increase Business Impact weight
Strategic transformation → Increase Strategic Alignment weight
Operational stability → Increase Severity weight

Worked Example: Comprehensive Scoring

Let’s score three problems:

PROBLEM A: Manual Monthly Reporting

Dimension	Score	Weight	Weighted
Frequency	3 (Monthly)	×2	6
Severity	3 (Moderate – time waste, burnout)	×3	9
Business Impact	3 (Medium – $65K/year)	×4	12
Scope	3 (Departmental + ripples)	×2	6
Trend	4 (Worsening – growth, complexity)	×2	8
Strategic Alignment	3 (Moderate – supports data culture)	×2	6
TOTAL			47/75

Interpretation: Solid mid-high priority. Good ROI, moderate urgency.

PROBLEM B: Customer Onboarding Delays Causing Churn

Dimension	Score	Weight	Weighted
Frequency	5 (Daily – 20 customers/month)	×2	10
Severity	4 (Major – customer churn)	×3	12
Business Impact	5 (Extreme – $430K/year lost)	×4	20
Scope	4 (Cross-functional – CS, Sales, Tech)	×2	8
Trend	4 (Worsening – growth increasing volume)	×2	8
Strategic Alignment	5 (Critical – retention is CEO priority)	×2	10
TOTAL			68/75

Interpretation: TOP PRIORITY. High impact, high urgency, strategic importance.

PROBLEM C: Warehouse Barcode Scanner Slow

Dimension	Score	Weight	Weighted
Frequency	5 (Daily – affects every shipment)	×2	10
Severity	2 (Minor – small delays, no errors)	×3	6
Business Impact	2 (Low – $8K/year time waste)	×4	8
Scope	2 (Team – 4 warehouse staff)	×2	4
Trend	3 (Stable – not getting worse)	×2	6
Strategic Alignment	2 (Low – ops efficiency not focus)	×2	4
TOTAL			38/75

Interpretation: Lower priority. Daily occurrence but low impact/value. Address after higher priorities.

PROBLEM D: Legacy System Security Vulnerability

Dimension	Score	Weight	Weighted
Frequency	1 (Rare – hasn’t been exploited)	×2	2
Severity	5 (Critical – data breach risk)	×3	15
Business Impact	5 (Extreme – compliance + reputation risk)	×4	20
Scope	5 (Company-wide – all customer data)	×2	10
Trend	5 (Rapidly worsening – threat landscape)	×2	10
Strategic Alignment	4 (High – security is priority)	×2	8
TOTAL			65/75

Interpretation: HIGH PRIORITY despite low frequency. Severity and risk demand attention.

The Priority Tiers

Based on composite scores, create tiers:

TIER 0 – CRITICAL (60-75 points):

Immediate action required
Allocate resources now
Executive escalation if needed
Examples: Security vulnerabilities, compliance risks, major revenue leaks

TIER 1 – HIGH PRIORITY (45-59 points):

Address within 3-6 months
Include in Phase 1 implementation
Strong ROI, clear business case
Examples: High-cost inefficiencies, strategic enablers, growth blockers

TIER 2 – MEDIUM PRIORITY (30-44 points):

Address within 6-12 months
Phase 2 or Phase 3 implementation
Good ROI but not urgent
Examples: Process improvements, quality of life, incremental efficiency

TIER 3 – LOW PRIORITY (15-29 points):

Address if resources available
Backlog status
Low ROI or small impact
Examples: Nice-to-haves, cosmetic improvements, edge cases

TIER 4 – DEFER (<15 points):

Don’t address now
May resolve naturally
Not worth investment
Examples: Trivial annoyances, problems being solved elsewhere

The Prioritization Workshop Process

This scoring happens collaboratively in Workshop Session 2.

Workshop Exercise: Group Scoring (60-90 minutes)

Setup:

You’ve identified 20-30 problems in Session 1
Selected top 8-10 for deep quantification in Session 2
Now need to rank them for Session 3 solution design

STEP 1: Explain the Framework (10 minutes)

“We have 10 high-priority problems. We can’t solve all of them simultaneously. We need a transparent, objective way to prioritize.

We’re going to score each problem on 6 dimensions: – Frequency: How often does it happen? – Severity: How bad is it when it happens? – Business Impact: What does it cost us? – Scope: How many people are affected? – Trend: Is it getting worse? – Strategic Alignment: Does it support our strategy?

Each dimension gets a score of 1-5. We weight them based on importance, and get a total score out of 75 points.

This isn’t perfect, but it’s transparent and defensible. If someone disagrees with the priority ranking, we can point to the specific scores and debate those.”

[Share scoring rubric visually – project on screen or handout]

STEP 2: Score First Problem as Example (10 minutes)

“Let’s do one together to calibrate.”

Pick a problem everyone understands well.

“Problem: Manual monthly reporting. Let’s score each dimension.”

Frequency: “How often does this happen? Monthly, so that’s a 3. Everyone agree?”

[Pause for discussion if disagreement]

Severity: “When it happens, how bad is it? It’s 16 hours of work, analyst burnout, errors. I’d say that’s a 3 – moderate impact. Thoughts?”

[Pause for discussion]

Business Impact: “We quantified this at $65K/year. Looking at our rubric, that’s medium impact, score of 3. Sound right?”

[Continue through all dimensions]

Calculate total:

Frequency: 3 × 2 = 6
Severity: 3 × 3 = 9
Business Impact: 3 × 4 = 12
Scope: 3 × 2 = 6
Trend: 4 × 2 = 8
Strategic: 3 × 2 = 6
TOTAL: 47/75

“So this problem scores 47 out of 75, which puts it in our Tier 1 – High Priority range. That means address within 3-6 months.”

STEP 3: Individual Scoring (20 minutes)

“Now everyone take 15 minutes to individually score the remaining 9 problems. Use the worksheet I’m handing out.”

Provide worksheet:

PROBLEM: [Description]

Frequency (1-5): ___
Severity (1-5): ___
Business Impact (1-5): ___
Scope (1-5): ___
Trend (1-5): ___
Strategic Alignment (1-5): ___

[Repeat for each problem]

Why individual first?

Prevents groupthink
Ensures quieter voices contribute
Creates data for averaging/discussion

During individual scoring time:

Circulate and answer questions
Remind people of the rubric
Push for decisiveness (“pick your best guess”)

STEP 4: Collect and Average Scores (5 minutes)

Use spreadsheet projected on screen:

Problem	Freq	Sev	Impact	Scope	Trend	Strat	TOTAL
Manual Reporting	3.0	3.2	3.1	3.0	4.1	3.0	47.6
Onboarding Delays	4.8	4.2	4.9	4.0	4.3	4.9	67.2
Barcode Scanner	5.0	2.1	1.8	2.0	3.0	1.9	37.8
[etc.]

Sort by total score descending.

STEP 5: Discuss Outliers and Disagreements (20 minutes)

“Let’s look at where we had the most disagreement.”

Identify problems where scores varied significantly:

Example:

“For ‘Customer Onboarding Delays,’ most people scored Business Impact as 5, but two people scored it as 2. Let’s discuss.”

Person who scored 2: “I wasn’t sure if the churn was really caused by onboarding or other factors.”

Person who scored 5: “We have data showing 15% higher churn in first 90 days, and exit interviews cite onboarding confusion.”

Facilitator: “So the question is attribution. Do we have confidence the onboarding is causing the churn?”

[Group discussion]

Resolution: “Sounds like we have reasonable confidence. Let’s score it 4 instead of 5 to reflect some uncertainty. Agreed?”

[Adjust score based on consensus]

STEP 6: Validate Priority Ranking (15 minutes)

“Based on our scoring, here’s our priority ranking:”

TIER 0 - CRITICAL (Immediate):
1. Customer Onboarding Delays (67.2) - $430K/year, strategic priority
2. Legacy Security Vulnerability (64.8) - Compliance risk, growing threat

TIER 1 - HIGH PRIORITY (3-6 months):
3. Manual Monthly Reporting (47.6) - $65K/year, affects multiple teams
4. Sales Proposal Approval Delays (51.3) - $650K/year opportunity cost
5. Order Status Invisibility (49.1) - Customer satisfaction + efficiency

TIER 2 - MEDIUM PRIORITY (6-12 months):
6. Inventory Reconciliation Issues (42.7)
7. Customer Data Fragmentation (44.2)
8. Expense Report Approval Delays (38.9)

TIER 3 - LOW PRIORITY (Backlog):
9. Warehouse Barcode Scanner (37.8)
10. Report Formatting Inconsistency (18.3)

“Does this ranking feel right? Are we missing something obvious?”

Gut Check Questions:

“If I told your CEO we’re addressing #1 and #2 first, would they agree?”

“If I told you we’re deferring #9 and #10, would you be okay with that?”

“Is there anything in Tier 3 that should be in Tier 1?”

[Discussion and adjustments]

STEP 7: Document Rationale (10 minutes)

“Let me capture why we prioritized this way, so when we present to executives, we can defend it.”

For each Tier 0 and Tier 1 problem, document:

PROBLEM: Customer Onboarding Delays
PRIORITY RANK: #1 (Critical)
SCORE: 67.2/75

RATIONALE:
- Highest business impact ($430K/year in churn)
- Directly affects strategic priority (retention + expansion)
- Worsening as company scales
- Cross-functional problem requiring coordinated solution
- Quick wins possible (process improvements) while building long-term solution

EXPECTED OUTCOME:
- Reduce 90-day churn from 15% to <5%
- Improve time-to-value for customers
- Free CS team capacity for expansion focus
- ROI: 2-3 month payback

This documentation becomes your business case.

Handling Prioritization Challenges

Challenge 1: The Executive Override

What it looks like:

You complete scoring. VP of Sales sees his problem is #7.

VP: “This is ridiculous. The sales proposal delay is costing us millions. It should be #1.”

How to handle:

Option A: Revisit the Scoring

“Let’s look at why it scored where it did. You scored it high on Business Impact (4), but it was lower on Frequency (3) and Strategic Alignment (2). Walk me through the business impact calculation again.”

[If he has better data, update the score]

“Okay, if it’s $650K/year instead of the $150K we estimated, that changes Business Impact from 4 to 5. New score: 58. That moves it to #3. Better?”

Option B: Acknowledge Political Reality

“I hear you that this is critical for your team. Here’s what I suggest: We tackle #1 and #2 immediately as planned, but we also fast-track #7 because we have executive championship. We’ll run them in parallel. Fair?”

Option C: Make the Trade-Off Explicit

“If we move sales proposal to #1, what should we deprioritize? We have limited resources. Should customer onboarding wait?”

[Force explicit trade-off discussion]

Don’t: Just cave to political pressure without discussion. That destroys your framework’s credibility.

Do: Use the framework as a discussion tool, not a dictator.

Challenge 2: The Score Tie

What it looks like:

Two problems score 47.2 and 47.1. Which goes first?

How to handle:

Tiebreaker Criteria:

Strategic Alignment – CEO priority wins
Time to Value – Faster ROI goes first
Implementation Complexity – Easier goes first
Executive Championship – Which has stronger sponsor?
Dependencies – Does one enable the other?

Example:

Problem A: Manual Reporting (47.2)
- 6-month implementation
- Requires integration work
- Finance Director champion

Problem B: Customer Status Notifications (47.1)  
- 2-month implementation
- Configuration, not custom dev
- CS Director + Sales VP champions

Decision: Problem B goes first
- Faster time to value
- Stronger coalition
- Quick win builds momentum

Challenge 3: The “Everything Is Critical” Problem

What it looks like:

After scoring, 15 out of 20 problems score 50+. Everything seems urgent.

How to handle:

Option A: Recalibrate the Rubric

“If everything is critical, nothing is critical. Let’s tighten our scoring standards.”

Review Business Impact: Are we overestimating costs?
Review Severity: Are we calling everything a 4 or 5?
Review Strategic Alignment: Does it really support CEO priorities?

Force harder choices in scoring.

Option B: Forced Ranking Exercise

“Forget the scores for a moment. You can only fix 3 problems in the next 6 months. Which 3?”

Go around the room:

Everyone writes their top 3 on sticky notes
Collect and tally votes
Top 3 by vote count = real priorities

This reveals actual preferences beyond scoring.

Option C: Cost-Benefit Analysis

“Let’s add implementation cost and timeline to the equation.”

Problem A: Score 52, Cost $150K, Timeline 6 months → ROI 2 years
Problem B: Score 48, Cost $30K, Timeline 2 months → ROI 6 months

Problem B might actually be better choice despite lower score.

Build an “Effort-Adjusted Priority Score.”

Challenge 4: The “We Already Decided” Problem

What it looks like:

Before your engagement, executive team already committed to solving Problem X. Your scoring shows it’s actually low priority.

Example:

CEO announced “We’re implementing AI chatbot” 6 months ago
Your scoring shows it’s #12 priority (score 31)
Real priorities are #1-5

How to handle:

Option A: Surface the Conflict Diplomatically

“Our data shows customer onboarding churn (#1, score 67) and security vulnerabilities (#2, score 65) are higher impact than the chatbot initiative (#12, score 31).

That doesn’t mean the chatbot is a bad idea – just that we might see bigger returns elsewhere. How do you want to think about this?”

Let the executive make the call.

Option B: Sequence Strategically

“Could we address the top priorities first, then circle back to the chatbot initiative in Q3? That way we’re building momentum with high-ROI wins before tackling the chatbot.”

Option C: Integrate if Possible

“Interesting – the chatbot could actually help with problem #1 (onboarding) and problem #4 (customer status inquiries). What if we refocused the chatbot to address these high-priority problems rather than the original use case?”

Don’t: Directly contradict executive commitments without data and diplomacy.

Do: Use your prioritization data to reshape initiatives toward higher value.

Challenge 5: The “ROI Uncertainty” Problem

What it looks like:

For some problems, you can’t quantify business impact with confidence.

Example:

“Strategic decision-making is slower than competitors”
“Employee morale is suffering”
“Innovation capability is constrained”

These feel important but lack hard numbers.

How to handle:

Option A: Proxy Metrics

Can’t quantify strategic impact? Use proxies:

Time from question to decision (measurable)
Number of decisions per quarter (measurable)
Revenue per decision cycle (estimable)

Can’t quantify morale? Use proxies:

Turnover rate (measurable)
Recruitment cost (measurable)
Productivity metrics (measurable)

Option B: Range Estimates

“We’re not certain of the exact cost, but we’re confident it’s between $100K and $300K/year. Even at the low end, that’s high priority.”

Option C: Strategic Scoring Weight

If you can’t quantify business impact, lean harder on Strategic Alignment score:

Problem: Innovation capability constrained
- Business Impact: 3 (uncertain, but meaningful)
- Strategic Alignment: 5 (CEO says innovation is priority #1)
- Final score: 48 (borderline Tier 1)

Decision: Include in Tier 1 due to strategic importance

Option D: Staged Approach

“Let’s do a 2-week discovery sprint to quantify the impact, then decide if this is Tier 1 or Tier 2.”

Advanced Prioritization Techniques

Technique 1: The Dependency-Adjusted Priority

Some problems can’t be solved until others are solved first.

Example:

Problem A: Real-time financial reporting (Score 51)
Problem B: Salesforce-ERP integration (Score 47)

But A requires B as prerequisite.

Adjusted priority:
1. Problem B (foundation)
2. Problem A (dependent on B)

Even though A scores higher, B must go first.

How to handle:

Create implementation sequence separate from priority ranking:

PRIORITY RANKING (by score):
1. Customer Onboarding (67)
2. Real-time Reporting (51)
3. Salesforce Integration (47)

IMPLEMENTATION SEQUENCE (by dependencies):
1. Salesforce Integration (47) - Foundation
2. Real-time Reporting (51) - Depends on #1
3. Customer Onboarding (67) - Can run parallel

Technique 2: The Quick Wins Overlay

Identify problems that are:

Medium-high priority (40-55 range)
Low implementation cost (<$25K)
Fast implementation (<8 weeks)

These are your “momentum builders.”

PROBLEM: Standardize product codes across systems
SCORE: 42 (Tier 2)
COST: $5K (mostly time)
TIMELINE: 4 weeks
ROI: 6 weeks

DECISION: Move to Tier 1 as "quick win"
- Builds momentum
- Shows value fast
- Prepares foundation for integration project

Strategy:

Lead with 1-2 quick wins (6-8 weeks)
Build credibility and momentum
Then tackle bigger strategic projects

Technique 3: The Portfolio Balance

Don’t optimize for pure ROI. Balance your portfolio:

25% Quick Wins:

Fast ROI
Build momentum
Prove value

50% Strategic Core:

High ROI
Strategic alignment
Sustainable impact

25% Foundation/Tech Debt:

Enables future work
Pays down technical debt
May not show immediate ROI but critical

Example Portfolio:

TIER 1 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN:

Quick Wins (Q1):
- Product code standardization ($5K, 4 weeks)
- Email automation templates ($10K, 6 weeks)
- Approval workflow streamlining ($8K, 4 weeks)

Strategic Core (Q2-Q3):
- Customer onboarding redesign ($125K, 4 months)
- Salesforce-ERP integration ($85K, 5 months)
- Real-time reporting dashboards ($45K, 3 months)

Foundation (Q2-Q4):
- Data governance framework ($30K, 3 months)
- Master data management ($50K, 4 months)

Total investment: $358K
Expected annual return: $600K+
Payback: 8-10 months

Technique 4: The Risk-Adjusted Priority

Some problems have low current impact but catastrophic potential impact.

Example:

Problem: Security vulnerability in legacy system

Current Impact: Low (hasn't been exploited)
Potential Impact: Catastrophic (customer data breach, $5M+ regulatory fine)
Probability: Increasing (threat landscape evolving)

Current Score: 65 (High Priority)
Risk-Adjusted Score: 75 (Critical)

Decision: Move to Tier 0 despite low current frequency

Use expected value calculation:

Expected Value = (Probability × Impact)

Security breach:
- Probability: 10% in next 12 months (increasing)
- Impact if occurs: $5M (fine + remediation + reputation)
- Expected value: $500K

This makes it higher priority than $200K/year efficiency problems.

The Prioritization Deliverable

Create a one-page priority matrix:

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
PROBLEM PRIORITIZATION MATRIX
Based on Cross-Functional Workshop Analysis
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

SCORING METHODOLOGY:
Composite score (max 75) based on:
- Frequency (×2): How often problem occurs
- Severity (×3): Impact when it occurs  
- Business Impact (×4): Annual cost/value
- Scope (×2): People/departments affected
- Trend (×2): Getting worse, stable, or better
- Strategic Alignment (×2): Supports company priorities

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
TIER 0 - CRITICAL (Immediate Action)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

P-007: Customer Onboarding Delays | Score 67.2/75
- Impact: $430K/year churn + $50K delayed expansion
- Affects: Customer Success, Sales, Technical, Customers
- Strategic: Critical to retention strategy
- Action: Fast-track solution design, Q1 implementation

P-023: Legacy Security Vulnerability | Score 64.8/75
- Impact: Potential $5M+ regulatory fine + reputation damage
- Affects: All customers, company-wide
- Strategic: Board-level concern
- Action: Immediate remediation plan

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
TIER 1 - HIGH PRIORITY (3-6 Month Timeline)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

P-001: Manual Monthly Reporting | Score 47.6/75
- Impact: $65K/year + delayed financial visibility
- Solution: Salesforce-ERP integration + process redesign

P-014: Sales Proposal Approval Delays | Score 51.3/75
- Impact: $650K/year in lost deals + cycle time
- Solution: Approval workflow redesign + risk-tiering

P-012: Order Status Invisibility | Score 49.1/75
- Impact: $85K/year + customer satisfaction
- Solution: Real-time status portal + notifications

P-018: Inventory Reconciliation Issues | Score 46.8/75
- Impact: $55K/year + stockout risk
- Solution: System integration + automated counts

P-033: Customer Data Fragmentation | Score 44.2/75
- Impact: $75K/year + CX degradation
- Solution: Customer data platform + MDM

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
TIER 2 - MEDIUM PRIORITY (6-12 Month Timeline)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

[5 problems listed with scores 38-44]

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
TIER 3 - LOW PRIORITY (Backlog)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

[3 problems listed with scores 25-37]

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
IMPLEMENTATION RECOMMENDATION
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

PHASE 1 (Immediate - Q1):
- P-007, P-023 (Critical tier)
- Quick wins: Product code standardization, email automation

PHASE 2 (Q2-Q3):
- P-001, P-014, P-012 (High priority tier core)

PHASE 3 (Q3-Q4):
- P-018, P-033 (High priority tier completion)
- Selected Tier 2 priorities based on bandwidth

TOTAL ESTIMATED INVESTMENT: $650K
TOTAL EXPECTED ANNUAL RETURN: $1.2M+
PAYBACK PERIOD: 7-9 months

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
VALIDATION
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

This prioritization was:
✓ Validated by cross-functional workshop participants (10 people)
✓ Reviewed by executive sponsor (CFO)
✓ Aligned with strategic priorities (retention, efficiency, risk)
✓ Based on quantified business impact data
✓ Defensible through transparent scoring methodology

Prepared by: [Your Name]
Date: [Date]
Next Step: Executive presentation for approval
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

The Meta-Principle: Transparent Prioritization Creates Trust

Here’s what rigorous prioritization accomplishes:

✅ Makes decisions defensible: “We prioritized this because it scored 67 vs. 38 based on these criteria.”

✅ Depoliticizes choices: “It’s not about who yells loudest – it’s about data.”

✅ Creates alignment: “We all agreed on the scoring framework and applied it consistently.”

✅ Enables resource planning: “Tier 1 needs $450K. Tier 2 needs $300K. Let’s talk budget.”

✅ Sets expectations: “Your problem is Tier 2. That means 6-12 months, not immediate.”

✅ Builds credibility: “This isn’t consultant opinion – it’s your organization’s collective judgment, structured and quantified.”

The prioritization framework is your political shield and your strategic compass.

Use it ruthlessly. Update it as data changes. Defend it when challenged.

It’s what separates trusted advisors from order-taking consultants.

What specific prioritization scenarios concern you most? Handling executive overrides? Dealing with uncertain ROI? Balancing quick wins vs. strategic projects? Managing expectations when someone’s pet project ranks low? Building coalition support when priorities are controversial?