Concept 1 of 4

Opportunity scoring

5 questions test this

The Focus course is built around one question. Given more validated market problems than the company can fund, which ones does it pursue. Opportunity scoring is the mechanism, and the Strategy Matrix is the gate that sits in front of it.

Strategic fit comes first

An opportunity that does not fit the company's strategy is declined regardless of its attractiveness. This is a gate rather than a score, because a weighting can be outvoted by a large enough market size and a gate cannot.

The check has two halves. Does this opportunity sit in a market the company has chosen to be in, and does winning it depend on something the company is distinctively good at. An opportunity that fails the second half is a fair fight against every competitor, which is an expensive place to start.

Criteria that hold up

Market impact. How many people in the defined segment have the problem, how urgent it is, and what they would pay. This comes from the market problems work rather than being estimated fresh.

Competitive landscape. Who already addresses this, how well, and what the buyer currently does instead. A crowded space is not automatically excluded, but winning in one requires a named advantage.

Investment required. Build effort, and everything after it. Support, enablement, channel changes, ongoing operations. Comparing candidates on build cost alone favours whatever is cheapest to code and most expensive to run.

Revenue and margin potential. New revenue, retained revenue, and the cost to serve.

Risk and time to evidence. How long until the company knows whether it was right, and what it will have spent by then.

Consistency rather than objectivity

The number is not truth. Estimates are estimates and weights encode a view of what the company values. What the model provides is that every candidate is asked the same questions, so two opportunities can be compared on the same basis and neither wins on presentation quality or on who is presenting it.

The second benefit is auditability. When a request is declined, the person who raised it can see which criterion it fell down on and what would have to change. That is a far better conversation than an unexplained no, and it occasionally produces the evidence that changes the answer.

Where the numbers come from

Scoring is only as good as the market work behind it. Foundations produces the validated problems and the sized segments. Focus turns them into comparable candidates. A scoring exercise run over a list of internally generated ideas produces a confident ranking of guesses.

Common misconceptions

The highest score wins.

The score orders the candidates and shows the reasoning. Strategic fit is a gate rather than a weighting, so a high scoring opportunity that pulls the company away from its strategy is still declined.

Scoring is objective because it produces a number.

The inputs are estimates and the weights are choices. What scoring genuinely provides is consistency, the same questions asked of every candidate, which is a different and more achievable claim than objectivity.

Opportunity scoring and feature prioritisation are the same activity.

Scoring in Focus decides which market opportunities to invest in at all. Prioritisation in Build decides the order of requirements once an opportunity has been funded. Mixing them produces a backlog of features with no agreed strategy behind it.

5 questions test this concept

An opportunity scores highest of six candidates but sits in a market the company has explicitly chosen not to compete in. What should happen?

  • AIt should be funded, since the score is the objective measure and the strategy is only a guideline.
  • BThe strategy should be revised to include the market, since the opportunity is attractive.
  • CIt should be declined, because strategic fit is a gate rather than a weighting, and a weighting can be outvoted by a large enough market size while a gate cannot.
  • DIt should be funded at reduced scope as a pilot.
Check whether it stuck.

One per page, with a worked explanation.

Start the set
Related material
Book
Playing to Win, On testing an option against where to play and how to win.
Book
Good Strategy Bad Strategy, On why a list of priorities is not a strategy.
Book
Strategize, On product strategy choices and the evidence behind them.
Template
RICE scoring sheet, Reach, Impact, Confidence and Effort columns with the score formula built in, defined confidence bands, and a column recording the assumption behind each input.