A number should start a conversation.

Imagine two roadmap proposals. One has a vivid customer story; the other affects a larger group but sounds less exciting. A shared scoring method can expose the assumptions behind the pitches. It becomes less useful if the team treats a precise-looking number as an objective truth or adjusts inputs until a favourite proposal wins.

A support lead notices repeated tickets, an engineer sees implementation risk, and a salesperson remembers a lost deal. Give each person a way to contribute evidence without pretending the observations are interchangeable. Ask which population the reach estimate describes, which outcome impact changes, and what effort includes. Shared definitions matter more than an attractive spreadsheet.

Use the confidence control below. Option A reaches 100 people, has impact 2 and takes two person-months. Option B reaches 160, has impact 1, confidence 80 percent and the same effort. Both use the same reach period. As A’s confidence changes, the ordering can reverse. These are fictional inputs used to expose sensitivity, not recommended scores for a real roadmap.

A scoring framework can understate enabling infrastructure, mandatory fixes, or a dependency that unlocks another project. Keep these reasons explicit rather than distorting reach or effort to make them fit. A separate strategic rationale is easier to review than an inflated score. Also record the opportunity cost: which plausible work waits if you choose this proposal?

If a small confidence change reverses the order, a short discovery task may be valuable. If the ranking stays stable across plausible inputs, another week refining decimals may not help. Ask the owners of the estimates for source links and uncertainty ranges. Revisit effort after technical exploration and include coordination, rollout and support where those costs matter.

Your fictional team has one week before planning. You can accept the current ranking, gather evidence for the most sensitive assumption, or prioritise a dependency with an explicit rationale. Choose the action that makes the decision more defensible. Explain what evidence would change your mind and avoid using the framework as a way to end a legitimate disagreement.

Compare three project opportunities using consistent reach periods and effort units. Attach a source, confidence rationale and plausible range to each uncertain input. Add dependencies and strategic exceptions in a separate column. Finish with a decision statement and a review date so the scorecard can evolve as you learn.