ICE Scoring

ICE Scoring Framework diagram showing three factorsβ€”Impact, Confidence, and Easeβ€”each with brief explanations. The formula β€˜Impact Γ— Confidence Γ— Ease’ is centered below. Two example initiatives with their ICE calculations are shown at the bottom.
ICE Scoring primarily addresses the friction of making decisions about which projects to execute and implement. By evaluating impact, confidence, and ease, it helps teams prioritize based on factors related to delivery speed and potential success.

ICE Scoring is a framework designed to help teams prioritize features, projects, or ideas by scoring them on three criteria: Impact, Confidence, and Ease. Each criterion is rated, and the scores are then multiplied to give an overall ICE score. This method provides a quantitative way to compare different initiatives, helping teams to focus resources on the most valuable projects and ensure alignment with business objectives.

Steps / Detailed Description

Identify the project or feature to be evaluated. | Rate the Impact: Assess how much the project will contribute to key business goals. | Rate the Confidence: Evaluate how sure you are about your impact assessment. | Rate the Ease: Determine how easy it will be to implement the project. | Calculate the ICE score: Multiply the scores of Impact, Confidence, and Ease. | Prioritize projects based on their ICE scores.

Best Practices

Ensure a diverse group is involved in the scoring to minimize bias. | Regularly review and adjust the scores as new information becomes available. | Combine ICE scoring with other frameworks for a more comprehensive analysis.

Pros

Simple and quick to apply | Helps in making data-driven decisions | Facilitates prioritization among a variety of options

Cons

Subjective scoring can lead to inconsistencies | May not account for interdependencies between projects | Overemphasis on ease of implementation may neglect long-term value

When to Use

When prioritizing new features for development | When allocating resources among competing projects

When Not to Use

When projects are legally or operationally mandatory | When there is a lack of data to accurately score one or more dimensions

Related Frameworks

Categories

Lifecycle

Scope

Scope not defined

Maturity Level

Maturity level not specified

Time to Implement

2–4 Weeks
3–6 Months
1–2 Weeks
3–6 Months
1–2 Months
3–6 Months
1–2 Weeks
Less Than 1 Day
1–2 Weeks
Longer Than 6 Months
1–2 Weeks
Longer Than 6 Months
1–2 Weeks
3–6 Months
1–2 Weeks
1–2 Weeks
1–2 Weeks
1–2 Weeks
1–2 Days
1–2 Weeks
1–2 Weeks
1–2 Weeks
1–2 Weeks
1–2 Weeks
1–2 Weeks
3–6 Months
1–2 Weeks
1–2 Weeks
1–2 Weeks
3–6 Months
1–2 Weeks
1–2 Weeks
2–4 Weeks
1–2 Weeks
1–2 Days
1–2 Weeks
Longer Than 6 Months
Longer Than 6 Months
3–6 Months
Longer Than 6 Months
Longer Than 6 Months
Longer Than 6 Months
1–2 Weeks
Longer Than 6 Months
3–6 Months
Less Than 1 Day
3–6 Months
1–2 Months
3–6 Months
Longer Than 6 Months
3–6 Months
Less Than 1 Day
1–2 Weeks
3–6 Months
3–6 Months
1–2 Weeks
3–6 Months
1–2 Weeks
1–2 Weeks
1–2 Days
1–2 Weeks
1–2 Months
Longer Than 6 Months
1–2 Weeks
Longer Than 6 Months
1–2 Weeks
3–6 Months
1–2 Weeks
Less Than 1 Day
1–2 Weeks
3–6 Months
1–2 Weeks
3–6 Months
1–2 Weeks
1–2 Weeks
Longer Than 6 Months
Less Than 1 Day
3–6 Months
Longer Than 6 Months
1–2 Months
1–2 Weeks
Longer Than 6 Months
1–2 Weeks
3–6 Months
1–2 Weeks
1–2 Weeks
3–6 Months
Less Than 1 Day
1–2 Weeks
1–2 Weeks
3–6 Months
3–6 Months
Less Than 1 Day
1–2 Weeks
Longer Than 6 Months
1–2 Months
1–2 Weeks
1–2 Weeks
1–2 Weeks
Longer Than 6 Months

Copyright Information

Autor:
Public Domain
N/A
Publication:
Generic Business Tool