ICE Scoring

Copione di facilitazione

1. 1

   Frame the session: name the single target metric all items are meant to move and display the candidate list with a one-line description each. Explain the three factors and their 1–10 anchors — Impact ('if it works exactly as intended, how far does the metric move?'), Confidence ('what evidence says it will work?'), Ease ('how easy to implement, the inverse of effort'). State clearly: 'We're shortlisting, not committing.'

   7 min
2. 2

   Score Impact in silence. Everyone enters a 1–10 for each item in their own column of the shared sheet, no discussion. Keep the pace brisk — first instincts are usually right, and precision beyond a point or two is false anyway.

   8 min
3. 3

   Score Confidence in silence. Prompt: 'Score 10 if prior data or results prove it, 1 if it's pure speculation.' Ask people to flag any item they score below 4 — those are candidates for cheap validation experiments rather than full builds.

   8 min
4. 4

   Score Ease in silence. Remind the group to calibrate against what actually shipped last quarter, not optimistic sprint estimates: 10 means it could be done today with no dependencies, 1 means many months of work.

   8 min
5. 5

   Reveal all scores, compute (Impact + Confidence + Ease) ÷ 3, and sort descending. Discuss only the items where individual scores diverge by four or more points — that divergence means people hold different information, and a two-minute exchange usually resolves it.

   8 min
6. 6

   Calibrate the top of the list against strategic intent: ICE tends to float quick wins above important hard things, so ask 'does this order reflect what we actually believe matters?' Adjust deliberately if needed, then assign an owner to each of the top five to ten items.

   8 min

Suggerimenti

• ICE scoring is fast because it is approximate. Don't let groups debate a score from 6 to 7 for five minutes — that level of precision is false anyway.

• Confidence is the most important filter. A 10/10 Impact score on a 1/10 Confidence item is a research project, not a priority. Sequence low-confidence high-impact items as validation experiments, not full launches.

• Ease scoring often gets gamed by technical team members who score items that favour their current sprint high. Calibrate against actual delivery timelines in the last quarter.

• Run ICE in silence first — everyone scores independently before any group discussion — to prevent anchoring and social conformity bias.

• ICE is a shortlisting tool, not a final decision framework. Always sanity-check the top-ranked items against strategic fit before committing to them.

Errori comuni

• Letting the group debate whether an item is a 6 or a 7 — ICE's precision is deliberately coarse, so timebox each score to seconds and move on

• Scoring aloud in turn so the first voice, often the most senior, anchors everyone — collect scores silently and reveal them together

• Mixing items that target different metrics in one ranking, which makes the Impact scores incomparable and the final order meaningless

• Feeding the ranked list straight into the roadmap without a strategic sanity check — the method systematically favours easy over important

Variazioni

For growth experiment programmes, add a fourth factor — 'Time to Results' — to create an ICET model that also accounts for how quickly you'll know if an experiment worked. For strategy-heavy teams, weight Impact more heavily (e.g., 2×) rather than using a simple average. Use ICE for weekly experiment triage and RICE for quarterly roadmap prioritisation.

Metodi correlati