Method
A collaborative prioritization workshop where customer and delivery stakeholders score opportunities against shared criteria and agree a practical sequence.
Choose this if
This method works when prioritizing opportunities collaboratively with customer stakeholders.
Pack = one session you can run now. Workspace = a saved thread for method choice, planning, and shareable outputs.
What Workspace helps you carry forward
Artifact preview
Prioritized opportunity stack
Prioritise · Moderate
Decide fit before you spend session time.
The core facilitation flow, with enough structure to run the method confidently in the room.
Standard setup for Mixed in remote delivery.
Total planned time: 120 min
What happens
Agree impact, feasibility, and strategic fit definitions.
Facilitator does
Present criteria candidates and ask customer stakeholders to weight them before internal team members weigh in. Three to four criteria is the working maximum — more produces scoring complexity that masks rather than reveals priorities. Confirm each criterion is something the room can evaluate with current data.
Participants do
For each criterion, write a one-line definition of what a "high" score looks like before any scoring begins. Read each definition aloud and check that everyone in the room interprets it the same way. A criterion with multiple interpretations will produce scoring divergence that reflects definition ambiguity, not genuine priority disagreement.
Output / signal of success
3–4 scoring criteria are agreed and written on the board, with a brief definition of each. Customer stakeholders have weighted them first, before internal participants. Every participant in the room can describe what a "high" score looks like for each criterion.
Watch for
Too many scoring criteria make the session unwieldy and the ranking hard to interpret.
Recovery tip
If the criteria list exceeds 4, ask: "Which criterion, if removed, would most change the ranking?" Remove the criteria that produce the least differentiation. More criteria produce more complexity without more clarity.
What happens
Score each opportunity transparently.
Facilitator does
Have internal and external participants score independently before sharing. Surface divergence between customer and internal perspectives as the most valuable signal in the session. If scoring is entirely convergent, probe reasoning for top items — the room may not have genuinely different information bases.
Participants do
Score independently before revealing your ratings to others. Don't adjust your scores based on what customer or internal colleagues have written — the divergence is the signal, not the problem. After scores are posted, note the items with the largest spread across participants before the discussion begins.
Output / signal of success
The scores surface meaningful differences instead of flattening everything into the middle.
Watch for
Internal participants adjust scores after seeing customer ratings rather than defending independent views.
Recovery tip
If participants are adjusting scores after seeing others' ratings, announce a process rule: scores are posted simultaneously and cannot be revised until after the divergence discussion. Premature convergence hides the information differences that make this session valuable.
What happens
Review major scoring gaps and rationale.
Facilitator does
Focus discussion on the largest divergences between internal and customer scores. Ask each side to explain what information is driving their rating. Don't resolve divergence by splitting the difference — find the underlying assumption that explains why the same opportunity looks different to different stakeholders.
Participants do
When explaining a divergent score, name the specific information or experience driving your rating — not just that you disagree. "I scored feasibility low because I know the API integration would require a platform team dependency we haven't secured" is useful. "I just think it's harder" is not.
Output / signal of success
Owner-assigned sequence plan
Watch for
Divergence is resolved through compromise rather than genuine reasoning exchange.
Recovery tip
For each divergent score, ask both sides to name the specific information driving their rating. If the divergence persists after information is shared, it represents a genuine difference in values or strategic priorities — name it explicitly rather than resolving it by compromise. "Internal and customer stakeholders weight feasibility differently" is a finding, not a failure.
What happens
Finalize now-next-later order and owners.
Facilitator does
Produce a prioritised sequence that both customer and internal stakeholders can commit to. If any stakeholder cannot commit, surface the specific objection before the session ends. An uncommitted priority list produces a follow-up conversation, not an actionable roadmap.
Participants do
Before the session closes, each stakeholder — internal and customer — states out loud whether they can commit to the agreed sequence. If anyone can't commit, name the specific objection now. A priority list where participants nod without committing produces a follow-up conversation, not an actionable roadmap.
Output / signal of success
Prioritized opportunity stack
Watch for
Sequence is committed by the internal team without confirming customer stakeholder agreement.
Recovery tip
For any stakeholder who can't commit to the sequence, ask: "What specifically would need to change for you to commit to this ordering?" Write the condition. If it's addressable in the session, address it. If not, schedule a follow-up before the session closes — "we'll revisit item 3's priority after the Q2 budget review" is a commitment, not a deferral.
Prepare the room, the evidence, and the working surface so the session can stay focused on synthesis.
A pre-filtered shortlist of 8–10 opportunities that the internal team is genuinely willing to deprioritise based on customer input — not a full list where the ranking is already decided. If the internal team has a predetermined answer, co-creation adds process overhead without genuine influence. Customer stakeholders must have enough context to score meaningfully — either through a brief or through prior involvement in discovery.
Opportunity shortlist
Optional
Scoring criteria
Optional
Decision log
Optional
Operational context note
Optional
Bring examples, pain points, or service evidence the room can point to quickly.
Voting and ranking board
Optional
Remote facilitation choreography
Required
Pre-plan handoffs, breakout usage, and how people rejoin the main board.
Voting and ranking board
Required
Shared digital board with timer and voting
Required
Keep instructions and voting visible at all times.
Opportunity scoring sheet
Keep the output usable, then use the recovery guidance when the room starts drifting.
What this does not produce
Co-creation Opportunity Prioritization produces a collaboratively agreed sequence of opportunities to pursue — not a validated picture of which opportunities are real. The opportunity definitions still carry assumptions about user needs that require research before they can carry delivery decisions.
Failure mode
Why it happens
When scoring is done simultaneously in a shared document or visible board, customer stakeholders see internal scores in real time and adjust toward them — either deferring to perceived expertise or avoiding conflict. The most valuable signal in co-creation prioritisation is the divergence between customer and internal perspectives. Convergence during scoring eliminates that signal before it can be examined.
Recover now
If this happens, stop the scoring round. Have all participants submit scores privately before revealing any scores publicly. Use blind simultaneous reveal. The divergences are the data — protect them until they're all visible.
Prevent next time
Next time, build the scoring step as a blind submission process — all scores submitted before any are revealed. If the platform makes simultaneous reveal difficult, use separate scoring sheets that are collected and averaged before display.
Failure mode
Why it happens
Teams want comprehensive coverage and include all candidate opportunities rather than pre-filtering to a workable set. A session that attempts to score 20+ opportunities against 4 criteria with a mixed group produces a rushed, low-quality assessment that nobody trusts.
Recover now
If this happens, stop the scoring round. Agree a maximum of 8–10 opportunities for this session. Run a quick pre-filter: eliminate any opportunity the full group agrees is clearly out of scope, and defer any that require information not available in the room to score meaningfully.
Prevent next time
Next time, before the session, filter the opportunity list to 8–10 candidates based on strategic fit. Send the shortlist to participants in advance so they arrive with initial views formed.
Failure mode
Why it happens
The internal team drives the closing step — they're more comfortable with the prioritisation process and feel they have enough input from the scoring discussion to commit on behalf of the customer stakeholders. Customer participants leave without explicitly confirming their commitment to the sequence, and the "co-creation" label no longer holds.
Recover now
If this happens, before closing, go around the room and ask each customer stakeholder directly: "Can you commit to this sequence as prioritised?" If any stakeholder can't, surface the specific objection and address it before closing.
Prevent next time
Next time, design the closing step so customer confirmation is required before the session can end. Make explicit sign-off a visible final step rather than assumed from participation.
Change the shape of the session only after the fit and runbook are clear.
Standard variant for Mixed in remote delivery. Waypoint is adapting timing, facilitation emphasis, prep, and recovery guidance here, but the room still needs final tailoring to the exact stakes and participants.
Use this after you have checked the fit and know you want to carry the method forward.
The pack is the fastest way to run this now. Use the links below when you need prep, sharing, or a saved reference point.
Sources and references used in this method page.
SessionLab facilitation resources for collaborative prioritization.
LUMA method library for collaborative prioritization practices.
Reviewed 2026-02-27 by Discovery Waypoint Editorial Team