Actually score your candidates

What you will learn Not a chapter to read but one to do. Write your own candidates, score them against the three questions, and throw half of them away.

What you need

text

□ A sheet of paper or a spreadsheet□ 40 minutes□ Ideally one person who does the work (alone, you fall into "they all look good")

Step 1 — Write six candidates (10 min)

Fill all six. Do not stop at five. The one or two you have to force out are often where the good candidate is.

Three places to look:

text

1. Where the time goes          → the widest block in the weekly schedule2. What you decided not to automate → work that couldn't be reduced to rules then3. What people put up with      → anything described as "that's just how it is"

#	Candidate	Who does it	How often
1
2
3
4
5
6

Step 2 — Score loosely (5 min)

Mark ○△✗ against the three questions. Go fast and by instinct for now.

Candidate	Quality?	Cost?	Revenue?
1
…

Most people get a lot of ○ here. That is expected — which is why step 3 exists.

Step 3 — Score strictly (15 min)

Same candidates, harder questions. If you cannot state the number, drop the ○ to ✗.

The loose question	The one to answer now
Does it cut cost?	How many hours a month go into this today? Where did you check that?
Does it improve quality?	Quality measured how? What is that value right now?
Does it help revenue?	By what route does it become revenue? How many steps in between?

text

Scoring rule:  ○ = I can state the number right now  △ = I know where to look it up  ✗ = I don't know / it isn't measured

Writing ✗ for "I don't know" is the whole exercise. Being generous here costs you three weeks in Phase 2 later.

Step 4 — Throw three away (10 min)

Move at least three of the six to shelved. This is a rule, not a preference.

Verdict	Criterion
Candidate	at least one ○ under the strict questions
Shelved	everything △ or below

Two things to watch while cutting.

If "AI training for staff" survived

That is an activity, not a project. It scores ○ on none of the three questions. It may well be necessary — it is not a first project.

If the biggest, most important thing ranked first

Be suspicious. A first project is chosen for speed of proof, not size. Pick something that cannot show a number within three months and attention will cool before it does.

Self-check

text

□ I filled all six candidates□ At least one ✗ appeared under the strict questions   ← if not, you went easy on them□ I moved three or more to shelved□ I picked among the rest by "will this show a number within three months?"

If the second line is unchecked, go back to step 3.

Check yourself

1. Why insist on six candidates?

Answer

Because the ones you have to force out are often the good ones. The three that come easily are the ones everyone already knows — usually already tried, or not done for a reason.

2. Why score loosely and then strictly?

Answer

Because the loose question returns ○ for everything. Everyone says yes to "does it cut cost?". Change it to "how many hours a month, and where did you check?" and most drop to △ or ✗ — which is when a ranking finally appears.

3. Why not start with the biggest, most important project?

Answer

A first project is chosen for speed of proof, not size. Without a number inside three months, organisational attention and budget cool off. Big projects come after the first success.

You know what to do. The next part is the procedure for actually running it → The roadmap