📊 Context Scoring Guide

Detailed scoring methodology for project context assessment

🎯 Project Characteristics

Evaluate the inherent nature and complexity of your project

Technical Complexity(Weight: 25%)

How complex is the technical solution?

1. Simple & Well-Understood

Standard technology, proven patterns, minimal integration

Standard CRUD application
Well-established frameworks
Minimal external dependencies
2. Low Complexity

Mostly standard with some custom elements

Some custom development
Standard integration patterns
Known technology stack
3. Moderate Complexity

Mix of standard and complex elements

Multiple system integration
Some new technology
Custom business logic
4. High Complexity

Significant technical challenges

Complex algorithms
Multiple new technologies
Real-time processing
5. Breakthrough Innovation

Cutting-edge, unproven approaches

Research & development
Experimental technology
No existing patterns

💡 Examples

Score 1: Standard e-commerce website using established platform
Score 3: Customer portal with API integrations and custom workflows
Score 5: AI-powered autonomous system with machine learning

Requirements Clarity(Weight: 20%)

How well-defined are the project requirements?

1. Crystal Clear

Completely documented and stable requirements

Detailed specifications
Stakeholder consensus
Regulatory requirements
2. Mostly Clear

Well-defined with minor gaps

80%+ documented
Minor ambiguities
Clear acceptance criteria
3. Somewhat Defined

High-level requirements with areas needing detail

High-level user stories
Some unclear areas
Iterative refinement needed
4. Emerging

High-level vision with significant unknowns

Conceptual requirements
Market research needed
User discovery required
5. Exploratory

Problem space exploration required

Innovation project
Market validation needed
Solution discovery phase

💡 Examples

Score 1: Regulatory compliance system with detailed specifications
Score 3: Mobile app with general feature list but UX to be determined
Score 5: New market opportunity requiring customer discovery

Scope Stability(Weight: 15%)

How likely is the project scope to change?

1. Rock Solid

Scope locked and unlikely to change

Fixed contracts
Regulatory requirements
Replacement projects
2. Stable

Minor scope adjustments expected

Well-defined boundaries
Established processes
Clear constraints
3. Some Evolution

Moderate scope changes likely

Learning expected
User feedback incorporation
Iterative discovery
4. Dynamic

Significant scope evolution expected

Market-driven changes
Competitive responses
Technology shifts
5. Highly Volatile

Scope will evolve dramatically

Innovation projects
Startup environment
Experimental initiatives

💡 Examples

Score 1: System migration with defined current and target states
Score 3: Product enhancement based on user feedback
Score 5: New product development in emerging market

Timeline Pressure(Weight: 15%)

How much time pressure exists for delivery?

1. No Pressure

Flexible timeline, quality over speed

No external deadlines
Quality focus
Learning objectives
2. Mild Pressure

Preferred timeline with some flexibility

Business preference
Seasonal alignment
Some buffer time
3. Moderate Pressure

Important deadline with some negotiability

Business commitments
Market windows
Coordinated releases
4. High Pressure

Critical deadline with minimal flexibility

Contractual commitments
Regulatory deadlines
Competitive pressure
5. Extreme Pressure

Crisis mode, delivery at all costs

Emergency response
Critical business risk
Legal requirements

💡 Examples

Score 1: Internal process improvement with no external drivers
Score 3: Product launch aligned with conference or marketing campaign
Score 5: Security breach response or regulatory compliance deadline

📖 Scoring Methodology

🎯 Weighting System

  • • Each factor has a specific weight based on research and practice
  • • Weights reflect the relative importance to methodology selection
  • • Category scores are calculated using weighted averages
  • • Overall recommendations combine all category scores
  • • Scoring accounts for methodology-specific preferences

📊 Interpretation Guide

  • • 1-2: Low complexity/pressure, favors agile approaches
  • • 2-3: Moderate levels, good for hybrid approaches
  • • 3-4: High complexity/constraints, may need traditional
  • • 4-5: Very high uncertainty, innovation methods
  • • Consider combinations and context, not just individual scores

💡 Usage Guidelines

✅ Best Practices

  • • Complete assessment as a team for diverse perspectives
  • • Use guided mode for first-time assessments
  • • Review and discuss scoring rationale
  • • Re-assess as project context evolves
  • • Consider hybrid approaches for mixed scores
  • • Document assumptions and reasoning

⚠️ Cautions

  • • Scores are guidance, not absolute rules
  • • Consider organizational politics and constraints
  • • Account for team preferences and skills
  • • Don't ignore qualitative factors
  • • Validate recommendations with stakeholders
  • • Be prepared to adapt methodology over time

🎯 Tips for Accuracy

  • • Be honest about current state, not aspirational
  • • Consider worst-case scenarios for risk factors
  • • Include diverse team members in assessment
  • • Use examples to calibrate scoring
  • • Review historical project data for patterns
  • • Validate scores with experienced practitioners
Context assessment is critical for methodology selection, but remember that scores are starting points for discussion, not absolute answers. The conversation about scoring often reveals more insights than the final numbers.

— Jim Highsmith, Agile Methodology Expert

I've seen teams get too focused on perfect scores. Use this as a framework for structured thinking, but don't let it replace good judgment about your specific situation and organizational constraints.

— Kathy Schwalbe, Project Management Author