Tool

AI Prioritization Workshop Worksheet (Interactive)

An interactive facilitator worksheet to capture candidate AI/automation use cases, score them on clinical and operational criteria, record owners and timelines, and produce a ranked list of pilot candidates with clear success criteria and next steps.

Interactive Tool

AI Prioritization Workshop Worksheet

Use this interactive worksheet during a prioritization workshop to capture candidate AI/automation use cases, score each on consistent criteria, and record owners, timelines and measurable success criteria. Recommended scoring: enter 0–10 scores for each criterion, set weights for your organization, compute each candidate's weighted score (instructions below), then record the top pilots and next steps.

Scoring guidance: For each candidate give numeric scores 0–10 (0 = lowest, 10 = highest). Recommended default weights (adjust as needed): Clinical impact 40%, Technical feasibility 20%, Data readiness 15%, Regulatory/risk-adjusted 15%, Workflow readiness/clinician acceptance 10%. Compute adjusted risk as (10 - RegulatoryRiskScore) so that higher is better for scoring. Weighted score = sum(weight_i * criterion_score_i) / sum(weights). See Capability Enhancements notes for automated scoring and visualization ideas.

e.g. 2026-09-20 or 'Q3 Strategy Session'
Name and role of the session facilitator or executive sponsor
Short summary of organizational goals, constraints, or targets that should shape prioritization
Relative weight (suggested default 40)
Relative weight (suggested default 20)
Relative weight (suggested default 15)
Relative weight (suggested default 15). Higher regulatory concern reduces score (see guidance).
Relative weight (suggested default 10)
There are blocks for up to six candidates. If you need more, run a second form or consolidate lower-priority ideas into a backlog.
Short descriptive name
Name and role responsible for the pilot
One-paragraph description of the problem, user, and expected change
0 = no impact, 10 = transformative
1.0 10.0
0 = very difficult / unknown, 10 = straightforward with available skills/data
1.0 10.0
0 = no usable data, 10 = mature, well-labeled data covering target population
1.0 10.0
0 = no known regulatory or safety concern, 10 = high concern requiring strong oversight
1.0 10.0
0 = strong disruption or low acceptance, 10 = ready and well-aligned
1.0 10.0
Compute weighted score using adjusted regulatory = (10 - regulatoryRisk). Example calculation provided in intro.
1.0 10.0
1.0 10.0
1.0 10.0
1.0 10.0
1.0 10.0
1.0 10.0
1.0 10.0
1.0 10.0
1.0 10.0
1.0 10.0
1.0 10.0
1.0 10.0
1.0 10.0
1.0 10.0
1.0 10.0
1.0 10.0
1.0 10.0
1.0 10.0
1.0 10.0
1.0 10.0
1.0 10.0
1.0 10.0
1.0 10.0
1.0 10.0
1.0 10.0
List your chosen top 3 pilots in order: name — owner — target start date — key success metrics (one per line).
For each selected pilot, record 2–4 measurable success criteria (e.g., sensitivity, reduction in wait time, time saved per patient, percent of alerts acted on).
Assign owners, draft timelines, data access tasks, and initial monitoring plans.
Record any decisions about pilots to postpone, require more data, or escalate for executive approval.
You can explore this tool now. Sign in or create an account to save your responses and return to them later.
Sign In to Save Create an Account
Make this tool part of your work

Save a personal copy, bring it to your team, or tailor the questions and workflow to fit what you are hungry to improve.

Member customization and team collaboration are coming soon.
Discuss Ask the Librarian

Discussion

Comments and conversation will live here.