Scoring Model

9 innovation families · 52 innovations · 213 subtypes, sourced from your framework doc.

The contextual relevance problem

Why a zero isn't always a zero

A Tier 4 maintenance brand with no innovation budget shouldn't score zero on Emerging Platforms the same way a Tier 1 brand that simply never tested does. So relevance is an explicit input, not an assumption:

Adoption = Σ(level × relevanceWeight) ÷ Σ(4 × relevanceWeight) — over in-scope innovations only

Out-of-scope families leave the numerator and the denominator, so every brand is still reported 0–100 and directly comparable. Two guardrails stop that becoming a loophole: Scope Coverage (how much of the universe the brand plays in) always travels with the score, and the Ambition Index re-bases the score against the expectation for its budget tier.

Adoption ladder

Not Applicable	excluded
Not Started	0
Planned	1
Piloting	2
Adopted	3
Scaled & Optimized	4

Relevance weights

Core Priority	1
Secondary	0.6
Watch Only	0.25
Out of Scope	0

Budget tiers → ambition bar

Tier 1 — Investment Brand	expected 100
Tier 2 — Growth Brand	expected 80
Tier 3 — Maintenance Brand	expected 55
Tier 4 — Minimal / LOE	expected 35

Composite weighting

Relevance-weighted adoption	50%
Optimization Efficiency10 checks	20%
Cross-Channel Collaboration8 checks	15%
Strategic Relevancy7 checks	15%

Maturity tiers

Leading composite ≥ 80Advancing composite ≥ 60Building composite ≥ 40Emerging composite ≥ 20Nascent composite ≥ 0

Workbook flow

Brand Setup ─┬─> Adoption Entry ─┐
             └─> Checklists ─────┼─> Scores (engine)
Taxonomy ────────────────────────┘        │
                                          ├─> Exec Heat Map    (leadership)
                                          ├─> Family Matrix    (channel leads)
                                          └─> Channel Detail   (activation teams)