Complexity Change Impact Assessment:  Scoring Frameworks by Dimension

This article is to be read in conjunction with Complexity Change Impact Assessment: Understanding How Hard Your Change Will Be.

 How to Use These Scoring Frameworks

Each dimension includes a 1-5 scale with specific descriptions for each score level. Use these frameworks to:

1. Score consistently across different assessors and time periods
2. Provide evidence-based ratings instead of subjective opinions
3. Document your reasoning by pointing to the specific descriptor that matches your change
4. Communicate clearly with stakeholders about what each score means
5. Compare changes across your portfolio using standardized criteria

Scoring Tip: If your change falls between two descriptors, choose the higher score if multiple factors from that level apply, or the lower score if only one factor barely qualifies.

 

Core Dimensions

 Dimension 1: Scope of Change

Measures how wide-ranging the change impact is across the organization

Score: 1 - Very Low Scope: Minimal, isolated change

• Single task or activity modification
• One process step within a narrow workflow
• Affects daily routine of a small, specific group only
• No ripple effects to other processes or departments
• Changes are contained and self-limiting
• Example: Changing the format of a monthly report used by one team

 Score: 2 - Low Scope: Limited, contained change

• Single complete process within one function
• One workflow from start to finish in a specific area
• Affects one team or small department comprehensively
• Minimal impact on other processes or groups
• Changes touch multiple related tasks but stay within clear boundaries
• Example: Updating the customer onboarding process in the sales department

 Score: 3 - Moderate Scope: Cross-functional or multi-process change

• Multiple related processes within one function, OR
• Single process that crosses 2-3 functions
• Affects several teams within a division
• Some interdependencies with other processes
• Changes require coordination across related areas
• Example: Implementing new inventory management affecting purchasing, warehousing, and accounting

 Score: 4 - High Scope: Enterprise-wide or major transformation

• Multiple processes across several functions
• Affects most or all departments in some way
• Significant interdependencies across the organization
• Changes touch core business operations
• Requires coordination across divisions or business units
• Example: Enterprise resource planning (ERP) implementation affecting all core business functions

 Score: 5 - Very High Scope: Organisation-wide transformation with external impact

• Touches virtually every process and function
• Affects entire organizational operations
• Extends to external stakeholders (customers, suppliers, partners, regulators)
• Changes fundamental business model or operating approach
• Requires ecosystem-wide coordination
• Example: Digital transformation changing how the organization operates, serves customers, and partners with suppliers

 

 

Dimension 2: Clarity of Outcomes

Measures how well-defined and understood the change objectives are

Score: 1 - Very High Clarity: Crystal clear, measurable, and stable

• Specific, measurable outcomes clearly articulated
• Success metrics defined with baseline data
• Objectives stable and locked in
• Universal stakeholder understanding and agreement
• Future state described in concrete, specific terms
• Scope boundaries clearly defined (what's in vs. out)
• Example: "Reduce month-end financial close from 10 business days to 5 business days by automating reconciliation processes; measured by actual close completion date"

 Score: 2 - High Clarity: Clear direction with minor ambiguities

• General objectives well-defined and understood
• Most success metrics identified, some refinement possible
• Objectives mostly stable with minor adjustments possible
• Strong stakeholder alignment on direction
• Future state well-described with some details to be finalized
• Scope mostly clear with minor gray areas
• Example: "Improve customer service response times and satisfaction by implementing new ticketing system; target 50% reduction in response time and 15-point increase in CSAT scores"

 Score: 3 - Moderate Clarity: General direction clear, details evolving

• Conceptual vision and direction understood
• Some success metrics defined, others still being determined
• Objectives reasonably stable but evolving as understanding develops
• Moderate stakeholder alignment with some interpretation differences
• Future state described at high level, details still being designed
• Scope boundaries have some ambiguity
• Example: "Transform sales approach to be more consultative and solution-focused; specific metrics and target outcomes to be defined during planning phase"

 Score: 4 - Low Clarity: Direction identified but significant uncertainty

• High-level intention clear but specifics undefined
• Few concrete success metrics, mostly conceptual benefits
• Objectives frequently changing as understanding evolves
• Significant stakeholder disagreement on what success looks like
• Future state described in vague, aspirational terms
• Scope boundaries unclear, potential for significant scope creep
• Example: "Become more innovative and agile as an organization" - concept clear but no specific definition of what that means operationally

 Score: 5 - Very Low Clarity: Unclear, evolving, or undefined outcomes

• Objectives still in discovery mode
• Success metrics not yet defined, unclear how to measure
• Objectives highly uncertain and likely to change significantly
• No stakeholder consensus on desired outcomes
• Future state cannot be clearly articulated
• Scope undefined or constantly shifting
• Project exploring what the solution should be, not just how to implement it
• Example: "Explore ways to improve organizational effectiveness" - exploratory initiative without clear destination

 

Dimension 3: Breadth of Impact

Measures how many different groups, functions, and organizations are affected

Score: 1 - Very Low Breadth: Single, homogeneous group

• One team with similar roles and responsibilities
• Single location
• Similar skill levels and backgrounds
• Work in the same function with shared context
• Minimal coordination needs
• Example: Change affecting only the payroll processing team (8 people, same office, similar roles)

 Score: 2 - Low Breadth: Limited diversity, contained boundaries

• One department or small related set of teams
• 1-2 locations in close proximity or same region
• Similar roles within one function
• Limited external stakeholder awareness (but no impact)
• Some coordination needed but manageable
• Example: Change affecting the entire finance department across 2 office locations (45 people, same function)

 Score: 3 - Moderate Breadth: Cross-functional within organisation

• 2-3 different functions with related work
• Multiple locations across 2-3 regions
• Mix of role types and organizational levels
• Some indirect external stakeholder impact (behind the scenes)
• Moderate coordination and diverse engagement needed
• Example: Change affecting sales, customer service, and billing teams across 5 locations (180 people, three functions)

 Score: 4 - High Breadth: Enterprise-wide with diverse populations

• 4+ different functions across the organization
• Multiple locations across many regions or nationally
• Diverse role types across multiple organizational levels
• Direct impact on external stakeholders (customers or partners must adapt)
• Significant coordination across diverse groups required
• Different cultures, work styles, or organizational contexts
• Example: Change affecting operations, IT, finance, HR, sales, and customer service globally (1,200 people, six functions, 15 countries)

 Score: 5 - Very High Breadth: Multi-organisation or ecosystem-wide

• Multiple legal entities, companies, or organizations
• Global scope across continents and time zones
• Extremely diverse populations (different industries, cultures, languages)
• Major impact on multiple external stakeholder groups (customers, suppliers, partners, regulators)
• Complex ecosystem coordination required
• Different governance structures and decision-making authorities
• Example: Supply chain transformation affecting internal operations, 50+ suppliers, logistics partners, and customer delivery systems across 30 countries

 

 Dimension 4: Priority for the Organisation

Measures strategic importance and resource commitment level

Score: 1 - Very Low Priority: Nice-to-have, minimal organizational attention

• Departmental initiative with limited visibility
• Manager-level sponsorship or below
• Minimal budget, people working part-time alongside many other duties
• One of many competing priorities with no special status
• If resources become scarce, would be paused or cancelled
• Minimal consequence if delayed or fails
• Not mentioned in organizational communications or strategy
• Example: Improving the format of internal team meeting agendas

 Score: 2 - Low Priority: Useful improvement, modest attention

• Division-level initiative with moderate visibility
• Director-level sponsorship
• Modest budget with some dedicated resources
• In the top 20-30 organizational priorities
• If resources become scarce, might be reduced or delayed
• Some consequence if delayed (operational inconvenience)
• Occasionally mentioned in divisional communications
• Example: Upgrading department scheduling software to improve efficiency

 Score: 3 - Moderate Priority: Important initiative, adequate support

• Cross-divisional or organizational initiative with good visibility
• VP or Senior Director sponsorship
• Adequate budget with mix of dedicated and shared resources
• In the top 10-15 organizational priorities
• Would continue if resources become scarce, though possibly slowed
• Notable consequence if delayed (impacts business performance)
• Regularly mentioned in organizational communications
• Loosely tied to strategic objectives
• Example: Implementing new performance management system to support talent development goals

 Score: 4 - High Priority: Strategic initiative, strong commitment

• Enterprise-wide initiative with high visibility
• C-level executive sponsorship with active engagement
• Generous budget with mostly dedicated resources
• In the top 5 priorities
• Protected from resource constraints, other initiatives would be affected first
• Significant consequence if delayed (jeopardizes strategic objectives)
• Frequently discussed by leadership at all levels
• Directly tied to strategic plan objectives
• Regular executive and board updates
• Example: Digital transformation critical to competitive positioning and revenue growth targets

 Score: 5 - Very High Priority: Mission-critical, top organisational focus

• #1 or #2 organizational priority
• CEO or Board-level sponsorship with daily involvement
• Whatever resources are needed, fully dedicated team
• All resources protected regardless of other constraints
• Severe consequence if delayed (existential threat, survival issue, regulatory mandate)
• Constant organizational focus and attention
• IS a strategic objective, not just supporting one
• All competing priorities adjusted to accommodate this initiative
• Regular Board of Directors engagement
• Example: Regulatory compliance initiative required within 6 months to avoid business shutdown; or merger integration critical to organizational survival

 

Optional Dimensions

Dimension 5: Skills Gap

Measures the difference between current capabilities and required capabilities

Score: 1 - Very Low Skills Gap: Minimal skill enhancement needed

• Required skills are nearly identical to current capabilities
• Minor procedural adjustments, no new competencies
• People can learn required skills in hours to days
• 90-100% of required skills already exist in the organization
• High confidence in ability to perform new tasks
• Training consists mainly of awareness and minor tips
• Example: Using updated version of current software with slightly different menu locations but same core functions

 Score: 2 - Low Skills Gap: Building on existing foundation

• Required skills are closely related to current expertise
• Some new procedures but familiar domain
• People can become proficient in 1-2 weeks
• 75-89% of required skills already exist
• General comfort with learning requirements
• Training consists of procedural updates and some new features
• Example: Learning new reporting module in existing system—same data concepts, new tool for accessing them

 Score: 3 - Moderate Skills Gap: Notable new skills required

• Required skills include new competencies related to current work
• New concepts to understand in familiar context
• People can become proficient in 1-3 months
• 50-74% of required skills already exist
• Mixed comfort—some anxiety but manageable
• Training consists of skill-building, not just procedures
• Example: Moving from manual data analysis in Excel to using business intelligence tools—same analytical thinking, new technical skills

 Score: 4 - High Skills Gap: Significant new expertise needed

• Required skills involve substantial new competencies
• New knowledge domains with unfamiliar concepts
• People can become proficient in 3-9 months
• 25-49% of required skills already exist
• Significant anxiety about capability to learn and perform
• Training consists of comprehensive capability development
• May require hiring or external expertise for some roles
• Example: Customer service representatives becoming technical solution consultants—fundamentally different skill set requiring business analysis and technical knowledge

 Score: 5 - Very High Skills Gap: Completely new expertise required

• Required skills are entirely different from current capabilities
• Completely new knowledge domains and paradigms
• People require 9-12+ months to become proficient
• Less than 25% of required skills currently exist
• High anxiety, questioning whether success is possible
• Training consists of fundamental education, not just skill-building
• Likely requires significant hiring, reorganization, or external support
• May require people to move into entirely different roles
• Example: Traditional retail sales staff becoming data scientists; or manual labourers becoming automation technologists, a paradigm shift in work type

 

Dimension 6: Behavioural Change Required

Measures how much daily behaviours, habits, and work patterns must change

Score: 1 - Very Low Behavioural Change: Minimal adjustment to routines

• 1-2 minor procedural changes
• Adjustments to existing habits, not new behaviours
• Changes are conscious, procedural tasks (not automatic habits)
• No loss of valued activities or satisfying work
• Changes invisible to others or low-frequency
• No performance impact expected
• Same collaboration patterns with same people
• Example: Using new template for existing report—same work, slightly different format

 Score: 2 - Low Behavioural Change: Some routine adjustments

• 3-5 procedural changes to existing workflows
• Minor modifications to established habits (1-3 years old)
• Changes are visible but infrequent (weekly or monthly)
• Minimal loss of valued activities
• Keeping most preferred work, minor additions
• Brief performance dip (days to 1 week)
• Mostly same collaboration patterns with minor adjustments
• Example: Adding approval step to existing process—slightly longer workflow but fundamentally same work pattern

 Score: 3 - Moderate Behavioural Change: Notable shifts in work patterns

• 6-10 changes to daily or weekly routines
• Modification to moderately ingrained habits (3-5 years)
• Changes are visible and frequent (daily)
• Some loss of valued activities but offset by new opportunities
• Mix of keeping, modifying, and adding behaviours
• Moderate performance dip (2-6 weeks)
• Some new collaboration patterns and relationships
• New behaviours align reasonably well with current norms
• Example: Shift from reactive problem-solving to proactive monitoring and prevention—same domain, different approach

 Score: 4 - High Behavioural Change: Substantial transformation of behaviours

• 11-20 significant changes to daily work
• Changing deeply ingrained habits (5-10+ years)
• Changes are constant and highly visible
• Significant loss of valued, core activities
• Stopping behaviours central to job satisfaction
• Significant performance dip (1-3 months)
• Fundamentally different collaboration model
• New behaviours conflict with some current norms
• Mostly automatic habits must become conscious
• Example: Individual contributors becoming coaches and mentors - fundamental shift from doing work themselves to enabling others' work

 Score: 5 - Very High Behavioural Change: Complete transformation of work patterns

• 20+ changes, essentially relearning the job
• Changing unconscious, deeply habitual behaviours (10+ years)
• Every interaction different, completely visible transformation
• Loss of core identity-defining activities
• Must stop doing what brought success and satisfaction
• Substantial performance dip (3-6+ months)
• Complete transformation of collaboration and relationships
• New behaviours directly conflict with current norms
• Unconscious competence must be consciously unlearned
• Example: Command-and-control managers becoming servant leaders; or individual performers becoming strategic thinkers, identity-level transformation

 

 Dimension 7: Cultural Alignment

Measures how well the change aligns with organizational culture and values

Score: 1 - Very High Alignment: Perfect cultural fit, reinforces identity

• Change perfectly aligns with stated AND actual values
• Feels natural and familiar to how things work here
• Strongly reflects "how we do things around here"
• Similar changes have been enthusiastically adopted previously
• Supports and reinforces existing power structures
• Exceeds employee expectations, desired by workforce
• Aligns with organizational identity and pride points
• Risk tolerance matches cultural comfort level
• Example: Customer service improvement initiative in organization whose identity is built on customer obsession

 Score: 2 - High Alignment: Strong fit with minor adjustments

• Change aligns well with most values and cultural norms
• Feels mostly familiar with some new elements
• Generally reflects organizational approach
• Similar changes have been successfully adopted with normal challenges
• Neutral to power structures
• Meets employee expectations, generally supported
• Consistent with professional identity
• Comfortable level of innovation/risk
• Example: Process efficiency improvement in organization that values continuous improvement—natural fit

 Score: 3 - Moderate Alignment: Some cultural adaptation needed

• Change aligns with some values, neutral to others
• Mix of familiar and unfamiliar elements
• Partly consistent with organizational norms
• Mixed historical response to similar changes
• Slightly shifts power dynamics but not drastically
• Mixed employee response—some see value, others don't
• Some impact on professional identity but not threatening
• Moderate stretch of risk tolerance or innovation comfort
• Example: Implementing structured processes in moderately entrepreneurial culture—brings some order without crushing innovation

 Score: 4 - Low Alignment: Significant cultural tension

• Change conflicts with several important values or norms
• Feels largely unfamiliar and "not like us"
• Different from typical organizational approach
• Historical resistance to similar changes, multiple failures
• Significantly redistributes power and influence
• Below employee expectations, not what people wanted
• Challenges aspects of professional identity
• Requires more risk-taking or innovation than comfortable
• Example: Implementing rigorous control processes in highly entrepreneurial, "move fast and break things" culture

 Score: 5 - Very Low Alignment: Fundamental cultural transformation required

• Change conflicts with core organizational values and identity
• Completely opposite of "how we do things here"
• Violates cultural norms and shared beliefs
• History of repeated failure of similar initiatives
• Fundamentally threatens established power base
• Violates employee expectations, strongly unwanted
• Threatens core professional identity
• Requires complete paradigm shift in organisational personality
• Example: Imposing hierarchical, risk-averse compliance culture in highly innovative, flat-structure tech startup

 

Dimension 8: Change Saturation / Change Capacity

Measures concurrent changes and organizational capacity for more

Score: 1 - Very Low Saturation (High Capacity): Ready and eager for change

• No other significant changes currently underway
• 12+ months since last major change, people fully recovered
• Recent changes were successful with positive outcomes
• Enthusiastic energy, hungry for improvement
• Substantial time and attention available for change
• High organizational change capacity
• No additional changes planned in near future
• People have choice and ownership of this change
• Example: Stable period after successful changes with team requesting new improvements

 Score: 2 - Low Saturation (Good Capacity): Capacity available for change

• 1 other low-complexity change underway, or
• 6-12 months since last change, mostly recovered
• Recent changes were generally successful
• Positive energy, willing to engage
• Moderate time available, can balance with operations
• Moderate to good change capacity
• One small change planned in distant future
• People have moderate input and influence
• Example: Organization with one other minor initiative that doesn't significantly compete for attention

 Score: 3 - Moderate Saturation (Limited Capacity): Stretched but manageable

• 2-3 other changes underway (mix of complexities), or
• 3-6 months since last change, still adjusting
• Recent changes had mixed results
• Neutral energy, neither excited nor resistant
• Limited time, competing with operational demands
• Stretched capacity but can handle this
• 1-2 moderate changes coming within 6 months
• People have limited choice, consulted but not controlling
• Example: Organization in the middle of modest transformation with several workstreams competing for attention

 Score: 4 - High Saturation (Low Capacity): Near capacity limits

• 4-5 other changes underway (some high complexity), or
• 1-3 months since last change, still heavily adapting, or
• Changes overlapping with no recovery time
• Recent changes mostly struggled
• Weary energy, tired of change
• Minimal time available, operationally overwhelmed
• At or near capacity limits
• Multiple changes planned within 3-6 months
• People have minimal choice, mostly told what's happening
• Example: Organisation with multiple major initiatives creating competition for resources and attention

 Score: 5 - Very High Saturation (No Capacity): Severe change fatigue, over capacity

• 6+ other changes underway (multiple high complexity), or
• Less than 1 month since last change, or
• Continuous stream of changes with no relief
• Recent changes have failed, negative experiences
• Exhausted, severe change fatigue
• No capacity, already beyond limits
• Continuous stream of changes with no end in sight
• People have no choice, changes imposed
• Organization showing signs of change breakdown
• Example: Organisation undergoing multiple simultaneous transformations (systems, structure, processes, culture) with no coordination or recovery time

  

Dimension 9: Technology Dependency

Measures the role and complexity of technology in the change

Score: 1 - Very Low Technology Dependency: Technology not relevant or minimal

• Non-technology change (process, structure, culture), or
• Technology plays tiny supporting role only
• No systems, or one very simple system
• Technology is proven, mature, and stable
• Users are technology-confident
• Very simple, intuitive interface requiring no training
• 1-2 new features to learn
• Easy workarounds exist if technology fails
• Example: Team reorganization with no technology component; or updating contact list in existing system

 Score: 2 - Low Technology Dependency: Technology plays minor role

• Technology supports but isn't central to change
• 1-2 simple, familiar systems
• Established technology with known performance
• Users generally comfortable with standard systems
• Straightforward interface, minimal learning curve
• 3-5 new features or functions
• Moderate impact if technology fails, workarounds available
• Example: Using email and shared drives to support new communication process - technology enables but doesn't define the change

 Score: 3 - Moderate Technology Dependency: Technology is important component

• Technology is important but not the only element
• 3-5 systems with standard integrations
• Moderately mature technology, some uncertainties
• Mixed user confidence with technology
• Moderate complexity, standard learning needed
• 6-10 new functions or procedures
• Significant impact if technology fails, difficult workarounds
• Example: Implementing project management software to support new project methodology—technology important but methodology is the change

 Score: 4 - High Technology Dependency: Technology is central to change

• Technology is central, change largely enabled by tech
• 6-10 systems with complex integrations
• Relatively new technology, performance somewhat uncertain
• Generally low user confidence, anxiety present
• Complex interface, substantial learning curve
• 11-20 new technical skills required
• Severe impact if technology fails, no good workarounds
• May need to hire technical expertise
• Example: Implementing complex analytics platform that fundamentally changes how decisions are made - requires both technical skills and new analytical approaches

 Score: 5 - Very High Technology Dependency: Technology IS the change

• Technology is the change, completely dependent
• 10+ systems with highly complex integrations
• Cutting-edge, custom-built, or unproven technology
• Very low user confidence, significant tech anxiety
• Highly complex, expert-level skills required
• 20+ new technical capabilities needed
• Critical impact—business operations stop if tech fails
• May require significant reorganization around technology
• External technical expertise essential
• Example: Implementing AI-driven automation requiring complete workflow redesign, new roles, and expertise that doesn't exist internally

 

Dimension 10: Timeline and Urgency

Measures time pressure and urgency affecting the change

Score: 1 - Very Low Urgency (Ample Time): Flexible timing, low pressure

• 12+ months available for implementation
• Much more time than similar changes typically need
• No external pressures, completely flexible timeline
• Extensive time for people to adapt and learn
• No significant consequence of delay
• Timeline can be adjusted easily if challenges emerge
• Very realistic, even conservative timeline given complexity
• Example: Multi-year strategic initiative with flexible milestones - can adjust pace based on readiness

 Score: 2 - Low Urgency (Adequate Time): Comfortable timeline

• 6-12 months available for implementation
• Slightly more time than typical for similar changes
• Minor external factors, mostly internal control
• Adequate time for learning and practice
• Minor inconvenience if delayed
• Timeline can be adjusted with reasonable justification
• Realistic timeline with some buffer
• Example: Annual planning cycle change implemented over 9 months - enough time to plan, pilot, and refine

 Score: 3 - Moderate Urgency (Standard Time): Normal timeline pressure

• 3-6 months available for implementation
• About the right amount of time for this type of change
• Moderate external pressures influencing timeline
• Limited time, rapid adoption needed but achievable
• Moderate business impact if delayed
• Timeline might be adjusted with significant negotiation
• Realistic with good execution, little buffer
• Example: System upgrade during standard refresh cycle - defined window but reasonable for the work

 Score: 4 - High Urgency (Compressed Time): Aggressive timeline

• 1-3 months available for implementation
• Less time than similar changes typically need
• Strong external deadline, limited flexibility
• Minimal time for adaptation, expect rapid adoption
• Significant competitive or financial impact if delayed
• Timeline unlikely to be adjusted without major issues
• Optimistic—success requires everything going right
• Example: Competitive response requiring quick market action - necessary but challenging timeline

 Score: 5 - Very High Urgency (Crisis Timeline): Emergency implementation

• Less than 1 month available, or
• Insufficient time given change complexity
• Immovable external deadline (regulatory, contractual, survival)
• No time for adaptation, must be operational immediately
• Critical consequence if delayed (existential threat)
• Absolutely fixed timeline, no negotiation possible
• Unrealistic given complexity—timeline doesn't match requirements
• Crisis mode, significant risk of failure
• Example: Regulatory compliance mandate with 6-week deadline; or emergency business model change for survival - necessary but insufficient time

 

Scoring Summary Guide:   Quick Reference: Interpreting Scores

1 = Very Low Complexity

• Minimal change or perfect alignment
• Easy adaptation, quick adoption
• Natural fit with current state

2 = Low Complexity

• Minor change or good alignment
• Manageable adaptation with light support
• Comfortable fit with current state

3 = Moderate Complexity

• Noticeable change or some misalignment
• Requires conscious effort and standard support
• Requires some adjustment from current state

4 = High Complexity

• Significant change or notable misalignment
• Requires substantial effort and intensive support
• Major adjustment from current state

5 = Very High Complexity

• Transformational change or severe misalignment
• Requires intensive sustained effort and comprehensive support
• Complete departure from current state

 

Best Practices

1. Read all descriptors before scoring - Understand the full range before selecting
2. Match to evidence, not intuition - Use data from your assessment to guide selection
3. When between scores, consider multiple factors - If several sub-elements match the higher score, round up
4. Document your reasoning - Note which specific descriptors or evidence drove your score
5. Be honest - Avoid inflating scores to justify resources or deflating to appear optimistic
6. Use the full scale - Not everything is a 3; genuinely differentiate difficulty levels
7. Review patterns, not just individual scores - The combination tells the full story

 

Change Implementation Plan

For each dimension scored, document:

Dimension: (dimension name)
Score: (1-5)
Evidence:

• (Specific facts or data points)
• (Stakeholders quotes or observations)
• (Comparable example)

Reasoning: (Why this score rather than adjacent scores)

Implications: (What this means for change management approach)

We also recommend referencing the Complexity CIA in the Appendix of the CIP or insert links to the spreadsheet(s) saved a shared drive.

 These scoring frameworks provide standardised guidance for consistent, evidence-based complexity assessment. Please adapt the specific descriptors to fit your organisational context while maintaining the core principles of each scale level.