Collaborative Prioritization client presentation

1. Collaborative
prioritization
INCLUSION › TRANSPARENCY › COMMITMENT

2. Collaborate prioritization is part of
every business. Every day.

3. Why collaborative prioritization?
Benefit from collective
competencies
Uncover opinions
and perspectives
Increase mutual
understanding
Negotiate most
desirable outcome
Obtain acceptance
and commitment
Legitimize decisions

4. There are numerous applications
Performance
evaluation
Product selection
Project portfolio
management
Risk identification
Recruitment Business strategy Office location Investments

5. Even to legitimize controversial
decisions
København
Århus
Herning
Aalborg
Malmø
Ballerup
Ørestaden
Why did you chose Copenhagen?
What makes Copenhagen better?

6. 4 Examples of Pitfalls in Prioritization

7. Prioritization hijacking happens…
The first person to
speak
The (annoying)
loud person
“The experienced
elderly”
The “pro” debater
The Boss
“The perception of the
expected outcome”
The business case/
cost wizard
Emotions or “speak
with data”

8. Criteria and weights
are not negotiated
58%
10%
23%
9%
Linda’s criteria
Acceleration Design Options Color
25%
11%
64%
Bob's criteria
Seats Color Safety

9. When you agree,
do you agree?
AS MARKETING
PRIORITIZE IT
AS FINANCE
PRIORITIZE IT
5
3
3
3
1
3
PROJECTS BY
IMPORTANCE
Project A Project B Project C
 Agree to start 3 out of 7 projects
 What about relative importance?
 Consequence of perceptions?

10. The business case trap
Are you driven by objectives or by business cases?
2
1
3

11. And the winner is…

12. Stay focused – separate
Criteria Alternatives Cost

13. Collaborative prioritization process
Identify
criteria and
hierarchy
Evaluate
criteria in
pairs of two
Perform
consistency
check
Aggregate
priority ratios
in hierarchy
Accumulate
effect of
priorities
Map
priorities
against
alternatives
Create the
cost/benefit
visualization

14. Prioritize using a defined scale
Scale
By far more important9
Significantly more
important7
More important5
Moderately more
important3
Equally important1

15. Evaluate only two criteria at a time
compared to is?
7 3
Pairwise discussions enable
 Inclusion
 Focused discussions
 Voting differences targeted
 Optimal time allocation
 Prioritization transparency
Kjkj lk sflj lkjfs
lksd lkjsf lkj lkj
lsdf lkjlk
Lkj sfdlkj
fdslksd lkfs
slkfsf lkjs sfkl l

16. The outcome
Identify priority inconsistencies
Quantify your business priorities
Benefit from everyone's knowledge
Obtain group acceptance and buy-in
Invest wisely and save resources

17. Nerd Alert: AHP theory
 The analytic hierarchy process is a
for organizing
and analyzing ,
based on and
.
 It has particular application in
, and is used around the
world in fields such as government,
business, industry, healthcare and
education.
AHP was developed by ,
University of Pittsburgh, in the 1970s and has been
since then.

18. Strategy Prioritization Example

19. Formulate objective and criteria
Objective
Criteria
Prioritize business strategy
Increase
agility
Reduce cost
Sign up with
partners

20. Define sub-criteria and hierarchy
Objective
Criteria
Sub-criteria
Prioritize business strategy
Increase
agility
Prototyping
technology
Leadership
program
Reduce cost
Centralize
procurement
Improve
controlling
Vendor
contracts
Sign up with
partners
High-end
co-branding
University (DTU)

21. Evaluate criteria in pairs of two
Business strategy
Increase
agility
Prototyping
technology
Leadership
program
Reduce
cost
Centralize
procurement
Improve
controlling
Vendor
contracts
Sign up with
partners
High-end
co-branding
University
(DTU)
Agility vs. Cost:
Agility vs. Partners:
Cost vs. Partners:
Consistency check:
3 1 3 5
3 5 5 7
5 7 7 5
3 1 3 5
Kjkj lk sflj lkjfs
lksd lkjsf lkj lkj
???
Lkj fdslksd lkfs
slkfsf lkjs
!!!

22. Perform consistency check
 Check for “the human factor” and
allow up to 10% inconsistency for
each criteria/sub criteria group
 A > B and B > C  A > C

23. Aggregate priority ratios (%)
Prioritize business strategy
Increase
agility
Prototyping
technology
Leadership
program
30,33%
22,75%
(75%)
7,58%
(25%)
Reduce
cost
Centralize
procurement
Improve
controlling
Vendor
contracts
60,70%
38,44%
(63,33%)
6,45%
(10,62%)
15,81%
(26,05%)
Sign up with
partners
High-end
co-branding
University
(DTU)
8,97%
4,485%
(50%)
4,485%
(50%)

24. Visualize the prioritization
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Accumulated effect of priorities
Procurement Prototyping Contracts Leadership Controlling Branding DTU
%

25. Evaluate priority ratios against..
 Alternatives (e.g. products)
 Time and resource allocation
 Corporate spending
 Projects in progress
 Project pipeline
Procurement
Prototyping
Contracts
LeadershipControlling
Branding
DTU
Priorities vs. spending
Priorities Spending

26. Cost/benefit visualization
Benefit
40%
30%
20%
10%
10% 20% 30% 40% Cost

27. emergent • futurefactory
Maja Wiberg
Organisations- og ledelseskonsulent, MPO
wiberg@emergent.dk
+45 51 22 22 68
linkedin.com/in/majawiberg
Jes Thorbjørn Holt
Managementkonsulent, MBA
jesholt@futurefactory.dk
+45 60 66 99 33
linkedin.com/in/jesholt

28. http://www.slidehare.net/futurefactory