Project Prioritization

Project Priority Setting
Overview
1
Project Priority Setting
is the process of
identifying research
projects/activities
that are most
important for
the organization
2
Key Reasons for Priority Setting
To focus research on high priority areas /

guide program planning and updating
To promote effective use of scarce

resources / guide resource allocation
To avoid dependence on intuitive,

researcher-driven selection of
projects/activities
3
Key Reasons for Priority Setting (2)
To build communication about projects /

activities between researchers and
among stakeholders
To link research to policy and socio-

economic goals of government
4
Other Important Considerations
Donor / Government loss of confidence

- perceptions of weak public sector performance & impact
- effectiveness, efficiency and return to investments
Competition
- for funding
- for research-service areas
Globalization
- more rapid response to change
- frequent shifts in market opportunities
5
Other Important Considerations (2)
Pressure for privatization of research
Pressure for demand-driven, bottom

up research planning
Responsiveness to the needs of

different types of producers / users
New research partners

6
Planning the Process
Priority setting must be adapted to:

- institute characteristics and conditions
- time constraints
- information and data availability
Stakeholder participation is advisable

- producers and industry
- extension
- research partners
7
Project Scoring Approach
Strengths
Simple and transparent
Use of multiple categories of criteria

(productivity, relevance, contribution to government
goals, feasibility)
Ability to assign differential weights to

criteria
8
Strengths (2)
Establishment of direct links to policy

goals and development objectives of
government
Compatibility with the involvement of

stakeholders
Less data and preparation required

9
Weaknesses
Possible semantic and definition ambiguity
Possible overlaps in objectives and criteria
Based on a certain level of subjectivity
Counterbalanced by use of multiple criteria and

participation of other scientists & external stakeholders
10
Process and Methods
11
Process Steps
Prepare initial project portfolio (project list)
Define priority setting criteria
Assign weights to criteria
Test scoring procedure
Score projects to determine rank (w/ stakeholders)
Examine results and, in exceptional cases, adjust
rank if necessary
Determine cut-off points for high, medium and low
priority projects
Use ranking to allocate resources (management
and scientist follow through on priorities)
12
Development of Project Portfolio
List of ongoing and proposed new projects.
Ideally, each project on the list should specify:
- objectives
- outputs
- duration
- budget
Important exercise for any organization

- Overall picture of projects/activities undertaken
- Researcher/stakeholder awareness of projects/activities
Key reference for individuals scoring the

projects 13
Development of Criteria
Criteria Categories Criteria (examples)

Contribution to 1. Production/income increases
productivity 2. Reduction in cost of production
1. Adoption rate
Relevance to clients 2. Basic knowledge
Contribution to policy 1. Employment generation

& development goals 2. Export earnings
1. Research expertise
Research feasibility 2. Project cost
14
Weighting of Criteria (1)
Relative Weights
Criteria Categories
(examples)
Contribution to
35%
productivity
Relevance to clients 30%
Contribution to policy
15%
& development goals
Research feasibility 20%
Total: 100%
15
Weighting of Criteria (2)
Individual Criteria Weights
Criteria Categories
(examples )
1. Production/income increases 0.15%
Contribution to
2. Reduction in cost of production 0.10%
productivity 35%
3. Value addition 0.10%
Relevance to clients
30%
Contribution to policy &
development goals 15%
Research feasibility 20%
Total: 100%
16
Scoring of projects
Workshop participants are usually divided into
groups of 8-10
Each group assesses and scores individual

projects, based information provided in the project
portfolio table and by group facilitators.
Participants are also provided with a description of

the criteria & a pre-defined scoring scale
High = 5; Moderate = 3; Low or not applicable = 1; Uncertain = no score
Discussion among the participants is encouraged.

17
Priority setting procedure (1)
Participant scores for each project are
entered into a computer spreadsheet and
averaged
The average score for each project is

automatically multiplied by the assigned
weight for the criteria to yield a weighted
average score
18
Priority Setting Procedure (2)
Weighted scores provide the ranks (order of

priority from high to low)
The results of each group are consolidated

into a master spreadsheet
The consolidated results are displayed, using

a multimedia projector, and discussed in
plenary
19
Conditions for Success
Ensure follow-through on the priorities

- focus research efforts on high priority projects
- link priorities to program planning & review
procedures
- communicate priorities to stakeholders & donors
Link fund allocations to priorities
Respond to producer needs/demands by

- regular portfolio adjustments
- periodic priority update
20

Project Prioritization

Uploaded by

Project Prioritization

Uploaded by

Project Priority Setting

To focus research on high priority areas /

To promote effective use of scarce

To avoid dependence on intuitive,

To build communication about projects /

To link research to policy and socio-

Donor / Government loss of confidence

Pressure for privatization of research

Pressure for demand-driven, bottom

Responsiveness to the needs of

New research partners

Priority setting must be adapted to:

Stakeholder participation is advisable

Simple and transparent

Use of multiple categories of criteria

Ability to assign differential weights to

Establishment of direct links to policy

Compatibility with the involvement of

Less data and preparation required

Possible semantic and definition ambiguity

Possible overlaps in objectives and criteria

Based on a certain level of subjectivity

Counterbalanced by use of multiple criteria and

Important exercise for any organization

Key reference for individuals scoring the

Criteria Categories Criteria (examples)

Contribution to policy 1. Employment generation

Research feasibility 20%

Each group assesses and scores individual

Participants are also provided with a description of

High = 5; Moderate = 3; Low or not applicable = 1; Uncertain = no score

Discussion among the participants is encouraged.

The average score for each project is

Weighted scores provide the ranks (order of

The results of each group are consolidated

The consolidated results are displayed, using

Ensure follow-through on the priorities

Link fund allocations to priorities

Respond to producer needs/demands by

You might also like