GEOALBERTA 2008 - GIS Priority Setting 101

GIS Priority Setting 101Tammy KobliukCity of St. Albert

Topics to Cover

• Why set priorities?• Key considerations• Different methods• Criteria• Putting It Altogether• Case Study: City of St. Albert

Why?

“Many organizations often don’t realize they lack clear priorities until they are in the middle of a crisis.”

“Being budget-based makes it even more difficult to abandon the wrong things, the old, the obsolete... The temptation is great, therefore, to respond to lack of results by redoubling efforts.”

Peter Drucker, 1973

• Limited time.• Limited resources.• Limited budget.• To separate the needs from the wants.• To identify the real priorities.• To ensure that the most important work gets

done.• To manage expectations.• To avoid ‘fire-fighting’.

Why set priorities?

“Being dependent on a budget allocation mitigates against setting priorities and concentrating efforts, yet nothing is ever accomplished unless scarce resources are concentrated on a small number of priorities.”

Peter Drucker, 1973

Key Considerations

Key Considerations

• Set up an effective governance structure.• Customize to your organization.• Achieve a multi-sectoral perspective.• Achieve a balance between the centre and the

periphery.• Use clear and consistent criteria.• Use an open and understandable process.• Be flexible.

Governance Structure

• THE NUMBER 1 CONSIDERATION!• The parties setting the priorities must have

the authority to do so.• Require authority over resources and $$.• Cross-section of organization business.• Representation from GIS.• Keep committees relatively small.

Clearly Identify Tasks & Activities

• Engage stakeholders.• Collect information corporately.• Use a variety of methods. Use what works for

you.– Interviews, surveys, email, phone

• Create a master list for prioritization.• Identify who needs what.

The Holy Crap List

Review Your Priorities• Revisit and review priorities at regular

intervals.• Assess progress.• Make changes to priorities as appropriate.• Keep scrutiny on progress against priorities.• Investigate and identify any blockages that are

preventing progress from being made.

Recapping Considerations

• Focus on what your organization is about.• Prioritize and do something.• Get the right people involved in deciding what

matters.• Put resources behind what matters most.

Look to Others

• Ask other GIS or non-GIS groups for advice.• Ask what works and what doesn’t.• Look to other industries:

– Health services– Law enforcement

• Research general priority setting.• The internet is a great resource.

Methods

Covey’s Quadrants• A high-level prioritization scheme.• Categorize tasks into quadrants based on two variables

(one each axis).– Important/Urgent– Impact/Need

• Identify quadrants. E.g. Sacred cows – high impact/low need

• ADV: Easy to use and understand.• DIS: Does not prioritize within quadrants; only

measures against 2 criteria.• Not suitable for a large number of tasks or for a

complex environment.

Example: Quadrants

NEED

IMPA

CT

Low Impact ButHigh Need

Low Impact &Low Need

High Impact &High Need

High Impact ButLow Need

Sacred Cows

Potential Stars

Dogs

Stars

Priority-Setting Matrix• List criteria options for consideration.• Select, ideally, between 2 – 5 criteria.• Decide on the weighting of each criteria.• Draw a matrix, with activities on each row.• Rank each activity against each criterion on a scale of

0-5.• Multiply point ratings by weights and sum up.• ADV: Gives some indication of priority order.• DIS: Best used to compare a short list of options;

may be difficult to decide which criteria to use.

The ABC Method• Rank each activity into a category.

– A = Vital– B = Important– C = Nice to have

• Then rank within each category.– A1, A2, A3, etc.

• ADV: Gives a detailed ranking and clear categories.

• DIS: Likely not suitable for large numbers of tasks in each category.

Paired Comparisons

• Simple scoring system for comparing activities.

• Each activity is ranked against each of the others. On each comparison note which items has a higher priority.

• ADV: Gives a detailed ranking, not just a grouping.

• DIS: Suitable only for short lists; potentially complicated to understand.

Important vs Performance Method• Rate the importance of essential services or

indicators on a 1-10 scale.• Assign indicators into one of 4 categories.

– High importance/low performance – increase attention

– High importance/high performance – maintain efforts

– Low importance/high performance – reduce efforts

– Low importance/low performance – needs little attention

• ADV: Gives an indication where efforts are best directed; groups activities by need for attention.

• DIS: Does not specifically rank activities.

Screening vs Ranking

• How many requests total are you prioritizing?• Do you need a triage process?• Is there value in rigorously ranking every

request?• How many requests will be actioned in the

next 12 months?• How often do your organization’s priorities

change?

Criteria

Triage Criteria• Legislated or regulated• Contractually obligated• Mandated work• Importance• Urgency• Request by senior leadership or elected officials• High impact• High or common need• Safety-related issue• Dependency issues

Ranking Criteria• Solution availability• Overall impact/payoff• Effectiveness• Completion time• Leadership support• Resources to address• Mandated work• Importance• Urgency• Fits guiding goals/objectives

• Known commitments• Logical fit• Risk of maintaining status

quo• Acceptability• Within control of team• ‘Customer pain’ caused by

problem• Legal/ethical issues• Legislation/regulations• Feasibility

Criteria NOT To Use

• Cost• Funding• Staffing

These factors do not affect WHAT is a priority, only HOW those priorities are addressed.

Putting It Altogether

Putting It Altogether• Collect your overall list of requests.

– Don’t just guess – ask!• Ask requestors to rank their own requests.• Choose one or more methods.• Tailor to your specific needs.• Select your screening/ranking criteria.• Who does the ranking?• Rank individually or as a group?• Do you need manual intervention?

Putting It Into Practice

• Design something reasonable on paper.• Implement one step at a time.• Adapt based on feedback and experience.• It’s OK to change your plan.• Do what works.• Do what is defendable and reasonable.

Case Study:City of St. Albert

“Public sector managers have to manage a complex set of demands, priorities and accountabilities, often across a wide number of services areas. It can be easy to lose sight of what is important.”

Governance Structure• GIS Steering Committee – decision authority.

– Chair = General Manager– Facilitator = GIS Coordinator– Members = Selected Department Directors (8)– Cross-section of all Divisions.– Cross-section of ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’.– All parties have a demonstrated interest in GIS.

• GIS Technical Committee – advisory.• GIS Action Team – advisory and low-level decisions;

cross-rank; problem solving team.

Capturing the Overall Need• High-level needs analysis conducted.• In person interviews with all senior management and

other key staff.• Overall list compiled.• Requests scored as Want or Need by requestors.• Each request tagged with requesting and/or

benefiting departments.• Requests described by business function, not

technical task.• Total number for 2007/2008 = 145

Choosing A Method

• Large number of requests indicated a need to easily identify top priorities.

• Potential methods researched.• Early decision to revisit priorities annually.• A hybrid approach chosen.• A mix of triage and ranking.• Priorities to be set by GIS Steering Committee.

Goals & Objectives

• Meets business needs.• Resources are used effectively.• Clearly guides the implementation team.• Acceptance of the priority list by all

stakeholders.

Hybrid Triage/Ranking

• Requests are screened against criteria to identify top priorities.

• Top priorities are ranked in detail.• Bottom priorities are ranked generally.• Requests sorted by ranked scores.• Manual tweaking by GIS Coordinator.

NewRequest

Pass SCREENING criteria?

YESNO

List:Top Priorites

Laundry List:Remaining Requests

Criteria-based

research

Priority/Criteria Matrix

GIS Steering Committee discussion and debate

Ordered List:Top Priorities

Priority list review

Priority/Criteria Matrix

General Ranking:Remaining Requests

Priority list review

A list of key criteria defined by the GIS

Steering Committee intended to help define

a ranked list.

A small set of general criteria

intended to group items into quadrants.

City of St. AlbertGIS Requirements Prioritization Process

Thursday, February 01, 2007

Top Prioritiesare complete.

Quadrant Chart

A list of key screening criteria

defined by the GIS Steering Committee intended to help pull out the top priorities.

Top Priorities

Laundry List(Bottom

Priorities) Use of triage screening

Use of Priority-Setting Matrix

Use of modified Covey’s

Quadrants

Manual intervention

Putting It Into Practice1. GIS Coordinator was asked to pre-score requests as

High/Medium/Low.2. GIS Steering Committee chose triage and ranking

criteria as a group.3. GIS Steering Committee decided to triage only ‘High’

requests with the option to bring forward select other requests.

4. Screening done as a group.5. GIS Coordinator put together ranking spreadsheets for

top/bottom priorities.6. Top priorities ranked collaboratively. Coordinator pre-

ranked certain criteria.7. Coordinator ranked bottom priorities.8. Coordinator tweaked top priority order.

Example: Screening Spreadsheet

Example: Ranking Spreadsheet

In Practice: Year 2• High level needs interviews repeated. More

informal. Opportunity for progress updates.• Coordinator pre-scoring High/Medium/Low.• Steering Committee requested Coordinator to pre-

screen for top priorities based on previous year’s screening.

• Coordinator will pre-score same ranking criteria.• Steering Committee will group score remaining

ranking criteria, with reference to previous year’s scores.

• GIS Coordinator will do final tweaking.

Triage Screening Criteria

• Legislative or Regulatory Requirement• City Council Priority• Public Commitment• Urgent• Important• High Impact / Common Need• Foundation Item• Addresses a Safety Issue

Top Priorities: Ranking Criteria

• Required or Mandated• Urgency / Deadline• Time to Complete• Overall Impact• Availability of Solutions• Dependency• Self-Sufficiency

Bottom Priorities: Ranking Criteria[A.K.A. The Laundry List]

• Feasibility – Technical• Feasibility – Creative/Content

• Importance – User• Importance – Corporation

Tracking & Measuring Progress

• Stop Light status codes:RoadblockAlertIn progressOngoingPendingCompleteParked / On Hold

Questions?

Tammy [email protected]