engaging NGOs and other agencies in public sector program/project development and implementation; utilizing a criteria-based point scoring system in deciding whether a program/project is to be considered for inclusion in an agency's work plan for the succeeding year. 5 criteria: doability, importance, magnitude, urgency, and relevance. separate assessment forms for proponent agency and partner-agencies are used to gather inputs on a program/project; accomplished forms from proponent and partner agencies for each program/project form the basis for rating the eligibility for inclusion in workplan. a simple rating scale (5 - highest, 1- lowest) is used to score in each criterion. this system is best applied when preparing the annual agency budget for the next fiscal year

1. Hilario P. Martinez 1
PUBLIC PRIVATE

2. Accelerating
Public Service
or Funding Re-
Prioritization?
Hilario P. Martinez 2

3. ISSUES IN OBJECTIVE PRIORITY
ASSESSMENT OF PROGRAMS, PROJECTS
AND SERVICES
Difficulties and Intricacies in Finalizing the Succeeding Year’s
Work and Financial Plan in the Public Sector
Hilario P. Martinez 3

4. The Selection Dilemma of a
Government Agency
Hilario P. Martinez 4
Which agency or NGOs would be
complementing our programs and
projects for next year?
What criteria do we need to apply
to select the most appropriate
programs and projects for funding
and implementation?

5. Traditional Criteria in Prioritizing
Programs and Projects
Financing
Requirement
Schedule of
Implementation
Sponsoring
Institution/s
Hilario P. Martinez 5

6. What influences the prioritization of
programs, projects and other services?
Hilario P. Martinez 6
The survey says …
Cashflow and
Funding issues
Concept issues
Collaboration issues

7. What influences the prioritization of
programs, projects and other services?
Hilario P. Martinez 7
A political
promise?
A political
response?
A political
gimmick?

8. What influences the prioritization of
programs, projects and other services?
Hilario P. Martinez 8
Hmmm … Who?
What? How?
Why should I?

9. What influences the prioritization of
programs, projects and other services?
Hilario P. Martinez 9
Can we make
it in time?
Who takes what?
Who gives what?
How do we put
things together?

10. A DATA-BASED SYSTEM OF PRIORITY
RATING AND RANKING OF PROGRAMS/
PROJECTS FOR IMPLEMENTATION
Hilario P. Martinez 10

11. Criteria for Ranking
Programs/Projects
Do-ability
Importance
Magnitude
Urgency
Relevance
Hilario P. Martinez 11

12. The Criteria …
• relates to the capability and capacity of an organization to
accomplish its planned targets given the limitation of its resources
D o - a b i l i t y
• refers to the qualitative degree of significance attributed to certain
factors to contribute to mission critical
I m p o r t a n c e
• refers to the relative sizes and trends of a particular set of information
M a g n i t u d e
• refers to the degree of exigency of addressing a given situation
U r g e n c y
• refers to the degree of congruence to the vision, mission and
objectives of a service area
R e l e v a n c e
Hilario P. Martinez 12

13. Weight per Criterion
Do-ability 5 pts
Importance 5 pts
Magnitude 5 pts
Urgency 5 pts
Relevance 5 pts
Hilario P. Martinez 13

14. The Rating Scale …
5
points
Highest
4
points
2nd
Highest
3
points
Median
2
points
2nd
Lowest
1
point
Lowest
Hilario P. Martinez 14

15. The Rating per PPA*
Hilario P. Martinez 15
D
O
-
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y
I
M
P
O
R
T
A
N
C
E
M
A
G
N
I
T
U
D
E
U
R
G
E
N
C
Y
R
E
L
E
V
A
N
C
E
S
C
O
R
E
≤5 ≤5 ≤5 ≤5 ≤5 ≤25
* Program/Project/Activity

16. Agency Program/Project
Assessment Form
Hilario P. Martinez 16
Page 1 Page 2

17. Partner
Agency
Assessment
Form
Engaging the active
participation of partner
agencies in the development
and implementation of
public sector programs and
projects
Hilario P. Martinez 17

18. DETAILS OF THE PRIORITIZATION
CRITERIA
The 5 Cs . . .
DOABILITY,
IMPORTANCE,
MAGNITUDE,
URGENCY and
RELEVANCE . . .
Hilario P. Martinez 18

19. Do-ability
• PPAs that can be
implemented given the
limits of resources and
circumstances affecting
it
• Must be responded to
by proponent agency
• 90%+ of required
resources are available5 pts
• 80-89% of required
resources are available4 pts
• 70-79% of required
resources are available3 pts
• 60-69% of required
resources are available2 pts
• 50-59% of required
resources are available1 pt
Hilario P. Martinez 19
Rating Level:

20. Do-ability – Rating Reference
Hilario P. Martinez 20

21. Do-ability Sample Rating Worksheet
(Proponent Agency)
Hilario P. Martinez 21

22. Do-ability Sample Rating Worksheet
(Partner-Agency*)
Hilario P. Martinez 22
* - Assuming 1 Partner-Organization per PPA. If more than 1, apply
the same process and average rates obtained

23. Do-ability Sample Rating Worksheet
(Average of Proponent and Partner-Agency)
Hilario P. Martinez 23

24. Importance
The qualitative degree
of significance
attributed to certain
factors to contribute to
mission critical
programs
Each will determine,
according to its mandate
and perspective, the
degree of importance a
joint engagement entails
to them
•Highest imperative & value
to the agency’s mandate5 pts
•2nd highest degree of
significance4 pts
•3rd or moderate degree of
significance3 pts
•4th or minor degree of
significance2 pts
•least degree of significance1 pt
Hilario P. Martinez 24
Priority Ranking:

25. How
would you
rate the level of
importance of this
PPA to your agency?
Importance – Rating Reference
Hilario P. Martinez 25
81% - 100%
61% - 80%
41% - 60%
21% - 40%
01% - 20%
Degree of
Importance
How
does your
Partner-agency
rate the level of
importance of this
PPA to them?
C – Partner-Agency
P – Proponent Agency
Proponent Agency
P5
P4
P3
P2
P1
C5
C4
C3
C2
C1
Partner-Agency

26. Importance – Conversion Table
Hilario P. Martinez 26
Combination Points Combination Points Points Permutations
C5 & P5 = 5 C4 & P5 = 4.5 5 = C5 & P5
C5 & P4 = 4.5 C4 & P4 = 4 4.5 = C5 & P4, C4 & P5
C5 & P3 = 4 C4 & P3 = 3.5 4 = C5 & P3, C4 & P4, C3 & P5
C5 & P2 = 3.5 C4 & P2 = 3 3.5 = C5 & P2, C4 & P3, C3 & P4, C2 & P5
C5 & P1 = 3 C4 & P1 = 2.5 3 = C5 & P1, C4 & P2, C3 & P3, C2 & P4, C1 & P5
2.5 = C4 & P1, C3 & P2, C2 & P3, C1 & P4
C3 & P5 = 4 C2 & P5 = 3.5 2 = C3 & P1, C2 & P2, C1 & P2
C3 & P4 = 3.5 C2 & P4 = 3 1.5 = C2 & P1, C1 & P2
C3 & P3 = 3 C2 & P3 = 2.5 1 = C1 & P1
C3 & P2 = 2.5 C2 & P2 = 2
C3 & P1 = 2 C2 & P1 = 1.5
C1 & P5 = 3 Legend:
C1 & P4 = 2.5 C = Partner Agency
C1 & P3 = 2 P = Proponent Agency
C1 & P2 = 1.5
C1 & P1 = 1

27. Importance – Rating Matrix
5.0 - C5 & P5
4.5 - C5 & P4, C4 & P5
4.0 - C5 & P3, C4 & P4, C3 & P5
3.5 - C5 & P2, C4 & P3, C3 & P4, C2 & P5
3.0 - C5 & P1, C4 & P2, C3 & P3, C2 & P4, C1 & P5
2.5 - C4 & P1, C3 & P2, C2 & P3, C1 & P4
2.0 - C3 & P1, C2 & P2, C1 & P2
1.5 - C2 & P1, C1 & P2
1.0 - C1 & P1
Hilario P. Martinez 27
H
I
G
H
L
O
W
COMBINATION OF POSSIBLE RESPONSES PER RATE
C – Client-Partner or
Target Sector
P – Proponent Agency

28. Importance – Sample Rating
Worksheet
Hilario P. Martinez 28

29. Magnitude - the relative sizes and trends of
affected beneficiary sector
Hilario P. Martinez 29
Determining whether a
factor has an increasing or
decreasing trend is a
function of time series
Determining whether a
factor is increasing or
decreasing in size compared
to another is a function of
quantity
The combined ratings for
trend and size comprises
the rating for “Magnitude"
Priority Ranking:
5 points Very
Significant
4 points Significant
3 points Acceptable
2 points Slightly
Acceptable
1 point Not
Acceptable

30. What tendency does the
analysis of the data disclose?
Is it increasing, same as
before or decreasing?
Magnitude – Rating Reference
Hilario P. Martinez 30
How does the latest data set
compare with previous year,
bigger, the same or smaller?
• 51% to 100% greaterS5=5
• 11% to 50% greaterS4=4
• -10% to 10% deviationS3=3
• -11% to -50% lesserS2=2
• - 51% to -100% lesserS1=1
Decreasing
T1=1
Increasing
T2=2
Size (Quantity) Trend (Time Series)
(at least 3 years data set)

31. Magnitude – Size and
Trend Pairs
Hilario P. Martinez 31
T2 & S5
T2 & S4
T2 T2 & S3
S5 T2 & S2
S4 T2 & S1
S3
S2 T1 & S5
S1 T1 & S4
T1 T1 & S3
T1 & S2
T1 & S1

32. Magnitude – Rating Matrix
Hilario P. Martinez 32
S – Size
T – Trend
(S x T) / 2
H
I
G
H
L
O
W
COMBINATIONOFPOSSIBLE
RESPONSESPERPOINTSCORE
5 = T2 & S5
4 = T2 & S4
3 = T2 & S3
2.5 = T1 & S5
2 = T2 & S2, T1 & S2
1.5 = T1 & S3
1 = T2 & S1, T1
& S2
0.5 = T1
& S1

33. Magnitude – Sample Rating Worksheet
Hilario P. Martinez 33

34. Urgency - time consideration or response that must be
made to a given problem or issue over time
5
Most urgent
Within
the next
2 months
4
Urgent
Within
the next
3 to 4
months
3
Moderately
urgent
Within
the next
5 to 6
months
2
Least urgent
Within
the next
7 to 8
months
1
Not urgent
Within
the next
9 to 10
months
Hilario P. Martinez 34
This criterion should be responded to by the proponent organization, but
preferably in consultation with the client-organization or beneficiary sector

35. Urgency – Sample Rating Worksheet
Hilario P. Martinez 35

36. Relevance -how a project relates to the vision, mission
and objectives of the service area
5
Most
relevant
Beneficiary
impact
estimated at
81-100%
4
Relevant
Beneficiary
impact
estimated at
61-80%
3
Moderately
Relevant
Beneficiary
impact
estimated at
41-60%
2
Less
Relevant
Beneficiary
impact
estimated at
21-40%
1
Not
Relevant
Beneficiary
impact
estimated at
01-20%
Hilario P. Martinez 36
This criterion should be responded to by the proponent organization,
but in consultation with the client-organization or beneficiary sector

37. Relevance – Sample Rating Worksheet
Hilario P. Martinez 37

38. DETERMINING THE FINAL PRIORITY
RATING AND RANKING OF PROGRAMS
AND PROJECTS FOR NEXT YEAR’S WORK
AND FINANCIAL PLAN
Hilario P. Martinez 38

39. Putting the Scores together
Hilario P. Martinez 39
Priority
Rating
Doability
Importance
Magnitude
Urgency
Relevance

40. Ranking Summary Worksheet
Hilario P. Martinez 40
+ + + + +
S
O
R
T
D
E
S
C
E
N
D
I
N
G

41. Sample Summary Rating Worksheet
Hilario P. Martinez 41

42. Determining next year’s qualified PPAs
for prioritization
Hilario P. Martinez 42
Median = 15.5
Arranged by PPA # Arranged by Points Earned
QUALIFIEDPPAs

43. What if Magnitude (Size & Trend) could be
a factor for additional point/s?
Hilario P. Martinez 43
NOTE: The values for Mag(Size) per PPA are for illustrative purposes only, but the
ratings for Mag(size) and Mag(trend) are the same with previous data used.
‘

44. Total Additional Points due to Comparative
Implication of Magnitude (Size and Trend)
Hilario P. Martinez 44
Values of Magnitude(Size) are ranked,
only the top 5 are rated in descending
order (1, 0.8, 0.6, 0.4 & 0.2)
Only Magnitude (Trend)
with a score of 2 is rated
0.5 for bonus point

45. Final Total Points Earned per PPA
Hilario P. Martinez 45

46. PPAs’ Final Priority Ranking
Hilario P. Martinez 46
Set Median = 15.5
TopmosteligiblePPAs
forprioritization

47. Finalizing Partners’ Commitment to
Next Year’s Prioritized PPAs for
Funding and Programming
Hilario P. Martinez 47

48. WHAT ADVANTAGES DOES THIS CONCEPT
OFFER A PUBLIC SECTOR AGENCY? AND
MORESO, THE TAXPAYERS?
Hilario P. Martinez 48

49. Advantages of adopting this approach to
program/project ranking
Hilario P. Martinez 49

50. The other factor
It discourages,
minimizes, if not
totally prevent, the
adoption of
“?QUESTIONABLE?”
P.P.As from being
considered and
funded for
implementation
Themostimportant
advantageofusingthis
application–
Hilario P. Martinez 50

51. Ultimately, the Program/Project
Priority Rating System results in …
Higher % of
public sector
program/
project
implemen-
tation
Increased %
of public
sector fund
utilization
Improved
public sector
program/
project
planning
efficiency
Decreased
unwarranted
public sector
savings
accumu-
lation
Improved
public-
private
sector
collaboration
Hilario P. Martinez 51
S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y a n d S T A B I L I T Y