This document discusses collaborative prioritization and its benefits, including leveraging collective competencies, uncovering diverse opinions, raising mutual understanding, negotiating desirable outcomes, and obtaining acceptance and commitment. It describes how the analytic hierarchy process can be used to structure prioritization by building criteria hierarchies, prioritizing criteria, checking consistency, calculating ratios, accumulating ratios, and mapping priorities against alternatives. Examples show how this process can be applied to prioritize business strategies.

1. Collaborative
prioritization
INCLUSION › TRANSPARENCY › COMMITMENT

2. What we do
Services Process facilitation
And is related to
Opportunities/alternatives Ongoing activities
Which support the
Negotiation Prioritization Calculations
The analysis maps out the
Objective Criteria Hierarchy Workshop facilitation
 Prioritization projects
 PMO development
 Knowledge transfer

3. Collaborate prioritization is part of
every organization. Every day.

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

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

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

7. 4 Examples of Pitfalls in Prioritization

8. 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”

9. 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

10. When you agree,
do you agree?
AS MARKETING
PRIORITIZE IT
AS FINANCE
PRIORITIZE IT
50%
33%
35%
34%
15%
33%
PROJECTS BY
IMPORTANCE
Project A Project B Project C
 Agree to start 3 out of 7 projects
 What about relative importance?
 Consequence of perceptions?

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

12. And the winner is…

13. Stay focused – separate
Criteria Alternatives Cost

14. Collaborative prioritization process
Build criteria
hierarchy
Prioritize
criteria
Check
consistency
Calculate
ratios
Accumulate
ratios
Map against
alternatives
Visualize
Cost/benefit

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

16. 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

17. 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

18. Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)
 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.

19. Strategy Prioritization Example

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

21. 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)

22. 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
!!!

23. Perform consistency check
 Safety is 3 times more important than Acceleration
 Acceleration is 5 times more important that Color
 Safety should be 15 times more important than Color
 Allow for ~10% “human factor” inconsistency

24. Calculate priority ratios (%)
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)
30,33%
22,75%
(75%)
7,58%
(25%)
60,70%
38,44%
(63,33%)
6,45%
(10,62%)
15,81%
(26,05%)
8,97%
4,485%
(50%)
4,485%
(50%)

25. Accumulate ratios
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
%

26. 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

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

28. 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

29. http://www.slidehare.net/futurefactory
FIND THE PRESENTATION HERE