This document provides an overview of GIS priority setting, including why it is important to set priorities, key considerations, different prioritization methods, criteria for prioritization, and a case study of how the City of St. Albert implemented GIS priority setting. Some key points: - Setting priorities is important to manage limited resources and budgets effectively and avoid "fire-fighting". - Key considerations include governance structure, customization, criteria, process, and flexibility. - Common prioritization methods include Covey's quadrants, matrices, ABC, and paired comparisons. - Criteria may include importance, impact, urgency, dependencies, and more. - St. Albert used a hybrid approach of triage

1. GIS Priority Setting 101
Tammy Kobliuk
City of St. Albert

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

3. Why?

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

5. “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

6. • 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?

7. “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

8. Key Considerations

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. The Holy Crap List

13. 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.

14. 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.

15. 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.

16. Methods

17. 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.

18. Example: Quadrants
NEED
IMPACT
Low Impact But
High Need
Low Impact &
Low Need
High Impact &
High Need
High Impact But
Low Need
Sacred Cows
Potential Stars
Dogs
Stars

19. 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.

20. 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.

21. 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.

22. 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.

23. 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?

24. Criteria

25. 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

26. 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

27. Criteria NOT To Use
• Cost
• Funding
• Staffing
These factors do not affect WHAT is a
priority, only HOW those priorities are
addressed.

28. Putting It Altogether

29. 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?

30. 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.

31. Case Study:
City of St. Albert

32. “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.”

33. 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.

34. 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

35. 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.

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

37. 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.

38. New
Request
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. Albert
GIS Requirements Prioritization Process
Thursday, February 01, 2007
Top Priorities
are 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

39. Putting It Into Practice
1. 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.

40. Example: Screening Spreadsheet

41. Example: Ranking Spreadsheet

42. 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.

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

44. Top Priorities: Ranking Criteria
• Required or Mandated
• Urgency / Deadline
• Time to Complete
• Overall Impact
• Availability of Solutions
• Dependency
• Self-Sufficiency

45. Bottom Priorities: Ranking Criteria
[A.K.A. The Laundry List]
• Feasibility – Technical
• Feasibility – Creative/Content
• Importance – User
• Importance – Corporation

46. Tracking & Measuring Progress
• Stop Light status codes:
Roadblock
Alert
In progress
Ongoing
Pending
Complete
Parked / On Hold

47. Questions?
Tammy Kobliuk
tkobliuk@st-albert.net