A not-for-profit group had conflicting ideas on how they should select projects to enter clinical phases. There was no common view on project value, and many funding decisions were “champion led”. Consequently, there was confusion on how the priority of these incoming projects could be seen against those already in the portfolio
Phetairos worked with the client to understand what critical aspects of a project were valued by the organisation and stakeholders. These were used to form the basis of a small number of criteria against which incoming, and existing, projects were judged. A model was developed that could not only score these projects against these criteria, but which could also explore project ranking sensitivities, “what if” analyses, and critical strengths and weaknesses on a common framework.
The client obtained a broad understanding of project value and was able to align all stakeholders around this.
- Comparisons between projects - for example high risk high value projects vs low risk low value projects – were made transparent
- Project weaknesses that made a different to go/no go for funding were highlighted
- Incoming and existing projects were able to be compared, selected and prioritised using a common language, and buy-in for funding obtained
- They built an agreed annual process that reduced the “heat” in project selection