Based on the theoretical perspectives presented above, together with the review of the challenges associated with prioritising projects in the public sector presented in the literature review chapter, this section focusses on the development of a prioritisation framework that can guide managers in the process of prioritising multiple initiatives in a manner than maximises public value.
This framework seeks the development of a prioritisation model which takes into account all the considerations that relate to prioritizing a set of projects in a way that maximizes public value. The first step in the development of the prioritisation model is the determination of the relative importance of the various strategies that relate to public value. Using the analytical hierarchical process model, a pairwise comparison is made between the three strategies that lead to public value. Thus a public manager is made to choose between seeking public authorisation as a strategy against public participation in creation as a strategy. Goepels‟ AHP model allows managers, in addition to ranking one strategy over another, to attach a level of importance to their choice, with 1 one indicating that they just prefer their choice over the other while a 9 indicates that they strongly prefer their choice over the other.
The process is repeated comparing authorisation to outcomes and finally public participation in creation as a strategy are compared to outcomes as a strategy. This comparison is conducted by all managers involved in the creation of the prioritisation model and this should result in a weighted list of strategies as per Table 4 below.
Strategy Weight Authorisation 15.1
Creation 5.2
Outcomes 79.7
Table 4 : Sample Weighted list of strategies
In this mock prioritisation, outcomes are seen as the most important strategy, and thus projects whose outcomes the public relate to the most should be accorded a higher weighting.
The second part of the model development delves into the details of the strategies. A number of potential criteria for project authorisation as a strategy exist. Such criteria may, for example, include demand for a service by the public, management discretion, legal requirements, political requirements, national strategy or ruling party strategy. Managers need to establish what these criteria are for their specific environment and using the same pairwise comparison technique provided for in AHP, a list of
Authorisation Wt
Authorisation Method 1 25.2%
Authorisation Method 2 11.3%
Authorisation Method 3 34.5%
Authorisation Method 4 6.5%
Authorisation Method 5 12.6%
Authorisation Method 6 3.8%
Authorisation Method 7 6.2%
Table5 : Sample weighted list of authorisation criteria
Managers will also have recognised, in some cases documented outcomes that are in the public interest. Such outcomes may for example be; millennium development goals, public health goals or education goals. In the BBC‟s creation of a public charter, desirable outcomes were identified as extending the BBC‟s reach and usage, provision of high quality and distinctive services, impact, cost and value for money (BBC, 2007). A pairwise comparison of these criteria will result in a weighted list of outcomes. Finally government will have identified methods in which services are created, such as through the public service, jointly with the public or through Public-Private-Partnerships (PPP). A pairwise comparison of these using AHP will result in a weighted list of service creation criteria.
Creation Wt
Service creation method 1 7.4%
Service creation method 2 24.7%
Service creation method 3 7.5%
Service creation method 4 50.5%
Service creation method 5 7.8%
Service creation method 6 2.2%
Table6 : Sample weighted list of service creation criteria
These weighted lists of strategies and criteria are combined in a once off exercise for a public government context, to establish the prioritisation model as shown in Table 8. The prioritisation model is used as a reference table during a project prioritisation exercise as demonstrated in Table 9 and described in the rest of this section.
Outcome Wt
Outcome 1 42.6%
Outcome 2 5.5%
Outcome 3 15.6%
Outcome 4 16.6%
Outcome 5 7.3%
Outcome 6 4.3%
Outcome 7 6.7%
Outcome 8 1.3%
Table7 : Sample weighted list of outcomes
Figure 7 : Prioritisation Process
Project Prioritisation Model
Authorisation Wt Creation Wt Outcome Wt
1 Authorisation Method 1 25.2%
Service creation method 1 7.4%
Outcome 1 42.6%
2 Authorisation Method 2 11.3%
Service creation method 2 24.7%
Outcome 2 5.5%
3 Authorisation Method 3 34.5%
Service creation method 3 7.5%
Outcome 3 15.6%
4 Authorisation Method 4 6.5%
Service creation method 4 50.5%
Outcome 4 16.6%
5 Authorisation Method 5 12.6%
Service creation method 5 7.8%
Outcome 5 7.3%
6 Authorisation Method 6 3.8%
Service creation method 6 2.2%
Outcome 6 4.3%
7 Authorisation Method 7 6.2%
Outcome 7 6.7%
8 Outcome 8 1.3%
Table8 : Project Prioritisation Model example Prioritisation of Projects
Project service authorised Wt service created Wt Outcome affect Wt Total
Factor 15.1% Factor 5.2% Factor 79.7%
1 Project 1 Authorisation Method 1 3.8%
Service creation method 1 1.3% Outcome 6 1.0% 6.1%
2 Project 2 Authorisation Method 4 1.9%
Service creation method 3 0.4% Outcome 1 34.0% 36.2%
3 Project 3 Authorisation Method 1 3.8% Service creation method 6 0.4% Outcome 5 4.4% 8.6%
4 Project 4 Authorisation Method 1 3.8%
Service creation method 3 0.4% Outcome 5 4.4% 8.6%
5 Project 5 Authorisation Method 2 5.2%
Service creation method 1 1.3% Outcome 6 1.0% 7.5%
6 Project 6 Authorisation Method 4 1.9% Service creation method 3 0.4% Outcome 5 4.4% 6.7%
7 Project 7 Authorisation Method 2 5.2%
Service creation method 1 1.3% Outcome 6 1.0% 7.5%
8 Project 8 Authorisation Method 1 3.8%
Service creation method 1 1.3% Outcome 4 5.3% 10.4%
9 Project 9 Authorisation Method 1 3.8%
Service creation method 3 0.4% Outcome 5 4.4% 8.6%
Table9 : Example Prioritisation Using the Prioritisation Model
In prioritising projects, each individual project within a long list of projects isassociated with authorisation criteria, service creation criteria as well as the outcome it is most likely going to affect or have an impact on. In the example provided in Table 9, Project 1 has been authorised through authorisations method 1, weight 25.2; which is part of the authorisation strategy, weight 15.1, giving this project an authorisation factor of (25.2 x 15.1) = 3.8. The same project is associated with service creation criteria 1, weight 7.4; which is part of the service creation strategy weight 5.2, giving this project a service creation factor of 1.3. Finally the project outcome is outcome 6, weight 4.3; which is part of outcome strategy weight 79.7 giving this project an outcome factor of 1.0. The sum total factor of this project becomes 6.1 (3.8 + 1.3 +1.0). This exercise is repeated for each project to obtain the project factors. Projects with the highest factors are considered likely to deliver the highest public value.
While the mathematics of the calculation may appear convoluted, once the prioritisation model has been set up in a spreadsheet, the actual prioritisation consisting of listing the projects and through a drop down menu, selecting the relevant criteria and the spreadsheet will automatically calculate the factors.