1. Purpose and Scope
This corporate standard defines the methodology used to evaluate and prioritize proposed or active projects within the organization. It ensures consistent, transparent, and objective decision-making during project selection, portfolio alignment, and resource allocation.
This methodology applies to all strategic, operational, and IT projects submitted for approval by any department or business unit.
2. Guiding Principles
- Align projects with strategic objectives
- Maximize value while minimizing risk
- Optimize resource utilization
- Ensure transparency and fairness
- Support data-driven decision-making in portfolio governance
3. Evaluation Criteria
Each project is evaluated based on a weighted scoring model that includes the following key dimensions:
3.1. Strategic Alignment (0–10 points)
- How directly the project supports one or more strategic goals
- Level of contribution (direct, indirect, or none)
3.2. Expected Business Value (0–10 points)
- Financial return (ROI, NPV, cost savings)
- Market impact (growth, retention, brand value)
- Operational efficiency improvements
3.3. Urgency / Time Sensitivity (0–5 points)
- Legal, regulatory, or compliance deadlines
- Market window opportunities
- Competitive pressure
3.4. Risk Level (0–5 points)
- Technical feasibility
- Organizational readiness
- Risk of failure or disruption
Note: Risk is reverse-weighted—lower risk scores higher.
3.5. Resource Availability (0–5 points)
- Availability of required skills, teams, or budget
- Alignment with current resource capacity
3.6. Stakeholder Impact (0–5 points)
- Number of stakeholders affected
- Criticality of those stakeholders to business success
4. Scoring and Weighting
| Criterion | Weight (%) | Max Score |
|---|---|---|
| Strategic Alignment | 30% | 10 |
| Business Value | 25% | 10 |
| Urgency | 15% | 5 |
| Risk (Inverse) | 10% | 5 |
| Resource Fit | 10% | 5 |
| Stakeholder Impact | 10% | 5 |
Formula:
Total Score = Σ (Criterion Score × Weight)
Maximum Total: 100 points
5. Priority Ranking Levels
| Total Score | Priority Level | Decision Implication |
|---|---|---|
| 85–100 | Critical | Must fund and execute immediately |
| 70–84 | High | Fund as soon as feasible |
| 50–69 | Medium | Fund if resources are available |
| 0–49 | Low | Put on hold or re-evaluate |
6. Review and Approval Process
- Project Sponsor completes a Project Priority Assessment Form.
- PMO validates scoring accuracy and consistency.
- Portfolio Review Board evaluates total scores and ranks projects for funding.
- Results are updated in the Project Portfolio Register.
7. Exceptions and Reassessments
- Projects with legal, regulatory, or safety requirements may be escalated regardless of score.
- Scores may be updated upon significant scope, cost, or benefit changes.
- Reassessment is mandatory during quarterly portfolio reviews.
8. Ownership and Maintenance
This standard is maintained by the Project Management Office (PMO) and reviewed annually. All departments are responsible for compliance.
9. Example of Priority Calculation
Project Name: Customer Self-Service Portal
| Criterion | Raw Score | Weight (%) | Weighted Score |
|---|---|---|---|
| Strategic Alignment | 9 | 30% | 9 × 0.30 = 2.70 |
| Business Value | 8 | 25% | 8 × 0.25 = 2.00 |
| Urgency | 4 | 15% | 4 × 0.15 = 0.60 |
| Risk (Inverse) | 3 | 10% | 3 × 0.10 = 0.30 |
| Resource Fit | 5 | 10% | 5 × 0.10 = 0.50 |
| Stakeholder Impact | 4 | 10% | 4 × 0.10 = 0.40 |
Total Priority Score = 2.70 + 2.00 + 0.60 + 0.30 + 0.50 + 0.40 = 6.50
Final Score (× 10 to scale to 100): 65.0
Result:
→ Priority Level: Medium
→ Decision: May be funded if resources are available. Could be deferred in favor of higher-ranked projects.
