Prioritizing methods establish the relative value of choices or alternatives. They answer the question, "How do these items rank in importance?" You can prioritize answers to this question in a rank-ordered list of the choices to show what should be done first, what requires the greatest attention, and what needs the most resources.

Objective-based priorities. Actions or choices can be prioritized in terms of how they affect the achievement of an objective or fit into a structured process. These can be called objective priorities.

Ways to identify the critical path. Program Evaluation and Review Technique (PERT) is an example of an objective priority-setting process. A PERT analysis shows which activities in a structured process are part of the "critical path." This is the sequence of events that determines the overall pace of your project. Activities on the critical path usually receive priority attention because delays will affect overall progress.

Triage activities. Triage is another objective-based priority-setting process in which choices are made according to whether they will affect the overall achievement of objectives. In medical triage, for example, cases that are not in immediate need of attention receive lower priority, as do cases where the likely success of action is small. Those that combine urgency with potential for success get top priority.

Criteria priorities. Priorities can also be based on a set of criteria. Cost-benefit or cost-performance analyses are examples of this sort of priority setting. Whatever choices yield the greatest value on the criterion measure get highest priority. Results of a MAU model (below) would also be a form of criteria-based priority setting, but one that may be linked to a group decision process.

Group voting techniques. Priorities chosen through voting are based on the subjective preferences of the voters. These include one-person one-vote methods, where vote totals can determine priorities. Multi-voting methods are also used in which each voter gets some fixed number of votes to distribute among the choices.

Investment decisions. These methods attempt to identify those factors that will have the greatest influence on progress or success and therefore point to the people, organizations, tools, and activities that should be highest on the list for investment of resources.

Group decision-making. A single person can use these methods, but often they are used in a group setting. In these cases, prioritizing methods are used in situations where a variety of perspectives or preferences must be taken into account. In these cases, the prioritizing is an open process which reveals differences that can then be explored in an effort to achieve consensus.

Tough choices among desirable things. Priorities often involve choices among competing "goods." The process of identifying and setting priorities will almost certainly involve conflict and controversy. Some planning and preparation are necessary to keep the work on track.

More tough choices. Setting priorities does not end the tough decision process. Even though you know which choices are most important, you still have to figure out exactly how to allocate resources and work assignments.

Existing preferences, policies. Priorities set by objectives or voting methods may become irrelevant if they fail to align with an organization's preferences and policies. Therefore, the effort invested in priority setting activities may not always determine outcomes. Active consultation with top executives or policy leaders should be a part of the policy deliberations to avoid conflicts and wasted efforts.

Modell, M. (1996) A Professional's Guide to Systems Analysis. 2nd Edition. New York: McGraw Hill.

http://www.projectreview.net/prio.asp gives a quick guide on how to do a group prioritization matrix to narrow a team's focus. [Retrieved July 7, 2003]

For a more detailed explanation of the Program Evaluation and Review Technique (PERT), Critical Path Method (CPM) and Gantt charts, see http://studentweb.tulane.edu/~mtruill/dev-pert.html [Retrieved July 7, 2003]