Criteria Development for Project Selection

𝗜𝘁 𝘁𝗼𝗼𝗸 𝗺𝗲 𝗮 𝗹𝗼𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘇𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗜 𝗮𝗹𝘀𝗼 𝗻𝗲𝗲𝗱𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗯𝗲 𝘀𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗽𝗶𝗰𝗸𝘆 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝘂𝗻𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗜 𝗽𝘂𝗿𝘀𝘂𝗲𝗱. Early on, I chased every funding opportunity that vaguely aligned with our mission. When resources are tight, it’s easy to reshape your work to meet funders’ interests—even if it feels like squeezing a round peg into a square hole. Over time, I learned that this approach comes with costs that can be more detrimental than the reward they bring. These include: 🍃 𝗠𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗗𝗿𝗶𝗳𝘁: We move away from our original purpose when we adjust our programs to fit a funder’s requirements. This “mission drift” can dilute our core impact, spreading us thin and lessening our unique value. 💪🏿𝗧𝗲𝗮𝗺 𝗠𝗼𝗿𝗮𝗹𝗲: Constantly pivoting to satisfy funders’ priorities rather than focusing on a clear mission can lead to burnout and disillusionment, making retaining talented, passionate staff harder. 🎯𝗟𝗮𝗰𝗸 𝗼𝗳 𝗙𝗼𝗰𝘂𝘀: Casting a wide net without a strategy leads to scattered efforts and less productive results. This especially affects the development team, making them less efficient and the relationships they build more surface-level and less impactful. So, how do you ensure funder alignment? I use a weighted rubric that keeps us focused on impact. I rate each funder on key criteria—like mission alignment, application ease, and grant size—scoring them as low, medium, or high. We only pursue funders who meet our threshold so we can focus on partnerships that genuinely support our mission and goals. The criteria include: 🚀 𝗠𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗔𝗹𝗶𝗴𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 (𝟮𝟬%): Does the funder have a history of supporting causes like yours? Funders interested in your mission area will likely be a better fit. 💰 𝗚𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝗦𝗶𝘇𝗲 (𝟮𝟱%): Does the grant amount align with your financial needs? You also need to factor in the costs of applying for the opportunity. Does the team time pay off? 👥 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝗻𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗼 𝗬𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗡𝗲𝘁𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸 (𝟭𝟬%): Is there an existing link through board members or mutual partners? Familiarity can create a trust-based relationship, often leading to a smoother collaboration. 🧘🏿♀️ 𝗘𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗚𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀 (𝟮𝟬%): A clear, grantee-focused application process means your team can focus more on impact than on admin. 🧩 𝗦𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗰 𝗔𝗹𝗶𝗴𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 (𝟮𝟱%): Does the funder’s mission support your core priorities? Funding that aligns naturally with your main programs allows you to focus on impact without significant shifts in strategy. 💬 How do you evaluate funding opportunities? What would you add to the above criteria? #internationaldevelopment #fundraising #nonprofitafrica #fundingafrica

A detailed pre-implementation process must be adhered to when preparing ARR projects. Because there remain developers not fully following this, here is a reminder of the core steps required for most projects: 1.    Ensure there is a long-term legal and regulatory basis for the project. Plan for longer than you expect for fulfilling regulatory requirements. 2.    Understand community dynamics – ethnic mix, needs, wants, existing livelihoods, willingness to accept a carbon project (not a complete list). 3.    Ensure that there a capable and experienced implementing partner at the target scale for the project? Lack of experience has been a major issue leading to project failure. 4.    Undertake a full technical analysis of the site – climate, soils (type, depth, fertility, water holding capacity), topography, altitude, land cover by strata, land cover change, fire history, access, etc. From this develop a “land eligibility map” that defines areas for ARR and ANR activities. 5.    Stratify eligible areas according to technical criteria – soils, slope, and access are normally the key ones. 6.    Analyze species options. For each species potentially suitable, create a matrix showing whether it is endemic to the specific area, biodiversity value, NTFP value to communities, growth rates by year, whether pioneer or climax species, crown shape, and seed availability. Decide on planting design and spacing by species for under ARR and ANR regimes. 7.    Develop a draft project design prioritizing biodiversity and community benefits. 8.    Develop a carbon curve from the draft design. 9.    Develop a complete project financial model that shows cost per hectare and cost per ton of carbon. Include all opex and capex. 10. Decide on the expected selling price per ton of carbon. 11. Now starts an iterative process for finding the best project design. If your selling price is low (< USD 20 / ton), then you need to start with fast growing species for faster income. This lower price compromises biodiversity goals. It also limits funds for community development. The more you go above USD 20 / ton the more options that open for CCB values. Continue mixing species and design until you have the optimum balance between community, biodiversity, and cost of carbon ‘for your site’.   And very importantly – all the above must be done by experienced professionals across both field and desktop analysis. Sounds logical doesn’t it. You’d be surprised at how often critical items are either misinterpreted or missed altogether because good well-meaning people “don’t know what they don’t know.”

What criteria should guide the selection of pilot projects for AI integration? (Tip 34/2025) (and What metrics should be considered to measure the success of these pilots)   Criteria for Selecting AI Pilot Projects 1 Alignment with Strategic Goals Rationale: Projects should directly support business objectives (e.g., cost reduction, CX, innovation). Example: A chatbot pilot to improve customer service efficiency aligns with a goal of enhancing user satisfaction.   2 Feasibility and Resource Availability Technical Expertise: Availability of skilled personnel (data scientists, engineers). Infrastructure: Existing tools (cloud platforms, data pipelines) and budget.   3 Data Readiness Quality/Quantity: Sufficient, clean, and relevant data for training models. Accessibility: Data must be legally obtainable and structured for AI use.   4 Scalability Potential Scope: Pilot success should translate to broader applications (e.g., regional → global).   5 Stakeholder Buy-In Leadership Support: Ensures funding and organizational priority. End-User Engagement: Early feedback to drive adoption.   6 Risk Management Technical/Operational Risks: Predictable challenges (e.g., integration complexity). Ethical/Legal Risks: Compliance with regulations (GDPR, bias audits).   7 User Impact Tangible Benefits: Clear improvements in productivity, decision-making, or experience.   8 Cross-Functional Collaboration Team Diversity: Involvement of IT, business units, and domain experts.   Top Metrics to Measure Success 1 Business Impact ROI: Cost savings vs. implementation costs. Revenue Growth: New opportunities generated (e.g., upsell rates).   2 Performance Metrics Model Accuracy: Precision, recall, F1-score, or task-specific KPIs.   3 User Adoption & Satisfaction Usage Rates: Active users and interaction frequency. Feedback Scores: Surveys/NPS to gauge satisfaction.   4 Operational Efficiency Time/Resource Savings: Reduced processing time or manual effort.   5 Scalability Readiness Technical Flexibility: Ease of integration with existing systems. Cost of Expansion: Marginal costs for scaling.   6 Risk Mitigation Error Reduction: Decline in process failures or compliance breaches.   7 Data Quality Improvements Post-Pilot Enhancements: Data cleanliness and availability.   8 Innovation Impact New Use Cases: Additional applications inspired by the pilot.   9 Time-to-Value Speed of Deployment: Duration from launch to measurable results.   10. Ethical Compliance Bias: Audit results for algorithmic fairness.   11. Environmental Impact Sustainability: Reduced energy consumption or carbon footprint.   Note for Leadership Selection Criteria ensure pilots are viable, aligned, and low-risk.  Success Metrics quantify ROI, performance, user impact, and scalability. Prioritize projects with clear strategic value and measurable outcomes to build momentum for broader AI adoption. Image Source: Accenture Transform Partner – Your Digital Transformation Consultancy

Competing Projects The business may be considering more than one project to meet different business challenges. Some projects under consideration may be mutually exclusive, may require common resources and/or the business may not be able to fund all projects. Choosing between multiple projects gives rise to a need to differentiate between competing initiatives and to rank them in some kind of order to enable the most beneficial one(s) to be selected. Considerations for project ranking: Imperative: How important is the project to the business? Are there legal or regulatory obligations that mandate the project’s delivery? Duration: Not just how long the project is planned to take but when will benefits start to accrue? Cost: What is the expected cost? Is it internally or externally funded? How does the cost compare to turnover? Risk: Not just how “risky” might it be but what impacts might there be in terms of cost, time-line, deliverables or revenue streams if one or more risks mature? Complexity: How complex is the initiative? How many interfaces, contributors, time-zones need to be managed? Strategic impact / contribution: How good is the ‘fit’ with business strategy? How disruptive might delivery be and has it been taken fully into account in the planning? Track record: Has the business and/or project team delivered similar projects before? Degree of innovation: Is the initiative innovative or ground breaking? Are the innovations understood? Is the degree of innovation effectively accounted for in the analysis of risk? Benefits delivered: How “mission critical” are they and when are they delivered? Return on investment: Are the metrics used robust and have sensitivity analyses been carried out? Organisational capacity: Does the client organisation and team have the capability and capacity to deliver the initiative? Dependencies: Do individual projects have dependencies one with another? Are there dependencies with outputs from other organisations (for example, guidelines on meeting forthcoming regulations). The appraisal decision rules mentioned in a previous post also need refining for multiple (mutually exclusive) project scenarios: 1. Return on Capital Employed: A prima facie case exists for selecting the project with the greatest rate of return exceeding a target rate. 2. Payback Period: A prima facie case exists for selecting the project having the shortest payback period shorter than a specified target period. 3. Net Present Value: A prima facie case exists for selecting the project having the highest positive net present value. 4. Internal Rate of Return: A prima facie case exists for selecting the project with the highest internal rate of return above the required rate of return. 5. Profitability Index: A prima facie case exists for selecting the project having the highest profitability index greater than or equal to one. Better data enables better decision-making. #projectmanagement #businesschange #roadmap

UNDERSTANDING EVALUATION CRITERIA IN PROGRAMS OR PROJECT In Monitoring & Evaluation (M&E), evaluation criteria help us systematically assess the value or effectiveness of a project, program, or policy. They provide directions to guide decision-making and accountability. Evaluation criteria are the agreed standards or benchmarks used to judge the quality, performance or success of a project, program or policy. They provide a structured way to answer: -Did we do the right thing? -Did we do it well? -Did it make a difference? -Will the benefits last? The most widely used framework is the OECD-DAC Evaluation Criteria ( Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development – Development Assistance Committee), which includes: -Relevance – Does the intervention meet the real needs of the target group? Example: A sanitation project providing water stations in schools is relevant if students previously had limited access to clean water. -Effectiveness – To what extent were the objectives achieved? Example: If the goal was to reduce UTI cases among women by 30% in a health center, effectiveness is measured by actual reduction rates. -Efficiency – Were resources used wisely? Example: Delivering a hygiene training program at half the cost by collaborating with local NGOs shows efficiency. -Impact – What long-term, broader changes occurred? Example: Improved sanitation facilities leading to better school attendance among girls. -Sustainability – Will the benefits continue after support ends? Example: Community-owned water points that are maintained locally beyond donor funding. Using these criteria not only strengthens accountability but also ensures lessons learned guide future projects. #MonitoringAndEvaluation #Evaluation #Learning #ProjectManagement #PublicHealth

As an entrepreneur, I've often encountered challenges when projects are awarded solely based on being L1. Should L1 be the only criterion for project awards? This topic invites diverse perspectives. Fortunately, I have had the privilege of working with clients who prioritize value over just the lowest bid. These clients utilize robust evaluation frameworks that enhance their decision-making process. Two notable procurement strategies are Best Value Procurement (BVP) and Most Economically Advantageous Tender (MEAT). These approaches move beyond merely selecting the lowest price, focusing instead on achieving the best overall value by balancing cost with qualitative factors such as quality, technical merit, sustainability, innovation, and lifecycle costs. This holistic evaluation aims for improved long-term outcomes. Key Principles & Comparison: - MEAT (Most Economically Advantageous Tender): This formal evaluation criterion allows contracting authorities to consider price alongside other factors (technical, functional, social, environmental, innovative) to identify the best value. - BVP (Best Value Procurement): This philosophy emphasizes maximizing value and reducing client management while leveraging contractor expertise. It often employs MEAT criteria within a structured, multi-phase process (Preparation, Selection, Clarification, Execution). - Core Idea: Both strategies aim to avoid low-quality results from lowest-price bidding by considering the total cost and benefits over the project's entire lifecycle. Common Evaluation Criteria (Beyond Price): - Technical Merit & Quality - Innovation & Functionality - Sustainability & Social Aspects - After-Sales Service & Technical Assistance - Delivery Conditions & Reliability - Whole-Life Costs (Lifecycle Costs) Benefits of Using BVP/MEAT: - Higher Quality: Encourages suppliers to provide superior solutions. - Better Value: Focuses on long-term benefits rather than just initial costs. - Innovation: Promotes diverse and innovative proposals. - Reduced Risk: Transfers risk management to expert vendors. - Increased Competition: Expands competition beyond price alone. Do let me have your feedback on this subject.

"Which of our 55 development initiatives should we prioritize?" This was the challenge facing a Fortune 500 product team during a recent pipeline evaluation session. The solution: A customer scorecard based on outcome-driven research. Instead of gut feelings or political influence, teams systematically evaluate each initiative against the customer outcomes that matter most. The evaluation criteria: - Which projects address the most underserved outcomes? - Which fail to address customer priorities? - Which target outcomes that are already overserved? The transformation: - Clear prioritization based on customer value potential - Confidence in resource allocation decisions - Ability to defend project investments with data - Dramatic reduction in wasted development effort The client evaluated 55 initiatives and immediately identified the top 8 worthy of continued investment. The rest were reconsidered or abandoned. The result: Finite resources focused on the projects with the highest probability of market success. What would your pipeline look like if every project were evaluated against real customer outcomes?

As Project leaders, we don’t always get to choose our projects. But we do get to choose how we evaluate them, how we advocate for what they need, and where we push back. That choice makes a bigger difference than most people realise. When a new project lands on my desk, these are the three questions I assess early, not to reject the work, but to understand what I’m walking into. 1️⃣ Does this project have executive support and adequate resources? If the answer is no, the gap needs to be documented and escalated early. Starting a project knowing it’s under-resourced doesn’t make anyone committed or resilient. It usually leads to burnout, quiet frustration, and avoidable failure. →What this looks like in practice: Asking questions like: * Who actually owns this? * Who is accountable when priorities shift? * What’s the real budget and not the hopeful one? Clarity here protects both delivery and the people doing the work. 2️⃣ Can success be defined in clear, measurable terms? If success can’t be articulated early, it’s worth pushing for clarity even when it feels uncomfortable. Ambiguous goals almost always turn into scope creep later. And when outcomes aren’t clear, accountability becomes personal instead of objective. →What this looks like in practice: Getting stakeholders to align on two or three concrete outcomes and not vague statements like “improve efficiency” or “make it better.” Clear success criteria reduce conflict long before it shows up. 3️⃣ Will this project teach something or support where I’m heading? Not every project needs to be a growth opportunity. But it helps to be honest about what role the work plays. Some projects are about learning. Some are about visibility. Some are simply about keeping things running. →What this looks like in practice: Recognising when a project is “keep-the-lights-on” work versus growth work and adjusting expectations, energy, and boundaries accordingly. Both are valid. They just need to be approached differently. We can’t always say no to work. But asking these questions early helps us understand: * where support is needed, * where boundaries should be set, * and where to ask for help before pressure builds. That awareness changes how the project is led and how sustainable the work becomes. What do you look for when a new project lands on your desk? N.B. This can be applied outside work too. Follow Benjamina for practical perspectives on #projectexecution, #leadership judgment, and #delivery under real constraints.

Making Tough Project Decisions Like a Pro 💼 As project managers, we all face difficult choices that can make or break our projects. Here's a 5-step framework I use to tackle them effectively and confidently: 1. Define the Problem & Criteria 🎯   · Clearly identify the issue you're trying to solve. What are the desired outcomes? · Establish the criteria you'll use to evaluate potential solutions. What makes a "good" solution in this context? This could involve setting SMART goals (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound) to guide your decision-making. · Utilize tools like problem statements and decision matrices to ensure a structured approach. 2. Gather Information 📊     · Collect comprehensive and reliable information to fuel your analysis. This might involve data, reports, consultations with subject matter experts, and input from key stakeholders. · Don't forget to consider potential risks, underlying assumptions, dependencies on other factors, and any constraints that could impact your project. · Leverage tools like SWOT analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) to assess each option, risk registers to identify and plan for potential pitfalls, and stakeholder analysis to understand the needs and expectations of those involved. 3. Evaluate Alternatives ⚖️     · With a solid information base, meticulously evaluate each alternative solution based on the defined criteria. · Employ tools like cost-benefit analysis to weigh the financial and non-financial implications of each option. · Create a pros and cons list for a clear breakdown of advantages and disadvantages. · Conduct scenario analysis to explore how different outcomes might play out under various circumstances. 4. Make the Decision & Document 📝 · Informed by your evaluation and aligned with project goals, make a decisive choice. · Crucially, document the rationale behind your decision, the process you followed, and the criteria you used. This transparency fosters trust and serves as a valuable reference point for future actions. · Consider using decision trees to visualize potential consequences or logic models to map out the reasoning behind your choice. 5. Communicate & Execute 📢 ️ · Effectively communicate your decision to all relevant stakeholders, ensuring they understand the "why" behind it. Transparency is key! · Develop a clear action plan that outlines the steps required for successful execution, assigns responsibilities, and identifies necessary resources. · Implement a communication plan to keep stakeholders informed and a feedback loop to gather input and make adjustments as needed. Utilize dashboards to track progress and key performance indicators (KPIs).   What are your best practices for making tough project decisions? Share your tips in the comments below! #ProjectManagement #Leadership #ProblemSolving #DecisionMaking

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗨𝗹𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗠𝗖𝗗𝗔 𝗴𝘂𝗶𝗱𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗨𝗿𝗯𝗮𝗻 𝗣𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗻𝗲𝗿𝘀 Your next project might fail without this step, Turn conflicting criteria into decisive clarity. In every urban or regional planning project: → Zoning. → Site selection. → Infrastructure investment. → Development prioritization... We face 𝗺𝘂𝗹𝘁𝗶-𝗰𝗿𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗮 𝗱𝗲𝗰𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 And deciding between those? That’s the real challenge. Some criteria are based on facts: ↳ Soil quality ↳ Topography ↳ Climate Others are rooted in values: ↳ Culture ↳ Accessibility ↳ Walkability ↳ Social equity But here’s the issue: 👉 You can’t “100% win” on all fronts. 👉 Trade-offs are inevitable. but how do you weigh accessibility against biodiversity? Or economic growth against equity? Most planners and policymakers get stuck here. (And that’s why some projects stall or fail.) but there is a solution... 𝗠𝗖𝗗𝗔 → 𝗠𝘂𝗹𝘁𝗶-𝗖𝗿𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗮 𝗗𝗲𝗰𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗔𝗻𝗮𝗹𝘆𝘀𝗶𝘀 It helps you compare the incomparable (𝘞𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 , 𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘭𝘦𝘴 𝘷𝘴 𝘰𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘴’ 𝘧𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦𝘴 𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘦.) And bring clarity to your complex trade-offs. It helps you: ✔ Compare the incomparable ✔ Navigate complex trade-offs ✔ Make decisions with clarity 𝟰 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗼𝗻 𝗺𝗲𝘁𝗵𝗼𝗱𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗹𝘆 𝗠𝗖𝗗𝗔 : ➡️ AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process) Breaks decisions into a clear hierarchy. ➩ Best when stakeholder input matters. ➡️ Outranking (ELECTRE & PROMETHEE) Compares options pairwise, vetoing bad fits. ➩ Great when some criteria are non-negotiable. ➡️ Direct Rating & Ranking Assigns weights fast for quick decisions. ➩ Perfect for early-stage workshops. ➡️ Spatial MCDA Merges decision criteria with map data. ➩ Ideal for zoning, site selection, and visual trade-offs. 𝗠𝗖𝗗𝗔 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝘀 & 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘀: ✔ Transparent decision-making ✔ Structured analysis across dimensions ✔ Better stakeholder engagement ❌ Can get complex + data-heavy ❌ Weighting can be subjective Use MCDA to convert complexity into clarity, and transform trade-offs into clear action. — 💬 Your Turn: Have you faced tough trade-offs in your project? How did you resolve them and make a decision? —  I’m Ali Assadi I create carefully presented Urban Planning Content on a weekly basis! 𝗗𝗶𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗵𝗲𝗹𝗽 𝘆𝗼𝘂?   Tap“𝗥𝗲𝗽𝗼𝘀𝘁” to help one person in your network.  Hit “𝗙𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗼𝘄” + turn on notifications so you never miss an update.