Ideate, Plan & Deliver method guide
Prioritisation
Prioritisation turns candidate items into a structured voting round, visible result set and explicit shortlist.
Beginner-friendly guide · 4 min read
What Prioritisation does
Prioritisation turns candidate items into a structured voting round, visible result set and explicit shortlist.
Prioritisation helps a group compare more candidates than it can pursue. Voting, scoring, approval and ranking reveal preferences and reasoning, but they do not turn judgement into objective truth.
Candidates must be comparable and the decision rule should be agreed before results appear. Review evidence, minority concerns and strategic constraints before promoting a shortlist.
Structured group techniques can separate idea generation, clarification and prioritisation. InnovationFlow supports dot voting, scoring, approval and ranking while keeping the result as decision evidence rather than an automatic verdict.[1][2]
The voting result informs review. Human judgement and constraints determine promotion.
CandidateRelative supportReview line
- Concept A92
- Concept B78
- Concept C63
- Concept D46
- Concept E31
InnovationFlow explanatory schematic, synthesised from the method sources[1][2].
Understand the method
The parts in plain language
Decision method
Choose a method that fits the question. Dot voting surfaces preference, weighted scoring compares criteria, approval measures acceptability and ranking forces relative order.[1][2]
Illustrative example
Use approval when several options can proceed, and constrained dots when attention must be scarce.
When to use it
- When a group has more credible candidates than it can pursue.
- When preferences should be collected transparently before a facilitated decision.
A practical workflow
- 1
Define comparable candidates and the decision rule.
- 2
Choose dot voting, weighted scoring, yes/no approval or ranking.
- 3
Collect votes and optional rationale through a controlled round.
- 4
Review consensus, evidence and trade-offs before promoting items.
Fictional worked example
Example: choosing roadmap experiments
This example is illustrative rather than a reported case. A team must select three of eight opportunity experiments.
Observation:Participants receive five dots and may add a reason.
Implication:The constraint reveals relative preference.
Observation:Two ideas lead clearly while several split the group.
Implication:Discuss why the third place is uncertain.
Observation:A low-vote regulatory experiment has a fixed deadline.
Implication:Promote it explicitly because of constraint, not by altering the vote.
From analysis to decision
How to interpret the result
- 1Show participation and the chosen rule alongside results.
- 2Inspect disagreement and missing perspectives.
- 3Record why the final shortlist differs from the raw ranking.
The interpretation guidance is an InnovationFlow synthesis of[1][2].
What a useful output looks like
Common pitfalls
- Voting measures preference, not objective value.
- Do not mix candidates at very different levels of abstraction.
References and method basis
- [1]Delbecq, A.L. and Van de Ven, A.H. (1971). A Group Process Model for Problem Identification and Program Planning. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 7(4), 466-492. Source ↗Peer-reviewed research
- [2]Phaal, R., Kerr, C., Ilevbare, I., Farrukh, C., Routley, M. and Athanassopoulou, N. (2016). On self-facilitating templates for technology and innovation strategy workshops. Centre for Technology Management Working Paper Series, No. 8. Source ↗Peer-reviewed research
This guide synthesises the named sources into practical questions for strategy and innovation work. It does not claim that using a tool by itself produces a successful decision.