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.
Opening a voting round preserves its candidates and rules. Start a new round for a changed question. Tied results remain tied, and no responses means there is no result to interpret.
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
Original InnovationFlow illustration. Example values and software behaviour are explained in this guide; method sources are listed below.
Understand the method
The parts in plain language
Comparable candidates
Use items at a similar level of scope and maturity. Clarify wording and evidence so participants are choosing between understood alternatives.
Illustrative example
Do not compare a three-year transformation programme with one small experiment in the same vote.
Decision method
Choose a method that fits the question. Dot voting allocates limited votes, scoring records ratings, approval measures acceptability and ranking asks for relative order. Use a Decision Matrix when the question needs weighted criteria.
Illustrative example
Use approval when several options can proceed, and constrained dots when attention must be scarce.
Rationale and promotion
Treat the result as decision evidence. Discuss disagreement, bias, missing participants and constraints before accepting or editing the shortlist.
Illustrative example
A lower-ranked safety item may still be mandatory and should not be removed by preference alone.
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
Prepare comparable candidates and clarify the decision this round informs.
- 2
Choose dot voting, scoring, approval or ranking, then review participant access.
- 3
Open voting. The round preserves its candidates and rules; start a new round when these need changing.
- 4
Review ties, response counts and disagreement alongside the evidence before promoting a shortlist.
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 response counts and the chosen rule alongside results. Submissions do not necessarily represent unique people.
- 2Agreement indicators describe response spread; they do not establish statistical significance or a representative sample.
- 3Inspect disagreement and missing perspectives.
- 4Record why the final shortlist differs from the raw ranking.
Practical interpretation guidance from InnovationFlow. Refer to the method sources below for the underlying approach.
What a useful output looks like
Common pitfalls
- Voting measures preference, not objective value.
- Response counts are submissions, not necessarily unique people. An open link is not a representative sample.
- No responses means no result. Equal results remain tied.
- Agreement indicators describe response spread; they are not statistical significance tests.
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.