Gartner for IT Leaders Tool

Toolkit: How to Score, Evaluate and Prioritize

Projects Easily
This Toolkit provides a fully customizable, yet ready to use evaluator, providing a
quick way to score and rank multiple initiatives or projects.

Unless otherwise marked for external use, the items in this Gartner Toolkit are for internal
noncommercial use by the licensed Gartner client. The materials contained in this Toolkit may not be
repackaged or resold. Gartner makes no representations or warranties as to the suitability of this
Toolkit for any particular purpose, and disclaims all liabilities for any damages, whether direct,
consequential, incidental or special, arising out of the use of or inability to use this material or the
information provided herein.

The instructions, intent and objective of this template are contained in the source document. Please
refer back to that document for details.
 Instructions for Completing the Project Evaluation Input Sh
Step

5
 Instructions for Completing the Project Evaluation Input Sheet
Task

On the Input tab of this spreadsheet, review each of the four statements listed as examples under each of the five criteria. Cus
organization, if necessary. Add further statements or questions appropriate to your organization for each, if required. Ensure t
stakeholders agree with the final list.

On the Input tab, for each statement in each of the five criteria, review the scoring explanation in the cell comment. Customize
organization, if necessary, and ensure that all stakeholders understand.
On the Input tab, for each project, using the statements confirmed in Step 2, enter a score from 0 to 5 for each statement for e
criteria.

On the Result tab of this spreadsheet, for each of the five criteria, enter a relative weighting factor in relation to your organizatio
strategic vision and current business priorities, ensuring that they total 100%. The default values shown are only suggestion
that all stakeholders agree with the relative weightings.

On the Result tab, use the weighted project scores to determine those projects that represent the best overall fit for implementa
A weighted score of more than 70% indicates a good match against the agreed criteria for strategic alignment, business impact
architecture, payback and risk avoidance. A score of less than 50% indicates a less-than-ideal fit.
 Project Evaluation

Project Evaluation Criteria

Strategic Alignment

Alignment with overall enterprise strategy and vision:

0 - No alignment or measurable impact
1 - Partly aligned, but no measure
2 - Partly aligned and measurable
3 - Somewhat aligned, but no measure
4 - Somewhat aligned and measurable
5 - Explicitly aligned and measurable
Level of business sponsorship and engagement:

0 - Project initiated by board with no business or IT involvement

1 -
2 - Project initiated by IT with no business involvement
3 -
4 - Business initiated and sponsored the project
5 - Business initiated, sponsored and worked closely with IT to define the project

0 - No involvement so far by strategy and planning and enterprise

architecture
1-
2-
3-
4-
5 - Strategy and planning and EA are involved from early stages

Availability of business and technical information to support the decision:

0 - No business performance metrics or technical information available

1 -
2 -
3 -
4 -
5 - Extensive business performance metrics and technical information available
[Additional strategic alignment statement]
Strategic Alignment Score

Business Process Impact

0 No change to business processes

1 - Efficiency, cost or productivity changes
2 - Minor changes to enable growth
3 - Major changes to enable growth
4 - Major new business processes
5 - Complete transformation of the business
 0 - Technology best-suited to specific organizational model
1
2
3
4
5 - Technology proven to work for multiple organizational models
Flexibility of the solution to cope with changing business processes:

0 - Solution is limited to a single existing business process

1 -
2 -
3 -
4 -
5 - Solution is highly adaptable to new or changed business processes

0 - Even minor changes require external expertise

1 -
2 -
3 -
4 -
5 - New business processes may be fully defined by existing internal staf
[Additional business process impact statement]
Business Process Impact Score

Technical Architecture

0 - Completely incompatible
1 -
2 - Somewhat compatible
3 -
4 -
5 - Completely compatible

Level of compatibility with communications/networking standards and

strategy:
0 - Completely incompatible
1 -
2 - Somewhat compatible
3 -
4 -
5 - Completely compatible
Level of compatibility with preferred development platform and skills:

0 - Completely incompatible
1 -
2 - Somewhat compatible
3 -
4 -
5 - Completely compatible
 Level of compatibility with preferred provider oferings:

0 - Completely incompatible
1 -
2 - Somewhat compatible
3 -
4 -
5 - Completely compatible

[Additional technical architecture statement]

Technical Architecture Score

Payback Degree that benefits can be captured via traditional cost-benefit analysis:

0 - Benefits cannot be captured by traditional cost-benefit analysis

1 -
2 -
3 -
4 -
5 - Benefits completely measurable through their financial efects

0 - Absence of formal business case

1-
2-
3-
4-
5 - Fully documented business case, including risk identification, constraint
analysis and examination of alternatives

0 - ROI 36 months or greater

1 - ROI less than 36 months
2 - ROI less than 30 months
3 - ROI less than 24 months
4 - ROI less than 18 months
5 - ROI less than 12 months

0 - No sponsor involvement in project definition and benefits

analysis
1-
2-
3-
4-
5 - Sponsor deeply involved and committed to change management
[Additional payback statement]
Payback Score

Risk Avoidance

0 - Complete transformation of the business

1 - Major new business processes
2 - Major changes to enable growth
3 - Minor changes to enable growth
4 - Efficiency, cost or productivity changes
5 - No change to business processes
 0 - No experience in-house
1 - No in-house experience, but outsourced
2 - One or two successful projects in-house
3 - Several successful projects outsourced
4 - Several successful projects in-house
5 - Well-established in-house experience/center of excellence
Experience of other organizations in this sector with this technology:

0 - No previous experience in any business sector

1 - Some experience in other business sectors
2 - Some experience in this business sector
3 - Considerable experience in this sector
4 - Many successful installations in other sectors
5 - Many successful installations in this sector

0 - Announced, but not yet shipping

1 - Available only in beta test
2 - Just released, single supplier
3 - Just released, multiple suppliers
4 - Well-proven, single supplier
5 - Well-proven, multiple suppliers
[Additional risk avoidance statement]
Risk Avoidance Score

Note: The spreadsheet formulas that total the project scores for each perspective assume that:
1. The maximum project score for any criteria is 5.
2. The maximum score for any perspective is 5 * the count of project score rows.

The formula is Score = (SUM (Project Score rows)) / (COUNT(Project Score rows) * 5)
oject Evaluation

Project Scores
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10

5 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0

3 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0

4 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0

5 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
85% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0%

5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0
5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0

4 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0

4 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
90% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0%

3 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0

3 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0

3 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0
4 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
65% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0%

4 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0

4 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0

5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0

5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
90% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0%

5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0
 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0

3 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0

5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
80% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0%

rspective assume that:

ct score rows.

t Score rows) * 5)
 Project Evaluation Scores and Ra
Note: The sum of the relative weights of each of the five criteria must

Weight We
Criteria P1 P2 P3
Strategic Alignment 30% 26% 30% 0%
Business Process Impact 30% 27% 0% 0%
Technical Architecture 10% 7% 0% 0%
Payback 10% 9% 0% 0%
Risk Avoidance 20% 16% 0% 0%
Weighted Project Score 100% 84% 30% 0%

Prioritized According to Score 2 3 4

uation Scores and Ranking
ach of the five criteria must total 100%.

Weighted Scores
P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10
0% 0% 0% 0% 30% 0% 0%
0% 0% 0% 0% 30% 0% 0%
0% 0% 0% 0% 10% 0% 0%
0% 0% 0% 0% 10% 0% 0%
0% 0% 0% 0% 20% 0% 0%
0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0%

4 4 4 4 1 4 4