In navigating the complex landscape of strategic decision-making, organizations often grapple with the question of where to direct their efforts first. We delve into the intricacies of prioritizing deliverables, emphasizing the critical need for a systematic approach in the face of diverse challenges. A lack of a clear framework often leads to haphazard decision-making, with all of the associated potential pitfalls and biases. To address this, we suggest utilising an evaluation matrix focused on impact and risk, providing a structured methodology for organizations to discern priorities.
The challenge of organizing multifaceted deliverables into a coherent execution plan is present across all industries globally. Frequently, decisions are made on instinct, devoid of a clear framework, leading to initiatives that either languish in uncertainty or produce results with minimal impact. We at Artimus believe that a meticulous understanding of where key focus areas should lie is pivotal for strategic success.
Our prioritisation matrix evaluates deliverables based on the intersection of their potential impact and associated risks. This high-level perspective simplifies the complex task of categorization and prioritization. The matrix comprises four quadrants, each representing a unique combination of impact and risk: High Impact – High Risk, High Impact – Low Risk, Low Impact – High Risk, and Low Impact – Low Risk.
In the realm of High Impact – High Risk initiatives, caution is paramount. These transformative endeavors, akin to disruptive startups within an organization, necessitate diversification to mitigate the inherent risks. Conversely, initiatives falling into the High Impact – Low Risk quadrant emerge as top priorities, presenting significant upside with minimal downside. This is exemplified by Apple’s success with its AirPod products, utilising an exisating technology and high interoperability with existing products greatly limited the associated risks and they became one of the company’s most profitable business lines.
Projects categorized as Low Impact – High Risk require vigilant monitoring, but immediate action may not be warranted. The potential cumulative effects of seemingly unrelated “Low Impact” events must be considered, drawing parallels to the 2008 Global Financial Crisis, where apparently localised failings quickly snowballed into an interconnected meltdown.
Meanwhile, initiatives classified as Low Impact – Low Risk may appear inconsequential, yet unforeseen intangibles, as exemplified by Toys R Us and its decision to stop stocking diapers. With parents finding themselves needing to get diapers at other stores, which frequently also sold toys, led to a dramatic decrease in footfall and contributed to the ultimate demise of the beloved franchise. Events that appear innocuous in isolation can have profound, unintended consequences.
While our impact and risk prioritization framework provides valuable insights, it should be used only as a singular component in a broader strategic plan. Organizations must acknowledge hard-to-define intangibles that may not be immediately evident, ensuring a holistic approach to strategy development. By evaluating for impact and risk, businesses can better navigate the intricate landscape of decision-making, laying the foundation for practical, on-schedule, and under-budget strategic change.
