Introduction
By evaluating projects on the three axes of monetary impact, political feasibility and communicability, these projects can be prioritized in a way which answers legitimate questions on best use of means. These questions can, should and will be asked by politicians. The model which we propose below allows such a prioritization.
Context
“Is this project the most relevant investment of my available resources, be these financial means, available people or my own limited time?” When prioritizing project in a political environment this is a legitimate question which a politician can, should and will ask of the public administration proposing a project. Whereas the question is legitimate, the answer needs an approach which is not readily available to administrations.
The administration can answer this question from its own perspective, but it then risks missing one or more key elements which do not play a role in its own decision taking but are highly relevant to the politician(s) involved.
Method
Based on a significant number of discussions with both politicians and public servants we have developed a straightforward and effective three dimensional model which an administration can use to transparently present different projects or project options to a politician or a group of involved politicians in order to develop a higher degree of buy-in for the proposed prioritization.
The first dimension – estimated monetary impact
This dimension provides a verifiable estimation of the monetary impact a project will have. It answers the question on how much the project will actually save, gain or result in, either for the public administration or for the constituency (either citizens or companies). This most traditional of measurements can be executed by means of different measurement systems, depending on the needs and nature of the project. For burden reduction projects for example, an analysis using a Standard Cost Model assessment of the situation before and after or the Regulatory Impact Assessment is most often used.
The second dimension – political feasibility
The second dimension assesses the feasibility of the project from a purely political point of view. Can we obtain an adequate level of support to realize all the relevant goals of this project? Even more importantly, are there no indications of any resistance to the realization of the project which can block it even before it gets started? This assessment requires a keen view on the current political reality or the expected political reality at the time of project approval and throughout the period of project execution. In order to correctly assess this, the administration will need the input and the support from the appropriate cabinet(s).
The third dimension – Communicability
This dimension is for a politician the most important, and legitimately so. After all, visibility ensures continued political relevance, and visibility is often a function of how well a project can be communicated. The purpose of this dimension is to evaluate the extent of the communicability of a certain project: how well can the purpose be communicated to a third party (citizen or company) and how large will the extent of political support be generated by this communication? Is it a viable news item? Will it be taken up by the news organizations, both written, spoken and/or tv?
Benefits
The proposed approach allows the public servants to be more proactive in their relationship with the politician(s) and member of the cabinet(s) as argued in a prior article on correctly treating politicians as stakeholders. It prepares the ground for decision for political appointees without forcing a decision on them.
