7. Select the Strategy and Draft a High-Level Roadmap or Timeline

Note: In this framework, the term initiative refers to programs and projects. The term work execution unit refers collectively to programs, projects, phases, releases, and work packages, all of which are considered temporary organizations.

The Decision Matrix Process: A Universal Approach

The process for identifying and selecting the most appropriate strategy is universally applicable at every level of the work hierarchy, from program to work package. It is designed for a small group of individuals familiar with the specific work execution unit’s goals and context.

Step 1: Brainstorming Alternative Strategies

The initial phase is a group brainstorming session focused on generating a wide range of possible strategies to achieve the work execution unit’s goal. The objective is a free flow of ideas to list as many potential solutions as possible before evaluation.

For a goal such as “increase the transparency of transactions for all products along their entire workflow,” brainstorming might yield these alternatives:

• An automated online system.
• A server system with batch overnight processing.
• A manual process using more administrative personnel.

Step 2: Defining and Weighting Selection Criteria

After identifying potential strategies, the group establishes the criteria for evaluation. These criteria must reflect the key priorities and constraints of the specific program, project, or work package. Each criterion is then assigned a weight, commonly on a 1 to 5 scale, to signify its relative importance.

An example set of criteria and weights is as follows:

Step 3: Scoring Alternatives and Initial Calculation

The group evaluates how well each alternative strategy fulfills each criterion using a consistent scoring scale, such as 1 (lowest fulfillment) to 5 (highest fulfillment). The score for each criterion is multiplied by its weight to get a final score for that criterion. These scores are then summed for each strategy to determine the total. The strategy with the highest total score is selected.

In the following initial evaluation, the batch overnight solution emerges as the leading choice.

Enhancing Objectivity in Evaluation

To improve accuracy and reduce subjective debate, the evaluation process can be refined by defining precise, numerical values for each criterion. This transforms abstract ratings into objective measurements.

Defining Numerical Ranges for Criteria

Detailed scales can be established for each criterion, assigning scores based on specific performance targets. This technique applies to all levels of work, though the specific values will vary based on the size and complexity of the work.

• Speed and Accuracy: A matrix can define scores based on response time and precision. A highly accurate answer in 1 to 10 seconds could receive a 5, while an inaccurate answer receives a 1.
• Initial Investment: Higher investment amounts receive lower scores. An investment of 10k to 20k could be a 5, while 200k to 500k gets a 1.
• Cost Per Year: Similar to investment, lower annual costs receive higher scores.
• Speed of Availability: Faster implementation times receive higher scores. A solution available in 1 to 3 months could score a 5, while one taking 18 to 24 months scores a 1.
• Implementation with Internal Resources: Likelihood is rated on a scale. “Almost certain” could receive a 5, while “very unlikely” receives a 1.

Impact of Refined Evaluation and Iteration

Using numerically defined ranges may lead the group to assign different fulfillment scores, potentially altering the outcome. In the example, a reassessment of the “batch overnight” alternative might lead to a tie.

When a tie occurs, the team must re-evaluate its assumptions, often by reconsidering the criteria weights to better reflect the work execution unit’s most critical priorities. If the team decides “Speed of availability” is more important than “Speed and accuracy,” they can adjust the weights, which breaks the tie and identifies a clear winner.

Based on this final calculation, the best strategy is to implement the solution with batch overnight processing.

Incorporating Additional Strategic Considerations

The decision matrix is flexible and can be expanded to include other critical criteria relevant to the context of the program, project, or work package.

Risk and Feasibility

The matrix can include criteria to assess the risk or feasibility of each alternative. For example, strategies reliant on unproven technologies might receive lower feasibility scores. If the feasibility of the top-scoring option is a concern, the group can decide to perform a targeted feasibility study before committing significant resources. This aligns with the Agile development concept of a “spike,” a small experiment to investigate an idea’s viability and avoid speculation. This approach is valid at any scale, from a program-level technology assessment to a work-package-level component test.

Organizational Culture and Alignment

Another potential criterion is the strategy’s fit with the organization’s culture. Attempting to implement a solution that does not align with existing culture can be a losing battle. Any chosen strategy requires commitment from both management and team members to ensure successful implementation.

Translating Strategy into a High-Level Roadmap

Following the selection of a strategy, the next critical step is to translate that choice into a tangible, high-level roadmap. This applies to any level of work, whether it is a multi-year program or a short-term work package.

This artifact is not a detailed, task-level plan. It is a high-level milestone schedule with indicative timeframes that expresses the strategic path forward through a small number of outcome-oriented milestones. Its purpose is to guide execution, align stakeholders, and ensure that the strategic objectives remain the central focus throughout the work execution unit’s progression. This milestone schedule establishes the official strategic path forward for the chosen approach.

Illustrative Example: High-Level Roadmap

The following table illustrates a high-level milestone schedule for the selected “Batch Overnight Solution.” This artifact is established at the conclusion of the initializing process for the work execution unit, based on known assumptions and constraints.

Governance, Alignment, and Hierarchical Commitment

The process of strategic selection and high-level mapping is integral to effective governance and alignment across the work hierarchy.

Justification and Authorization: The decision matrix process provides a transparent and data-driven justification for the chosen strategy. This documented rationale is essential for securing authorization and commitment from governing bodies and stakeholders at the appropriate level.

Hierarchical Coherence: Strategic alignment must be maintained vertically. The strategy selected for a project must align with and support the goals of its parent program. Similarly, the strategy for a phase, release, or work package must directly contribute to the objectives of its parent project. The high-level milestone schedule for each subordinate work execution unit must fit logically within the timeline and goals of the upstream work execution unit.

Informed Commitment and Planning Transition: The milestone schedule serves as a strategic alignment and orientation instrument. It is created at the end of the initializing process to support an informed commitment to the chosen strategic direction and the subsequent planning effort. It is not a finalized delivery commitment itself. By providing shared visibility, this roadmap enables a controlled transition from a well-analyzed strategic decision into the formal planning phase, where detailed assumptions are validated and a committed schedule baseline is developed for the specific program, project, or work package.