Project prioritization

1. Sustainable Economic Development of the Sudurnes
region, Iceland : Project Prioritisation
JOSE MATEOS MORENO
Ásbrú, 25 November 2011

2. AN INTRODUCTION TO PROJECT
PRIORITISATION CRITERIA AND
TECHNIQUES
• The Need for Prioritisation
• Approach to Prioritisation
• Outline Selection Procedures
2

3. PRIORITISATION CRITERIA
• Accession Criteria
• Competitiveness Criteria (e.g.. Relation with
priority, effectiveness)
• Financial & Economic Criteria (efficiency,
financial sustainability)
• Technical Criteria (e.g. maturity of proposals)
• Social & Political Criteria (e.g. commitment)
• Commercial & Institutional Criteria (e.g. quality
of implementing institution)
Focus on a Limited Number of Key Criteria
3

4. APPROACH TO PRIORITISATION
• Select the prioritisation team
• Identify criteria that could be used for
homogeneous projects.
• Select & Weight the most relevant criteria
• Agree how each selected criterion will be
applied
• Obtain project data that will allow this to be
done
• Apply the criteria to each project
• Calculate scores and apply weightings
Make Sure the Approach is Consistent
4

5. Example Prioritisation Criteria – OP COMP
Priority Axis: Strenghtening Cooperation for R&D
• Durability of project effects: The result of project
implementation will contribute to resolution of definite problems
(e.g., technological ones)?
• Experience: Beneficiary’s experience in implementation of
research projects
• Project’s innovative nature:The project relates to the problem
not resolved?
• Project’s impact on increasing enterprises’ competitiv.: The
future new product will enable the enterprise an effective
competition in the market?
• Market demand for a given product: local, national,
international?
• Number of new jobs: Project implementation will contribute to
emergence of new jobs?
• EU horizontal policies implementation: environmental
protection, IS, etc.
5

6. Project Selection Procedures (1)
• Project selection procedures shall be
outlined during OP preparation
– Responsible bodies (intermediate)
– Decision making process
– Potential final beneficiaries
– Main priorities and selection criteria
– Documentation
– Publicity
6

7. Project Selection Procedures (2)
• Intermediate bodies responsible for
selection of projects for assistance
within individual OP measures
• OP objectives and targets should be
translated into project selection criteria.
In the case of EU cofinanced projects,
the objectives of IPA Fund should also
be translated into selection criteria.
7

8. Selection of Project Proposals
Through Application Procedure
• Call for proposals – public or restricted
• A) Queue-based approval systems
• B) Competitive:
– Regular intake of proposals (2-4 times per
year)
– One application round
8

9. EVALUATION PROCEDURE (2)
Consists of two elements:
• a) formal evaluation (is the application
complete?)
• b) technical and economical Appraisal:
– Compatibility with the objective of the Priority Axis
– Economic analysis of feasibility
– financial evaluation
– analysis of the business plan (cost-effectiveness)
9

10. Project Selection
– Transparency Issues
• Public promotion
• Eligibility criteria published
• Criteria for selection available
• Weightings for criteria available
• Decisions made by Committee
• Information given to unsuccessful applicants
• Competitive or queuing basis
• Appeals system in place
10

11. Principal Appraisal Techniques
• Financial Analysis
• Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA)
• Cost Effectiveness
• Scoring, Weighting, Ranking (SWR)
• Multi Criteria Analysis (MCA)
Cost Benefit Analysis
• Mandatory for projects €50m+
• Recommended for other large infrastructural
projects
11 (

12. Project Appraisal – Scoring, Weighting,
Ranking (SWR)
• Identification of project appraisal criteria
• Weighting is assigned to each criteria based
on importance (no weighting = equal value)
• Each project receives numerical score against
different criteria
• Different project applications ranked against
each other
12

13. Evaluation Grid (see example)
Scoring Sheet
1 Very Poor
2 Poor
3 Adequate
4 Good
5 Very Good
13

14. Eligibility in EU Funds
• Constraints at National Level:
– Urban Planning
– Environmental Legislation
– Regional Development Plans /Strategies, etc.
– Operational Programmes
– Call for Proposal
• Constraints at EU Level:
– Specific regulations of the Funds
– Eligibility Rules for type of expenditure: VAT, Land
acquisition, etc.
– Size of the Project: Major Projects.
– Distortion of the Internal Market: State aid regulations
– Public procurement
– Environmental Constraints: NATURA 2000

15. Checklist for Quality Appraisal of
project proposals (1)
QUALITY ASSESSMENT PARAMETERS
1. Relevance
– Are the beneficiaries clearly identified?
– Are the problems of the beneficiaries described
sufficiently?
1.3 Is the problem analysis sufficiently comprehensive?
1.4 Do the Overall Objectives explain why the project is
important for society?
1.5 Is the Project Purpose defined in terms of benefits to the
beneficiaries?
1.6 Has the need for the results been demonstrated?
15

16. Checklist for Quality Appraisal of
project proposals (2)
2. Feasibility
2.1 Will the Project Purpose contribute to the Overall Objectives (if
the assumptions hold)?
2.2 Are the Results described as services to be delivered to the
target group?
2.3 Will the Project Purpose be achieved if the Results were
delivered?
2.4 Are the means sufficiently justified by quantified objectives
2.5 Have important external conditions been identified?
2.6 Is the probability of realisation of the assumptions acceptable?
2.7 Will implementing agencies be able to implement the project?
16

17. Checklist for Quality Appraisal of
project proposals (3)
3. Sustainability
3.1 Will the relevant authorities have a supportive policy after the
project has ended?
3.2 Is the technology appropriate for the local conditions?
3.3 Will the ecological environment be preserved during and after
the project?
3.4 Will there be adequate ownership of the project by the
beneficiaries?
3.5 Will women (and other groups) have adequate access to
benefits and production factors during and after the project?
3.6 Will the implementing agencies be able to provide follow-up
after the project?
3.7 Does the financial and economic analysis confirm that the
‘incremental project’ is efficient, effective, viable and relevant?
17