Value-Based Prioritization: Why ROI Fails and AHP Works
Most organizations think they prioritise by value. In reality, they prioritise by habit, politics, or whoever shouts loudest.
That gap between intended value and actual decisions is why portfolios become overloaded, misaligned, and painfully slow — even when everyone is “busy”.
Value-based prioritization exists to close that gap. Not with another framework, but with a clear, shared definition of what value actually means — and a disciplined way to choose between competing options.
This gap shows up repeatedly in real portfolios. For a practical walk-through of how it plays out in practice, Program Management author Dr James Brown explains value-based prioritization and why it matters for modern portfolios.
Watch the recording if you want a deeper dive.
Too Many Projects Means Less Productivity
When everything is labelled a priority, nothing really is. Basic math applies: approve too many projects, and productivity collapses.
Research consistently shows that once utilisation exceeds 90%, delivery slows rather than speeds up. We’ve explored this dynamic in more detail with Michael Hannan, but the headline is simple: overloaded systems deliver less.
In most organisations, when leadership doesn’t make explicit prioritisation choices, decisions don’t stop — they just happen by default. Work gets selected based on:
- Personal preference
- Who shouts loudest
- Short-term pressure rather than long-term value
This is the real problem value-based prioritisation is designed to solve — not by ranking projects in isolation, but by aligning prioritisation decisions to an explicit, shared definition of organisational value.
Why AHP Is the Basis for Value-Based Prioritization
Most organisations default to ROI and financial projections when prioritising. They’re familiar, measurable, and feel objective. In practice, they’re a weak foundation for strategic decisions.
- Value gets over-simplified. Even commercial organisations care about more than short-term financial return — and public or service organisations even more so.
- Strategy is implicit, not explicit. ROI acts as a hurdle rate, not a reflection of where the organisation is trying to go.
- Projections are fragile. The further out a project runs, the less reliable the numbers become.
This is why value-based prioritisation needs a different decision structure.
Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) provides that structure. Not because it’s complex, but because it forces clarity where most portfolios rely on assumptions.
In practice, AHP works because it:
- Forces real trade-offs. Executives must choose between competing priorities, rather than declaring everything important.
- Reduces political noise. Confidence and volume give way to evidence and shared judgement.
- Creates alignment, not consensus theatre. Teams make better decisions when preferences are explicit and comparable.
- Clarifies what “value” actually means. Ambiguous goals like “safety” or “customer impact” are defined before they’re debated.
- Combines hard and soft factors. Financial return still matters — but alongside strategic fit, risk, and long-term impact.
What Usually Makes or Breaks an AHP-Based Approach
When value-based prioritisation struggles, it’s rarely because of the maths. It’s usually because of how decisions are framed and owned.
- Leadership disengagement. If senior decision-makers don’t own the value definition, the model becomes decorative.
- Ambiguous criteria. Rushed or fuzzy definitions create debate later — when stakes are higher.
- Over-engineering. Too many criteria or sub-criteria turn a decision tool into bureaucracy.
- Predetermined outcomes. Using AHP to justify decisions already made destroys trust quickly.
- Tool-first thinking. Spreadsheets and templates can’t compensate for unclear decision logic.
This is why organisations that get the most value from AHP usually start by pressure-testing their value definitions and decision process — long before worrying about models, tools, or rollouts.
Does Value-Based Prioritization Really Save Time?
At first glance, structured prioritisation can look slower than informal decision-making. In practice, it replaces repeated disagreement with durable alignment.
- Value definitions last. Once agreed, they guide decisions for years.
- Politics reduce. Fewer meetings spent re-litigating the same arguments.
- Obvious decisions stay obvious. Attention goes where trade-offs actually exist.
- Overload drops. Starting less is often the fastest way to finish more.
Your Next Step: Sense-Check Your Prioritisation
If this feels familiar, the issue usually isn’t execution — it’s that value decisions are being made implicitly rather than deliberately.
Left unchecked, that gap quietly drives overload, political friction, and slow delivery — even in otherwise capable teams.
That’s exactly what we help diagnose in a short conversation with a senior portfolio advisor.
👉 Talk through your prioritisation challenge with a senior advisor
No preparation. No portfolio data. No obligation.
We’ll help you pressure-test your value definitions, spot common decision traps we see across portfolios, and sense-check whether value-based prioritisation is the right lever to pull before you invest time, budget, or political capital.