SFU: Replacing Spreadsheets with Transparent Prioritization
SFU’s PMO leader, Gerry Lopez, shares how TransparentChoice helped move beyond spreadsheets, align the university’s diverse stakeholders, and build a transparent, repeatable prioritization process.
The Challenge
At Simon Fraser University, project selection was being managed with Google Sheets and ad-hoc workshops. There wasn’t a consistent process, and as Gerry explained, decisions often came down to whoever had the strongest personality, spoke the best, or simply shouted the loudest.
This lack of transparency meant that many initiatives stalled, while others advanced mainly because they had a vocal advocate. Gerry noted that in the past year, “nobody was getting their things done — it was only the things coming through our unit that we saw the value in.” The result was frustration across departments and no clear way to explain why certain projects were prioritized.
The PMO recognized that spreadsheets and sticky notes were not enough. They needed a structured approach to involve stakeholders fairly, reduce politics, and create a transparent, repeatable process for prioritization.
"What I had experienced in the last year or so was that nobody was getting their things done — it was only the things coming through our unit that we saw the value in." 1:26
"We didn’t have a process in place for selecting projects… at the time we just asked people to walk to the whiteboard, put post-it notes in quadrants of effort, impact, and value." 3:40
"The person that has the strongest character, or is the better speaker, or shouts the loudest might get their way around." 4:33
Our Approach
Gerry’s team moved away from ad-hoc spreadsheets and whiteboards by introducing TransparentChoice as the foundation for project selection. They began by engaging stakeholders across departments to define shared criteria, creating a model that balanced project value with complexity and risk.
Instead of lobbying or relying on the loudest voice in the room, projects were now discussed against transparent, agreed-upon measures. TransparentChoice gave everyone a structured way to score initiatives, surface trade-offs, and align priorities. What had once been politics turned into meaningful conversations about resources, scheduling, and impact.
This shift not only brought clarity but also gave participants a sense of ownership in the process — decisions were no longer imposed, they were co-created through data-driven dialogue.
"I hit the TransparentChoice website and thought, there’s a lot of information here — some good background in the direction we want to go." 4:57
"The benefit was that at least they had the discussion… we were able to bring up the conversation about the projects, the cost, the resources, and how we were going to schedule them." 5:22
"We compared project value on one side and complexity on the other — having an axis for risk and value really worked well." 6:10
The Results
By replacing spreadsheets with TransparentChoice, SFU built a repeatable, transparent process for project prioritization. Conversations shifted from politics to value, and stakeholders across the university felt heard. Instead of debating personalities, the team had structured discussions about cost, resources, and scheduling — making tough choices easier and more defensible.
The model helped align projects with university priorities, using clear criteria like value and complexity to compare initiatives fairly. Leaders gained confidence that decisions were based on data, not lobbying, and departments had visibility into why projects moved forward or not.
Most importantly, the process created buy-in. Even when participants disagreed on individual projects, they trusted the outcome because their voices were included and the method was consistent. For Gerry and his team, the move to TransparentChoice reduced stress, improved governance, and delivered a portfolio the university could stand behind.
"The benefit was that at least they had the discussion… we were able to bring up the conversation about the projects, the cost, the resources, and how we were going to schedule them." 5:22
"Even though they might not have changed their vote, they were willing to move forward — everyone felt they had presented their side." 5:35
"At the end of the session, the VP said, ‘I need to confess — I was the one complaining, and now I see it was all very well worth it.’" 0:54
Download the full case study
Prefer a printable copy? Download the PDF — or preview it below.