Strategic Initiative Selection · Identifying Key Initiatives and Setting Priorities
Strategic Initiative Selection and Prioritization
What is strategic initiative selection?
- Selection means cutting more than choosing
- Scores shared openly on two axes: impact and feasibility
- Without an owner, completion criteria, and a budget, it is not an initiative
What initiative selection really changes is the list of 'things we will not do'. Business units typically submit dozens of candidate initiatives, all plausible, but resources are enough to do only three or four of them properly. Selection is less about choosing than about cutting, and keeping a record of why each rejected initiative was dropped stops the same ones from coming back next year for the same reasons. A selected initiative only becomes a real initiative when it comes with an accountable executive, completion criteria, and the required budget.
Candidates come from three sources: initiatives cascading from the mid- to long-term strategy, initiatives that fix the root causes of shortfalls revealed in this year’s target achievement review, and improvement proposals from the field. For ranking, the most widely used method relies on two axes: expected impact and feasibility. Impact is scored on revenue, profit, and risk reduction; feasibility on duration, staffing, and external dependencies. Initiatives high on both axes go first, while high-impact but hard-to-execute ones get their prerequisite initiatives defined first and move to next year. Around 5 company-wide initiatives and around 3 per division is realistic; beyond 10, it is common for not a single initiative to be completed by year-end.
For training managers, strategic initiatives are both the rationale for training and the yardstick for evaluating it. If you collect one line per initiative on 'who needs to be able to do what to deliver this?', the course list practically writes itself, and a course tied to no initiative is hard to defend in budget review. Having the training team sit in on initiative selection meetings and capture capability requirements on the spot is more accurate than running a separate survey in February. Since few initiatives can be solved by training alone, hold the line that training is one means of delivering an initiative, not the initiative itself.
Where it goes wrong in practice is when selection turns political. If initiatives from the loudest division go up and those from quiet divisions get cut, the scoring sheet becomes a document for justifying decisions after the fact. To prevent this, publish the evaluation axes and weights before scoring, and require a written reason whenever a decision departs from the scores. Another pitfall is selecting initiatives without assigning resources: an initiative designated 'to be done alongside regular work' with no dedicated staff stalls by the second quarter. Failing to cut the number and making everything top priority is the most common failure, leading to a year-end review where ten initiatives are left marked 'in progress'.
John KimAuthor of B2B Marketing Design and CEO of Nanum Consulting
Okgum LeeExpert in corporate analysis, fundraising, and business planningNarrowing business goals to a handful of priority initiatives and concentrating resources on them took hold in practice through a blend of two traditions: priority-initiative selection from Japanese policy management (hoshin kanri) and initiative portfolio management from American strategic planning. The prioritization matrix, which ranks items on two axes, impact and feasibility, is a widely used tool.
Consider a hypothetical case. Company A, a food manufacturer, has 520 employees and KRW 130 billion (≈ US$97,261,700) in annual revenue. Last year, all 23 projects submitted by its divisions were designated 'strategic initiatives,' and only 2 were reported complete by year-end. This year, the planning office decided to change how initiatives are selected.
- In October, Director Yoon of the Planning Office first published a scoring sheet worth 50 points for impact and 50 for feasibility, then collected 31 candidate initiatives from three sources: the mid- to long-term strategy, root causes of this year’s shortfalls, and proposals from the field.
- Six executives scored independently, and the averages showed a clear gap between the top five and the rest. When the head of marketing said 'all of our initiatives got cut,' Director Yoon replied, 'If you want the scores changed, please bring new evidence on impact.'
- The new-plant automation initiative, high in impact but low in feasibility, was dropped from this year’s list. Instead, they defined a feasibility study as a prerequisite initiative and put it forward as a candidate for next year’s selection.
- Each of the five confirmed initiatives was assigned an accountable executive, completion criteria, a budget, and dedicated headcount. Manager Kang of the training team sat in and, for the 'expand export accounts' initiative, captured the need for trade practice and English contract training, immediately drafting two courses.
- Quarterly reviews covered only the five initiatives, and the 26 that were cut were recorded with reasons. By year-end, 4 of the 5 were completed, and only 3 proposals came back the next year for the same reasons during candidate intake.