When Gannett needed a way to identify what internal projects would have the most value for the company, it implemented a process that emphasised transparency to all stakeholders and created a more collaborative approach.

During this week’s Webinar, How to define and communicate high-stakes projects, INMA members heard from Kara Chiles, senior vice president/consumer product at Gannett |USA Today Network, about how the company began planning and prioritising big projects — and what she has learned along the way.

The prioritisation process

Gannett created a prioritisation system to respond to teams wondering why their projects were not being worked on, Chiles told INMA members. 

The new system, she said, helps all stakeholders understand how things are prioritised and what role they play in moving their project forward: “Moving to this mode was trying to help our stakeholders understand that prioritisation is really a collaborative process.”

The framework defines four characteristics for prioritising projects.

“We ask stakeholders very specifically to think about these four characteristics when they look at or have conversations around what we are prioritising,” she said.

Those four characteristics are:

1. ROI/impact: This has been one of the critical pieces in helping create a common language when evaluating projects. It includes the estimated yield of the product, which helps determine where resources should be allocated.
2. Dependencies: Chiles said that by showing the sequences that must happen for some initiatives to allow others to fall into place, stakeholders gain a better understanding of where they fit in an annual plan. “[They can see] where different teams may be working on the same things for different stakeholders, so that’s really helped them understand where it’s not so easy to just say it’ll be done by [a certain] hard date.”
3. Level of effort: While the complexity of a product doesn’t determine the order in which it will be created, it can inform the number of initiatives the department can commit to simultaneously.
4. Timeliness: Some efforts are dictated by hard dates and news cycle events — and must be prioritised to capitalise on the opportunity. “One of the things we’ve helped people understand is that the news cycle will both blow up your road map and inform why something might be prioritised very high because it has no choice but to hit that date.”

With the necessary characteristics identified, the team created three buckets. Each potential project falls into one of those buckets, which then determines how it is prioritised.

The first tier is Ranked Priorities, which is something the teams believe they could “confidently commit” to. With these projects, Chiles said, “We have a high degree of confidence we’ll be able to get this amount of work done or these initiatives done within a given quarter.”  

The second tier is Unrealised Opportunities, which she explained is “… all of the things that look like they’re worth doing, but we just don’t have the time to get to them.” The ideas might sound promising, but teams don’t have the bandwidth to take them on. “You can also think of this as the ‘not yet’ category,” Chiles said.

The final tier is the Not-ROI Supported category, which means it doesn’t show the same kind of revenue opportunities as those in the first two tiers. This is often about ideas that someone may really love, but the company needs to prove it is worth the allocation of time and resources.

“This is the one where we’re further saying, ‘You haven’t made the case yet.’ And it’s really meant to be a dialogue,” Chiles said. “It is not us deciding for them; it is trying to get them to the agreement that we need to see more before we can even say yes or no.” 

The ranked priorities framework

Once it’s clear which initiatives will be worked on, the projects are entered into a ranked priorities framework.

This framework provides all stakeholders with a clear view of the initiatives, their phase, what business unit they belong to, their dependencies, and their ROI. The framework is shared with everyone from individual contributors to c-level executives, which Chiles said makes sure everyone is on the same page and understands what the company thinks is important.

“It makes the individual contributors feel like they understand the top-down goals,” she said. “And it makes the senior leadership reassured that we are working on the things that they believe to be most important.”

At the end of the quarter, a scorecard shows what was accomplished and where each project stands. This reinforces transparency to all stakeholders and shows how they delivered against what they committed to at the beginning of the quarter. It provides leaders with insight into how projects are progressing toward their business goals and North Stars.

The power of planning

It took some time to get the framework in place and running smoothly, Chiles said, but now the company uses a quarterly planning schedule that helps identify what needs to be done next.

“Quarterly planning is really about getting in front of the leadership cycle,” she said. “It has actually helped us really start to pull further back in terms of our planning and our quarterly and annual views.”

Quarterly planning has added more weight to annual planning, giving it more organisation and consistency. Teams know their deadlines and when they are needed instead of “not knowing when or where they’re supposed to show up.” And that has led to greater understanding and communication across the board.  

“It’s led to some healthier conversations within product and beyond in terms of how everyone understands the importance of the full range of work that drives the business,” Chiles said. 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .