Locations
The challenge prioritization scoring proposed in this toolkit is designed to be iterative. It allows for both individual reflection and group discussion before arriving at a final decision on which development challenges should be prioritized in the CPD.
This two-step process ensures that diverse perspectives are heard and incorporated while promoting collaborative decision-making that leads to stronger, more future-focused outcomes.
Step 1: Individual Scoring (Pre-Workshop)
Each team member working on the CPD receives the list of development challenges and the scoring table with the agreed-upon parameters (e.g., Strategic Fit, National Strategy Fit, Donor Fit, etc.). Team members score each challenge independently on a scale of 1 to 5 for each parameter based on their knowledge and understanding.
We suggest that these individual scores are collected anonymously to ensure that people feel comfortable sharing their honest opinions without fear of judgment.
Step 2: Group Discussion and Consensus Building (Workshop)
The facilitator presents the aggregated individual scores for each challenge, highlighting any areas of agreement or significant disagreement.
For challenges where scores vary widely, team members are encouraged to explain their rationale for scoring a particular way. The discussion focuses on unpacking disagreements, with participants sharing their insights, data, or contextual knowledge to support their views.
After the discussion, team members re-score the challenges collectively based on the new information and perspectives shared.
The Final Scoring
At the end of the group discussion, the team should repeat the scoring exercise. This can be done in the workshop itself, or through another survey similar to the pre-workshop survey. Encourage participants to consider and incorporate the insights and perspectives gained during the workshop in their rating.
This final scoring will reflect a shared consensus, ensuring that the prioritized challenges are based on collective wisdom rather than individual biases.
Conclusion
The iterative scoring process ensures that the prioritization of development challenges is both objective and collaborative. By combining individual assessments with group discussion and consensus-building, UNDP teams can surface valuable insights, reduce biases, and make more informed, evidence-based decisions.
This process strengthens the quality of the CPD, and the discussions around the scoring offer valuable material to include in it. Therefore, ensure that a notetaker is on hand to capture the insights, perspectives, and rationale behind scoring the different development challenges.
Last but definitely not least, this process builds shared ownership and accountability among team members, increasing the likelihood of successful implementation.
Now that you have a prioritised list of development issues you want to tackle in your next planning period, it's time to design future-fit programmes.