LogoLogo
  • Introducing the framework
    • Context
    • Definitions
    • Development of the framework
    • Who is the framework for?
  • Framework overview
    • Framework at a glance
  • Engage and convene
    • Stage outline
    • Activities
    • Supporting tools
  • Understand and plan
    • Stage outline
    • Activities
    • Supporting tools
  • Develop
    • Stage outline
    • Activities
    • Supporting tools
  • Learn and publish
    • Stage outline
    • Activities
    • Supporting tools
  • Implement
    • Stage outline
    • Activities
    • Supporting tools
  • Appendix one - Engagement protocol
    • Prioritisation matrix
    • Support tiers
    • Interaction process map
  • Appendix two - Governance and accountability structure guidance
    • Governance and accountability structures
  • Appendix three - MEL framework
    • Overview
    • Step by step guide
  • Appendix four - Data requirements framework
    • Data requirements framework
  • Appendix five - Use case template
    • Problem statement template
    • Use case prioritisation decision-making matrix
  • Appendix six - Funding model guidance
    • Funding model guidance
Powered by GitBook
On this page
  1. Appendix one - Engagement protocol

Prioritisation matrix

PreviousSupporting toolsNextSupport tiers

Last updated 11 months ago

This protocol aims to outline the ways in which OA Governance will interact with use case communities. Although it should be used to ensure a consistent approach where possible, individual organisations within the OA community may choose to offer additional support from their own resources to particular use case communities that align closely with their business objectives.

Prioritisation matrix

This matrix provides a means for OA Governance to prioritise support for use case communities against OA’s strategic objectives based on their:

  1. Potential scale

    • Local - For example town, village or district council

    • Regional - County council, unitary authority or major city

    • National - Nationwide

  2. Feasibility/impact

    • Low - the likelihood of success is low without considerable investment of time and resources. There is little to no existing work or evidence of potential impact in the area.

    • Medium - reasonable likelihood of success. There is some existing work and research to demonstrate potential impact in the area.

    • High - likelihood of success is very high. There are multiple organisations already working and expressing interest in the area, and strong evidence to demonstrate potential impact.

Prioritisation matrix
9 x 9 matrix grid measuring potential scale on the vertical axis against feasibility/impact on the horizontal axis. The top row from left to right is national scale / low impact with a score of 4, national scale with medium impact for a score of 5 and national scale with high impact for a score of 6. The second row from left to right is regional scale with low impact for a score of 3, regional scale with medium impact for a score of 4 and regional scale with a high impact for a score of 5. The bottom row is local scale with low impact for a score of 2, local scale with medium impact for a score of 3 and local scale with high impact for a score of 4.