Practical Prioritization Exercise (Case Analysis)

The Purpose of the Prioritization Exercise

The purpose of this practical exercise is twofold.

First, it seeks to train the ability to clearly differentiate between "Essential" (critical, non-negotiable) and "Desirable" (important or useful, but negotiable) requirements.

Second, it emphasizes the importance of writing these criteria as specifically and measurably as possible.

Avoiding vague descriptions is critical to making the Person Specification a truly effective screening and assessment tool.

Case Study 1: The Business (IT) Scenario

Consider the following scenario: you are the manager of an IT department that is in the midst of planning a critical enterprise-wide platform migration project.

Suddenly, the lead systems analyst, whom you trusted to delegate key project tasks, resigns. You need to find a replacement with the utmost urgency.

Given the situation, there is no time available for a long training period in the project-specific technologies.

The task is to define the search profile by prioritizing the needs into three levels: (1) Critical, (2) Important and (3) Useful.

Application 1: IT Role Prioritization

In this context of urgency, the prioritization of the criteria would be as follows:

Critical (Essential): Given the lack of time to train someone, proven experience in migration processes is the non-negotiable requirement.

In addition, key behavioral competencies such as high problem solving skills and proactivity to handle project challenges are needed.

Important (high priority desirable): It would be beneficial if the candidate has experience in designing new technology solutions.

However, this is not critical, as the immediate need is to implement, not design. This is a skill that can be developed later.

Useful (Low Priority Desirable): Skills such as influencing or negotiating would be a valuable extra for coordinating with suppliers and other departments.

However, if the ideal candidate lacks these, it is a role that the manager can take on temporarily.

Case Study 2: The High Consequence Scenario (Skydiving)

To illustrate the importance of specificity, let's look at a second metaphorical case: you must hire a skydiving instructor to make your first beneficial jump.

This is a "high consequence" decision, where clarity about requirements is vital. The goal is to define what is Essential and what is Desirable.

Application 2: The Importance of Specificity

In this scenario, the wording of the criteria is critical to avoid ambiguity:

Critical (Essential): It is not enough to say "experienced."

A specific criterion would be: "Minimum 18 months of experience actively working as a licensed instructor" (to differentiate from someone who is only licensed but has not instructed). Or "More than 300 personal jumps."

"Demonstrated ability to make clear and quick decisions under pressure" would also be defined as critical.

Desirable (Important/Useful): A specific desirable criterion might be: "Have had to deploy your reserve parachute at least once" (this provides evidence that you know how to handle a real crisis without panicking).

Another might be "being a good listener" (useful for detecting jumper anxiety and building confidence). This exercise demonstrates how defining criteria measurably (e.g., "18 months") rather than vaguely (e.g., "experience") is what allows for objective evaluation.

Summary

The objective of the exercise is to train the ability to clearly differentiate between "Essential" and "Desirable". It also emphasizes the importance of writing specific and measurable criteria.

In Case 1 (urgent IT), migration expertise is critical (essential). Solution design is important (desirable), and negotiation is only useful.

Case 2 (Parachuting) shows the importance of specificity. "Experience" is vague; "Minimum 18 months active experience" (critical) is measurable and allows for objective evaluation.