A structured approach for teams to periodically reassess the value, feasibility, and priority of ongoing projects or tasks.
Builds on the Stage-Gate gate scorecard (Robert G. Cooper, Winning at New Products, 1986) and the in-flight project health check as formalized in the Project Implementation Profile (Dennis P. Slevin and Jeffrey K. Pinto, Project Management Journal, 1986), and takes its name from the effort-justification effect (Elliot Aronson and Judson Mills, 1959).
What it is for
The purpose of the Effort Justification Meter thinking tool is to provide a structured approach for teams to periodically reassess the value, feasibility, and priority of ongoing projects or tasks. This tool facilitates a critical examination of whether the current work efforts align with the team's goals, resources, and broader strategic objectives.
Why use it
It's wise to regularly question the purpose of your project or task by asking: "What is the reason behind doing this?" Also, frequently evaluate whether to keep going, halt, or delay the work. This tool is particularly useful in ensuring that projects remain aligned with the team's capacities, the organization's strategic direction, and the evolving external environment. By regularly using this tool, teams can avoid continuing efforts that no longer yield sufficient value or that are misaligned with broader goals.
How to use it
- Team Member Questionnaire. Each team member completes a questionnaire to express their views on various aspects of the project or task. The questionnaire can be adapted to suit the specific needs of the project, and a rating scale (typically 1 to 10) is used for responses.
- Collect Responses. Gather the completed questionnaires and systematically input the responses into a structured table. This step ensures that all team members' opinions are considered in the decision-making process.
- Calculate Average Scores. Utilize a formula to calculate the average score for each question. This step helps in understanding the overall team sentiment regarding each aspect of the project. It's important to be careful not to overwrite the formula in the "Average Score" columns.
- Team Discussion. Conduct a meeting to discuss the results of the questionnaire. This discussion should focus on whether the project or task should proceed, be halted, or be postponed based on the collective input from the team. This step is crucial for making informed decisions about the future of the work effort.
Use a scale of 1 to 10 for scoring: 1 = No/Unlikely, 5 = Average, 10 = Highly Likely. You can add or delete rows. Be cautious with blank ranking fields as it may affect averages.
Is the remaining effort justified?
Ten questions, scored from 1 (no or unlikely) to 10 (highly likely) by each of three teams; each row shows its average, and the average across every score gives the verdict. The thresholds for proceed, postpone, and halt are a suggested reading, not part of the tool, which leaves the call to the team's discussion.
Does the outcome justify the effort we're putting in?
Team #1Team #2Team #3AverageHave the key stakeholders approved the remaining tasks?
Team #1Team #2Team #3AverageAre our clients genuinely in favor of continuing this work?
Team #1Team #2Team #3AverageHave we resolved all significant barriers to progress?
Team #1Team #2Team #3AverageHow likely is it that this project will succeed?
Team #1Team #2Team #3AverageIs now a good time to implement this change?
Team #1Team #2Team #3AverageHow committed and eager are we to keep going?
Team #1Team #2Team #3AverageDo we have access to all the resources we need to continue?
Team #1Team #2Team #3AverageIs our planning thorough enough to advance?
Team #1Team #2Team #3AverageDo we have the necessary control and authority to make decisions and act?
Team #1Team #2Team #3AverageAverage score
VerdictScore every question to see the verdict.HaltThe scores do not justify more effort.PostponeClose the low-scoring questions first.ProceedThe scores justify continuing the work.
Where it fits
The process recommends it at Defining the Evaluation Criteria, the first step of the Evaluate phase, where it is the one tool named. It defines no criteria itself: it is a check on work already under way, so it serves just as well during Implementing the Action Plan.
Related tools
Within this series, the Heads-or-Tails Gut-Check makes a go or no-go call by intuition where this tool makes it by scorecard.
- Premortem (Klein, Mitchell, Russo, and others)
- Weighted Decision Matrix (Kepner, Tregoe, Pugh, and others)
- Real Options Analysis (Myers, Trigeorgis, Copeland, and others)
- Sunk Cost Reasoning (Thaler, Arkes, and Blumer)