CI017
Adopt a pre-agreed, standing scoring model to enable fast, consistent improvement project prioritisation without renegotiating criteria each cycle.
CyberTRIZ analysis · Process contradiction CI017 · one of 8,235 worked contradictions published by CyberTRIZ.AI
Regulations
Faster Improvement Project Selection vs. Rigorous Prioritization Criteria
Business Context. Selecting improvement projects quickly keeps momentum high, but skipping rigorous prioritization criteria can lead to resources being invested in projects with limited actual business impact.
Process TRIZ Resolution. Rather than debating prioritization criteria extensively for every cycle, organizations should establish a standing, pre-agreed scoring model for project selection, allowing new projects to be scored and prioritized quickly against a consistent standard.
Applicable TRIZ Principles
Principle 10 (Prior Action) establishes a standing scoring model in advance of each project selection cycle.
Principle 6 (Universality) applies a single scoring model consistently across project types.
Principle 19 (Periodic Action) reviews and refines the scoring model periodically rather than renegotiating it each cycle.
Expected Outcome
Fast project selection
Rigorous, consistent prioritization
Better resource allocation
Reduced selection-cycle overhead
Decision Indicators
Project selection criteria are renegotiated from scratch each cycle.
Low-impact projects are frequently selected over higher-value ones.
No standing scoring model exists for improvement project prioritization.
Selection meetings take longer than the improvement work itself.
Resource allocation does not correlate with actual project impact.
If several of these indicators are present, the contradiction is likely active and the Process TRIZ resolution above should be evaluated.