Case Study - Values-aligned prioritisation of strategic initiatives
Al Cranswick
July 7, 2025
A community care provider had to choose between 12 competing initiatives that together needed more investment than they could get their hands on. But this problem isn't just for community organisations. Listed companies and private businesses also have to balance financial imperatives with social license to operate, millennials' desire for purpose at work, shareholder advocacy, opportunities to partner with government, and their own organisational values.
Executive Summary
The Challenge: The board, management and other stakeholders couldn't agree on how to choose between 12 competing social impact initiatives. There was a $90 million funding gap between what they had and what they needed, with no agreed way to prioritise the initiatives.
The Results:
Investment Prioritisation: Clear ranking of 12 initiatives by "Social Return on Investment" (SROI)
Stakeholder Alignment: Strong agreement between the board, management and external stakeholders on the chosen investment portfolio of 8 strategic initiatives
A strategic compass: Everyone agreed not just on the outcome but also on how they got there. This gave the organisation a strategic compass that was used to improve the design of 5 of the 8 chosen initiatives, and will also be used for future strategic decisions
Social ROI: 4:1 weighted average SROI across the prioritised initiatives. In other words, it would have cost 4 times more to achieve the same benefits to people in the community if the client had not invested in those initiatives.
The Challenge
Client Profile: A community care provider offering in-home care and 8 facilities across regional areas, looking after over 1000 community members.
The Problem
The organisation hit a strategic roadblock: passionate board members and management had identified 12 promising social impact initiatives but didn't have enough money to fund all of them.
Key Issues:
Apples-to-Oranges Comparison: Initiatives ranged from respite care improvements to specialist nurse programs to building new facilities. Some initiatives helped large parts of the community, while others helped those most in need. There were also big differences in how much investment each initiative needed. This made it hard to compare initiatives fairly.
Capital Constraints: Together, the initiatives would have needed $135 million in investment, but the provider only had access to $45 million.
Good intentions vs good intentions: Everyone had good intentions. Each person was passionate about making a positive difference in the community. Each also respected that their colleagues' pet projects also came from good intentions. So, while each stakeholder championed their own values and strategic initiatives, there was reluctance to have the difficult conversations about which initiatives would have to wait.
Our Approach
We used Social Return on Investment (SROI) methodology, a proven framework for choosing between social impact projects where funding is the limiting factor.
The engagement followed a structured 5-month process:
Phase 0: Apply a growth mindset to the problem definition
We questioned whether the $45 million spending limit was a limiting factor over the medium term, or just the short term. Our research backed up the client's concern that in the short term, funders would indeed be hesitant to give them money while the initiatives were still just ideas on paper.
However, we suggested a different approach: start small with pilot programs - these are small-scale versions of the full program that test whether the idea actually works in the real world. If these pilots could show measurable positive results in the community, even on a limited scale, the organisation would have proof that their approach works. This track record would make it much easier to secure additional funding later through donations, government grants or social impact bonds (see glossary).
The client agreed with this strategy and appreciated that we had identified something they hadn't thought of - that demonstrating real-world success, even small-scale, would be the key to unlocking larger funding opportunities down the road.
However, each program still needed a minimum amount of funding to prove it could make a real difference in the community. For example, if the original proposal included building 3 modern facilities, the pilot version would still involve building at least 1 modern facility (investing in a half-built facility would not have been a good way to demonstrate success).
With this in mind, the client agreed to reframe their problem. Instead of asking "How do we allocate $45 million between full-scale strategic initiatives?" they asked:
"How do we divide our $45 million between minimal pilot initiatives now, so we can identify which ones work best and then get outside funding to expand the most successful ones later?"
This approach would ultimately create the greatest positive impact for the community over time.
Phase 1: Stakeholder Mapping & Outcome Definition (3 weeks)
Identified all stakeholders impacted by each initiative
Defined measurable social outcomes for clients, families, and staff
Established baseline metrics and data collection protocols
Phase 2: Economic Modelling & Evaluation (10 weeks)
Quantified the cost of achieving equivalent social outcomes without the proposed investments
Applied deadweight, attribution, and displacement adjustments (see glossary)
Calculated individual SROI ratios for each initiative
Phase 3: Portfolio Optimisation & Implementation Planning (4 weeks)
Ranked initiatives by SROI ratio and strategic fit
Optimised investment portfolio within capital constraints
Developed implementation roadmap with success metrics
Key Analytical Tools: SROI framework, stakeholder impact mapping, financial proxy valuation, Monte Carlo simulation analysis (see glossary).
Results Achieved
Primary Outcomes
Investment Portfolio: Prioritised 8 of 12 pilot initiatives within the $45 million budget constraint
Stakeholder Alignment: Achieved unanimous board approval
Financial Impact
Weighted Portfolio SROI: 4:1 social return on investment (SROI). In other words, it would have cost 4 times more to achieve the same benefits to people in the community if the client had not invested in those initiatives.
Top Initiative SROI: Specialist prescribing clinician program delivered 7:1 return SROI.
Avoided Opportunity Cost: Millions of dollars were saved by not investing in two initiatives that had SROI of less than 1 (in other words, it was less expensive to achieve the same community benefits in the absence of the proposed investment).
Why This Approach Works
Proven Methodology: The SROI framework has been successfully applied across 200+ community sector organisations globally, providing standardised approach to social value measurement.
Risk Mitigation: We addressed key risks through conservative outcome projections and monte carlo simulations
Quality Assurance: All social outcome valuations were validated through independent research sources and cross-referenced with similar community care implementations.
Key Takeaways
When to Consider This Approach:
Multiple competing initiatives with unclear relative value
Stakeholder disagreement on strategic priorities
Need to demonstrate social impact to funders or boards
What Made the Difference:
Rigorous financial proxy research and validation (see glossary)
Change management was achieved by brining key stakeholders along the decision making journey and showing them that the pilot-to-scale approach was about making the pie bigger, not just working out how to slice the pie.
Next Steps
Facing similar prioritisation challenges in your organisation? A pilot to scale approach with SROI-based prioritisation can help your organisation to maximise community benefit in the short term and access additional funding over the medium term through demonstrated social outcomes.
Schedule a consultation to discuss:
Preliminary assessment of your current investment pipeline
Customised SROI approach for your sector and stakeholder needs
Expected timeline and resource requirements for analysis
About the Consultant: 8 years of strategy consulting experience at tier-1 firms, specialising in values-based investment prioritisation, and stakeholder alignment. Chartered Accountant and Certified data scientist.
Schedule a consultation with Alastair
