When prioritizing interventions using an impact-effort framework, which approach is best?

• A. Prioritize high feasibility regardless of impact
• B. Prioritize low-cost options only
• C. Score interventions on impact and effort; plot on matrix; prioritize high impact with low-to-moderate effort
• D. Choose randomly

Answer: (C)

Evaluating interventions on two dimensions—impact and effort—and placing them on an impact-effort matrix is the best way to decide what to tackle first. This approach helps you see where the greatest value meets realistic resource use. When you score each idea for how much it would improve outcomes (impact) and how much work, time, and cost it would take (effort), you can compare options on a common scale rather than guessing which one is best.

The sweet spot is high impact with low-to-moderate effort. These are the quick wins that deliver meaningful change without overburdening staff or requiring unsustainable resources. Scoring and plotting also keeps the process transparent and repeatable, so decisions aren’t swayed just by what’s easy, cheap, or familiar.

Choosing interventions based solely on feasibility ignores how much they would actually improve outcomes, and focusing only on cost or effort can cause you to miss high-value opportunities. Randomly selecting ideas ignores evidence and prioritization. By systematically weighing both impact and effort, you prioritize those that provide the most benefit for the least strain, while still considering options that are high impact but require more effort if resources and strategic goals support them.