How to compare community investment options using evidence, impact, urgency, reach and feasibility. The useful output is not a single number or ranking. The useful output is a transparent record of assumptions, evidence gaps and the next validation step.
Use the tool as a screen. Keep the inputs editable, preserve source dates and move material decisions to the appropriate professional, regulatory or organisational review.
Recommended sequence
- Start with community-defined evidence rather than an internal project list.
- Rate expected impact and urgency separately from reach.
- Treat feasibility as a delivery constraint rather than a reason to ignore high-impact needs.
- Validate the ranking with affected communities, rights-holders and programme owners before funding decisions.
What to record before sharing a result
Record the reporting period, source of each material input, the definition used for key terms, the methodology version and the limitations that remain unresolved. A result without this context is easier to misread.
Use the free tool
Open the related tool Review methodology
Responsible-use boundary
The related tool supports screening and preparation. It does not replace legal, engineering, financial, environmental, social, assurance or other specialist work where those disciplines are required.