Comment on a previous Advice Line: "Balancing strategic and tactical improvements," 1/28/2008:I like this analysis and have used a similar method to prioritize projects, but I have one problem with Bob's version - Cost and Risk are not always necessarily correlated, and this version suggests that they will always be in the same quadrant (i.e., if it's high cost it is also high risk, or if it's high risk it's als Comment on a previous Advice Line: “Balancing strategic and tactical improvements,” 1/28/2008:I like this analysis and have used a similar method to prioritize projects, but I have one problem with Bob’s version – Cost and Risk are not always necessarily correlated, and this version suggests that they will always be in the same quadrant (i.e., if it’s high cost it is also high risk, or if it’s high risk it’s also high cost.)I can think of many examples that would be high risk but low cost, since the risk only becomes costly if the negative outcome is in fact realized. Bob’s Last Word:The commenter is, of course, right. I also, by the way, generally schmush (to use the technical term) benefit and impact together on the other axis even though they are separate subjects.I do this because the number of visualization tools available to display four-dimensional images are limited (to none, display technology being what it is). I’ve found that the approximations I described are generally good enough to guide practical decision-making, even though that aren’t precise and do merge distinct dimensions of value. Technology Industry