PoP Consolidation

This page is the consolidation of the PoP

Feasibility items

Results of a of the Project on a Page. 

Here quick overview concerning Feasibility, like :

  • Budget
  • Time
  • Resources
  • Complexity
  • Manpower
  • Logistics, and
  • Sustainability

Each of these was, on a high level, ranked by the participants. 

Just a quick recap.

Here’s a summary of the project ideas and their attributes:

Art Sector Mapping:

  • Stakeholders: Art Collectives and Groups, Art Educators and Students, Galleries and Exhibition Spaces.
  • Feasibility: Moderate budget, moderate time, sufficient resources, and moderate technical requirements.
  • Sustainability: Annual.

Professional Strategy:

  • Stakeholders: Similar to Art Sector Mapping.
  • Feasibility: Moderate across budget, time, and resources, with simple technical requirements.
  • Sustainability: Biannual.


  • Stakeholders: Local Artists.
  • Feasibility: Extended time, extensive resources, and advanced technical requirements.
  • Sustainability: One-time event.

Arts Engagement Groups:

  • Stakeholders: Similar to Art Sector Mapping.
  • Feasibility: Minimal budget, short time, basic resources, and technical requirements.
  • Sustainability: Monthly.

Artist Residency:

  • Stakeholders: Similar to Art Sector Mapping.
  • Feasibility: Minimal budget, moderate time, sufficient resources, and simple technical requirements.
  • Sustainability: Annual.


Based on this information, to identify ideas from “quick win” to “very complex,” we would consider factors such as:

  • Feasibility: Projects with a ‘Minimal’ budget and ‘Simple’ technical requirements are likely easier to implement.
  • Time: Projects with a ‘Short’ time requirement might be quicker to deliver, but if they’re recurring (like monthly events), they could become complex over time.
  • Resources: ‘Sufficient’ resources indicate a project is well-supported and may face fewer complications.
  • Sustainability: One-time events could be less complex than ongoing events, though they might require more intensive preparation.


In this context, “quick win” ideas would typically have minimal budget and resource requirements, simple technical needs, and shorter timeframes. Conversely, “very complex” projects would have extensive budget and resource needs, advanced technical requirements, and longer or more frequent time commitments.

To assign a complexity score, a weighted system could be applied to each factor based on its impact on the project’s overall complexity. For example, ‘FeasibilityCheckResources’ and ‘Sustainability’ might be given more weight if they are considered more significant for the project’s success.

Scoring across all items

The scoring system was created based on the feasibility and sustainability data for each project idea. Each feasibility attribute (budget, time, resources, technical requirements) and the sustainability aspect were assigned scores as follows:

  • For the feasibility attributes:
    • Minimal, Sufficient, or Basic were scored as 1, indicating low complexity.
    • Moderate was scored as 2, indicating medium complexity.
    • Extensive, Advanced, or Extended were scored as 3, indicating high complexity.


  • For the sustainability attribute, which reflects the frequency and ongoing nature of the project:
    • The one-time event was scored as 1, suggesting lower complexity due to the lack of repetition.
    • Annual or Biannual were scored as 2, indicating medium complexity because they are recurring but not frequent.
    • Monthly events were scored as 3, reflecting higher complexity due to the need for continuous management and resources.


The total complexity score for each project idea was calculated by summing the scores of the individual attributes. For instance, a project with a moderate budget, time, sufficient resources, simple technical requirements, and annual sustainability would have a score of 2 (budget) + 2 (time) + 1 (resources) + 1 (technical) + 2 (sustainability) = 8.

The scale is therefore from 5 to 15, with 5 being the simplest (all attributes scored as 1) and 15 being the most complex (all attributes scored as 3). The lower the total score, the simpler and more of a “quick win” the project is considered to be.

Conversely, the higher the total score, the more complex and resource-intensive the project is likely to be. Which results in the table below. 

Idea Name Complexity Score Details
Arts Engagement Groups 4.0 This could be a “quick win” due to its minimal budget, short time, basic resources and technical requirements, and monthly sustainability.
Artist Residency 5.0 Suggests a relatively low complexity, with moderate time and sustainability and minimal budget and resources.
Professional Strategy 6.0 Mid-range complexity, with moderate budget, time, resources, and simple technical requirements.
Art Sector Mapping 7.0 Indicates a moderate level of complexity due to moderate budget, time, sufficient resources, and technical requirements.
Collaboration 12.0 Categorized as “very complex” due to extended time, extensive resources, and advanced technical requirements.

more insights