Assignment 5: MS Project Scheduling and Salvaging a Project

PRIOTIZING PROECTS 9

Prioritizing Projects

Student’s Name

Professor’s Name

Course Title

Date

D.D. Williamson is a company that manufactures natural and artificial caramel food colors for the food industry on a daily basis. Founded in 1865, it has been operating ten manufacturing plants as of date in six countries around the world (Nixon, 2010).

Q.1 Analyze the prioritizing process at D. D. Williamson

For a long time, the company has maintained it position in being successful in its business operations as well as undergoing the test of time by existing for more than 150 years currently in its 152nd. Though this is so, all this did not come on a silver platter. It has been successful in many ventures but initially lacked the ability to manage projects successfully without setbacks.

In this paper, we will be able to look at various actions that D.D. Williamson took such as prioritizing projects in order to be successful. During the case study, we are able to see the company experiencing trouble when trying to handle projects and innovations forcing them to make a move backwards and determine the cause of their failure in making the projects successful. According to the findings, poor prioritization of projects was the main problem and catalyst for failure. For instance, prioritizing less meaningful projects to those that would have had a major impact on the company’s success, resulting in implementation of these less meaningful projects prior to the large impacting projects. Their poor prioritization and disorganization led to minor projects going over-board in terms of budget thus probability of many missed opportunities that would utilized the excess cash that was lost in implementation of the less meaningful projects. So as to come up with a remedy that would help them better select the projects that were more useful to the organization, they devised a plan and process that would bring success to the company and facilitate prioritization and implementation of the most essential projects to the company.

This plan and process involved creation of a project management team that was solely responsible for the effectiveness and success of a project by determining the expense/value and the setting of the project, and taking control of the project from its implementation to its exhibition (Nkomo, 2012).

From the well-rounded project management workforce formed, D. D. Williamson also benefited since the management team worked together to manage the projects based on set criteria such as urgency of each project, the allocated budget / resource allocation and the timing taken for completion.

As time went by, the creation of the project management team didn’t seem to be the sole solution to the success of the projects since there were still additional actions that were considered necessary for realizing their priority projects. According to (Piller 2003), the increased demand for ﬂexibility, to deal with an increasingly complex and changing business environment, has been one of the main elements of new manufacturing paradigms, from mass production to lean and adaptive manufacturing. This would have been essential when trying to prioritize essential projects.

D. D. Williamson standardization of their project prioritization seemed to be a challenge as they went for unsustainable processes instead of an established procedure. Unsustainable processes and failing projects could have led them to adoption of an established procedure, such as the paradigm stated above, which could have helped the company to excel.

Q.2 Suggest two recommendations to improve the prioritization process

Basing our recommendations on the case study, we are first able to see that the company did not incorporate tactical evaluation with consideration to the durability, weak points, risks, and opportunities associated with a particular project. Therefore to solve this and improve project prioritization, it is essential to;

Incorporate tactical evaluation with consideration to the durability, weak points, risks, and opportunities associated with a particular project.
Use forced ranking; whereby project managers come together and “force” each project into a number of priority groups. Later, projects are adapted to the portfolio in rank order (ascending to descending) until the organization or company runs out of resources (Rothman, 2016). Generally means, when prioritizing projects you should consider the amount of resources available.
Use the project’s missions and values when prioritizing projects.

According to (J. Rothman 2009), once you know the organization’s mission, it’s possible to use it to say, “Indeed, this project is part of our mission and objective” or “No, this project is not part of our mission and objective.” If you find that you have sacred cow projects, use your company-defined values to describe why the projects are sacred cows and should be eliminated.

Q.3 Create a scenario where the implemented process at D. D. Williamson would not work.

The implemented process would be hard to work in an Info-Tech Company such as Google or Microsoft in relation to a computer software, application or program. The needs, processes and procedures for computer software are very different when it comes to designing and coding them. Most are the times when computer software and applications become obsolete and need to be updated from time to time. Even though computer software vary greatly from time to time until the full software is designed and coded for the intended system it still needs to be updated to avoid glitches due to the day-to-day advancement in technology.
Moreover, an application or software designed for a phone needs very different variables and parameters to the one coded to serve a computer forcing priorities in coding to be very different. The difference in the implementation processes of D. D. Williamson and the Info-Tech Company also puts in consideration time. When producing a computer software, for example by Google, the company needs to make sure their software is always up-to-date and affordable to the general public so as to meet their needs and always be ahead of its competitors in the industry.

Q.4 Project five (5) years ahead and speculate whether or not D. D. Williamson will be using the same process. Justify your answer.

As we all know, time is money. You gaze a little bit and you are left behind.

Focusing on advancement in technology and future conjecture there is no room for mistakes. D. D. Williamson is likely to adopt new technology and different manufacturing paradigms in the next five years. The ﬂexibility required from customers and markets either in terms of products, order volumes, and speed/responsiveness require a manufacturing strategy that is able to offer a wide product range, deliver non-standard – even customized products, and/or take the lead in introducing new products. Larger companies could emphasize volume ﬂexibility, exploiting an ability to accelerate or decelerate production very quickly and juggle orders so as to provide unusually rapid delivery.

If D. D. Williamson will not have adopted new technology and different manufacturing paradigms, as stated in the case study, they will still be using the process improvement though they will revisit it and change it as needed. Kaizen – Continuous Improvement will improve the continuously the company’s processes so as to meet its needs and those of the general public.

In conclusion, every project manager in the organization whose role is to prioritize projects needs to rank projects in his or her portfolio following set criteria especially by using the company’s missions, objectives and values and also incorporating tactical evaluation with consideration to the durability, weak points, risks, and opportunities associated with a particular project so as to facilitate success of the most essential projects to the company.

References

Hayes, R., Pisano, G., Upton, D. and Wheelwright, S.C. (2005), Operations, Strategy, and Technology – Pursuing the Competitive Edge, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.

J. Rothman, Manage Your Project Portfolio The Pragmatic Bookshelf, Raleigh, NC, 2009.

Nkomo, J. C. and Gomez, B., 2012. Estimating and Comparing Costs and Benefits of Adaptation Projects: Case Studies in South Africa and the Gambia. Final Report submitted to Assessments of Impacts and Adaptations to Climate Change (AIACC).

Piller, F. (2003), Mass Customization, 3rd ed., Gabler, Wiesbaden.

As stated on the webpage for the Rothman Consulting Group, Rothman http://www.jrothman.com/articles/2012/02/selecting-a-ranking-method-for-your-project-portfolio/, obtained July 13, 2016.