Assignment 1: Prioritizing Projects at D. D. Williamson (Case Study from Chapter 2)Due Week 3 and worth 240 pointsRead the case titled: “Prioritizing Projects at D. D. Williamson” found in Chapter 2.Write a six to eight (6-8) page paper in which you:Analyze the prioritizing process at D. D. Williamson.Suggest two (2) recommendations to improve the prioritizing process.Create a scenario where the implemented process at D. D. Williamson would not work.Project five (5) years ahead and speculate whether or not D. D. Williamson will be using the same process. Justify your answer.Use at least four (4) quality (peer-reviewed) resources in this assignment.Your assignment must:Be typed, double spaced, using Times New Roman font (size 12), with one-inch margins on all sides; citations and references must follow APA or school-specific format. Check with your professor for any additional instructions.Include a cover page containing the title of the assignment, the student’s name, the professor’s name, the course title, and the date. The cover page and the reference page are not included in the required assignment page length.The specific course learning outcomes associated with this assignment are:Assess organizational strategies that contribute to effective project management of human resources.Use technology and information resources to research issues in managing human resource projects.Write clearly and concisely about managing human resource projects using proper writing mechanics.
Prioritizing Projects at D. D. Williamson
One of the most difficult, yet most important, lessons
we have learned at D. D. Williamson surrounds project
prioritization. We took three years and two iterations of
our prioritization process to finally settle on an approach
that dramatically increased our success rate on
critical projects (now called VIPs, or “Vision Impact
Projects”).
Knowing that one of the keys to project management
success is key management support, our first approach
at prioritization was a process where our entire senior
management team worked through a set of criteria and
resource estimations to select a maximum of two projects
per senior management sponsor—16 projects in total.
Additionally, we hired a continuous improvement
manager to serve as both our project office and a key
resource for project facilitation. This was a great move
forward (the year before we had been attempting to
monitor well over 60 continuous improvement projects
of varying importance). Our success rate improved to
over 60 percent of projects finishing close to the expected
dates, financial investment, and results.
What was the problem? The projects that were not
moving forward tended to be the most critical—the
heavy-investment “game changing” projects. A review
of our results the next year determined we left significant
money in opportunity “on the table” with projects
that were behind and over budget!
This diagnosis led us to seek an additional process
change. While the criteria rating was sound, the number
of projects for a company our size was still too
many to track robustly at a senior level and have resources
to push for completion. Hence, we elevated a
subset of projects to highest status—our “VIPs.” We
simplified the criteria ratings—rating projects on the
level of expected impact on corporate objectives, the
cross-functional nature of the team, and the perceived
likelihood that the project would encounter barriers
which required senior level support to overcome.
The results? Much better success rates on the big
projects, such as design and implementation of new
equipment and expansion plans into new markets.
But why?
The Global Operating Team (GOT) now has laser
focus on the five VIPs, reviewing the project plans
progress and next steps with our continuous improvement
manager in every weekly meeting. If a project is
going off plan, we see it quickly and can move to reallocate
resources, provide negotiation help, or change
priorities within and outside the organization to manage
it back on track. Certainly, the unanticipated barriers
still occur, but we can put the strength of the
entire team toward removing them as soon as they
happen.
A couple of fun side benefits—it is now a development
opportunity for project managers to take on a VIP.
With only four to six projects on the docket, they come
with tremendous senior management interaction and
focus. Additionally, we have moved our prioritization
process into our functional groups, using matrices
with criteria and resource estimations to prioritize customer
and R&D projects with our sales, marketing, and
science and innovation teams, as well as IT projects
throughout the company. The prioritization process
has become a foundation of our cross-functional
success!
Following are excerpts from the spreadsheet
D. D. Williamson used to select and prioritize our VIP
projects last year. Exhibit 2.15 shows the five criteria
used to prioritize the projects. Exhibit 2.16 shows how
associate time when assigned to a project is not available
for other projects. Projects can also be limited by
the amount of funds. Finally, Exhibit 2.17 defines
terms used in project selection.
48 Part 1 Organizing Projects
49
EXHIBIT 2.15
PROJECT PRIORITIZATION FOR D. D. WILLIAMSON
PROJECTS (REDUCED FOR EXAMPLE)
Qtr to
start
project
Project
number
Project list —
continuous
improvement
and innovation
Level of
difficulty
Achieve
sales
revenue
of $XXX,
XXX, XXX
Weight Weighted
criteria—
sales
Drive
additional
sales
in natural
colors of
$X, XXX,
XXX
Weight Weighted
criteria—
natural
colors
Achieve
return on
capital
employed
of XX%
Weight Weighted
criteria—
ROCE
Repeatability
of project—
other
locations
Weight Weighted
criteria—
repeatability
Risk of
project
barriers to
completion
Weight Weighted
criteria—
barriers
Total
rating
1 Powder
packaging
equipment
installation
8 5 40 1 5 5 9 4 36 5 3 15 5 3 15 111
1 Design and
install “new
processing
equipment” in
China
operation
8 5 40 1 5 5 10 4 40 9 3 27 9 3 27 139
2 Implement expansion
plans
for new products
(X)
9 5 45 10 5 50 8 4 32 8 3 24 8 3 24 175
2 Install “new
environmental
scrubber”
4 5 20 3 5 15 10 4 40 10 3 30 10 3 30 135
50
EXHIBIT 2.16
ASSOCIATE TIME ASSIGNED TO PROJECTS
PROJECT LIST—CONTINUOUS
IMPROVEMENT AND
INNOVATION
TOTAL ASSOCIATE
AVAILABLE HOURS
FOR PROJECTS
TED MARGARET ELAINE BRIAN ANN GRAHAM EDIE CAMPBELL
Associate “improvement” hrs for quarter: 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120
Total associate hrs committed: 80 120 60 180 0 60 40 60
Total hours
exceeding available quarter
−40 0 −60 60 −120 −60 −80 −60
Powder packaging equipment installation 60 60
Design and install “new processing equipment”
in China operation
60 40
Implement expansion plans for new products
(X)
80 120 60 60
Install “new environmental scrubber” 60
EXHIBIT 2.17
TERMS USED IN PROJECT SELECTION
DEFINITIONS OF
KEY TERMS
Project Ownership Defines the functional area with primary responsibility for the project
Global vs. Local Global projects will be implemented or impact on more than one location in the year defined;
otherwise projects are defined as local
Prioritization The five weighted criteria on worksheet one were used to put projects in rank order—used to
assign resources and identify the cut off
CI Project An improvement effort which is not part of an associate’s daily work requirements
Team Charter The plan for completing CI projects, often in seven-step format for problem resolution, though
formats vary according to project type and complexity. Includes the plan for communicating
progress and results
Project Roles The defined roles on an improvement team—not all teams will have all roles, but each project
will have at least a project manager and sponsor
Project Manager (PM) The owner of a project—will be expected to charter the team, ensure the forward movement of the
project, and report on progress, completion of the project, and closure/celebration of successes and
learnings. Also responsible for the communication plan within the charter. Must be a leadership
program graduate, and typically a functional manager, either global or local
Sponsor (S) Typically a senior manager/GOT member—responsible for ensuring assignment of appropriate
resources, clearing any barriers, and otherwise championing the project
Team Member (TM) An associate who has a significant contribution to make to the improvement effort, often a
representative of an involved function. Attends all team meetings and shares responsibility for
completion of the project
Subject Matter Expert
(SME)
An associate with needed knowledge for project outcome—may not be significantly affected by
changes. Attends only when knowledge is required, but commits to sharing knowledge when it is
needed.
Level of Difficulty The estimated human resource effort that will be required to complete a project (estimated on a
per quarter basis)
Level 1 Low investment of hours required (may require capital); solution is known and implementation of
solution is predictable; likely only 2–3 people involved
Level 1 projects—estimated hours for resource allocation: PM: 10 hours; S: 2 hours; SME:
5 hours
Level 2 Medium investment of hours required; may require upfront measurement and multiple solutions,
but solutions and implementation are still expected to be simple. Probably requires 3–5 team
members
Level 2 projects—estimated hours for resource allocation: PM: 60 hours; S: 15 hours; TM: 30
hours; SME 15 hours
Level 3 High investment of hours required; trying to solve complex and/or ongoing problems. Likely to involve
a behavior change in others—solutions or implementation outcomes may be unknown or less
simple. Likely a team of 4–8 people, perhaps cross-functional/cross location
Level 3 projects—estimated hours for resource allocation: PM: 120 hours; S: 30 hours; TM: 60
hours; SME: 30 hours
Source: Elaine Gravatte, Chief People Officer and North American President, D. D. Williamson
