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