D.D. Williamson adopted an innovative approach to project prioritization for what they dubbed Vision Impact Projects (VIP) after a rigorous three-year process. The company settled on a process where the top management suggests two top priority projects, at least two per top management, arriving at a total of sixteen projects down from sixty of varying degrees of importance that were undertaken previously. The rate of completion of the projects under the new strategy has been impressive as they were completed close to the expected dates.
It is noteworthy that the top management is involved in the process of sifting through various criteria to settle on the one involving at least two projects per senior management. The strength of this approach is that it gains the wins the goodwill of the people who have great influence on the decision-making power of the organization. It is the senior management that decides the allocation of funds for the various projects. The previous challenges were that so many projects were undertaken, but the level of success of these projects was very minimal. Breaking down the criteria for selecting the projects to those that impact the greatest on the corporate objectives was an advantage. The reason why these projects received phenomenal success rate was obviously because the senior management has the capacity to surmount any impediments on the way of implementation. Apart from the rich repertoire of skill and experience the managers bring on board regarding project implementation, they take extra care so that their projects do not fail. The contrary would not augur well for both their juniors and the shareholders.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
On the other hand, it could be argued that the best decision the management made was to select a minimum number of projects; those that have the highest impact on corporate objectives . It appears obvious that once that decision was made, even the junior project managers could have experienced a similar level of success if they had been sufficiently motivated. It is also likely that the failures in projects that were previously done were because the company had not decided to critically re-look at its performance. Although little information is given about the efforts of the management in the strategic decision-making of the company prior to the iterations in the prioritization process, it is likely that this novel process gave the management fresh impetus to succeed leading to the phenomenal success of implementation. The three years that the management was engaged in selecting the prioritization process obviously built teamwork among them whereby the learned to work together. It could be the power of synergy and nothing else that led to project success.
The level of attention that that is given to “VIPs” by the Global Operating Team (GOT) ensures that the projects cannot fail. Such mechanisms like the weekly review meetings and pulling all stops to ensure that the projects remain on course has been an advantage for D.D. Williamson. This team has the advantage that it holds the decision power regarding negotiations and reallocation of resources. The question to be asked at this point is whether this approach is sustainable. It is likely that these top managers will galvanize all their efforts towards fulfilling the new prioritization strategy to some point and then hand it down to lower cadres of management within the organization. When new managers with less decision-making power are handed down such massive projects working in volatile environments, they will be handicapped regarding making quick decisions that may determine the future success or failure of the projects ( Dessouky, Papagiannakis, and Abbas, 2016) . This will arise because of bureaucratic processes that may require the top management to sit and gauge whether money needs to be allocated for a given project or not. These processes may discourage the implementing staff leading to failure of projects.
Recommendations to improve prioritization process
Engage lower cadres of management in decision making
Involving only the senior management in prioritization decisions could have short-term results that could be deceptive. The chief role of senior management of any form is to make strategic goals and discuss policy matters. Although they should not be eclipsed from the management of actual projects, senior managers should not take over the complete implementation of projects. Junior staff should also be engaged in discussions about prioritization so as to build capacity for strategic thinking. The organization should be shielded from a possible mass movement of senior managers to competing firms that may offer better remuneration. Integrating the prioritization process into the company rank and file insulates organizations from such eventualities and guarantees sustainability ( Dutra, Ribeiro and de Carvalho, 2014).
Engaging lower cadres of managers also creates a sense of ownership of the decisions and gives the senior management a glimpse into the challenges they encounter in their routine operations. It is clear that senior managers enjoy certain privileges and powers and may be blind to the circumstances under which other employees work. Engaging these employees through their line managers greatly boosts their morale towards working to achieve organizational goals.
Include ‘employee motivation’ as part of the rating criteria for prospective projects
The case study provided seems to completely disregard the place of human resource in the success of projects. Much has been said about projects that impact on project goals, the interdisciplinary teams and even the likelihood that such projects may face challenges which only the senior management can handle. Silvestre (2015) observes that t he attitude of employees plays a crucial role as far as the success of any organization is concerned. D.D. Williamson seems more concerned that there are too many projects competing for limited company resources. The assumption is made that if a proper organizational strategy towards prioritization is drawn, then the firm is sure to attain runaway success. However, the success of the company in implementation seems to have been achieved indirectly through staff motivation. The interactivity among the cross-sectional managers may have impacted the project success greater than the actual strategy.
Scenario where this strategy will not work
The prioritization process as adopted by D.D. Williamson will not work when the company introduces a new product into the market. Although new products may face challenges owing to customer loyalty to the competition in the market, there will be a need for resilience as the brand gains its place in the psyche of customers. According to Shollo,Constantiou and Kreiner (2015) s enior management alone cannot ensure that day to day marketing of the product is done effectively. They are likely to suffer fatigue while those in the lower cadre may develop apathy towards the product. This will not augur well for the product placement in the market because employees of a company play a critical role in word-of-mouth marketing of products from their own companies. Regarding the Global Operating Team model of striving to return the operations of the company on course as planned, this strategy may fail for new products. It is generally observed that sometimes products defy market projections and thrive better in segments not prioritized in planning. It may, therefore, be a wise decision not to stick to the projected course but quickly re-organize the strategy and exploit the un-predicted segment. Because the D.D. Williamson design emphasizes staying the course, it may not serve the dynamics of new product introduction.
Projecting five years ahead
The vision impact projects will have thrived five years on, and the company would be enjoying the benefits of prioritization. The projects that tend more towards the company’s goals and objectives will mostly have been done, and company shareholders will be in high praise of the management. However, it is least likely that the momentum of project implementation will have been sustained through the years. The task that senior management has to drive the company’s crucial agenda is not only onerous but highly demanding on their time and expertise. In five years, therefore, it is likely that the operations of the projects will have been handed over to project managers in the lower rungs of management. Given that these subordinate managers will not be enjoying the goodwill and the direct control of resources to make decisions on the spot, delays in implementation will be experienced occasioned by emergent strictures of bureaucracy. This will ultimately lead to low motivation among both the implementing managers and the officers that work under them. With this scenario, the rate of completion of the projects will slide back to the percentages previously experienced.
Because of the temporary nature of the prioritization strategy agreed upon by G.G. Williamson, it is less likely that this strategy will be used five years down the line. The use of cross-functional team means that managers from across various sections of the company will devote their time for frequent meetings to ensure that the projects they have ratified succeed. This means they have to sacrifice some of their routine functions at their workstation to fulfill this strategic goal. This can only be practical for a short period of time. It is also feasible that in five years, the company will have grown significantly in size and operations if the VIPs are implemented to the success levels expected. This will mean continuous restructuring and hiring of staff in top management. This scenario will break the synergy created by the initial teams and open the door to new ideas. It is for this reason that the company will have to reconsider this prioritization process.
The prioritization process for D.D. Williamson is a timely spur to the growth of the company. However, the design of this process can only last for a short time. The company will have to rethink its strategy as it grows beyond the initial phase post-iteration.
References
Dessouky, S., Papagiannakis, A. T., & Abbas, A. (2016). Practical Tool for Prioritizing Rehabilitation and Preventive Maintenance in Pavements. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board , (2550), 63-71.
Dutra, C. C., Ribeiro, J. L. D., & de Carvalho, M. M. (2014). An economic–probabilistic model for project selection and prioritization. International Journal of Project Management , 32 (6), 1042-1055.
Shollo, A., Constantiou, I., & Kreiner, K. (2015). The interplay between evidence and judgment in the IT project prioritization process. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems , 24 (3), 171-188.
Silvestre, B. S. (2015). A hard nut to crack! Implementing supply chain sustainability in an emerging economy. Journal of Cleaner Production , 96 , 171-181.
