Managing a project

In the first article, "Project Management Priorities and the Link with Performance Management Systems," the relationship between successful project management and organizational performance is mainly discussed. The article claims that while evaluating a project's effectiveness, many project managers pay particular attention to the three factors of time, money, and quality. The essay focuses on the reward and recognition system implemented by organizations. Project managers may find the three metrics beneficial in motivating them to work productively.

Unfortunately, these actions only assist people in the near term, and they have little to no effect on the organization's ability to expand. This is because the focus becomes the only goal and other vital things such as the psychosocial needs of the whole team working on the project as well as the requirements of different projects are neglected (Bryde & Wright, 2007). The article further explains that although the limitations of using these three aspects to measure project performance are well known, many organizations still have a hard time using any other measures of quantity performance of the firm. There is also a heavier emphasis on studying organizational performance rather than project performance which has made the project management part in an organization receives very little attention (Bryde & Wright, 2007).

Based on the above, two research questions were formulated and formed the basis of the article: What are the performance factors emphasized in live projects? What is the relationship between project performance criteria and PMS? Research is carried out using the housing sector in the UK as a case study to answer these questions. Using various statistical measures, the results of the study were that when working on a project, team members focus on five priorities: managing for efficiency, customer and project team orientation, stakeholder orientation, control and flexibility (Bryde & Wright, 2007). These are the factors that project team members prioritized in order from the most important to the least important.

The article thus brings to light the personalization of the projects in that the team only does the projects for their purposes and do not align them with the goals of the organization. There exists a considerable gap between how these projects are done and their alignment to the long-term goals of the company. The article further gives some few pointers on changes that organizations can make to create a transition from focusing merely on the three traditional iron triangle factors. The article emphasizes the need for the organization to shift its priority from the efficiency of the project and instead focus more on the team itself and the customers (Bryde & Wright, 2007).

The second article,” IT proposals competing for attention? Learn how to prioritize”, the author Glaser explores the different considerations that organizations need to make to be able to decide on which project to embark. At any one time, an organization is faced with many proposals for IT projects. However, because of the limited resources, it has to decide on which ones to take up and which ones to delay or reject altogether. For IT projects to be well prioritized, it involves four steps: having sound project proposals, an IT strategy that can guide decisions, having in place robust processes to help in evaluating and comparing the plans and actions that can be taken to ‘re-scope’ the project (Glaser, 2006).

According to the article, a project proposal carries a lot of weight and should be well done to try and encourage management to devote its time, money and effort to it. For IT proposals to be effective, they should address some key points: business sponsorship, objectives, IT solution, timing, cost, its benefits, initiatives, and risks. After receiving the proposals, some points to consider when assessing them are the track record of the project proponents regarding delivery and performance, how unique the project is and the quality of the proposal (Glaser, 2006).

The article gives some ideas on ways in which the evaluation teams can agree on the value of each project since each in the group might have their own opinion on what is essential. An IT strategy should also be in place to assist in the prioritization process. At times, even though a proposal is accepted, it might have to be changed regarding its timing, budget, and scope which mean that even though it is approved, some changes have to be made-this is known as rescoping (Glaser, 2006). Some considerations to be made for this are how mandatory the project is, whether some projects can be delayed and whether the group members can take on and handle new projects. Other vital concerns include the availability of resources, management, and leadership of the organization, if there are less expensive ways to approach the problems in the proposal and whether the proposed budget can be reduced (Glaser, 2006).

Both articles agree on ways in which the projects should be prioritized in regards to the urgency of timing and the cost of delaying expected benefits. In matters of the urgency of timing, both articles agree that timing is of the essence and the more urgent a proposal is, the more it should be prioritized (Bryde & Wright, 2007). Cost of delaying expected benefits should also be a consideration when prioritizing the projects. When projects are delayed, this will translate to some of the benefits expected to be received being delayed. The opportunity cost of delaying these projects must be put into consideration. The more benefits there are to lose, the more highly prioritized that project should be.

References

Bryde, D. J., & Wright, G. H. (2007). Project management priorities and the link with performance management systems. Project management journal, 38(4), 5-11.

Glaser, J. (2006). IT proposals competing for attention? Learn how to prioritize: there will always be more demand for IT projects than an organization can afford or manage. Healthcare Financial Management, 60(7), 92-96.