PROJECT PRIORITIZATION PROCESS.

...

six months was conducted informal evaluation session with the Director of Planning and Research and the Office Manager Project, they identified six major themes:

1. The Steering Group Implementation

The combined steering groups set six priority projects, apply the evaluation process to assess the merit of the proposed projects, in doing several criteria needed modifications and clarifications were discovered.

2. The Master Resource Plan

The steering groups and the executive committee determined that the prioritization process, even at the level of executive committee, was only the first important step in the process. The missing piece was the master plan that coordinates all the work of the project, along with the allocation of resources within the framework of priority determined ultimately by the executive committee with the assessment process.

Of the eight projects approved by the Executive Committee in the first run, the Master Plan helped the steering groups choose to combine two projects and a window on the availability of resources that allowed lower-priority project to be completed was identified.

A great victory was the fact that the Master Plan demonstrated the value of the measurement, planning and development of an integrated vision projects. They were no longer seen as static sealed together projects, but as integrated projects.

3. Assessment Process Evaluation

The evaluation process called for a total of twenty short steps from conception of the project to the decision of the executive committee.

During the first session of eight projects, steering groups determined that there is already a history of relevant projects was available, projects that require comprehensive plans. Therefore, they combined three steps in a complex initial review, project detailing step and submission.

4. Criteria Evaluation

Of the twenty criteria used in the evaluation process, only one criterion, the annual rate of return (ARR), requires substantial modification. The current model no figures Return on investment is suitably adapted, despite attempts to incorporate this factor when the rating model was developed. Second, the model works reasonably well for projects related to the product, but not adequately for projects related to the process.

5. Unanticipated Spin-off Benefits

The RHS staff reported several unexpected current and future benefits that emerged from implementing the assessment and prioritization process.

5.1. Tracking Actuals

5.2. Exemplary Proposals

5.3. Stronger Commitment to Standarize Project Management Software Procedures

5.4. Enhanced Matrix Accountability

5.5. Defining Resources

6. Spin-off Issues to be Resolved

Implementation of the process highlighted several new issues that require resolution.

6.1. Inexplicit Corporate Strategies

6.2. Regenade Projects

6.3. Allocating Resources to “Below the Line” Projects

6.4. Managing Changing Priorities

Conclusion

1. The project evaluation should occur before issuing any approval or conformity to the project, as this organization ensures that the project is properly structured and thus comply with the proposal as such.

2. The prioritization of projects helps the organization prioritize which project should meet first, as this can be the basis for other projects that want to implement.

3. The assessment and prioritization following steps should be established by the working group to standardize the process.

4. It helps the organization improve its ability to allocate and manage resources, resolve conflicts and monitor the accounts of resources.

5. With this system the company can recoup its investment in the short time will depend on the project, as the project should be prioritized as a core business.