I think the definition for a project and the experiences you have listed actually complement one another. What I mean by this is that in the beginning a project created with the criteria listed as having a defined beginning and end along with other related goals. Having a project placed on hold does not interfere with this definition. What was once clearly defined to start is now being redefined. As for your other question, I do believe projects should be canceled to give more resources to other teams. Most companies care about one thing, the bottom line or in other words, profit. The role of a project manager is to realistically assess and allocate the resources of a project. If this realistic assessment is that a project will not bring in as much profit as another project given the same resources, then you can guess where those resources will be going. Also keep in mind that a company can only maximize profit in this manner as far as consumer demand allows them to do.

I think that they had a "pick your poison" situation. Either end the project and get more out of another while losing the progress made with these half done projects or take the risk to hire more people and have it pay off later. If they didn't have the resources to continue the project then would they have the resources to hire more employees? I would need more information to answer your question thoroughly. What are their reasons for making your project a lower priority than others? Are all foot/ankle projects lower than hip and knee projects? Based off of what you said I think that if it could be shown that taking the hit and hiring more employees for the foot and ankle projects would pay off in the long run then I would keep the project going. If in the long run the hip and knee projects would still bring in more money than I think the company is going to go with whats more profitable.

As rjs84 said in their response, the company's highest priority needs to be maximizing profit. If you cannot sell a product, then you will not be able to fund development. With this in mind, a major determinate of project priority can come from audits. Whether done internally, by a consulting group, or by a regulating body, audits will point out the deficiencies in the company. As a result, resources will be reallocated to address any actions that are deemed necessary for remediation. Remediation often takes high priority and can pause or halt projects in R&D, since it is crucial for the company to address the corrective actions by a strict deadline in order to keep selling products. If there are not enough resources, this is where the company is most likely to hire more employees.

I believe this is a very good conversation in understanding that different cultures can be seen in project management. What I have understood from experience of myself and friends is that management plays a very critical role in the companies environment and strategy. Relating to what I have currently seen in the medical industry in comparison to you, bnb6, I believe that the conception, development, and closure of projects are highly influenced by the company's management style. What I mean by this is that priority of projects are dependent on the company's business portfolio, market share, profit, resources, and opportunity. If a company is more focused on profit, then minor projects may suffer due to resource or budget constraints. If a company is primarily focused on opportunity, then the maintenance of launched projects may suffer. I believe to have an overall successful portfolio, a company needs to have a balance between all aspects of project management and development.

I am very surprised to hear that projects at Stryker were cancelled. I currently work for a global blood glucose systems company that has been developing medical devices for over 70 years. We have a project development standard that classifies the requirements for project inception, development, verification and validation, production, country submission, launch, and maintenance. I have asked this question about the termination of projects, and even employees that have been working at this company for over 30 years could not recall a project ending in the middle of development. We have had projects reach it's end of life, but it was due to technological advancements from other products that we offered in the market, not from the lack in resources.

So I don't agree that low priority projects should be cancelled to provide more resources to other teams. A delay in schedules in lower priority projects is understandable due to the implication of constraints in resources. I believe that the standard we practice at my company helps us prepare the allocations for our entire project portfolio for the next 5 years to come. When resources are expected to be tight, adjustments (i.e. new hires, contractors, schedule or budget shifts) are expected to be made so that each project can continue moving forward.

In my opinion, the inception phase is the most critical in determining the projects future. Extensive market research, R&D innovation, budget, schedule, and overall influences to the company portfolio are considered in the inception phase. Projects are not initiated unless there is a market need or opportunity. Once a project has successfully passed the first phase, the idea of terminating a project would only be brought up if there was too high of a risk in the development and validation stages. To my knowledge this has never occurred due to the companies focus and passion of the market needs and quality.

As as934 stated, it depends on the business. Upper management decides what the company should focus on given prior experience, etc. Low-priority projects are often put on the back burner because of that main reason - they are not important at that point in time. I do believe that this is correct thinking because, from a business standpoint, changes or projects that can affect the business greatly should be taken into high priority or else the business will suffer. Canceling low priority projects and shifting resources to a higher priority project can speed up the project schedule time. This is a benefit for the company as time is then freed up, given the completion of the project. The increase in manpower can also allow for better production/output.

I think it's important that all projects are clearly prioritized and that each team member understands the level of priority each project holds. Being able to prioritize projects well ultimately impacts the success of the project and the response from the team. Project managers need to know how to distinguish urgent vs. important tasks and ensure that the team is on the same page too so that they can adjust their work accordingly. Being able to assess the value of each project is also an important consideration when thinking of which projects should continue and which should be paused/cut completely. Once the list of priorities are made, some of the low priority tasks can be further analyzed to determine whether or not they are worth pursuing based on how much team effort, resources, and time is needed to be completed. If some of the low priority tasks require too much time, money, and work, it may be a good idea to cut off that project completely and focus on more urgent/important projects.

I think that the big companies should keep the low priorities projects. When they do that there will be more benefits from it since all of the projects are completed no matter how small or low priority they are. The projects have been past the assigning stage in a company because they thought it was good idea so therefore it should be completed. Bigger companies have the resources to hire employees and have the money to see it through. But if this was the case for the smaller companies, I still believe that the project should be completed, if not immediately, take their time and finish it. They can hire interns to help out with the project if the money is tight. I believe that all projects should be completed no matter what. Projects always help company for their benefit.

When an employee puts their time, effort, and dedication into a project, it is always disheartening when their project is cancelled due to low priority. Many companies believe that high priority projects deserve maximum attention and the most funds possible. I believe that every project should be completed, even if it takes longer than expected. Companies hire college students all the time to help complete the work they necessarily don't have the funds or time for. Interns and college students are always eager to do any work than can for a company because it allows the students to gain experience that would later help them in industry and of helps the company stay on track. Any completed project can be beneficial to a company if the time is taken.

The OP does make a good point that often projects deemed “low priority” are pushed to the side or the employees working on them are pushed too hard with too little resources. One of the jobs of any company is to understand that projects are accomplished well when employees are motivated, not terrified and pushed to a breaking point.
However, at the end of the day, those same employees expect to the paid, which cannot happen if a company does not make any profit. Therefore, a company such as Stryker should either shut down very low priority projects and relocated the employees to better use their skills on high-priority projects or they should be given more resources so that they may finish on time and be able to move onto higher priority projects. Either way, the skills of the employees should be utilized to the fullest

I think you bring up a very valed point. I have seen great project that didn't continue or been cancelled by the company due to other periority projects. How ever this periority project sometimes is not the best and may be the ones are better ideas. How ever companies always look for what is the market needs and what will bring more profet. To your point about resources problem to keep the project going. I think this is a project managment problem. As it is the resposabty of project management team to alocate and secure the budget as well as resources for the project. But as I mentioned sometime companies only care about the volume of the project and how much profet they are making. which is not the most ethical way to take a business decision.

I think that low priority projects should be canceled to give more resources to other teams. In general, not just speaking in terms of importance regarding ankles and knees, not all projects are destined for success. From a financial point of view, in order to keep all of these resources teams running, the company will have to higher more individuals to work, which will cost the company money. Also, with more projects the company has to separate their money and resources. Rather than have 10 projects that each take about 3 months to complete, you can have 3 projects, where you can have more individuals working on a project. This can speed up how long it takes to complete the project and it ensures that everyone is still working. If there is a lot of projects that means that some may not be worth the time and money, and it better to invest in a project that you know will succeed rather than a lot hoping that a couple may succeed. Also, with more projects there is better chance that not all will even get finished because the teams are smaller, meaning that money can be wasted on extending a R&D project that could've be allocated elsewhere. Overall I think its better to invest in projects that a have a better chance in succeeding rather than taking a risk on a bunch of different project hoping some will be successful.

I think an important factor that should be taken into account is the consumer need and patient market when determining the priority for the projects. A project that does not receive the funding most likely is receiving less interest or a positive response. I also work at medical device and one of the product lines was placed on hold due to a compliance gap. I was placed on the project to remediate the gap and essentially fix the issue. I was the only individual placed on the project and was asked to complete a whole validation from start to end in a short time frame. However due to the limited resources I was not able to do so in the time that was asked and requested additional help. I was not given any and was told by a few managers that since this was such a slow moving product that I would have to complete the task on my own here. Overall, what I learned is that consumer need will ultimately drive everything within the company, if the project does not generate as much revenue as initially expected, upper management will become less and less involved and shift focus to other higher priority tasks. I do believe that those lower priority projects should be placed on hold or removed because if it is seen that the market does not require it or need it then why invest the resources or money to complete the project. Profit will be the bottom line for the business at the end of the day.

I think that the priority of a project plays a huge role on the resources that are devoted to the project. The priority of the project will likely depend on how much the company can benefit from the success of the project which is the end goal of every organization. The overall success of a high priority project will have a much bigger effect on the company than a lower priority project so it would make sense for companies to put their best people on those high priority projects.

I completely understand where you are coming from and believe that companies should provide more resources for a team to keep up with deadlines or at least give them more time instead of canceling the project. I do think it is difficult though to hire more employees to keep projects running. Every company has a certain budget that can go into these projects and hiring more people can be very expensive. I currently work for Zimmer Biomet and from my experience, I know how difficult the process can be to hire people to join a team. Companies take this into consideration and a lot of times it is better for them to cancel the project instead and invest more time in the project that they see will bring in more profit. As much as I dislike that companies usually choose what brings them the most profit, it is also important that they stay on top of that so the company can keep growing and improving.