I think the high priority projects should be given more importance and in that case if an organization has to cancel low priority projects it will not be a mistake. Taking the situation of pandemic as an example, many organizations has made COVID vaccine as the priority and started to work on it to find the best solution possible. These companies must have been working on various projects earlier but they had to stop working due to their priority. These projects may be resumed later or may not be continued based on the funds and the teams working on the projects. This is what happens with many smaller projects in the organizations and get cancelled. It is important for the organizations to work on the projects based on their priority to be successful in the industry.
When I was scrolling through the prior posts, I agreed that certain projects should not be cancelled and that they may be given lower priority if another project can maximize the company’s profit. However, after reading @sindhupriyapulagam’s response, I agree with prioritizing certain projects temporarily, like the COVID vaccine for example, due to the demands of consumers. Priorities may shift depending on the demand of a company’s clientele.
I can offer a personal example where this exact situation arose. My company manufactures Ventilators, and due to the increased demand for ventilators due to the lack of resources in hospitals, my company had to focus more on the manufacturing of ventilators. Consequently, all other projects were put on hold. By putting a temporary focus on manufacturing ventilators than expected for the year due to the pandemic, we were able to provide for the necessary demand from our hospitals. Sometimes, companies must prioritize projects that may be attributed to an increased demand from their customer to ensure they are meeting their needs, however, at the same time, ensure that they are maximizing their potential profit.
From the perspective of a project team member, I can understand how cancelling a project can seem wasteful. In my previous posts I have discussed how initiating a project can be the hardest step of a project. To abandon a project after its hardest step can be demoralizing but I think there are times when it is necessary.
I think this is because a company’s goals are to make the most out of its resources. If given two options, a company must decide the option that is the most efficient. Market changes can cause a project to lose its value while another one gains value. Thus, a company will have to make the decision to move a project to a lower priority and takes its resources to dedicate them to a project that will have a greater yield.
This is a very interesting and thought-provoking question. On one hand, I feel like it should be the company's responsibility to do everything in their power to see approved projects through to completion. This can mean rearranging the budget to find money for the project, finding a way to raise the money, hiring more employees, etc. Any successful company should view all projects that have been approved as necessary and of equal importance. However, on the other hand, sometimes things happen that the company cannot control unfortunately. Canceling a project entirely should be a last resort under unique circumstances, such as severe and irreparable budget cuts, the project team not meeting deadlines, or no longer a need for the project. These are completely different circumstances than labeling a project "low priority" and hindering its success rate from the very start by not providing an adequate number of employees and resources. All in all, the answer to this question, for me at least, is quite situational and somewhat of a grey area, but the main point I'm trying to make is that if a project is given the go-ahead by a company, the company is responsible for making sure it is completed successfully, whether management needs to step in and provide some sort of assistance or not.
Dr. Simon said in his lecture, "Projects have a beginning and an end that are very well defined." During my experience at Stryker, I have seen projects put on hold due to lower priority, and projects being canceled. These projects were canceled due to low funding, or because management wanted to place these employees on a newer project. When looking at the greater picture, my team within foot&ankle was less
"important" compared to hips and knees. Due to this, there were not enough resources(employees) for my team to keep up with the strict deadlines given by management, and they were being overworked trying to keep the project running. I think if more employees were hired in this department, then the projects would be completed faster, and the company would be more successful. Do you agree? Do you think that low priority projects should be canceled to give more resources to other teams such as the knee replacement team? Or should the company hire more employees to keep all projects(high/low priority) running in order to be more successful in the long run?
Coming up with an idea for a project depends on the market research in the first place; the population we are targeting, its statistics, and how it is going to benefit them. On the other hand, investors are looking at the return and how they are going to make a profitable project. For a pharmaceutical company like Stryker, it has to balance between delivering honorable medical devices for its patients and presenting a project that can catch the investors' attention to funding it, that is might be the reason they prioritized a hip and knee project over a foot and ankle project. The population of people in need for a hip and knee replacement is higher than the population of foot and ankle replacement.
Part of making the project successful is making the product affordable and this part comes with good management of the resources and a huge aspect and most costly part of the resources are the employees, hiring more employees might help in getting the project done, yet it will increase the coast of the product which will increase its market price, making it affordable for specific people and decrease the targeted population.
Dr. Simon said in his lecture, "Projects have a beginning and an end that are very well defined." During my experience at Stryker, I have seen projects put on hold due to lower priority, and projects being canceled. These projects were canceled due to low funding, or because management wanted to place these employees on a newer project. When looking at the greater picture, my team within foot&ankle was less
"important" compared to hips and knees. Due to this, there were not enough resources(employees) for my team to keep up with the strict deadlines given by management, and they were being overworked trying to keep the project running. I think if more employees were hired in this department, then the projects would be completed faster, and the company would be more successful. Do you agree? Do you think that low priority projects should be canceled to give more resources to other teams such as the knee replacement team? Or should the company hire more employees to keep all projects(high/low priority) running in order to be more successful in the long run?
Very interesting question raised all the way in 2018, that is very relevant even now. I am sure the company made the correct "business" decision, however as a former contracting employee who was let go, because the project was "cancelled" is a little difficult swallow especially if you are just a "resource".
As mentioned in previous posts in this threads that, companies usually do a lot of research before taking on a project, but I personally have been in an instance in which I was moved to different project as it took the utmost priority. When I was a contractor at Styker JR I was initially hired under the budget for project called PLCM (Project Life Cycle Mgmt), however when EU MDR came it to play, was moved to that project as it was highest priority.
To answer the questions asked I think it depends on the priorities of company to cancel or keep small projects. Like in the example that I provided, if they kept PLCM going no doubt it would have helped the company however not the extent that EU MDR has helped the company, as its impact is directly affecting the business.
Let us be clear, management at your company is not hiring more employees because it 1.) will increase cost, and 2.) negatively impact their bonuses. Management bonuses are the reason that your team is being over-worked. It is the reason that more employees are not being hired. Generally, this is because the vice-presidents, and their lieutenants are compensated with a nice bonus when they can do more with less. Unfortunately for you, more is never enough. Therefore, at your company, it does not matter if you can get the project completed faster. Your highest possibility of securing management’s attention if employees resign. The slim workforce will create a pain-point that you will probably be blamed. From their perspective, it’s your fault for neither inspiring employees to stay nor preventing work from stopping. Conversely, my assessment “falls on its face” if the employees are receiving bonuses too. In this case, they do not care about your project because they are being compensated well. Therefore, welcome to middle management. Embrace it! It is your proving-ground for the ability to work with little resource and outperform your peers so that you to can become a vice-president. Then you get to receive the “real” bonuses and to tell the next lucky soul they are expected to do more with less.
I think it's sad but inevitable for some projects to be put at a lower priority than others or even retired for whatever reason. All projects consist of a team that has put in work to make the result possible. That being said, I believe there should be a priority of projects based on time constraints and sometimes the funding of a project. If a project has a stringent timeline and cannot be adjusted too often due to funding issues or the overall need for the product is too great to put off, then that project needs to be a priority. If a project has a more lenient timeline, it can be moved down to a lower priority. Regarding the funding of a project, I believe a project can be retired or put at the lowest priority if not significant progress has been made for a long time. There should be room for negotiation to explain why no progress has been made. Still, if the explanation doesn't satisfy the company or the stakeholders (or the project is no longer relevant), the company should put it out of its misery.
@smk45 summed it up well. Having a good understanding of projects priority will likely impact the success of the project and overall team response. It is important for project managers to communicate urgent tasks and ensure that the entire team understands the level of priority each project holds so that work can be adjusted accordingly.
Projects have a lifecycle that have a start and finish and to simply start a project and not see it all the way through does not bode well for any company. Even the smaller projects deserve prioritization if they were initiated in the first Place. I’m originally from New York and when you look at some of the infrastructure projects that have started and construction that has been put into place on some of the highways for an example, those are major projects that if they’re not seen through could be disastrous for the economy and for the way of life for many New Yorkers. The same thing goes for projects like the COVID-19 vaccine, manufacturing ventilators, and services that are necessary during a pandemic. Canceling those “smaller” projects would be gross negligence on the part of the leadership who implemented those projects in the first place. Shifting of priorities is necessary to meet those needs and if it requires hiring more personnel to do the job than so be it. Sometimes the politics of the few should not outweigh the politics of the many and as a result, small as well as big projects should not be deterred based on the priorities of the 1%. In some cases where you have pet projects that are more perspective than germane, in those instances of course prioritization is key but for the major projects that involve life-threatening illnesses such as the proportions of people dying from SARS-COVID-2, of course you would have to shift gears to make those things happen so I guess it would be a situational phenomenon.
I agree with @aij5 in that the most important factor is the patient market and identifying which projects have a significant effect on that. In my experience, there are some projects that are very much business-critical and require a lot of attention because they can shut the production floor down causing products not to be made and lowering the rate at which we ship our products out. However, I do not think there should a separation between those who handle low-priority projects versus those who handle higher-priority projects. Since the higher-priority projects are more business-critical and affect a larger area, they should be dealt with first. I think that low-priority projects will need to be worked on as well, but not as frequently as the higher ones. As mentioned by @msc52njit-edu, I've seen that hiring additional people can cost the money too much money, but what companies have done is task departments with cost-saving projects. This means finding an area within their department in which a said process can be either shortened or resources can be allocated to reduce cost. This may cause projects to be done at a slower rate as one team member is focusing their attention on finding methods of making work less lengthy and using fewer resources, saving the company money. Then as time progresses, the company can bounce back and add additional personnel to help the team out because they have been saving money from the cost-saving projects.
To successfully prioritize various projects, I think it is crucial to understand the financial situation of the company and its goals. It is quite often for projects to be canceled due to low resources and funding which causes a shift in project priority. Therefore project managers should understand and analyze what to make a priority to make the best long-term decision for the company. If a company were to cancel a low priority project and use resources for that project and allocate it to a higher priority project, then that project most likely produces better results and also finishes more quickly. Reallocating resources can contribute to the company's success, but may also negatively affect morale for employees that were working on that project and the company may miss out on future projects that may involve lower priority projects. Hiring more employees to help with a project is a good way to alleviate the workload and can help keep all projects involved and help all projects meet their deadlines. This may also help produce better results for all projects. This decision would have to depend on the financial situation of the company to see if they have the funding to pay more employees.
I agree that the company should hire more people to keep all projects working simultaneously. Keeping working at high intensity would result in lower performance and employee turnover. It is harmful to the reputation of the company, and it will affect the process of the more important project eventually. But on the other hand, the process and cost of hiring a new employee for a smaller project also is not a profitable behavior. Therefore, I believe delaying the project deadline is the best way to keep the project ongoing in a reasonable working environment. Even if it harms a part of the profit, it is better than the recall because of insufficient development time.
Hi! This is a very interesting topic because it also applies to roles in academia and I’ve been exposed to a similar situation recently. To begin with, I definitely think that more resources means that more projects will be completed together and the company will likely be more successful. However, those resources need to be allocated evenly between the lower priority and higher priority projects for them to make a difference. I don’t think that low priority projects need to be paused or canceled for resources to move to other projects. If a project is deemed to be of lower priority, then employees should focus their efforts on the highest priority, but also refer back to their original, lower priority projects whenever possible. As a PhD student, I’m involved in a couple of projects. I’ve been working on a particular project for some time now and have another one starting soon that requires more of my focus. Recently, I’ve been trying to manage my time to be able to target both projects for a certain amount of time per week and it’s been working. I’m sure it's different in industry to be able to manage two projects at once, but I think it’s possible with good time management from all employees. This prevents delays in project completion and companies don’t need to hire more resources. What are some good tips for successful time management in these situations?
It could be that I do not quite understand much about how companies operate, but I think that large corporations like Stryker should invest in hiring enough employees to cover their projects. I think that employees will be more productive and produce higher quality work without being overworked and stressed. Even more so, I think that the company would only benefit from having a positive work culture/environment and could produce even more products at a higher rate if morale is high and resources are properly procured and divided.
I also see why low priority projects would be canceled if they do not constitute much of the company's profits. In cases like these, the company would understandably shift their resources to the more lucrative products. However, that being said, I do think that a company should just hire more employees the larger that they grow. While this is a whole other can of worms, I believe that it is unfair for companies that have high profit margins to expect employee loyalty when they stress their employees and assign many responsibilities with tight deadlines.
