I believe that companies should keep all projects regardless of priority because it could make them more successful in the long run. Having more employees would mean that more people would be able to help the company grow and expand and allow different mindsets to all help one another. Also in the case of high and low priority projects, there is no definite way to tell the difference between their impact. A project may not be a priority now but in the near future it may be the top priority. Like the example used in the prompt, "foot and ankle were considered less ‘important’ compared to hips and knees’, and what if in the distant future the foot and ankle are the ones that are important. The company that did not consider them a low priority  and went through with the project would be the head of the market because they did the project and have experience while others who did not would not be as comparable. Having more projects allows for more people to gain experience and more results to show overall.

I completely agree. Especially in the current environment where the recession could easily bring companies into bankruptcy, project prioritization is now even more important than ever before. I think knowing when to cancel a project or say this project should be put on the back burner is a good skill to have a project manager. A lot of the times, a company needs transparent and rational feedback from project managers, even when it could lead to the project manager and their teams job security. Unfortunately, there isn't a lot of reward for project managers that are willing to be so transparent. This often leads to unrealistic deliverables and competition for resources in a resource stricken environment.

Speaking of which, I believe when it comes to recruiting project managers, an emphasis should be put on the willing of people to know when to cut losses. A lot of times, this is viewed as a bad thing by hiring companies. But sometimes that is exactly what a company needs. A CEO for example has the job security when making risking decisions like selling off or firing a whole department, but at a lower level that same security may not be provided and be even looked down upon. Perhaps this class could show emphasis to a new generation of project managers where understanding when to cut losses, even at an expense to one's short-term future could be a strong skill to learn and be recognized across industry.

I agree with others who say that it’s okay for projects to be put on hold or canceled to give time and resources to other, and possibly more important projects. Sometimes putting a project on hold is to redefine it, to see how that company can make it better, and pursue it at a time when it is beneficial for the company and its consumers. Hiring more employees or allocating more resources to that project may not be the best solution because not all projects are worth pursuing. If there is a higher need for products for people with hip or knee problems, then it’s in the best interest of the company and the consumers to work on projects that meet those needs. This isn't to say that a company shouldn’t pursue any small projects, they still should because the market is changing all the time, and there may come a time when such smaller projects would need to be expanded, and the company should be prepared for that.

This issue of resource management is prevalent in all industries of engineering. In my currenyt position as the engineer at a manufacturing facility; it's quite difficult for me to "pump the brakes" per se. The volume of projects coming through the shop is dictated by me and my boss, our small team can't fill a large order without putting other projects on hold; we are forced into a corner. Scaling up operations is the best way to mitigate this issue, but that requires finding talent that can keep up with demand; not mentioning the large cash injection that would require. Oftentimes, this delicate balance is what determines the priority of projects, not their individual importance.

I am not sure I agree with the company being more successful if they hire more people to take on these smaller projects. I think companies like Stryker have people who calculate risk and reward for all their projects. They would rather put more risk into having a large project like knee replacement succeed than put the money into a smaller project that may not succeed. I believe that in order for the company to make the most money they will not hire more employees if they do not have to. That being said, if a smaller project does not give the company much reward they will scrap it instead of hiring more people so that they can save more money and potentially use it on bigger projects. If they hired more employees they would just be losing more money.

I believe that Stryker should not be neglecting the foot&ankle team just because it is considered a low-priority project. Styker needs to decide if a.) the foot&ankle project is so low-priority that it should be scrapped entirely and the team members should be delegated to different projects where they will be most useful or b.) add more team members to the foot&ankle project so that the current foot&ankle employees are not struggling with an unmanageable amount of responsibilities. Allowing the foot&ankle team to continue struggling on the low-priority project is a lose-lose situation for both the company and its employees. 

That is an interesting point you made. I find it strange that a company would task heavy projects on a team with fewer resources, with the chance that the project could just suddenly be canceled. If a project or department is lower in priority, shouldn't their project be less demanding? If a department was already flagged as lower priority, it seems more strategic to output smaller products that require fewer resources. High-priority departments can then be given adequate resources. On the question of whether hiring more employees would be better, more employees can indeed expedite project completion. However, they might not see any significant net profit from the low-priority projects, which can make the idea wasteful. Though that is to say, their current approach of dropping projects is also a waste of resources; if the project is in the late stages of completion, it may be best to pause the project or allow more time. That said, was there a way in early project planning that the company could have reasonably foreseen this and avoided such situations? What is the first indicator that the project will fall through?

I think the answer to this question is actually very simple. At the end of the day, a company is a business, and the goal of any business is to maximize profit while remaining competitive. If we take a step back, the decision Stryker made becomes clear. Suppose project A is expected to generate low revenue and have minimal impact on the business, while project B is expected to generate much higher revenue and significantly improve the company's market position. What project would you select? The obvious choice is prioritizing project B. Companies often cancel or pause low priority projects so that employees and resources can be redirected toward work that generates the greatest return. However, this does not necessarily mean that low priority projects should always be canceled. Continuously canceling projects can waste previous investments, time, and money. It can also negatively impact an employees morale when they see their work repeatedly have no impact. Some low priority projects may still offer long term strategic value or opportunities in the future, even if they are not immediately profitable. Because of this, companies must carefully evaluate whether a project should be stopped entirely or simply delayed until resources become available. 

In regards to hiring more employees, again the answer to this is two fold. In one case, hiring more employees will allow for multiple projects to be kept active and prevent teams from being overworked, but it will increase long term costs. For this reason, if project demand in the future is uncertain, hiring more employees would not be financially smart. Therefore, companies should balance both approaches, prioritize high impact projects while maintaining enough staffing flexibility so the lower priority projects can still progress. 

At what point should a company decide to hire more employees instead of continuously reallocating resources between projects?

You bring up a very real tension in portfolio management. In theory, projects have clearly defined beginnings and ends, but in practice especially in large medical device companies like Stryker projects compete for limited resources, and prioritization becomes strategic rather than purely operational. I don’t automatically agree that simply hiring more employees is the best solution. Adding headcount increases fixed costs, onboarding time, and management complexity, and if lower-priority projects do not generate strong ROI or align with long-term strategy, continuing them may dilute focus. From a portfolio management perspective, reallocating resources to high-impact programs (like knees or hips, if they drive more revenue or market growth) can be a rational business decision.

That said, constantly canceling or pausing lower-priority projects can hurt innovation, morale, and long-term diversification. Foot & ankle today may be “lower priority,” but it could represent future growth or a strategic hedge. The better solution is often structured portfolio evaluation: clearly defining strategic value, risk, regulatory timelines, and projected return before deciding whether to cancel, pause, or resource a project differently. In some cases, hiring strategically targeted roles (rather than broadly increasing headcount) or adjusting deadlines to realistic capacity may be more sustainable than overworking teams. Long-term success usually comes from balancing focus and resource discipline with enough investment to avoid stagnation.

I do believe that much will depend on what the company considers long term versus short term. There are some projects for medical devices that cannot be treated as equal since some produce a higher volume of revenue, or may have a greater clinical value. It would make sense for the management to focus on high priority items such as hips and knees. Although it may be perceived as unfair by those employees who work on lower priority projects, there could be good business reasons for management to suspend or cancel lower priority projects. However, I also do not believe that increasing employee workload is a viable alternative to solving the problem. Overworking and under staffing can create burnout and potentially compromise product quality, which has serious consequences in a healthcare environment. Rather than simply hiring additional personnel or canceling projects I think medical device companies may benefit from creating more realistic timelines, improving communication between departments and utilizing their resources in a manner that allows them to support their employees, while also completing the tasks they were assigned to complete. Do you think the biggest problem is that there are too many employees to manage or is it more a case of how management decides which projects are important at a particular point in time?