This document discusses project screening and selection methods used by organizations to prioritize projects and resources. It provides examples of how organizations develop weighted scoring criteria to evaluate proposed projects based on their alignment with strategic objectives. Projects are scored and ranked according to their potential contribution in key areas like revenue generation, cost reduction, customer service, and other priorities. This ensures high value projects that further organizational goals receive funding over less impactful proposals. The document also outlines solicitation of project ideas, evaluation forms to collect necessary data, and how impact assessments are combined with objective importance weights to determine an overall score for prioritizing project portfolios.

1. Project
Screening and
Selection

2. How Can You Get to a Backlog of over
100 Projects?
• “There are never enough resources to get everything
done.”
• Backlogs build over time. Holy cow projects get included in
• the selection system. Projects proposed from people who
• have left the airline still reside in the project portfolio. Non
value-
• added projects somehow make their way into the project
• portfolio. Soon the queue gets longer. With everyone in IT
• working on too many projects concurrently, project
completion
• and productivity are slow.

3. Which Projects Remain?
• To cut the number of projects, the steering committee used a
weighting scheme that reflected the airline’s priorities, which
• were:
• fly safe,
• generate revenue,
• reduce costs,
• and customer service.
• The weighting scheme easily weeded out the fluff.
• S N A P S H O T F R O M P R A C T I C E Crisis IT
• Coady noted that “by the time you get to the 20s the margin of
• differentiation gets narrower and narrower.” Of the remaining
• projects, project sponsors had to have solid justification why
• their project is important. Reduction of the number of projects
• places emphasis on high value projects.

4. • What Advice Does Coady Have for Crisis Management?
• In times of crisis, it is easier to take bold steps to make
• changes. But you need to have a clear vision of what you
• should be focusing on with the resources available. Coady
• suggests, “It comes back to really having a good idea of
what
• the initial business case for a project is and what resources
it
• is consuming, both people and otherwise.”

5. Project Screening Matrix parameters
• Stay within core competence 2
• Strategic Fit 3
• Urgency 2
• 25% sales from new project 2.5
• Reduce defects to less than 1% 1.0
• Improve customer’s Loyalty 1.0
• ROI of 18% plus 3.0
• Return on Investment = (Gain from Investment- Cost of Investment) / Cost of Investment

6. This 83 see in

7. its relative importance to the organization’s objectives and strategic plan
relative contribution/value added to the selected criteria. Values of 0 to a high of 10 are assigned to each
criterion for each project
If the resources available create a cutoff threshold of
50 points
In rare cases where resources are severely
limited and project proposals are similar in weighted rank, it is prudent to pick
the project placing less demand on resources.
Weighted multiple criteria models
similar to this one are rapidly becoming the dominant choice for prioritizing
projects.
strategic breakthrough versus operational.

8. Criteriadifferences among different types of projects
• Regardless of criteria differences among different types of projects, the most
important criterion for selection is the project’s fit to the organization
strategy.
• criterion should be consistent across all types of projects and carry a high
priority relative to other criteria.
• This uniformity across all priority models used can keep departments from
sub optimizing the use of organization resources.
• Factors such as researching new technology, public image, ethical position,
protection of the environment, core competencies, and strategic fit might be
important criteria for selecting projects.
• Weighted scoring criteria seem the best alternative to meet this need.

9. Financial was a big criteria in
Selecting a Model in past
• In the past, financial criteria were used almost to the exclusion of
other criteria. However, in the last two decades we have witnessed a
dramatic shift to include multiple criteria in project selection.
• Senior management is interested in identifying the potential mix of
projects that will yield the best use of human and capital resources to
maximize return on investment in the long run
• profitability alone is simply not an adequate measure of contribution;
however, it is still an important criterion, especially for projects that
enhance revenue and market share such as break through R&D
projects

10. Weighted Scoring Criteria WSC
• Seems the best alternative to in selection of the projects.
• The Projects speaks what are the strategic Goals of the Organ.
• WSC published in the organization, shows every body credibility attached in
the selection of projects.
• WSC shows to the people reduce the wasteful using of projects resources.
Politics , “sacred cow” projects are exposed. Project goals unambiguous
identified and communicated using the selection criteria as validation.
• WSC approach helps PMs understand how their project was selected, how
their project contributes to organization goals, and how it compares with
other projects.
• WSC Project selection important decisions guiding the future success of an
organization.
• Criteria for project selection are the area where the power of your portfolio
starts to manifest itself.
• New projects are aligned with the strategic goals of the organization. With a
clear method for selecting projects in place, project proposals can be solicited.

11. Responsibility for Prioritizing
• Prioritizing projects is a major responsibility for
senior management.
• Prioritizing means discipline, accountability,
responsibility, constraints, reduced flexibility, and
loss of power.
• i-e Management will have to rank and weigh, in
concrete terms, the objectives and strategies they
believe to be most critical to the organization.

12. • Figure 2.6 is a partial example of an evaluation
form used by a large company to prioritize and
select new projects. The form distinguishes
between must and want objectives.

13. Project Proposal Form
• What business problem this project solve?
• How does this project align with our organization
strategy?
• What are the major deliverables of the Project?
• What is the impact of not doing this project?
• How will we measure success?
• Will this project require internal resources available?
• What is the estimated cost of the Project?
• How long will this Project take?
• Oversight action accept or Return

15. Sources and Solicitation of Project
Proposals
• Many organizations restrict proposals from
specific levels or groups within the organization
• This could be an opportunity lost. Good ideas are
not limited to certain types or classes of
organization stakeholders.
• Fig 2.4A provides an example of a proposal form
for an automatic vehicular tracking (Automatic
Vehicle Location) public transportation project
• Figure 2.4B presents a preliminary risk analysis
for a 500-acre wind farm

16. (Request for Proposal) RFP
• In some cases organizations will solicit ideas for
projects when the knowledge requirements for the
project are not available in the organization.
Typically, the organization will issue an RFP (Request
for Proposal) to contractors/vendors with adequate
experience to implement the project

17. quick insight of a project’s inherent
risks
• automatic vehicular tracking (Automatic
Vehicle Location) public transportation project
• preliminary risk analysis for a 500-acre wind
farm

18. Fig 2.4 A

19. 2.4 A

20. Fig 24B

21. Ranking Proposals and Selection of
Projects
• Figure 2.5 shows a flow chart of a screening
process beginning with the creation of an idea for a
project.
• Data and information are collected to assess the
value of the proposed project to the organization
and for future backup. If the sponsor decides to
pursue the project on the basis of the collected
data, it is forwarded to the project priority team (or
the project office)
• Note that the sponsor knows which criteria will be
used to accept or reject the project.

23. • If a project does not meet designated “must”
objectives, it is not considered and removed from
consideration. Organization (or division) objectives
have been ranked and weighted by their relative
importance—for example,
• “Improve external customer service” carries a
relative weight of 83 when compared to other want
objectives. The want objectives are directly linked
to objectives found in the strategic plan.

24. Impact definitions
• A numeric scheme is created and anchored by
defining criteria.
• To illustrate how this works, let’s examine the $5 million in new
sales objective.
• A “0” is < $100,000,
• A “1” is >$100,000 but < $500,000,
• A “2” is > $500,000.
• These impact assessments are combined with the relative
importance of each objective to determine the predicted
overall contribution of a project to strategic objectives.

25. • These impact assessments are combined with
the relative importance of each objective to
determine the predicted overall contribution
of a project to strategic objectives

26. • For example, project 26 creates an
opportunity to fix field problems, has no effect
on sales, and will have major impact on
customer service. On these three objectives,
project 26 would receive a score of 265 [99+ 0
+ (2x 83)]. Individual weighted scores are
totaled for each project and are used to
prioritize projects.

27. FIGURE 2.6
Priority
Analysis