UNIT 4: PROJECT MANAGEMENT

                   USING THE WEIGHTED ATTRIBUTE SCORING APPROACH

                                         Table Of Contents

 

 

 

 

Executive summary…………………………………………………………………………… 1

 

Project Beta……………………………………………………………………………………1

 

Project Charlie…………………………………………………………………………………1

 

Project Alpha…………………………………………………………………………………..1

 

Project Delta……………………………………………………………………………………2

 

Summary/Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………..2

 

Reference………………………………………………………………………………………3

 

 

 

 

 

Executive summary

Companies make their decision based on the projects which are considered feasible after a rigorous research have been administered. The projections undergo considerable comparison with the help of weighted attribute scoring approach, projects manages has the mandate to analyze which of them all is fit and sound in terms of return on the investment (Keefer, 2012). By doing this, all the cost and the benefits to be projected for each of the projects at last the one with the highest weight is deemed as the most successful project (Resch, 2011).

Project Beta

The project is ranked 55% in terms of ROI-contributing benefits, this the most important area of analyses. Beta has managed to score the highest score in comparison of the all four investment projects. However, the value benefits area has insignificantly posed any determination of clinching the best project, summarizing this could come from the fact the offers average ranking (Keefer, 2012). The project is the most important in general highest score and it performed in other diverse areas too. We can say that the semi qualitative approach really did help in the decision making process to portray Beta and the best project solution.

Project Charlie

With only a score of 1.775 overall clearly the attribute from each area seems to lay low and the potentials of it being viable becomes thinner and thinner. The value benefits hit at a score of 0.675 is however and average score which can bolster the in project consideration race. Work satisfaction and improve on clientele satisfaction lags behind compared to other projects no doubt the project is disadvantaged in financial returns (Keefer, 2012). Even though the project performed well in low risk implementation and worker safety compared to project Delta still it does not look much better in contribution of output production and ROI. Therefore, the project benefits are too low to justify outweigh on costs.

Project Alpha

Ranked in the third place, Alpha chance of being feasible is not boring any fruits. The risk exposure attached to the project is so eminent and going by the rating of 2 which no doubt is the lower in the scale means a lower strength which in future if administered it would under a lot of constraints. Normally, for any project to be viable the cost gas to outweigh the benefits of which Alpha projects seems to be scoring low on that (Resch, 2011). Going by the financial returns this project would be deemed unqualified.

Project Delta

The project falls short in areas like RIO, increase in production and reduced rework which is enticing to any company when making decision of the best projects (Resch, 2011). However the employee morale and risk entangled with employees can derail the whole project. The area which should be considered by the project managers should be the weight of each numbers and if by any chance they don’t look juicer then the project should be terminated (Pinto, 2010).

Conclusion

On reliance with the weighted attribute scoring approach on the four projects, Delta, Alpha, and Charlie projects performed well in overall highest score and is deemed better in best project solution (Resch, 2011). However, by the fact Project Alpha scored uppermost of all of them in terms of weight, then this is the final feasible project.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reference

Resch, M. (2011).Strategic project management transformation: delivering maximum ROI & sustainable business value. Ft. Lauderdale, Fla.: J. Ross Pub

 

Keefer, C. (2012).  Las Vegas history filled with failed stadium, arena projects - Las Vegas Sun News. Retrieved February 26, 2014, from http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2012/jul/15/las-vegas-history-filled-failed-stadium-arena-proj

 

Pinto, J. K. (2010). Project Selection and Portfolio. Retrieved from Project Management: Achieving Competitive Advantage: http://wps.pearsoncustom.com/wps/media/objects/7225/7398617/MGT310_Ch03.pdf