Together they established a plan. Conduct a series of three meetings with the
group management staff that would result in a prioritized plan of record, realis-
tically staffing in-plan projects and listing future projects in an out-plan. Start with
a vision statement, develop criteria for selecting projects, and apply to all projects.
The first meeting was set. The forward-looking vision was distributed in ad-
vance. The day before the meeting, the group manager reported a change in his
travel plans abroad that prevented him from getting to the meeting. The meeting
was held anyway and almost resulted in disaster. How can we discuss the vision
without the general manager present? Feelings of powerlessness emerged but were
quickly squelched by the facilitator, who pointed out that the business team now
had an opportunity to express their own dreams and concerns, which could then
be reconciled with the general manager’s.
The group chartered a subteam to suggest categories and criteria for project
selection. The project office consultant facilitated several subteam meetings. In-
dividuals brainstormed criteria on Post-it notes and put them on the white board.
The next exercise was sorting them. Categories emerged, not out of discussion
but naturally from people concurrently moving sticky notes around the board.
They ultimately labeled the categories as sustaining business, new business, and must-do
projects.
How much should each category be weighted? Strong feelings emerged that
sustaining projects were desperately needed to resolve current problems and keep
the company in business. They gave that category a weight of 50 percent. New
business came in at 30 percent and must-do at 20 percent. The must-do category
recognizes that legal, environmental, or safety issues preempt resources from other
projects.
Developing criteria within each category was a struggle until they came to re-
alize, at the facilitator’s unceasing prompting, that a core set of criteria, which
they could influence, would support organizational goals. See Figure 6.7 for the
criteria they developed. For example, ROI is a calculated number and is based on
many factors beyond or indirectly related to project results. However, projects ei-
ther support the ability to achieve revenue in the numerator or reduce costs in the

and discussed at the next meeting to ensure agreement.
“How many people are available to do projects?” The consolidated worksheet
indicated 224 people were required to do all fifty-one projects that needed to be
completed over the following year (Figure 6.8). Silence. Finally the IT manager
led the group to guesstimate that seventy-five people were available to work on
projects that year.
At this point it is not important for the numbers to be totally accurate. The
broad-brush picture shows too many projects under way or contemplated by too
few people. It also shows underinvestment in sustaining projects and overinvest-
ment in new business projects, compared to the desired mix. The first task is to
get assignments in line with organizational goals and capacity. Fine-tuning hap-
pens later based on actual project planning after adjustments are made—projects
funded, postponed, or cancelled. Careful review becomes especially important for
projects around the cut line.
Note that headcount resources are the constraining factor in this example.
Other cases may use total dollars or other units pertinent to the business.
The cut line in each category is a product of resources times desired mix. For
example, 75 people × 50 percent = 37.5 head count (HC) that can be applied to
Contact 149
sustaining business projects. Apply the same arithmetic to the percentage desired
for each category to determine cut lines. Figure 6.9 shows these calculations.
The true test came when the group assessed the prioritized project list. One
business manager felt threatened when a large project within his department fell
below the cut line. In the past, this particular manager would have found a way to
implement it on his own. He argued the project was a good one and promised high
return on investment. This pattern of behavior had created some of the unit’s cur-
rent problems—all projects under consideration were good ones, the resources just
were not sufficient to do them all. The team usually operated virtually across in-
ternational boundaries, allowing autonomous action, free of challenge. But this
was a mandatory in-person meeting. The project office facilitator drove the process

30%
Market
attractiveness
Supports
business
strategy for
business
Importance
as a core
competency
(strategic
leverage)
Worldwide or
multinational
benefit
Time
to
complete
Resources
required
Ability to Execute
Must-Do
20%
Time to
complete
Resources
required
Right
resources
available

Builds
competitive
advantage
(attracts new
customers)
Customer
loyalty
(keeps existing
customers)
Ability to Execute Competitive Offering
Right
resources
available
Geographic
dispersion
Builds
competitive
advantage
(attracts new
customers)
Market
acceptance
Customer
loyalty
(keeps
existing
customers)
goals. The leader’s support for the integrity of the process created an environment
that allowed this team to succeed.
The general manager demonstrated further integrity when he asked the team

projects
22 Person-months
10% versus
20%