Unit III Case Study 3.1 Keeflavik Paper Company

1616 Words7 Pages
Unit III Project MBA 6961, Project Mgt July 24, 2015 Professor Robert Goldwasser Columbia Southern University Part 1 – Case Study 3.1 “Keflavik Paper Company” Q1. Screening techniques are an important asset to any organization. They generate useful information for project choices in a timely and useful fashion at an acceptable cost. Also, screening techniques can serve as a valuable tool in helping an organization make optimal choices among numerous alternatives (Pinto, 2010, p 74). In the case of Keflavif, the exclusive method was causing projects to fail due to schedule overuns, the use of unlearned technology and lack of experienced technicians, poor estimates of product cost and unclear priority of beneficial projects. Any process can lead to negative outputs weather the method chosen is excessive or exclusive. Excessive methods can become damaging to a company of all the resources are tied in too oveer anaylzing and any projects are completed. There needs to be a finite plan…show more content…
When comparing the two projects one would suggest that the manager presents top management with Project Janus even though the evealuate team scored it less than Project Gemini the net present value out weighed project two. Project Janus is a far less investment and has a longer life of return. The project weighted score can be jusified through other screening methods than just the simplified scoring method. That method does not provide an accurate measuring system mathematically. It doesn’t give on a scale the far difference or relevance between low and high for either project. Project Janus could have been judge against because of departmental biases. Project Janus gives a good strategic score and a better financial expected profit. Furthermore, one feels that top management will be more concerns with the overall profit gain of the projects and which one will cost the least and that’s where Project Janus stands above Project
Open Document