1 / 6100%
Factors to consider before undertaking a project
MSPM 6102 - Practices in Project Management
Walden University
Factors to consider before undertaking a project
Investors must be very cautious in choosing or selecting a project. The following are some of the
key issue that should be put in place or considered by investors before venturing into a project.
1) The investor should determine practical constraints
This is put first as there are often practical factors that dictate what can and cannot be done.
There's no point in wasting time with utopian planning when one has a shoestring budget.
Before an investor should engage in any business project he should consider:
i. Budget
ii. Timeline and deadlines
iii. Available human resources (skill set of staff and their availability)
iv. Available technical resources (access to servers, database, hosting, etc.)
v. Level of support needed post-launch
vi. IT rules (there may be internal rules that require usage of certain software or against
open-source or third-party code, etc.)
vii. Other business rules (e.g. corporate style guides, suitability of data being offshore,
privacy, etc.)
After the investor has gone through the other steps and getting some estimates he may want to or
need to revise the budget or resources needed based on more solid details. Still initial limits here
are necessary to refine the scope.
2) The investor should formalize his applicable business goals
Before embarking on a project consider and prioritize the relevant business goals. All future
choices and implementations (and budgets) flow from this. If something is not meeting the
business goals then why do it? It really is okay to not do something and this can be a better
option than doing something poorly. Also no technology can meet all needs, so prioritizing your
goals helps determine what is most needed and what can be sacrificed or postponed.
3) The investor should know his users and would be users
The profiles the investors’ customers/clients/users can dictate his path as much as practical
considerations. For example, if the bulk of his customers he wishes to reach don't have high
speed access then streaming media probably doesn't make sense.
The investor should know the following about his intended audience:
i. accessibility needs (e.g. visual or motor control issues)
ii. education level (this can help determine literacy level which will can guide writing style)
iii. Technical literacy (how long have been using Internet, software, etc.)
iv. Age (not always relevant, but can relate to other factors, such as amount of leisure time,
technical literacy, accessibility needs, etc.)
4) Plan the individual project goals
Goals can address high-level considerations such as if the plan is to test the waters or achieve
parity with a competitor, to serve one market niche or another, to dovetail with other projects or
create its own buzz, and so on. With theses goals in place, it then becomes easier to determine
plans for launching, roll-out, promotion, timing, support, etc. For example, it can help determine
whether a phased approach is desirable or a full launch. It also makes it easier to address the
daily challenges and roadblocks that arise during implementation when you can refer back to the
project's goals.
Once these four main considerations have been completely mapped out, it makes determining
one's path much easier. It will help narrow down viable options and make implementation plans
easier. In the end, it also helps deliver technology that needs of the business and users and will
guide expectations.
Cummings, OW, Nowakowski, JR, Schwandt, TA, Eichelberger, RT, Kleist, KC, Larson, CL &
Knott, TG 1988, ‘Business perspectives on internal/external evaluation’, in JA McLaughlin,
LJ Weber, RW Covert & RB Ingle (eds),Evaluation Utilization, vol. 39, pp. 59–74. Czarnecki,
MT 1999, Managing by measuring: how to improve your organization’s performance through
effective benchmarking, AMACOM, New York.
Faase, TP & Pujdak, S 1987, Shared understanding of organizational culture’, in J Nowakowski
(ed.), The client perspective on evaluation: New directions for program evaluation, no. 36,
Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Globerson, A, Globerson, S & Frampton, J 1991, You can’t manage what you don’t measure:
control and evaluation in organizations. Gower Publications, Aldershot.
Goldberg, B & Sifonis, JG 1994, Dynamic planning: the art of managing beyond tomorrow,
Oxford University Press, New York.
Guba, EG & Lincoln, YS 1987, ‘The countenances of fourth-generation evaluation’, in DJ
Palumbo (ed.), The politics of program evaluation, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, California.
Gunn, WJ 1987, ‘Client concerns and strategies in evaluation studies’, in J Nowakowski (ed.),
The client perspective on evaluation: New directions for program evaluation, no. 36, Jossey-
Bass, San Francisco.
Hogben, D 1977, ‘Curriculum evaluation: by whom, for whom?’, paper presented at the
Annual Conference of the American Educational Research Association. House, ER 1980,
Evaluating with validity, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, California.
House, ER 1993, Professional evaluation: social impact and political consequences, Sage
Publications, Newbury Park, California.
Kushner, S 2000, Personalizing evaluation, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, California.
Love, AJ 1991, Internal evaluation: building organizations from within, Sage Publications,
Newbury Park, California.
Mathison, S 1994, ‘Rethinking the evaluator role: partnerships between organizations and
evaluators’, Evaluation and Program Planning, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 299–304.
Meyers, WR 1981, The evaluation enterprise: a realistic appraisal of evaluation careers, methods,
and applications, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Newman, DL & Brown, RD 1996, Applied ethics for program evaluation, Sage Publications, San
Owen, JM with Rogers, PJ 1999, Program evaluation: forms and approaches, 2nd edn,
Allen & Unwin, St Leonards, NSW.
Patton, MQ 1997, Utilization-focused evaluation: the new century text, 3rd edn, Sage
Publications, Thousand Oaks, California.
Students also viewed