Scribd
Upload
507 views4 pages

Approaches To Project Screening..

This document discusses different approaches to project screening used by organizations to evaluate potential projects. It describes four main approaches: 1) The checklist model which uses a list of criteria to assess projects. 2) Simplified scoring models which rank criteria by importance and assign scores to projects. 3) The analytical hierarchy process which structures decision making into a four step model. 4) Profile models which plot risk and return to evaluate tradeoffs between alternatives. Each approach has benefits and limitations for an organization selecting projects.

Uploaded by

Brian De Kwaba
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
507 views4 pages

Approaches To Project Screening..

This document discusses different approaches to project screening used by organizations to evaluate potential projects. It describes four main approaches: 1) The checklist model which uses a list of criteria to assess projects. 2) Simplified scoring models which rank criteria by importance and assign scores to projects. 3) The analytical hierarchy process which structures decision making into a four step model. 4) Profile models which plot risk and return to evaluate tradeoffs between alternatives. Each approach has benefits and limitations for an organization selecting projects.

Uploaded by

Brian De Kwaba
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

Running Head: APPROACHES TO PROJECT SCREENING 1

Approaches to Project Screening

Student’s Name

Institutional Affiliation
Approaches to Project Screening

Project screening is the preliminary assessment of the project sustainability for the

selection and application process. Project screening can also be done to develop the methodology

that evaluates a large number of projects. This methodology determines whether additional time

or effort is needed for further development considerations of the preferred project (Pinto, 2015).

It also serves as a useful tool for the organization since it helps them to approximate the time and

costs needed for the organization to make a preferred choice among numerous alternatives. There

are several techniques, which are used in an organization to enhance project selection. Their

determination has a significant impact on the organization, given that they have separate

influences on the organization.

The Checklist Model

This model is the most straightforward approach to project screening. It uses the criteria of

developing a list of ideas and principles that pertain to our choice of projects. These criteria are

applied to different possible projects. The checklist model depends on the type and size of our

potential projects (Pinto, 2015). The company needs to weigh the possible issues arising with the

approach for them to develop a sound plan. This plan includes cost development, the potential

returns on investment, the risks involved with the new venture, product durability, and

government interference. The checklist model does not deal satisfactorily with profit potential,

development risks.

Simplified Scoring Models

In this approach, each criterion is ranked according to its relative importance. The choice of

projects will thus reflect our desire to maximize the impact of specific tests on our decision. For

the Model to score, accurate weight is assigned to the time, profit potential, development risks,
and costs needed to start a project. The simple scoring model consists of the various steps which

include; assigning the importance weights to each criterion, assigning the score values to each

test, multiplying the importance weights by scores to arrive at the weighted score, and to add the

weighted scores to arrive at an overall project score (Pinto, 2015). The limitations of the scoring

Model is that the approach imposes structure on the decision-making process, while at the same

time combining multiple criteria. The Model also depends on the relevance of the selected

criteria and the accuracy of the weight given them

The Analytical Hierarchy Process

Dr Thomas Saaty developed this Model to address many of the technical and managerial

problems frequently associated with decision making through the scoring models. This Model is

a four-step process, and it includes the structuring of the hierarchy of the criteria, allocating the

weights to the tests, assigning numerical values to evaluate dimensions, and to evaluate the

project proposals (Pinto, 2015). This Model is of tremendous significance since it can

dramatically improve the process of developing project proposals. The firms that have

incorporated this analysis always have their new projects with the sophisticated breakdown

listing the proposed alternatives, and the project outcomes. Limitations associated with this

Model include failure for the accountability of negative utility in the results of the project.

Profile Models

This approach allows the managers to plot risk/return options for various alternatives. This helps

them to select the project that maximizes return while staying within a specific range of

minimum acceptable risk. The occurrence of uncertainty in the project is subject to the

assessment, and this may be a steep path to lead to the general agreement on the level risk

associated with a given project. The profile model provides another method to compare project
alternatives in terms of the risk/return trade-off. It is also difficult to evaluate and compare plans

based on scoring models or another qualitative approach. The profile model gives us the chance

to map out the potential return while considering the risk that accompanies each choice. Some of

the disadvantages associated with this Model include; the limitation of the decision criteria to

just two-risk and return. Another limitation consists of the need to attach some values to the risk

to evaluate its efficiency.

Reference

Pinto, J. K. (2015). Project Management: achieving competitive advantage 4th edition

Morris, P. W., Pinto, J. K., & Söderlund, J. (Eds.). (2012). The Oxford handbook of project management.

OUP Oxford.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy