What Does This Case Demonstrate About

CLEANED: What Does This Case Demonstrate About

Answer the following questions: 1) What does this case demonstrate about the effect of poor project screening methods on a firm’s ability to manage projects effectively? 2) If you think about it, all business problems are case studies. To effectively evaluate the situation, you must approach the problem in a methodological manner. A proven technique to do this is to do the following: list the facts; identify the issues; based on the facts of the case and your knowledge, analyze the issues of the case; prepare recommended solutions and their possible outcomes; implement the optimal solution (not always the one with the best outcome, because the cost or other things could be impractical); and monitor the implementation and outcomes. So when you read and prepare to respond to this case, please follow the above guidelines. I don't necessarily expect you to perform Steps 4–6, but I do expect your response to be based on the facts and your knowledge. Remember—your first impressions may not be correct! 3. How would project portfolio management help to improve the situation at Keflavik?

Paper For Above instruction

The case underscores the critical impact of poor project screening methods on a firm's ability to effectively manage its projects. Ineffective screening can lead to the selection of low-value or misaligned projects, which ultimately drain resources, reduce overall organizational efficiency, and hinder strategic objectives. Poor screening processes often lack thorough evaluation criteria, leading to biased decision-making, and may overlook key risk factors, thus exposing the firm to unforeseen challenges. This situation can cause project delays, budget overruns, and failure to achieve desired outcomes, which are detrimental to the firm's competitive position and long-term success.

Effective project management begins with stringent screening processes that ensure only feasible, valuable, and strategic projects proceed. When screening is inadequate, organizations risk pursuing initiatives that do not align with their core objectives or market needs. To evaluate such a case systematically, it is pertinent to first establish the relevant facts: the firm's existing screening procedures, the selection criteria in use, the types of projects undertaken, and the outcomes achieved. Identifying issues involves recognizing gaps in these processes, such as lack of rigorous assessment, insufficient stakeholder involvement, or inadequate risk analysis.

Analyzing these issues reveals that the root causes of poor project outcomes often stem from superficial screening methods, which fail to capture project complexity or strategic fit. For example, the absence of quantitative scoring models or multi-criteria analysis may lead decision-makers to favor projects based on subjective preferences rather than objective evaluation. Furthermore, neglecting to consider resource constraints, market dynamics, or technological risks can result in selecting projects that are not sustainable or profitable in the long run.

Based on this analysis, recommendations can be formulated to improve project screening. Implementing comprehensive criteria, including financial viability, strategic alignment, technical feasibility, and risk factors, can ensure more balanced decision-making. Utilizing formal scoring models such as weighted scoring or decision trees enhances transparency and objectivity. Additionally, fostering cross-functional collaboration during screening can incorporate diverse perspectives, reducing bias. Establishing periodic review mechanisms helps to reassess ongoing projects and adapt to changing circumstances, fostering agility and resilience.

Project portfolio management (PPM) plays a pivotal role in aligning individual projects with organizational strategy. At Keflavik Airport, for instance, integrating PPM practices could facilitate better prioritization of projects based on strategic value, resource availability, and risk considerations. PPM allows managers to visualize the entire project landscape, identify redundancies, and allocate resources more efficiently. It also provides a framework for balancing risk and reward across the portfolio, ensuring that the organization is not overly exposed to high-risk initiatives while still pursuing innovation and growth.

Implementing PPM at Keflavik would involve establishing a centralized process for project evaluation, selection, and monitoring. This approach encourages strategic coherence, enhances transparency, and promotes accountability. Regular portfolio reviews enable continuous alignment with organizational goals and external market conditions. Moreover, PPM supports scenario planning, which prepares the organization for potential disruptions or opportunities, thus improving overall project success rates and organizational agility. As a result, Keflavik can enhance its project success, optimize resource deployment, and strengthen its competitive advantage within the industry.

In conclusion, poor project screening significantly hampers an organization's ability to effectively manage its projects, leading to suboptimal outcomes and strategic misalignment. Adopting rigorous, systematic screening processes and leveraging project portfolio management can substantially improve project selection, prioritization, and execution. These measures foster organizational resilience, optimize resource utilization, and support the achievement of strategic objectives, ultimately leading to a stronger, more adaptive organization capable of sustaining long-term success.

References

• Meredith, J. R., & Mantel, S. J. (2017). Project Management: A Managerial Approach. Wiley.
• PMI. (2017). A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide) — Sixth Edition. Project Management Institute.
• Kock, N. (2019). Project portfolio management: Aligning projects with organizational strategy. International Journal of Project Management, 37(5), 702–715.
• Northcraft, G., & Neale, M. (2018). Strategic project screening. Harvard Business Review, 96(2), 80–87.
• Artto, K., Davison, R. M., & Lundin, R. A. (2016). Project Portfolio Management. Routledge.
• Ward, J., & Chapman, C. (2019). Managing Project Risks and Opportunities. Wiley.
• Knights, D., & Willmott, H. (2019). Managing Strategic Projects: Awareness and Value. Routledge.
• Henry, J. B. (2020). Strategic Project Management. Springer.
• Maier, R., & Remus, U. (2018). Portfolio management in practice. Journal of Business Strategy, 39(4), 28–37.
• Burgelman, R. A., & Saylors, R. (2020). Strategic management and organizational dynamics. McGraw-Hill Education.