Read the Case Study, 'University Expansion Projects,' and using the Project Prioritization matrix, rank each project assigning a numeric rank. Complete the matrix in full. For each section, explain why each ranking was given. Include a short explanation of which project Mary should complete first and why you came to this conclusion.

University Expansion Projects

Mary is an Engineering Department Manager at a small college with limited time and has been asked to take on two new projects. She realizes that she can only handle one of these with her current schedule. She wants to be able to go back to her leader with a recommendation of which project she should start first and explain why she came to this decision. Ultimately, the University Board will approve the funds so her choice of projects and accompanying explanation must be clear and well thought out.

Project A: Project A involves replacing all of the test equipment in the Engineering Bio Tech lab. The college President has started giving fund raising speeches telling incoming students (and parents!) about the state-of-the-art facility that the school is installing. Enrollment has been good in the past few years, but the President is really targeting the technical learning areas as part of his strategic plan to improve the school. Mary realizes that promoting the school is important, but the new lab has not been designed and the department has not agreed upon what equipment should be purchased. Given the rapid changes in the technology field, this lack of a plan makes Mary nervous. To make matters worse, half of the faculty is on vacation for the next three weeks. Ideally, everyone would like to establish a 'state of the art' facility that would attract bright students and additional support from the pharmaceutical companies in the area. One of the instructors in the Bio Tech Department believes that establishing an innovative learning lab with new high tech equipment would increase the appeal of recruiting at the college. It might also lead to publication of innovative papers based on work completed at the new lab, or even the basis for a new vaccine or new drug. Mary agrees with these possibilities, but is really concerned about the timing of the project. It is already July and there isn't a solid plan. Students return to campus in early September and she knows the project requires at least 12 solid weeks to complete after the faculty has agreed on a path forward. There is not an alternative lab on the campus and the risk of this project not being completed would be the cancellation of all Engineering labs for the fall semester.

Project B: Project B was brought forward by a new faculty member, Dr. Sandar, at a recent department offsite workshop. Dr. Sandar had designed an integrated energy system that used solar panels to collect energy that could be used to provide electricity to one of the student dorms. Dr. Sandar's idea went beyond the installation of simple solar panels and included technical data collection devices that could be used to monitor both the collection of energy and its use. Dr. Sandar's proposal was well thought out, contained detailed cost analysis as well as a clear blueprint proposal. The new professor saw this as an opportunity for the College to demonstrate its commitment to the environment while using the project as a teaching opportunity for students. This fit perfectly into the Board's mandate of 'Making Learning Experiential' for students, as well as meeting long term sustainability goals that the Board had put forward. To Mary's knowledge, no other local college had taken on this type of project and he appreciated Dr. Sandar's idea. Mary had spoken with Dr. Sandar and it was clear that this idea could be scaled and used on additional buildings if the concept actually reduced the college's energy costs. This project also appeared to require 12 weeks for implementation but Mary was not aware of any negative impact to returning students since all of the work would be completed during the day.

CRITERIA WEIGHT SCORING VALUES PROJECT B PROJEC TA 5 0,3,6,9 0: none are true 3: one is true 6: two are true 9: all are true 4 0,3,6,9 Required Service/Product (are any of these true?) Impacts core/foundational service Other services/products Strategic Alignment Campus Initiatives/Strategic Priorities Administrative Excellence Educational Innovation Value to "Customer" Customers are consumers or users of the service/product and could be students, staff, faculty, UW-System, other campuses, external partners and even other services; project that are funded (MIU, SITIAC, grant $, etc.) 0: aligns with none 3: aligns with one 6: aligns with two 9: aligns with all 4 0, 3, 6, 9 0: little value to the customer(s) 3: some value 6: a lot of value to customer 9: essential/critical to customer(s) 3 0,3,6,9 Importance to Risk Mitigation Would the campus or customer be exposed to a risk or impact if the service or product is not offered? O: little risk to campus or customer if not offered 3: some risk to campus or customer if not offered 6: much risk to campus or customer if not offered 9: high risk to the campus or customer if not offered 0,3,6,9 O: little leverage potential, isolated service 3: some leverage 6: much leverage 9: service could be leveraged by many 3 Leverage Potential Multiplier effect: service/product can be leveraged for other users/customers on campus or within UW-System; and/or adds value for external partners Full Disclosure of Costs - includes implementation and maintenance costs 0,3,6,9 3 Significance to Users/Customer Base 0: lots of unknown or hidden costs 3: some costs are known 6: many costs are known 9: all costs, direct & indirect, are known and tabulated 0,3,6,9 0: low impact, low number of users 3: low impact, high number of users 6: high impact, low number of users 9: high impact, high number of users 2 TOTAL PROJECT SCORE CRITERIA WEIGHT SCORING VALUES PROJECT B PROJEC TA 5 0,3,6,9 0: none are true 3: one is true 6: two are true 9: all are true 4 0,3,6,9 Required Service/Product (are any of these true?) Impacts core/foundational service Other services/products Strategic Alignment Campus Initiatives/Strategic Priorities Administrative Excellence Educational Innovation Value to "Customer" Customers are consumers or users of the service/product and could be students, staff, faculty, UW-System, other campuses, external partners and even other services; project that are funded (MIU, SITIAC, grant $, etc.) 0: aligns with none 3: aligns with one 6: aligns with two 9: aligns with all 4 0, 3, 6, 9 0: little value to the customer(s) 3: some value 6: a lot of value to customer 9: essential/critical to customer(s) 3 0,3,6,9 Importance to Risk Mitigation Would the campus or customer be exposed to a risk or impact if the service or product is not offered? O: little risk to campus or customer if not offered 3: some risk to campus or customer if not offered 6: much risk to campus or customer if not offered 9: high risk to the campus or customer if not offered 0,3,6,9 O: little leverage potential, isolated service 3: some leverage 6: much leverage 9: service could be leveraged by many 3 Leverage Potential Multiplier effect: service/product can be leveraged for other users/customers on campus or within UW-System; and/or adds value for external partners Full Disclosure of Costs - includes implementation and maintenance costs 0,3,6,9 3 Significance to Users/Customer Base 0: lots of unknown or hidden costs 3: some costs are known 6: many costs are known 9: all costs, direct & indirect, are known and tabulated 0,3,6,9 0: low impact, low number of users 3: low impact, high number of users 6: high impact, low number of users 9: high impact, high number of users 2 TOTAL PROJECT SCORE