Several Projects, One Team: When Priorities Compete

Each project may look reasonable when its schedule is considered separately. The difficulty emerges when several projects need the same person at the same time.

A specialist may be expected at a design review, a site visit and a commissioning activity. Three events appear on three schedules, but they rely on the same available capacity.

Project counts do not describe the whole workload

A paper published by the Project Management Institute (PMI) examines resource allocation and priorities in a multiple-project environment. [1]

The number of files is an indication. It does not fully describe travel, meetings, technical responses or follow-up.

Shared resources do not multiply

APM describes resource optimisation as adapting people and equipment to the schedule, including resource levelling and smoothing. [1]

The practical implication is to examine demands across projects together. Availability promised to one project must remain compatible with commitments elsewhere.

Consider a hypothetical visit, handover and coordination meeting scheduled on the same day at different sites. The team must decide what can move, be reassigned or be reorganised. More calendar reminders do not resolve competing demands.

Urgency can become an unwritten rule

Without an agreed way to set priorities, the project making the most persistent requests may get the resource. The team waiting patiently may remain less visible even when its next step matters.

Availability then becomes a repeated negotiation. Dates may be promised before the necessary people have confirmed capacity.

A shared review can expose conflicts earlier: which activities require attendance, a decision or particular expertise? Which can move? Who can resolve competing priorities?

Priorities should change commitments

Calling a project a priority should affect assignments and commitments. Allocating a resource to it requires recognising the consequences for other projects.

Depending on the situation, the response may involve reordering tasks, delaying a start or adding appropriate support. Examine those trade-offs rather than letting each manager promise the same capacity.

Candidates can ask how resources are shared and how competing priorities are resolved. A position is also defined by the collective support it offers.

A realistic portfolio accounts for the shared capacity behind individual schedules.

Why this reference?

This paper was presented at a North American project-management congress. It is used for organisational questions about shared resources, not as a rule governing Canadian professional practice.

Reference

[1] Project Management Institute — What the heck happened to my resources—the multiple project dilemma (2011).
https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/resource-management-multiple-project-environment-6219