WBP Project #1

GROUP #15

GSOE 9820| Project Management | S1 2017

TEAM MEMBERS
z5104790 Yu Xia
z3268217 Vidur Tuli
Z5051522 Zhaoyu Tian
z5090507 Zhihao Wang
z5135652 Zheng Lu
z3290549 Young Huang (PM)
z5087653 Savio Mathew (PM)

TEAM DEMONSTRATOR
Sandra Cowan
Table of Contents
Executive Summary................................................................................................................... 2
Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 3
Key Issues identified ................................................................................................................. 3
Analysis......................................................................................................................................4
Must criteria #1: Meets all safety and environmental standards .....................................4
Must criteria #2: PG or G rating........................................................................................4
Must criteria #3: No adverse effect on other operations .................................................4
Want Criterion Analysis....................................................................................................4
Conclusion.................................................................................................................................6
Final film ranking priority:................................................................................................6
Recommendations .................................................................................................................... 7
References .................................................................................................................................8
Lessons Learnt......................................................................................................................... 10
Appendix A ............................................................................................................................... 11
Results of the evaluation exercise........................................................................................ 11
Appendix B ............................................................................................................................... 13
Financial assessment criteria adopted ................................................................................ 13
Appendix C .............................................................................................................................. 14
Project Priority Evaluation Form Format........................................................................... 14

PROJECT #1 | TEAM #15 1|PAGE

Executive Summary
This report provides the evaluation of prospective film projects, by the priority team of the
film division of a large entertainment conglomerate. The methodology to scrutinize each
film project proposal involves beginning with the Must objectives, which are linked to the
companys mission and core values, which, if fulfilled, lead to evaluation of fulfillment of
Want objectives. Each film proposal is ranked, based on relative base scores and an
impact weightage for each of the Want criterions.

The project prioritization process leads to selection of five out of seven film proposals.
Results of the evaluation can be found in the appendices. The report identifies the top four
film proposals, as having the potential to mend the poor performance of the previous year.
The report also examines the limitations of the priority evaluation form adopted, and
provides recommendations for addressing areas of concern and improvement.

PROJECT #1 | TEAM #15 2|PAGE

Introduction
The members of Team #15 are the designated priority team, in the film division of a large
entertainment conglomerate, having their headquarters in California, USA. The film
division has performed poorly in the previous FY with major project failures and a
reduction in the profit margin (Gray & Larson, 2014).

Senior management of the company, have created a set of Must and Want objectives to
consider, when giving scores to each of the seven film proposals, using the project priority
evaluation form (Appendix C). The three Must objectives are very well aligned with the
companys mission and core values, as well as the CEOs advocacy and acts as a guide to
the Project Priority Selection Team, in their efforts to create a project priority list.

Key Issues identified

The priority team has had a healthy discussion on the pros and cons of using the Project
Priority Evaluation System presented with the case, and the following issues have been
identified, which can be improved upon, or, taken into consideration, when revising the
evaluation form.

The evaluation criteria should consider financial aspects of the projects with due
importance (Gray & Larson, 2014).
Base scores for each aspect of the scoring matrix, should be carefully allocated
based on the requirements of the company, as they can impact the overall scores.
Impact weightage scores can have negative marking, to penalize the projects not in
favor of the end goals.
If the scores are discussed among team members, there is scope for disagreements
or difference of views and opinions.
The evaluation of the 3rd Must criteria for Film Proposal #1, had conflicting views
amongst the team, which was based on ones subjective evaluation of the issue
based on awareness of certain facts. Such a situation could be a cause of concern, if
there is no discussion amongst the team members.
To reduce or eliminate the chaos that may be caused by the above matter, a very
detailed brief should be given about the project proposals.
Resource allocation details should be included in the project description, and
relative scoring and impact weights should be appropriately assigned.
The evaluation report must have a validity, as situations and resources are liquid in
nature, and priorities may need to be reassessed (Gray & Larson, 2014).

PROJECT #1 | TEAM #15 3|PAGE

Analysis
The initial part of the exercise involved understanding the companys past performance
and assessing the requirements of the mission statement, the values that the company
stands by, the CEOs plans for the company, and last but not the least, the
background/plot of each project proposal. Further, it was identified that the above-
mentioned requirements were integrated into the three must criteria of the evaluation
form. The results of the evaluation are as below:

The team reached a consensus that film proposals #1 and #3 would not be considered for
further evaluation based on the analysis of "Want" objectives. that they did not meet some
of the "Must" objectives, as detailed below:

Must criteria #1: Meets all safety and environmental standards

Film 3 violates this objective, as it may potentially contain real footages of heroin usage
resulting in legal ramifications, and the censor boards actions to hide or eliminate this
footage would make the film lose out on some intense dramatic acts.

Must criteria #2: PG or G rating

Film 3 violates this objective, as the film contains very mature and graphic content, that is
inappropriate for children and hence does not meet the Must objective of the film having
a PG/G.

Must criteria #3: No adverse effect on other operations

Film 1 violates this objective, as the film synopsis suggests it is likely to paint a positive
light on Dalai Lama, who is regarded as a controversial figure politically in China (Hilton,
2011), owing to his active involvement till date in the Tibetan revolts against Chinese
occupation of Tibet (Stokes, 2010). This is a sensitive political issue for China surrounding
sovereignty (Gramer, 2017). Further, the Chinese population out of patriotism, may not
wish to watch this movie. Therefore, the interest of this film in China appears to be low
and may even result in heavy losses, which will eventually translate into the failure of its
business plan for a theme park. When it comes to any anti-China information, the
government would disapprove of any further business activity by all related companies, in
China (Li, 2016) (International Business Publications, USA, 2007) (Kavalski, 2016).

Want Criterion Analysis

The second part of the exercise involved evaluation and scoring of the qualified films (# 2,
4, 5, 6 & 7), based on the Want criteria. The Want criteria up on study, seems to be a list
of seven target areas that the senior management of the company wish to focus on.

Out of the seven criterions, the Generate profit greater than 18% criteria is purely
deterministic, based on very straightforward assessment of the brief information provided
on each project proposal.

PROJECT #1 | TEAM #15 4|PAGE

There was minimal data provided on finance, in the brief write-up on each proposal.
Budgets were not mentioned for each film proposal and ROI data was limited to three
probabilities with no information on the cash-flow or net present value of the films.

With the assumption, that the above concerns would be taken care of by management at a
later stage, the scoring was based on the ROI only. Details of the criteria adopted by are in
Appendix B.

The balance six criterions required a fair amount of general knowledge, and an
understanding of politics, business, academic movie award evaluation methods
(Wikipedia, 2017) (Oscars, The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, 2016) and
digital animation technology. These criterions were:

Advance state of the film animation

Anyone who watches movies would be aware of the current state of affairs in digital
animation, and knows the advancement in this field over the past decade. Hence based on
the information provided on the budget of the films and its description, the assessor could
decide, easily, the impact of each film.

Raise environmental concerns

In todays world, most of the people are aware of the situation of environmental
sustainability and causes of concern. Based on the same, all the assessors could identify
with ease, the possibility of each film to raise awareness amongst the viewers, about the
causes and remedies of environmental damage (Wikipedia, n.d.).

Be nominated for best picture of the year

Up on scrutiny of the plot, budget and other information provided in the film
descriptions, as well as the selection and award criterions of the Academic Awards
Committee, the team could conclude on the potential of each film to be nominated for the
Best picture of the year Award (The Economist, 2014) (Wikipedia, 2017) (Oscars, The
Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, 2016).

Create a new, major animated character

This task involved critically evaluating the potential of all the characters in each film for
potential to form a connection with children and thus be a new animated character.

Generate additional merchandise

The team had to inspect the proposals, its characters and setup, from a business point of
view, to assess the potential for creating additional revenue streams through sales of

PROJECT #1 | TEAM #15 5|PAGE

merchandise, digital character rights, etc. The animated movie characters were the key
nominations for potential to be marketing vehicles to reach out to children (Haymarket
Media - Marketing, 1990).

Provide basis for new theme ride

The team could gauge the environments and characters described in the film proposals
and pass good judgement on the potential of these factors to be the basis for a joy ride in
an amusement park (dry and water based).

Please refer to Appendix C for a sample of the Project Priority Evaluation Form, and
Appendix A to view the score outcomes along with the rankings.

Conclusion
Completion of the report came with synthesis of the score cards from all participants, and
generation of the post-discussion mutually agreed final ranking of the film proposals.

Final film ranking priority:

1. Film 6: KEIKO - ONE WHALE OF A STORY with final score 450
2. Film 4: ESCAPE FROM RIO JAPUNI with final score 420
3. Film 2: HEIDI with final score 210
4. Film 7: GRAND ISLAND with final score 110
5. Film 5: NADIA! with final score 70

The films 1 and 3 have been disqualified, based on agreement amongst the team members
(Post discussion), that they do not meet the Must criteria.

PROJECT #1 | TEAM #15 6|PAGE

Recommendations
The following recommendations are a product of the study and use of the Project Priority
Evaluation System utilized in this exercise:

In the context of the information provided in the case-study, the film division
already had a set of failures from the previous FY and hence it would be wise for
the portfolio manager to choose just four quality films.
The 1st, 2nd and 4th ranked films have links to raising awareness about
environmental concerns, which aligns with the CEOs advocacy.
A major task of the priority team is to balance risk, type and resource demand
amongst the proposed projects (Gray & Larson, 2014), for which accurate and
detailed information needs to be made available to the team.
It is highly recommended to have open discussions amongst the team members to
understand the rationale of each person for each task. This would involve a high
level of critical thinking and an open, but not an impressionable mind.

PROJECT #1 | TEAM #15 7|PAGE

References
Gramer, R., 2017. Dalai Lama Interview Fuels New Fire in China-Tibet Spat, s.l.:
foreignpolicy.com.

Gray, C. F. & Larson, E. W., 2014. Project Management. 6th ed. s.l.:McGraw Hill
International edition.

Haymarket Media - Marketing, 1990. Character Licensing. [Online]

Available at: https://www.questia.com/read/1G1-9269473/character-licensing
[Accessed 11 March 2017].

Hilton, I., 2011. The Dalai Lama's battle with China, s.l.: The Telegraph, UK.

International Business Publications, USA, 2007. China Foreign Policy and Government
Guide. s.l.:International Business Publications.

Kavalski, E., 2016. The Ashgate Research Companion to Chinese Foreign Policy.
s.l.:Routledge.

Li, D., 2016. Great firewall of China reinforced as foreign media banned from publishing
online, s.l.: theconversation.com.

Oscars, The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, 2016. Oscars Rules & Eligibility.
[Online]
Available at: http://www.oscars.org/oscars/rules-eligibility
[Accessed 15 March 2017].

RockBridge, 2013. Understanding Consumer Decision-Making with Means-End Research.

[Online]
Available at: https://rockresearch.com/understanding-consumer-decision-making-with-
means-end-research/
[Accessed 21 Jan 2017].

Stokes, D., 2010. Conflict Over Tibet: Core Causes and Possible Solutions. [Online]
Available at: http://www.beyondintractability.org/casestudy/stokes-tibet
[Accessed 13 March 2017].

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, 2016. 89TH ANNUAL ACADEMY
AWARDS OF MERIT FOR ACHIEVEMENTS DURING 2016. [Online]
Available at: http://www.oscars.org/sites/oscars/files/89aa_rules.pdf
[Accessed 14 March 2017].

The Economist, 2014. 'What makes a "Best Picture"?. [Online]

Available at: http://www.economist.com/blogs/prospero/2014/02/oscars
[Accessed 15 March 2017].

PROJECT #1 | TEAM #15 8|PAGE

Wikipedia, 2017. Motion Picture Association of America Film Rating System. [Online]
Available at:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Association_of_America_film_rating_syste
m
[Accessed 16 March 2017].

Wikipedia, n.d. Captive killer whales. [Online]

Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captive_killer_whales
[Accessed 14 March 2017].

PROJECT #1 | TEAM #15 9|PAGE

Lessons Learnt
Following are the learnings from the planning and execution of web based project #1:

The Project Plan must be made with thought. Considerations should be in place to
maximize time allocated for tasks based on the grading system for Web Based
Projects. E.g. More time for discussions.
Expected outcomes from the execution of the project demands much thought.
One must post ones opinion/views/data/results on time, and proactively
comment in parallel on the posts of others.
The time to respond to each task should be reduced and more time should be
allocated to the discussion of everyones contribution.
Discussions must not overlap with time allocated to post initial responses, as the
overlapping time was not well utilized for its intended purpose.
It is important to summarize each discussion, to ensure closure. This was carried
out during the execution of this project, and proved to be highly valuable.
Criticism, both positive and negative, of posts/tasks by team members is highly
recommended, while ensuring that it is not provocative in nature. This helps
stimulate thought and share opinions/information, thus increasing the value of
discussions and end results.

PROJECT #1 | TEAM #15 10 | P A G E

Appendix A
RESULTS OF THE EVALUATION EXERCISE
Impact Scores:
Objective Film 2 Film 4 Film 5 Film 6 Film 7

Be nominated for best picture of the year 2 2 1 2 0

Create a new, major animated character 0 2 0 2 0

Generate additional merchandise 2 2 1 2 0

Raise environmental concerns 0 2 0 2 2

Generate profit greater than 18% 1 1 0 1 0

Advance state of the film animation 0 1 0 2 0

Provide basis for new theme ride 0 2 0 1 0

Weighted Scores:
Objective Film 2 Film 4 Film 5 Film 6 Film 7

Be nominated for best picture of the year 120 120 60 120 0

Create a new, major animated character 0 40 0 40 0

Generate additional merchandise 20 20 10 20 0

Raise environmental concerns 0 110 0 110 110

Generate profit greater than 18% 70 70 0 70 0

Advance state of the film animation 0 40 0 80 0

Provide basis for new theme ride 0 20 0 10 0

PROJECT #1 | TEAM #15 11 | P A G E

Overall score card and proposal ranking:

Film 2 Film 4 Film 5 Film 6 Film 7

Total Score 210 420 70 450 110

Ranking 3 2 5 1 4

Note:
Film 1 and 3 did not satisfy all the 'Must' objectives and ignored for the 'Want'
objective analysis.
The above scores and rakings are calculated by taking the mode impact scores of
everyone's evaluations for each 'Want' Objective.
Weighted scores are calculated by taking the mode impact scores and multiplied by
the relative importance weightings.

PROJECT #1 | TEAM #15 12 | P A G E

Appendix B
FINANCIAL ASSESSMENT CRITERIA ADOPTED
Below is the assessment of the criteria related to the financial success of the films. One
needs to be careful about the use of ROI projections provided for each proposal.

Observations:
The probabilities are cumulative probabilities as they have the interpretation "[80,
50, 20] % chance to achieve greater than x% ROI".
It is not correct to compute the ROI expectation by the summation product of the
probability and ROI as they are not probability masses (They do not add up to
100%).
The median ROI (same as mean or expected ROI in this case) is the ROI figure
provided for 50%, which has the interpretation "There is a 50% chance to achieve
ROI greater than x%".

Based on the information provided and the mutual agreement amongst the team
members, the "50% chance to achieve x% ROI" figure benchmark has been utilised for
scoring purposes, as it is the median ROI to evaluate the "Generate profit greater than
18%" criteria for the film proposals.

PROJECT #1 | TEAM #15 13 | P A G E

Appendix C
PROJECT PRIORITY EVALUATION FORM FORMAT
(Gray & Larson, 2014)

PROJECT #1 | TEAM #15 14 | P A G E