- Email: [email protected]
What does priority mean?
IDEAtional Items
from the desk of W. DICKERSON HOGUE
What does priority mean?
Mr. Hogue is a senior lecturer in international business at Indiana University.
Everyone agrees that establishment of priorities is important if anything wbrth-while is to be achieved. Politicians and professors, protesters and patriots, all are eager to see national priorities established. Military language and military thinking are almost dominated b y the concept of "priority." Parents coach and coax their children to put first things first, and businessmen talk continually of the necessity of getting their priorities straight. In view of the wide agreement on the importance of priorities, it is surprising so little attention is paid to the fact that there are several different hinds of
priority. To illustrate the differences, take the concluding part of a typical business discussion. The president of a company is winding up a discussion with the vicepresidents of the company. President: " L e t ' s be sure we all agree on priorities on the projects w e ' v e discussed. J i m , h o w do y o u see t h e m ? J i m (V.P.): "I c o m e out, in order, w i t h Project A top priority, B next, C next, then D." President: "George, h o w a b o u t y o u . H o w do y o u see priorities on these p r o j e c t s ? " George (V.P.): " T h e same as J i m - A , B, C, D . " President: "Jack, J o h n , J o n a t h a n ? A n y differences o f opinion on priorities?" Chorus o f V.P. 's: " N o , we agree--A, B, C, D . "
DECEMBER, 1970
A familiar scene. And if the men all know each other welt and have worked together for many years, the president's question is a useful one, and all concerned will in fact agree on what is to be done about Projects A, B, C, and D. Over the years, the c o m p a n y and its management men will have accepted a single definition of "priority." However, if the men have not worked long together it is entirely possible that there will be at least four somewhat different understandings of what is to be done about the projects. J i m may feel that the consensus at the meeting was that all four projects will be worked on simultaneously, b u t with more effort put on higher-priority projects. He might feel that of 1,000 total man-hours available per month Project Project Project Project
A B C D
should should should should
have have have have
400[mo. 300/mo. 200]mo. 100]mo.
until until until until
finished finished finished finished.
We could call Jim's kind of priority "relative" priority. (Note that even if everyone agrees that relative priority is the sort intended, there is still ample room for misunderstanding on the degrees of priority. One man might distribute 1,000 units of effort among A-B-C-D as 800-100-75-25, another as 600-200-150-50, another as 350-300-275-75 or any other combination of decreasing magnitudes adding to 1,000.)
35
W. DICKERSON HOGUE
George, unlike Jim, feels that the consensus at the meeting was that all available effort would be put on the top priority project until it was completed, then on the next-highest projects until each was completed in turn. Of the available manhours, he feels that Project A should have 1,000]mo. until finished Project B should have 1,000/mo. until finished and so on. George's kind of priority can be called "spill-over" priority. Jack has a third impression about the consensus of the meeting. His feeling is that all the projects would be worked on simultaneously with equal effort unless some type of conflict arises among the projects. In case of conflict, A would always be favored over any of the other three; B would be favored over either C or D; and C would be favored over D. Thus, of the 1,000 available manhours, he feels that 36
Project A should have 250/mo. until finished Project B should have 250/mo. until finished Project C should have 250]mo. until finished Project D should have 250]mo. until finished. If A should lose any of its manpower, the loss would be made up from D's manpower. Also, if B and D both wanted to use the only available pilot plant on Wednesday, B would be entitled to preference over D. Jack's kind of priority could be called priority "in case of conflict." J o h n ' s view of the consensus of the meeting is different from the views of the others; he feels that the priorities discussed were designed primarily to establish the order in which the projects would be completed, while allowing some progress simultaneously on all of them. Project A should be the first finished, B second, and C third. Thinking of the differing estimated total efforts required on each project, J o h n might feel that the way to ensure completion of the projects in the required order is to distribute the 1,000 available man-hours per month: Project A should have 150]mo. (enough to finish first) Project B should have 500/too. (enough to finish second)
Project C should have 50/mo. (enough to finish third) Project D should have 300]mo. J o h n ' s kind of priority could be called " c o m p l e t i o n " priority. In business, differentiating between the various kinds of priority is not just hairsplitting. Sometimes it is clear from the context what sort of priority a businessman means. A building contractor who tells his on-site foreman that "First priority is excavation, second priority is to pour the foundation walls" clearly means completion priority. A hotel manager who tells a new room clerk that "We give top priority to Mr. Big's requests for reservations" clearly means priority in case of conflict, and probably also means completion priority (handle Mr. Big's request before others). When a sales manager says his men are giving top priority this m o n t h to pushing Product X, he clearly means relative priority, not one of the other kinds. In m a n y circumstances, however, the kind of priority meant is not so clear. Particularly between spill-over and relative priority, there is frequent confusion. When a company president tells his export manager, "Bob, it seems to me your first priority now ought to be to clear up that Australian problem, and the Austrian and Greek situations ought to be second and third, respectively," what kind of priority is he talking about? (The president probably means either relative or spill-over priority, but he might mean in-case-of-conflict priority or even completion priority.) When a marketing vice-president agrees with an R&D manager on a "priority list of new products and product improvements," what is his understanding of how the R&D man plans to work on the list? Examples of confusion--lack of c o m m u n i c a t i o n - b e c a u s e of different interpretations of the word could be cited indefinitely. Businessmen and others should, perhaps, give higher priority to explaining exactly what they mean when they use a word subject to interpretation in different ways.
BUSINESS HORIZONS
from the desk of W. DICKERSON HOGUE
What does priority mean?
Mr. Hogue is a senior lecturer in international business at Indiana University.
Everyone agrees that establishment of priorities is important if anything wbrth-while is to be achieved. Politicians and professors, protesters and patriots, all are eager to see national priorities established. Military language and military thinking are almost dominated b y the concept of "priority." Parents coach and coax their children to put first things first, and businessmen talk continually of the necessity of getting their priorities straight. In view of the wide agreement on the importance of priorities, it is surprising so little attention is paid to the fact that there are several different hinds of
priority. To illustrate the differences, take the concluding part of a typical business discussion. The president of a company is winding up a discussion with the vicepresidents of the company. President: " L e t ' s be sure we all agree on priorities on the projects w e ' v e discussed. J i m , h o w do y o u see t h e m ? J i m (V.P.): "I c o m e out, in order, w i t h Project A top priority, B next, C next, then D." President: "George, h o w a b o u t y o u . H o w do y o u see priorities on these p r o j e c t s ? " George (V.P.): " T h e same as J i m - A , B, C, D . " President: "Jack, J o h n , J o n a t h a n ? A n y differences o f opinion on priorities?" Chorus o f V.P. 's: " N o , we agree--A, B, C, D . "
DECEMBER, 1970
A familiar scene. And if the men all know each other welt and have worked together for many years, the president's question is a useful one, and all concerned will in fact agree on what is to be done about Projects A, B, C, and D. Over the years, the c o m p a n y and its management men will have accepted a single definition of "priority." However, if the men have not worked long together it is entirely possible that there will be at least four somewhat different understandings of what is to be done about the projects. J i m may feel that the consensus at the meeting was that all four projects will be worked on simultaneously, b u t with more effort put on higher-priority projects. He might feel that of 1,000 total man-hours available per month Project Project Project Project
A B C D
should should should should
have have have have
400[mo. 300/mo. 200]mo. 100]mo.
until until until until
finished finished finished finished.
We could call Jim's kind of priority "relative" priority. (Note that even if everyone agrees that relative priority is the sort intended, there is still ample room for misunderstanding on the degrees of priority. One man might distribute 1,000 units of effort among A-B-C-D as 800-100-75-25, another as 600-200-150-50, another as 350-300-275-75 or any other combination of decreasing magnitudes adding to 1,000.)
35
W. DICKERSON HOGUE
George, unlike Jim, feels that the consensus at the meeting was that all available effort would be put on the top priority project until it was completed, then on the next-highest projects until each was completed in turn. Of the available manhours, he feels that Project A should have 1,000]mo. until finished Project B should have 1,000/mo. until finished and so on. George's kind of priority can be called "spill-over" priority. Jack has a third impression about the consensus of the meeting. His feeling is that all the projects would be worked on simultaneously with equal effort unless some type of conflict arises among the projects. In case of conflict, A would always be favored over any of the other three; B would be favored over either C or D; and C would be favored over D. Thus, of the 1,000 available manhours, he feels that 36
Project A should have 250/mo. until finished Project B should have 250/mo. until finished Project C should have 250]mo. until finished Project D should have 250]mo. until finished. If A should lose any of its manpower, the loss would be made up from D's manpower. Also, if B and D both wanted to use the only available pilot plant on Wednesday, B would be entitled to preference over D. Jack's kind of priority could be called priority "in case of conflict." J o h n ' s view of the consensus of the meeting is different from the views of the others; he feels that the priorities discussed were designed primarily to establish the order in which the projects would be completed, while allowing some progress simultaneously on all of them. Project A should be the first finished, B second, and C third. Thinking of the differing estimated total efforts required on each project, J o h n might feel that the way to ensure completion of the projects in the required order is to distribute the 1,000 available man-hours per month: Project A should have 150]mo. (enough to finish first) Project B should have 500/too. (enough to finish second)
Project C should have 50/mo. (enough to finish third) Project D should have 300]mo. J o h n ' s kind of priority could be called " c o m p l e t i o n " priority. In business, differentiating between the various kinds of priority is not just hairsplitting. Sometimes it is clear from the context what sort of priority a businessman means. A building contractor who tells his on-site foreman that "First priority is excavation, second priority is to pour the foundation walls" clearly means completion priority. A hotel manager who tells a new room clerk that "We give top priority to Mr. Big's requests for reservations" clearly means priority in case of conflict, and probably also means completion priority (handle Mr. Big's request before others). When a sales manager says his men are giving top priority this m o n t h to pushing Product X, he clearly means relative priority, not one of the other kinds. In m a n y circumstances, however, the kind of priority meant is not so clear. Particularly between spill-over and relative priority, there is frequent confusion. When a company president tells his export manager, "Bob, it seems to me your first priority now ought to be to clear up that Australian problem, and the Austrian and Greek situations ought to be second and third, respectively," what kind of priority is he talking about? (The president probably means either relative or spill-over priority, but he might mean in-case-of-conflict priority or even completion priority.) When a marketing vice-president agrees with an R&D manager on a "priority list of new products and product improvements," what is his understanding of how the R&D man plans to work on the list? Examples of confusion--lack of c o m m u n i c a t i o n - b e c a u s e of different interpretations of the word could be cited indefinitely. Businessmen and others should, perhaps, give higher priority to explaining exactly what they mean when they use a word subject to interpretation in different ways.
BUSINESS HORIZONS