Performance Evaluation of DeGrandis Sporting Goods Projects

This presentation evaluates the performance of three key projects of DeGrandis Sporting Goods - Project A: DeGrandis Running Shoes, Project B: Australian Olympic Committee, and Project C: Lady Bird Apparel. It discusses the alignment of these projects with the company's strategic goals and ethical standards. The presentation provides a detailed analysis of each project's performance, including a PPS snapshot, overall performance score, conclusion, and recommendations. It also compares the three projects and provides recommendations for future improvements.

Performance Evaluation
Presentation
DeGrandis Sporting Goods
[Student Name] – [Student Number]

Introduction
DeGrandis is one of the largest retail company that mainly
sell exercise and sport equipment. The company sells the
shoes of the international brands puma,nike,adidas. The
company has a private brand which it wants to promote to
a higher level. For this the company have proposed a new
strategic plan to create more revenues. The following
projects were implemented with the plan
o Three key projects:
1. Project A – DeGrandis Running Shoes
2. Project B –Australian Olympic Committee
3. Project C – Lady Bird Apparel

DeGrandis Strategic Goals
The key strategic goals that company wanted to achieve
through this project.
• Key Strategic Goals:
1. double revenues generation from the private
label products range in next three years.
2. building better and stronger network with the
reliable sporting goods’ suppliers.
3. maintaining highest quality of the private
product range and be the highest quality
providing sports company in Australia(Fleming &
Koppelman, 2016).

DeGrandis Ethical Standards
These ethical standard was needed to justify that the
projects should follow these rules before
implementation.
• Key Ethical Standards:
1. The company follows a code of conduct that says the
company would not collaborate with the suppliers if they
have child labours working under them(Lock,2017).
2. Bribery is strictly prohibited in the company
3. the company focuses on customer’s satisfaction and try
to inferior quality is cancelled if it cause the
inconvenience to the society.

Project A: Strategy & Ethics
Alignment with strategy:
• The new shoes where launched with new cushioning technology.
• The project was done within the timeframe.
• The shoes got 5/5 ratings from the customers.
• Increased company revenue more than 5 million(Serra &
Kunc,2015).
Alignment with the ethics:
• The project A did not align with the ethical code of conduct to reach
its success.
• the project team did not consult board of directors before the
selection and collaborating with the organisation.
• There are chances that suppliers had child labour in their factories
which break the code of conduct.

Project A: PPS Snapshot
Dimension Score Explanation
Stakeholders
4/5 • the project team did not consult the board of directors
• The project was liked by the customers
• 5/5 review ratings
Project Process
4/5 • The new product of running shoes with cushion sole
was launched in the market
• the project was completed within the given timeframe.
• Loved by the customers.
• Collaborated with Chinese organization which had child
labour working under them
Innovation and
Learning
5/5 • new technology of cushion sole technology
Quality 5/5 • the customer loved the product .
• 5/5 rating from online site
Benefit 5/5 • gave better platform to the company
• Increased the revenue over 5 million
Use 4/5 • the company’s first step towards their strategic goals

Overall Performance score
• Total score: 30
• Score achieved: 27
• This shows that Project A has achieved major success
for the company. the company was in good reviews and
was uprising. There was just one setback that they
should have considered consulting their seniors and the
board of directors(Crawford,2014).

Project A: Conclusion
• The idea of launching the new running shoes with the
technology was top-notch idea that helped the
company to generate better products for the people
• Had the project team should have consulted the
board of directors than the outcomes would have
been more celebrating
• The project did break some rules of ethics which
must be considered in future

Project A: Recommendations
1. There must be consultation and equal participation
under all the level. Before any step is being taken
there must be a proper permission taken to bring the
plan in action from the board of Directors(Bucero, A.,
& Englund,(2015).
2. Code of conduct must be followed without
discretion. The organisation that have child labours
must not be entertained by the company.
3. there must be transparency maintained when any
project or plan is being carried out in the company.

Project B: Strategy & Ethics
Alignment with strategy:
• The DeGrandis is discuss of being official sport
equipment supplier of Australian Olympic team.
• They met all the requirements within the project
timeframe
• The sale was estimated to increase revenue by 3
million dollars
Alignment with ethics:
• The company broke its code of conduct by making an
incentive payment to one of the AOC official.
• The news of bribery was handled by press ruined the
reputation of the company(Kerzner & Kerzner,. 2017).

Project B: PPS Snapshot
Dimension Score Explanation
Stakeholders 3/5 • made incentive payment to the official of
AOC to confirm the business
Project Process 4/5 • met all requirements in the given time
frame
Innovation and
Learning
5/5 • the company was the official sport
equipment supplier of the Australian
Olympic participants.
Quality 4/5 • the company provided satisfactory
products and there was an increased
revenue of 3 million dollars
Benefit
2/5 • the leakage of the news in the press
ruined the reputation of the company that
was earned till date
Use 1/5 • the bribery to conduct a business is crime
the project efforts could not generate
anything

Overall Performance Score
• Total score:30
• Score achieved: 23
• The project A achieved more score than Project B which
indicates that Project A was better than Project B
(Shields&Wright,2017).

Project B: Conclusion
• The project B concludes that it is really unethical to
bribe anyone or the organization to generate a
business.
• There could more efforts that could be taken by the
company rather than making an incentive
payment(Nguyen, Reiter & Rigo 2014).
• the company ruined all the reputation because of
one mistake.

Project B: Recommendations
1. The company should not indulge in bribery to
conduct a business.
2. There must be steps taken to compensate the loss
that have been generated by this
action(W&Lazzara,2015).
3. the company should try to improve the reputation by
accepting its mistake and try better options to get
back in business.

Project C: Strategy & Ethics
• Alignment with strategy:
o the environmental friendly product running shoes
was launched.
o The project maintained both budget and time frame
o Could not meet the quality
• Alignment with ethics:
o the product was escalated due to customers
dissatisfaction
o There was no testing of the product before
launch(Seshadhri,2015).

Project C: PPS Snapshot
Dimension Score Explanation
Stakeholders 2/5 • the customers were not satisfied with the
product
Project Process 2/5 • there was no proper testing of the product
Innovation and
Learning
3/5 • The idea was innovative, but the product
could not meet the goal
Quality 2/5 • the quality of the product was not up to the
mark
Benefit 2/5 • the new stock was rejected because of
customers’ dissatisfaction,.
Use 1/5 • there is no use of launching the product if
it cannot meet the outcome.

Overall Performance Score
• Total score : 30
• Score achieved : 12
• The Project C score lower than A and B, the innovation
could meet the expectation of the people in real(Pollack
& Adler ,2015).

Project C: Conclusion
• The project C concludes that in hassle of
delivering project did not pay attention to
the quality of the product.
• There was no market testing leading to
increased complaints from the sides of the
customers.
• There was a loss incurred over the
company because of new stock rejection.

Project C: Recommendations
1. market testing need to test the quality of the
products before launching in the market
2. the company should increase their quality
of the product.
3. the company must diversify more ideas
with proper planning and not haste to
complete the requirements
4. The ladybird apparel quality should
increase their quality(Bryson,2018).

Overall Comparison Project A,B and C
• Project A has the highest profitable score than B and C.
The Project A made its place in the good reviews of the
people regarding the product they have launched. The
only setback that it faced was the team members did not
consult the board of directors before contacting the
suppliers.
• Project B could have brought better success than A by
sponsoring the sports supplies in the Australian
Olympics but bribe case deprive the project from its
success.

Overall comparison Project A, Project B
and Project C
• Project C was scored lowest because it could not meet
the expectations of it’s customer. Project C failed
because they did not launch product before launch. The
quality detoriation. There was cancellation of the coming
stock.
• Best output: Project A
• Worst Output: Project C
• Most ethics violation: Project B

Overall Conclusion
• The presentation mainly focuses on a company that
used 3 projects to reach its strategic goals and grow
exponentially.
• a short overview of how the projects that have been
implemented fulfil it’s goals aligning with strategy and
ethics.
• The projects are scored to give overall profit achieved by
the Project.
• The 3 projects are compared with the each other to
analyse which Project was best in bringing profit and
growth to the organization. here Project A was
considered to bring better profit.

References
• Bryson, J. M. (2018). Strategic planning for public and nonprofit organizations: A guide to
strengthening and sustaining organizational achievement. John Wiley & Sons.
• Crane, A., & Matten, D. (2016). Business ethics: Managing corporate citizenship and
sustainability in the age of globalization. Oxford University Press
• Fainstein, S. S., & DeFilippis, J. (Eds.). (2015). Readings in planning theory. John Wiley
& Sons.
• Kerzner, H., & Kerzner, H. R. (2017). Project management: a systems approach to
planning, scheduling, and controlling. John Wiley & Sons.
• Nguyen, A. T., Reiter, S., & Rigo, P. (2014). A review on simulation-based optimization
methods applied to building performance analysis. Applied Energy, 113, 1043-1058.
• Peters, R. S. (2015). Ethics and Education (Routledge Revivals). Routledge.
• Salas, E., Shuffler, M. L., Thayer, A. L., Bedwell, W. L., & Lazzara, E. H. (2015).
Understanding and improving teamwork in organizations: A scientifically based practical
guide. Human Resource Management, 54(4), 599-622.
• Seshadri, S. (2015). Crouching Economy, Hidden Strategy: Goals and Priorities in Global
Sourcing. In Proceedings of the 2009 Academy of Marketing Science (AMS) Annual
Conference (pp. 82-86). Springer, Cham.

References
• Fleming, Q. W., & Koppelman, J. M. (2016, December). Earned value project
management. Project Management Institute.
• Lock, D. (2017). The essentials of project management. Routledge.
• Serra, C. E. M., & Kunc, M. (2015). Benefits realisation management and its
influence on project success and on the execution of business
strategies. International Journal of Project Management, 33(1), 53-66.
• Crawford, J. K. (2014). Project management maturity model. Auerbach
Publications.
• Bucero, A., & Englund, R. L. (2015, October). Project sponsorship: Achieving
management commitment for project success. Project Management Institute.
• Papke-Shields, K. E., & Boyer-Wright, K. M. (2017). Strategic planning
characteristics applied to project management. International Journal of Project
Management, 35(2), 169-179.
• Pollack, J., & Adler, D. (2015). Emergent trends and passing fads in project
management research: A scientometric analysis of changes in the
field. International Journal of Project Management, 33(1), 236-248.