Task Assigner Checklist
If the project is property analyzed, one can create a checklist for identifying and pulling together the correct resources.
April 05, 2018 at 11:44 AM
2 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Lean Adviser
One of the main components of a project is identification of the necessary resources. The Task Assigner will eventually lead you to a detailed budget for the project, which we refer to as a "costed roadmap."
Checklist:
|- Create a plan to identify types of human resources needed.
- Identify types of expertise and skill sets needed.
- Confirm that the types of expertise and skill sets needed are available.
- Identify where any unavailable expertise and skill sets will be acquired.
- Identify staffing that will be provided by client.
- Identify staffing that will be provided by other than firm or client.
- Create "Task Planner" spreadsheet.
- Create list of tasks necessary.
- Confirm that tasks identified are actually needed – that you are doing "Just What Matters".
- Match tasks with identified staffing.
- Identify costs of the project in terms of human resources.
Lean Routine:
|- Presumption is that two types of resources will be needed – Human and Financial (people and cash).
- Have you put together a plan to identify what types of human resources you will need? (Lawyers, Subject Matter Experts, Business people, etc.)
- Have you confirmed that the types of talent needed are available?
- Have you identified the sources from which the human resources will be supplied?
- Will the client provide personnel?
- Will outside sources provide personnel?
- Have you created a spreadsheet to serve as an "Activity Planner" to list stakeholders and tasks?
- Have you analyzed what activities are necessary by each person?
- Have you analyzed and determined which activities are necessary – which activities fall into the category of "Just What Matters"?
- Have you identified which types of expertise are available and which are not?
- Have you identified where you will get the missing expertise you need?
- Have you ensured that you are not employing overqualified individuals in any tasks (Avoiding waste)?
- Have you analyzed the known cost of the project?
- Have you identified potential additional costs of the project?
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllWhat Went Wrong With Adeel Mangi's Long, Strange Trip Through the Judicial Nomination Process?
6 minute readBCLP Exploring Merger Prospects as Profitability Lags, Partnership Shrinks
Trump’s DOE Pick Could Spell Trouble for Title IX Enforcement, Higher Ed Funding
4 minute readProtecting Attorney-Client Privilege in the Modern Age of Communications
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Stock Trading App Robinhood Hit With Privacy Class Action 1 Month After Alleged Data Breach
- 2NY High Court Returns Fired Priest's Discrimination Claim to State Agency
- 3Digging Deep to Mitigate Risk in Lithium Mine Venture Wins GM Legal Department of the Year Award
- 4Reminder: Court Rules and Statutes Apply to Pendente Lite Custody Decisions
- 5Consumer Cleared to Proceed With Claims Against CVS 'Non-Drowsy' Medication, Judge Says
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250