Implementation of Project MGMT Methodologies-Samples for Students

Question: Write a report on the Current Project Management Issues in the Case Study of Frank Billings. Answer: Introduction Since 1990 when it was first started, is growing like anything. The reason why it is becoming so popular is this technology has provided a brilliant facility to the companies to produce highly complex designed equipment much faster and better quality[1]. It helps in reducing the scrap work and a better platform to communicate their ideas. Frank Billings was an engineering graduate who was very much enthusiastic to study in detail regarding the rapid prototyping. His dream became true after three years of completing his graduation, after he left Cocable, received order from his ex-company to develop four rapid prototyping machines according to the specifications provided by Cocable. Project Management: Issues and their Causes Project Management Methodologies were not used In the contract awarded by the Cocable to Frank, nothing was mentioned related to the submission of project management documents anywhere since the beginning of the execution of project stage. The activity of developing the retro prototyping started just after the job was awarded to Frank by Cocable. The issue of directly starting the job without doing any cross verification has happened due to the urgency of starting the job by Frank and also due to urgency in completing the project as the project delivery date was very tight. So none of the parties were interested to invest time in developing the project management documents and even they did not follow any project management methodologies too. All the parties Frank, Cocable and GE were interested in developing the retro prototyping and neither party interested in developing or following the project management strategies. Scope of work was not verified since the start of Retro Prototyping Project Ever since the work order was awarded to Frank, neither he wanted to cross check the scope nor did the Cocable also insisted for doing so either with Frank or from their client GE. This was the major mistake that has arises such a serious conflicts at the end of the project. The scope verification [2] process that is conducted when the work is in progress and the proper monitoring is done in Project Management, according to which the stage ask the team to reconfirm the scope after every stage of progress for its verification and minimize the diversion from the aim or scope of work. Stakeholder Identification not performed The very first step of the project management procedure is the identification of stakeholders and documents the expectations of the stakeholders. In this stage the stakeholders were identified, their expectation from the project is documented and the procedure to meet the expectations is also documented. This stage was totally missing in this case. If this would have been there, the expectations of GE would have been well identified before the start of the work. No communication matrix developed It is the step in project management which is conducted just after the stakeholder identification stage. When the types of communications, there procedure, venue and media are identified[3]. This stage was also missing in the case. In this case, Frank was unaware that in case of any issue whom he need to contact in Cocable as per the contract terms. This became the main reason of the conflict. Now as the issue arises regarding the scope verification, none of the party is willing to take the ownership, as it was actually not clear since the beginning. So the identification of roles and responsibilities in communication matrix is required well before the actual start of job. Change Control Procedure is missing This stage is required to be defined at the beginning itself which can help the project in resolving conflicts in case of any changes occurs in scope of quality requirements in between the project execution stage[4]. In current case, since the document is missing, so no one knows that how to resolve the current issue of increase in the length of model from 55 inches to 62 inches. Moreover, Frank need to procure many more actuators, and other related items for the change. So now who will pay for the change remains unresolved due to the absence of this document. Recommendatons By looking at the issues which has risen in the case, is because of not following the proper steps of project management methodology and related techniques. So the project management techniques need to be followed in every project for the whole life cycle. Otherwise similar issues can always arise. The lessons learnt from the study can be summarized as, the stakeholder identification, communication matrix, scope verification and other similar stages of the project management need to be followed since the beginning of the project till its end. Conclusion So now it can be concluded that the whole issues in the current case has raised only because of neglecting the requirement of project management processes in any project irrespective of its deadline and stringent requirements. This report has also identified few more stages of improvement required for the proper flow of work and resolving all probable ways of evolving any issues. Now the issue which remained unresolved is the finding of the mistake maker that who shall pay for the cause of this conflict and need to pay for the schedule and cost overrun. After going through the whole case study it can be finalized that it is not only the fault of Frank who did not crossed checked the scope before start of work, but also of Cocable who did not demanded any project management documents which are mandatory required before the start of any activity and similarly the GE, who in turn did not demanded for any king of reporting system in between the work execution stage, so I feel that all th e three parties are equally responsible for the problem occurred. References Stratasys. (2017) Rapid Prototyping. [Online]. https://www.stratasys.com/solutions/rapid-prototyping Andy Jordan. (2012, October) Scope Verification: The Forgotten Process. [Online]. https://www.projectmanagement.com/articles/275424/Scope-Verification--The-Forgotten-Process Sheryl. (2011, January) Using the Communications Management Matrix as a Tool. [Online]. https://www.brighthubpm.com/monitoring-projects/33854-using-the-communications-management-matrix-as-a-tool/ Cathlynn Carman. (2013, May) 4 Steps to Effective Change Control. [Online]. https://insights.dice.com/2013/05/08/why-change-control-isnt-for-sissies/