2010
LMP EXAM
100383 3891
For Eric Ghutley
Copenhagen Business School
.
.
12.05.2010
LMP EXAM
100383 3891 2010
The MediSys case explains the challenges that arise to a project when lack of leadership leads
to frictions between team members, which in turn leads to poor communication and people
working with different agendas, which ultimately leads to residual risks not being detected and
resolved which may lead the project into failure.
Historically, Medisys’ approach to product development was essentially a linear production
process. Where R&D would start the development process and then leadership would agree
on a new the new idea. Then marketing would develop product descriptions from customer
needs and responses to new Medisys concepts. This changed to a parallel project process in
which all departments worked simultaneously. This new process was introduced without
altering the way team members reported information about obstacles and project process, it
was still done to their team leaders.
There are many things which are going well in the IntensCare project. Generally their project
has a well functioning entrepreneurial culture. Beamont has managed to create a sense of
urgency and speediness in the project with his new parallel development. The project
management process is going well at the onset with a solid financial backing and a clear
definition of the project. Their teams consists of functional experts their respective fields. This
makes execution likely (and fumbling less likely). The project has a strong sponsor in that the
company needs this project to succeed and that the CEO is embracing the project, as with the
case of the M-CARD and GE Bank, in which the project had a strong project sponsor. However
in the case with the Flying Car, they lacked a proper project sponsor, somebody that believed
in the project. The result was loads of organisational manoeuvring and low support for other
departments. This hasn’t been the issue in this case at all.
The project they are developing is according to their market research, a solid product that will
see good sales. Their product deliverables are clear, each part of the project are aware of their
tasks and are working diligently in order to meet their goal which is delivery on time. This
brings me to scope creep which is nonexistent in this project. All team functions have a clear
idea of what they are doing and have clear deliverables within set timeframes. This is not a
given in all project, and that this project possesses all these clear goals, is a strength. Their
deliverables, or launch date, is set to August 2009. Each team in the project has a strong
technical expertise in their respective areas. This gives the project the necessary functional
strength to carry out the necessary tasks, although some challenges has arisen in engineering
with respect to fittings of a display it seems like they have the necessary brainpower to fix it.
1
LMP EXAM
100383 3891 2010
In regards to what is not going well in this project I saw that the project manager Fogel didn’t
step up and address the issue of modularity, which was seen as essential for the product’s
success by the project’s marketing manager Valerie Merz. This was not just a brainchild of
hers, but a requirement she had received when interacting with their customers. There was
undeniably a lack of understanding of the urgency of some areas in this project. Where was
Fogel in this when he should raised awareness throughout the project regarding this? This
both an indication of an absent project manager and that project members’ voices are not
heard.
I have also identified a leadership problem in that Beaumont, the CEO, doesn’t want to
interfere with the work of his “good people”. However, at this point he should probably
equalise the responsibilities of the team managers, so that they will all feel the same amount
of ownership, and appreciate the same amount of urgency in their work. The CEO could
intervene when he got the notion that there was internal friction in this project. Ms Merz feels
like she is directly responsible for the financial performance of the project, because her
position is responsible for the profit and loss. It is necessary for the CEO to instil a new shared
vision for the team, and to foster a consensus for this vision. In order to do this, they should
approach others with dignity and consideration to disarm tensions.
There was undeniably a lack of ownership in some areas within this project. O’Brian didn’t
realize the gravity of the situation with the modularity, and argued that it wouldn’t be him that
would get praise for this project´s success. I have also identified a leadership problem in that
Beaumont, the CEO, doesn’t want to interfere with the work of his “good people”. However he
should probably equalise the responsibilities of the team managers, so that they will all feel
the same amount of ownership, and appreciate the same amount of urgency in their work. The
CEO could intervene when he got the notion that there was internal friction in this project. Ms
Merz feels like she is directly responsible for the financial performance of the project, because
her position is responsible for the profit and loss. It is necessary for the CEO to instil a new
shared vision for the team, and to foster a consensus for this vision. In order to do this, they
should approach others with dignity and consideration to disarm tensions.
Both Valerie Merz and O'Brien admit that they can live with making the unit modularised in
later iterations of the unit. If they had a better communication, then they would have known
2
LMP EXAM
100383 3891 2010
each other’s position and made this a non-issue. The conflict could thus have been defused
with better communication. This is a project-centric problem, that the team members
withhold information to pursue their own agenda. This undermines the progress of the
project.
In the challenges that were faced in this project I have seen that the project manager must
resolve interpersonal issues. Friction between team members on project issues hamper project
performance and will mean troubles down the road for the project. Communication is not
being in some areas of the project and this makes crucial information not reach the project
manager as it should. This lack of information flow is also creating tensions between team
members. There is no reason for this project not to have full transparency, at least internally
within the project team members. Identify critical paths and bottle necks
Valerie Merz believed that the IntenseCare product had to be modular, but that the
modularity might be introduced in the second version. However she didn’t convey this
message to her team members, because she feared that the importance of the modularity
would be undermined and never take place. It is said that O’Brian is definitely not seeing the
possibility of implementing the modularity in the first release, but he doesn’t rule it out for
future iterations.
The CEO Beaumont was arguing that his good people were working at full capacity, and that
they probably would sort it out. He argued that his role shouldn’t be to enter into the project
and tell people that he didn’t have any faith in the people. I argue that this is an example of
lack of leadership, because at this junction, leadership is what the project needs. Especially
because friction between team members is growing, with cooperation between Marketing on
the one hand and Engineering and Software on the other hand has ceased.
“The king is deaf to escalation of issues”. In the case of the Vasa, the King was deaf to what
was going on in the project. His total lack of leadership in the project led to residual risks that
crept up, and crept up until the project failed boat and the boat sank. They are running the
same risk with the IntensCare case too, because there is typical residual risk in engineering and
also in Marketing, which are not catered to. This problem of the residual risks is not detected
by the project manager, at least not the gravity of them. These residual risks might result in
disaster further down the line.
In the Teradyne-Jaguar case O'Brien shows how strong project management and usage of
traditional project management tools can affect the fate of the project in the longer run. The
3
LMP EXAM
100383 3891 2010
Teradyne-Jaguar case showcases the use of a good project management tool in combination
with traditional Project Management tools.
In addition, the PCNet case is a state-of-the-art example of how traditional project
management with rigorous usage of risk management tools enables the possibility to manage
a huge project portfolio. This clearly illustrates the need to solve the interpersonal conflicts
that have emerged as a result of frustration about the roles and responsibilities within the
project. This is an example of why traditional project management is required.
With The Adventures of an IT-manager and the "The runaway project" there’s also an example
of cross-functional teams and which clearly shows what happens once the project
management is absent. Palmer, the Sales manager initially in charge of the project, lost
interest and the project costs has gone on without anything to show.
In addition, in the GE Money Bank case, Lambert effectively manages both teams and
reorganizes the project timeline to fit with COOPs competitive move.
SOLUTIONS
A central command must be established in the project. This will mitigate the hidden tensions
that have built up in some parts of the project. This central command, via the project manager,
will allow everyone to voice any concerns, and thus increasing information flow. It is important
to let everyone’s voice be heard. This is also according to traditional project management
techniques. Improving information flow is thus key to this project’s success. It appeared as an
issue that engineering wasn’t communicating properly. Compulsory Monday morning
meetings, in which team leaders report all considerations to the project manager is a viable
solution.
(1) RESOLVE INTERPERSONAL ISSUES AND REMOVING INTERPERSONAL FRICTION
(2) IMPROVE COMMUNICATION
(3) IDENTIFY CRITICAL PATHS - REMOVE BOTTLENECKS
(4) RISK ANALYSIS
(5) IRON TRIANGLE CONSIDERATIONS
Firstly I find that if the team had communicated better, current problems and large problems
with meeting the launch date might be avoided. The reporting structure of the project should
be from each team member, to its team leader, and then the team leader meets with the
project manager frequently. In this way there will be feedback loops into what’s going on in
4
LMP EXAM
100383 3891 2010
every layer of the project, so that it allows for better control and planning of the project as a
whole. Friction between team members on project issues is hampering performance and
creating obstacles for the project. Hence they must improve communication so that
information flow is about as up to date as possible. There is no reason for this project not to
have full transparency. Furthermore information should be actively shared in order to have
everyone up to date on the project status. This goes hand in hand with modern Agile project
methods, in which the Agile manifesto emphasises collaboration and documentation. This can
be done by utilising traditional project management methods of regularly having frequent
meetings.
The interpersonal issues and the communication issues are intertwined, because they are
caused by each other. The project needs better communication, and it isn’t just between
Marketing and engineering where this is required. There are indications that the software
division needs to communicate even better with hardware. This can be done by implementing
the use of a project wide project management software tool. It will then become much clearer
which tasks are dependent on others and where potential delays and problems lie. It will also
leave absolutely no doubt about the facts in the project, which leaves the whole politicking
and personal grudges aside to a more professional vibe in the project.
There must be a foundation of trust and communication and for integrity. In this project this
foundation is lacking as a result of an ad-hoc approach changes in the project, which ultimately
led to a problem with reporting. As changes were made to the project, the internal structure
and mechanisms of the project wasn’t changed.
The team actually needs a redefinition with a precise idea of the boundaries of the team. This
is also related to the next issue. In which it at times seems like the team is working towards
different goals. Engineering and Software are certainly working toward the same goal, but the
important position of marketing and customer research is not working toward the same goal.
It doesn’t seem like the engineering team is working toward what the customer really needs.
This challenge can be focused by unifying the project members on a single goal.
Emphasizing interdependencies and good interpersonal skills, this can be done by the
traditional project management approach with establishing proper norms of behavior.
Information related to what the team accomplished should be diffused and team members
should experience a sense of pride and confidence in achieving goals. The project management
tool can also help aiding the identification of critical paths. At this point right now it seems that
5
LMP EXAM
100383 3891 2010
hardware and software development is attempted to be performed meanwhile Marketing is
making sales material and instruction manuals, which really is hard to do when the product
isn’t finished yet.
There are risks involved in this projects which it doesn’t seem like they have accounted for. In
this case they run the risk of not supplying what the customer want. They need to account for
the risks they can anticipate (type 1 risks) and they must also realize that adverse
developments the risks they are facing (PC NET case).
It has been postulated that an “Iron Triangle of projects” exists where a project can be; FAST,
GOOD, CHEAP (or time, resources, deliverables), but limited to only two of the states, not
three. In this case the project is geared by the CEO to be fast and good. This rules out cheap,
which really hasn’t been an issue in this project; they’ve had decent amounts of financial
backing. When a project cannot meet one of its targets, it is necessary to challenge
assumptions about project goals. In this case it will the solution is to use more financial
resources to the project to let them staff the project (throwing brainpower at the problem).
Throwing money will then mean that: The delay caused by outsourcing to India needs to be
fixed immediately. It appears that no action has been taken on it since Murkerjee clearly
escalates it on the 2nd of February. My suggestion is to bring the team to US and pay for it.
That will enable communication to go much more easily and allows the project management
to see the real issues and plan for contingencies and mitigations. It might seem overly drastic,
but in this case they have a fixed timeline and need to deal with it.
The parallel project process that has been exhibited in this case makes good sense in a project
of this magnitude. However it is no different than other projects in that it needs to ensure
traditional project management considerations are in place. When in place this method
ensures a rapid pace and allows teams to progress until they reach milestones and produce
deliverables at high speed. For it to work there is a necessity for a much better or near
completely perfect information flow.
6
LMP EXAM
100383 3891 2010
The following can be generalised from the experience of this project to other projects:
Process issues
People issues
Lack of reporting has created a problem in Hidden friction between team members can
this case. I believe this issue is common in invisible to the project leader, which in turn
many projects where information flow is might create barriers to problems being
hampered by some factor. In the IntensCare solved. To mitigate this, the project manager
project,
both
of
lack
of
a
project should establish proper reporting systems,
management tool and of unwillingness to via
frequent
project
meetings
and
share information by Merz with other implementation of a computer project
functional leaders. This actually led to two management tool. This will ease tensions
critical path processes being prolonged, as between people, increase transparency and
Marketing couldn’t begin creating material aid the success of the project.
for the product until the product was nearing
completion.
A project will work better when all the parts Valerie Merz felt that she was personally
of the teams work have a shared goal, and responsible for the performance of the
work in order to reach this goal. At various project, whilst the other leaders in the
stages in the IntensCare case, this hasn’t projects have no stake in it. As such this
been present.
burden should be levelled onto the project
manager or taken away entirely by the CEO,
which after all is the one who commissioned
the project. This can also help relieve
tensions
that
are
increasing
between
Marketing and Software-Engineering.
In order to deal with project risk, the project Projects are better off if people have norms
manager must in the planning stage identify, of behaviour and rules of engagement in
assess,
prioritize,
develop
plans
and most scenarios that might arise in during the
contingency plans, change and learn. In doing project lifecycle.
this, it can attempt to plan for residual risks.
Detecting new risks can be done by
established feedback loops in reporting or by
having a project risk management office.
7