Further remorse goals of the projects were not clearly defined up front resulting in the expansion Of the e scope as employees added new aspects to the projects. Thus the phosphate model was introduced, to ensure proper project tracking. In this model, the company focused more on using milestones and review poi nuts whereas the Jaguar project involved newly introduced project management practices, which h made the employee spend more time on the initial stages of project developing, include Eng identifying risks and customer requirements early on.
The new tools included work break down structure, point estimation, critical path analysis and earned value analysis. Another as peck that changed with the Jaguar project was the structure of teams. In the past, the did efferent departments worked separately and there was no one taking responsibility of r the entire project, resulting in quality issues and delays. In the Jaguar project, Terabyte decided to build task focused teams with a team leader each. Experts from different office local actions were drawn together to improve the talent base of each team.
These leaders toggle her form the core team to ensure proper coordination and communication by having weekly an d monthly meetings. In
Should the project fall behind schedule, there was flexibility in resource allocation am angst the teams. In previous projects, the teams frequently exhausted resources in hand and o overspent resulting in missing the deadline. Due to the strict time frame, the software delivered to the customer had serif s issues that needed fixing afterwards. Since people from different locations with different working styles were borough HTH together, disputes arose and nobody really felt responsible for the project anymore, lea ding to a lack of motivation.
Overall the use of the new tools resulted in meeting the targets set by the cord portion, mostly due to the clearly defined goals and scope. The manufacturing quality and cuss tome service improved. However the success also came with its downfalls. Due to the stud en imposition of new practices, the employees were overwhelmed. The tools became more of distraction than an aid in helping With the project. Especially Primeval was viewed as an inconvenient tool providing an overload Of information. The tools were too heavily focused on scheduling and hence could not handle unpredictable events.
Project management tools do not guarantee success in a project. It is imperative eve for those who use these tools to appreciate their usefulness and to be flexible to adapt to the changes they bring into the work culture. Most importantly the project should not beck mom overdeveloped, overdeveloped (p. 1 58 Project Management book) and too Tim e consuming. Question 1 : Compare and contrast Dryness’s traditional project execution SST taste to the approach it used in Jaguar? What was different in this project management? 1) Developing vision and mission statements Projects were poorly planned.
Goals and scope were not clearly defined up FRR Onto. Projects tended to expand as engineers and marketers thought of additional f eaters. Yet they used intensive upfront project planning in Jaguar project approach, a s well as test product requirements, identify risks before money is provided. Before not much time has been spent on testing. Now: they invested heavily o n testing. So ASIA got reversed) 2) formulating, implementing and evaluating The performance had been measured but there was no systematic efforts to I improve the processes. Make use of milestones evaluation in Paraphrase model, setting review points along the process. Sing formalized project management tools: Work breakdown structure, poi NT estimation, critical path analysis and earned value analysis. Before and after employees did ignore the new project tools (9 so no improve Emmet there) Primeval project scheduling program that incorporates all data from sub tea ms, yet having problem of information overload. ) Making jurisdictional decisions ( jurisdictional communication) New recruits were warned that no one will tell them what to do, but it was the IR responsibility to drive in and ask the right question.
Teams are separated and segmented The Jaguar project was organized into a set of project teams, each of which w focused on a particular subsystem or task. A core team was formed by the representatives of each group to ensure appropriate levels of integration acre as the different sites and subtexts. Teams involve people from different departments Critical Path identified using Primeval. Everyone knew the CAP thoroughly as debates and discussions required them to dig 10 layers deep into the CAP report. This e ensured visibility in most project areas. CAP meeting every week. Ms. Problem of information overload. ) Achieving objectives Traditional approach tended to go ‘all in’ on fronted sizing, defrauded the sys stem later when couldn’t hit the schedule. Jaguar took the opposite approach to be sure they could hit the market window Deadline was adjusted if team fell behind schedule. Yet the deadline is fixed a ND more resources were recruited rather than falling behind in the Jaguar project. Question 2: What is the impact of management tools have on Jaguar? And who at were unintended consequence? Positive: most aspects of the Jaguar project went exceedingly well. The product had me t the vast majority of its target specifications.
With the data and information provided by the new tools, they were able to k now whether a team was kidding itself or was having work done at the right place. Manufacturing quality and customer service improved a lot. The project scope was clearly defined, focused, and aligned with the market, s Enron management formally signed off On the phases gate. The international relationship between every task was specified in advance s o the program could calculate the impact of delay in one task on the other task, as well as the overall schedule. Negative: Software had run badly behind schedule and was still not completed.
Total development cost came in 35% higher than initially budgeted. The tools could be distracting. Too much time was spent trying to figure out whether the tool reflected reality, rather than discussing what to do. The efforts of its two organizations were merged. Disrupting its originally installed base, which was risky. Spending more time in the early stages of the development process(concept development and product planning). This initially caused frustration, as the et am was anxious to get moving on the detailed engineering. Much of the rest of the project-?including development of features for other customers-?was delayed.
In addition, software, completely consumed with buy g fixing, fell further behind schedule. Additional software engineers were once again a deed to the arousing controversy: Some members of the Jaguar team embraced the p reject management tools, others strongly resisted, or simply ignored them. Because of the time consuming planning, the software team got delayed (there software had bugs that had to be improved afterwards). To avoid further deal yes more staff got recruited run out of resources! Upsetting employees because they did not want to adjust to changes. The people didn’t feel responsible for success anymore because teams were mixed.