Blue Spider Project Management - Case Study Example

BLUE SPIDER PROJECT Student’s Name Course Professor’s Name University City State Date Blue Spider Project Executive Summary The report is an appraisal on the Blue Spider project. The risks were not appropriately handled at different phases of the project. The key stakeholders of the project are: Department of Defence; Lord Industries; and Parks Corporation. The process of selecting the project manager was not right even though he qualified. When a situation of mistrust rises in a project, it makes work harder and can lead to loss of contract. Furthermore, Firm Fixed Price contract is appropriate in contracts that do not need adjustments but can be substituted by fixed-price contracts that have prospective price redetermination. In addition, it is unethical to give false information to win contracts. Lastly, the performance of the project was not good but fair. Lesson learned are: risks in projects should be handles effectively and stakeholders engaged comprehensively through effective communication. Ethical concerns, qualification, and competence are critical in project management. In recommendations, effective project managers should be proactive, visionary, prioritizing, optimistic, a good listener and a team player. Table of Contents Executive Summary 2 1.0 Introduction 4 2.0 Project Appraisal 4 2.1 Handling of Risks 4 2.1.1 Initial Stage 4 2.1.2 Planning Stage 5 2.1.3 Implementation Stage 5 2.1.4 Closeout Stage 6 2.2 Project Stakeholders 6 2.3 Project Manger Selection 7 2.4 Mistrust: Contractor versus Consumer 8 2.5 Justification of Firm Fixed Price Contract 9 2.6 Ethical Concerns 10 2.7 Project Management Evaluation 11 3.0 Conclusion and Recommendation 11 Reference List 12 1.0 Introduction The report is an appraisal on the Blue Spider project. The project appraisal report is an opportunity for the students to apply the theoretical concepts that they have in class into real life. The report will have a systematic structure that entails basically executive summary; introduction; body; and conclusion. The body will be the project appraisal of the Blue Spider Project. In specific, it entails the risk entailed in different phases of the life cycle of the project and the key stakeholders of the project and how they communicate. It also addresses the viability of the selection of the project manager. Furthermore, it addresses the scenario of mistrust between the contractor and customer. The report captures the contract types in the project and ethical issues experienced in different phases of the project. Lastly, the body of the report evaluates project management. The conclusion entails the lessons learned and the recommendations. 2.0 Project Appraisal 2.1 Handling of Risks 2.1.1 Initial Stage The problem at this phase was seeing that the technical specification wanted the components to operate successfully and normally through a temperature range between 145° and -65°F. The current design of Parks Corporation could not sustain a temperature above 130°F. The technicality of the project was above the capacity of the company’s team. The project team under the supervision of the Director of Engineering, Henry Gable handled the risk through lying to the clients concerning the capability of the machine. In explanation, the preliminary design material could only operate at a temperature not higher than 130°F. But when the senior scientist, Gary Anderson, pointed out that the team could not do better, Henry convinced him to lie. Henry convinced Gary through the promise that if the deceit goes through successfully, he would be made a program manager (Blue Spider Project). 2.1.2 Planning Stage The risk at the planning stage was that of making Gary the program manager. The movement of Gary from project engineering to program management meant that the research team would have to lose their best engineer on the ground. In addition, Gary was also risking since from the post of program manager he could only go up the ladder or loses his job in the company. He, therefore, risked losing his career. As a program manager, Gary also risked having no one to protect him from the top. Henry handled the risk through giving Gary sufficient time off so that he could think over if the risk was worth taking. In addition, Henry explained to Gary all the options that existed in the risk thus facilitating his decision making (Blue Spider Project). 2.1.3 Implementation Stage The greatest risk was trying to implement a project that was a failure during the testing phases yet expecting it to work or fool the Lord Company. The solution was Gary making his own efforts to form an adequate staff to run the program. Another risk was a lack of comprehensive support from the top management. The team handled the risk through assigning project office personnel some of the crucial duties and focusing comprehensively in the research and development lab. Consequently, the team met to develop an alternative test matrix which was better (Blue Spider Project). Another risk was two technicians, Henry Gable and Paul Evans used the money of the customers for new testing materials. The team risked the cancelation of the project. They handled the risk through concealing the information even from Gary. Later on, Gary had to lie to the customer that the money used their own IR&O funds to conduct the tests (Blue Spider Project). 2.1.4 Closeout Stage The risk at this stage was communicating on the lifespan of the new materials. Gary Evans and Paul Evans decided to keep the changes of age-life from the Lord Industries and Henry Gable (Blue Spider Project). The information that they refrained to share was that the age life of the new materials would be less than five years contrary to their approximation. 2.2 Project Stakeholders The project had a number of key stakeholders. First was the Department of Defense that was the owner of the contract dubbed ‘Blue Spider Project.’ Second was the Lord Industries which was the main contractor of the Spartan Program of Army. Third was the Parks Corporation which was the sub-contractor to Lord Industries (Blue Spider Project). There were a number of communication management issues with the major stakeholders. First communication management problem was the groupings and friendships that were witnessed among the stakeholders. Reluctance of the engineering managers to comprehensively help Gary based on the consideration that he is a program manager and not a project manager is one of the examples. Another example is Paul and Gary acting as an isolated team from the rest of the team members and their bosses. The second problem was inaccessibility (Carroll 2010). Due to inaccessibility, the customer could not reach Gary before the interchange meeting since he was busy in the research laboratories. The third communication problem was based on cultural differences. Gary’s team seemed not to be aware on who is to do what. In explanation, during the interchange meeting, Gary presented technical data while the project officer personnel presented the administrative data contrary to the expectations of Lord Industry group. The Lord Industry personnel expected Gary to present the administrative data personally while chief project engineer was to present the technical information. In addition, Gary did not give the customer the agenda in prior as per their norm. The fourth communication management problem was inadequate knowledge (Carroll 2010). In explanation, Gary did not understand the importance of paper work in the contract including detailed minutes and documentation of all information. Another communication management problem among the major stakeholders was ego and attitude. For example, Gary has a tendency of keeping information from his superiors due to ego or attitude. In addition, another communication management issue is failure to listen on part of Gary. Henry warned him that program management was complex compared to project engineer post but he could not listen and instead took the challenge that ended up frustrating him (Blue Spider Project). 2.3 Project Manger Selection The selection of the project manager was not done through a right way. It was conducted in an unprofessional and corrupt way. Henry Gable chose Gary Anderson not because he was the best but because he played a crucial role in conducting unethical practices in which the former believed could make them win a contract (Christopher, Ogunyomi, & Badejo 2012). It entailed black mails such as telling Gary that he was picked only on the basis that he would understand that “the truth doesn’t always win proposals” (Blue Spider Project, p. 4). Henry went ahead to tell Gary that if he does not go on with the deception plan, he would find someone else. In other words, he was not selected because he was the best even in the first place but because he was corrupt and could enhance the deception just for winning of the tender (Graham & Englund 2004). However, Gary Anderson was qualified to be the program manager. He was a senior scientist under the Research and Development department in which he spearheaded all the activities conducted in the mechanical engineering segment of the company (Blue Spider Project). Henry also referred to him as the most qualified person in the business. In addition, he had an MBA degree that he could apply in the management field. Gary Anderson was also the considered the best engineer in the plant. He is still young compared to the experienced program managers in the plant and he was to bring the Research and Development concept in a field filled with the specialists in production-type programs. Since the company wanted a program manager that matches Lord Industries who is a specialist in Research and Development; Gary Anderson qualified for the post. 2.4 Mistrust: Contractor versus Consumer The mistrust between contractor and customer had a number of effects based on the Blue Spider Project. It can make the contractor become too much intrusive and involved in the project. For instance, the contractor was forced to have a customer’s office at Parks to ensure that the work is followed closely. Mistrust between the contractor and the customer can make the former re-evaluate the terms of engagement. Such re-evaluation can be costly and time wasting to the customer. For instance, Lord Industries decided to change from rare interchange meetings to a weekly one since the contractor proved that they cannot be trusted. Consequently, it led to additional work on part of the contractor. The customer can be so much intrusive and involved with the contractor since the customer had to engage the contractor a lot more than the project actually needs. The impact of such a problem would lead to the delay of the project and increase the cost of the project more so on the part of the customers. Due to the extreme engagement and involvement of the customer on the duties of the contractor, it latter is likely to have a decreased morale since they have the fear that maybe the job is not good and will not satisfy the customer who now plays the supervisor. Micro-management can make the employees of the contraction company to doubt their capability thus leading to fall in quality. Consequently, a fall in quality could be so significant thus loss of the contract. The result of contract loss is increased employee turnover, and as the experienced workforce leaves, the company will continue to struggle (Blue Spider Project). 2.5 Justification of Firm Fixed Price Contract A firm-fixed-price contract issues a price that cannot be adjusted on the basis of the cost experience of the contractor when it comes to contract performance. In such engagement, the contractor has the maximum risk, and he is responsible for all the costs and the resulting loss or profits (Wang & San Miguel 2013). The contractor has the maximum incentive of controlling the costs and effective performance. In addition, the contracting parties have a minimum administrative burden. The contract is important when acquiring commercial items or acquiring services or supplies of a particular function or comprehensive specifications (Blue Spider Project). Another type of contract that could have been chosen is fixed-price contracts that have prospective price redetermination. Such contracts provides for a fixed price for the firm at the initial duration of contract performance or deliveries (Weitzman 1980). In addition, it allows for prospective redetermination of the price for subsequent time of performance at a given time during performance. Such a contract can be used in the acquisition of quantity services or production for which it can be used to negotiate reasonable and fair firm fixed price for the beginning stages of the project. However, it does not hold for the subsequent periods of performance of the contract. The initial period is usually the longest one in which the two parties can negotiate a reasonable and fair firm fixed price with the pricing period often being a year. The contract can issue the ceiling price based on how the uncertainties have been evaluated and their potential cost on the project. The ceiling price should be based on the reasonable proportion as indicated by the contractor and should only apply upon meeting of given circumstances (Blue Spider Project). 2.6 Ethical Concerns “The truth does not always win proposals” is not the right approach. It can be costly to the contractor when then customer realizes. The contractor can even lose his or her job since it shows that the party lacks integrity (Siegel Watson 2013). There are a number of ethical concerns throughout the project (Blue Spider Project). In the initial stage; the contractor lied that the preliminary design material could operate above 130°F that led to the issuance of the project management post Gary. At planning stage; it was unethical for Gary to be intentionally inaccessible for the customer (Schwartz 2002). In addition, it was inappropriate for Gary to keep important information from the relevant stakeholders. In the implementation stage, it was inappropriate for Gary to use new raw materials without the consent of the customers. Lastly, in the closeout phase, it was inappropriate to conceal information from the relevant stakeholders (Blue Spider Project). 2.7 Project Management Evaluation Excellent=5; Very good= 4; Good=3, Poor=2, very poor =1 Initiation stage Planning stage Implementation stage Closeout phase Average Scope management 2 4 4 4 3.5 Time management 2 2 3 3 2.5 Resource management (human resource) 2 2 2 2 2 Communication management 2 2 2 2 2 Stakeholder management 2 2 2 2 2 Risk management 1 2 3 2 2 Contract and procurement management 3 4 3 3 3.25 The whole project performed dismally compared to the ideal situation. The scope management was above average since most of the duties and activities were handled despite time constraints. However, time management was below average, and that was the main cause of contention (Vanhoucke 2009). The resource management was also inappropriate since Gary was given the project management role in an orthodox manner. The project also failed to engage the human resource effectively, and failure to communicate was one of the greatest effects on the management of human resource. The management of the stakeholders was poor. There were a number of complaints during the project by the main stakeholders including the customers, subordinates and even Henry. Lastly, contract and procurement management was above average and that is what led to the success of the project. However, Gary showed some level of incompetence in budgeting that led to overspending compared to the stipulation on the budget (Blue Spider Project). 3.0 Conclusion and Recommendation It is important that risks are effectively handled in the different phases of the project. This will ensure a smooth run of the project. In addition, the key stakeholders of a project are critical to the success of the project and should be comprehensively engaged in the process. Such engagement can be achieved through effective communication. Effective communication can eliminate mistrust among the stakeholders in a project. It is also important to note that qualification, as well as competence, is important in project management and ethical concerns should be adhered to. As a recommendation, effective project managers should have particular habits. First, they need to be proactive(Wysocki 2014). Second, good project managers should be visionary and have the end of the project in mind. Third, they should give priority to activities and processes according to their importance in the project. Competent project managers should always be optimistic and thinking of winning in all circumstances. He or she should focus on understanding people rather and then seek to be understood later. In other words, he or she should be a good listener and observant. Outstanding project manager need to be a team player and one who enhances synergy in the project. Lastly, he or she should practice self renewal so as to enhance productivity. Reference List Blue Spider Project Carroll, NR 2010, The communication problem solver: simple tools and techniques for busy managers, New York, American Management Association. Christopher, CO, Ogunyomi, PO & Badejo, AE 2012, ‘Promoting ethical human resource management practices in work organizations in Nigeria: Roles of HR professionals’, International Journal of Human Resource Studies, vol. 2, no. 2, p.116. Graham, RJ & Englund, RL 2004, Creating an environment of successful projects, Jossey Bass, San Francisco. Schwartz, MS 2002, ‘A code of ethics for corporate code of ethics’, Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 41, no. 1-2, pp.27-43. Siegel, BL & Watson, SC 2013, ‘Terms of the contract: The role of ethics in higher education’, Journal of Executive Education, vol. 2, no. 1, p.7. Vanhouke 2009, Measuring time: improving project performance using earned value management. Springer-Verlage, New York. Wang, C and San Miguel, JG 2013, ‘Are Cost-Plus Defense Contracts (Justifiably) Out of Favor?’, Journal of Governmental & Nonprofit Accounting, vol. 2, no. 1, pp.1-15. Weitzman, ML 1980, ‘Efficient incentive contracts’, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 94, no. 4, pp.719-730. Wysocki, RK 2014, Effective project management: traditional, agile, extreme, John Wiley & Sons, Indiana polis. Read More