Business Project Management - Blue Spider - Case Study Example

Blue Spider Project Student’s Name Course Professor’s Name University City State Date Executive Summary The objective of the report was to upraise the Blue Spider Project. The result of the analysis shows a poor management of the risks with the main stakeholders of the project being Parks Corporation, Lord Industries, and Department of Defence. The project manager was selected in unethical manner despite the fact that he qualified. In addition, mistrust can lead to fail in a project. Even though Firm Fixed Price contract can be used in contracts that need no adjustment is can be substituted by the Fixed-Price Contracts with Prospective Price Redetermination. The general performance of the project was good since the customer seemed satisfied. The lessons learned in the process include: risk and communication management are important in projects same to ethics, competence, and qualification of personnel. As a recommendation, the project managers need to be team players, good listeners, optimistic, prioritizing, visionary, and proactive in their activities. Table of Contents Executive Summary 2 1.0 Introduction 4 2.0 Project Appraisal 4 2.1 Risk Management 4 2.1.1 Initial Phase 4 2.1.2 Planning Phase 5 2.1.3 Implementation Phase 5 2.1.4 Closeout Phase 6 2.2 Key Stakeholders 7 2.3 Project Manager Selection 8 2.4 The Mistrust between Customer and Contractor 10 2.5 Firm Fixed Price 10 2.6 Ethical Issues in the Project 11 2.7 Project Management Evaluation 12 3.0 Conclusion and Recommendations 13 Reference List 14 1.0 Introduction The report is a project appraisal based on the Blue Spider Project. The project was done at the individual level and specific questions answered. The project appraisal report helps in demonstrating what the students have been able to learn in project management for the whole semester. The main questions that are to be addressed in the project appraisal of Blue Spider Project are: the risks at different phases of the project; the key stakeholders in the project; the selection process of the project manager; mistrust between customer and contractor; Firm Fixed Price Contract and its alternative; and project management evaluation. The structure of the report can be summarised into: Executive Summary; Table of Content; Introduction; Body; Conclusion and Reference List. 2.0 Project Appraisal 2.1 Risk Management 2.1.1 Initial Phase The initial phase is the first stage in a project after planning. The main challenge at this phase was ensuring that the components of the Spartan Missile could successfully and normally operate at a temperature range of 145°F and -65°F. In explanation, the current design of Spartan Missile that Parks Corporation had could work at a temperature above 130°F. The project team handled the problem through deceiving the contractors (Rabechini Junior and Monteiro de Carvalho 2013). In explanation, the technicality to which the project was facing was above the capacity of the Gary’s team. Consequently, under the supervision of the Director of Engineering Mr. Henry Gable, the project team decided to lie to the clients concerning the capability of the machine. Even though the preliminary design could only operate at a temperature below 130°F, they decided to indicate that it could function at the temperature range of 145°F and -65°F. Even though the senior scientist, Gary Anderson was aware that the Spartan Missile’s specification could not be met by the team, Henry convinced him to lie. Henry promised him the program manager post in case the deceit would go on successfully and the company be given the contract (Blue Spider Project). 2.1.2 Planning Phase The risk made at the planning phase was the selection of the program manager. When Gary was selected as the program manager, it meant that he was to leave the project engineering section to move to the program management. Consequently, the research team was to lose one of its best and experienced engineers to the program management team. Another risk, though personal, was Gary deciding to be the program manager of the company. In explanation, he was risking since from the post of the program manager he was either to go up the ladder or risk losing his job in the company (Serpella et al. 2014). It was a great risk since he could lose his career. As a program manager, Gary risked his career in the sense that Henry would no longer be able to protect him from the top. Henry handled the risk by ensuring that Gary has sufficient time to think over if he would leave his protective job of a senior research engineer or tap the risky job of project manager. Furthermore, he explained to Gary all the risks that existed to ensure that he was able to make an informed decision (Blue Spider Project). 2.1.3 Implementation Phase The project had a major risk in the implementation stage. The risk was based on the functionality of the Spartan Missile. In explanation, it was a big risk when Gary and his team decided to implement a project that had failed during the test phase. During the testing phase, Gary and Henry decided to fool Lord Company but that could not apply at this stage. In reaction, Gary came up with a formidable group that had an adequate staff that could run the program. However, he had no comprehensive support from the top management (Ahmed, Kayis, and Amornsawadwatana 2007). The risk was handled through assigning the project office personnel some of the important duties while Gary focused solely on the research and development in the lad so as to address the shortcoming witnessed at the preliminary stages. As a result, the team managed to develop an alternative test matrix that was better compared to the initial flop that was used in winning the tender (Blue Spider Project). Another risk was linked to the use of the customers’ funds. The two technicians, Henry Gable and Paul Evans decided to divert the money of the customers for the testing of new materials thus risking project cancelation. The two handled the risk through concealing the information from program manager Gary (Sanchez et al. 2009). However, later on it was Gary to face the customers and he lied that the money used for testing of the new materials was from their own IR&O funds (Blue Spider Project). 2.1.4 Closeout Phase The main risk at this stage was mainly based on communication. In explanation, Gary Evans and Paul Evans decided to conceal the lifespan of the new materials that they were making. They decided not to tell Henry Gable and Lord Industries on the changes of age-life that they witnessed (Sharma and Swain, 2011). They failed to share with the two parties the fact that the age life of the new materials that they used would only last for less than a year as opposed to what they approximated (Blue Spider project). 2.2 Key Stakeholders According to the Blue Spider Project, the project had three main stakeholders. First is the Department of Defence that were the contract owner. Second is the Lord Industries is the main contractor of the Spartan Program of Army. Third is the Parks Corporation that played the sub-contractor to Lord Industries. The major stakeholders had a number of communication management issues. First, the stakeholders had arranged themselves in groups and friendship that greatly affected communication (Carroll 2010). For instance, when it comes to groupings, there was reluctance on part of the engineering managers when it comes to helping Gary. The reluctance was based on the fact that he was now a program manager and not a project manager. An example of isolation based on friendship is when Paul and Gary decided to keep away from their bosses and team members. There communication showed that they are more of friends than work colleagues thus could trust each other. The second main problem linked to communication was the inaccessibility of some of the experts. For instance, due to inaccessibility the customer found it difficult to reach Gary prior to the interchange meeting. During the time, Gary was busy in the research laboratories thus affecting the communication flow. The third communication problem witnessed in the Blue Spider Project can be linked to difference in culture. In explanation, there seemed to be a great difference between the customer and Gary’s team when it comes to culture. For instance, during the interchange meeting Gary seemed not to have understood the order that the customer preferred when it comes to presentation. He presented the technical data while the project officer presented the administrative data which was not okay with the Lord Industry group. The Lord Industry group expected the administrative data and the technical information to be by Gary and Chief Project Officer respectively. Gary also failed to give the Lord Industry Group the information and documents prior to the meeting, an act that was contrary to their norm. Another communication management problem witnessed in the case study was inadequacy of knowledge. In explanation, inadequacy of knowledge is critical in communication and it can affect the communication flow since it impacts on understanding of the parties. For instance, Gary could not understand how the paper work was important contrary to the expectation of Lord Industry Group. The documentation included the development of minutes and other paper works. An additional communication management problem witnessed in the case study can be categorised as ego and attitude (Zulch 2014). For instance, due to attitude and ego, Gary grew in tendency of keeping information from his colleagues and superiors. Failure to listen was another communication management problem. Gary was not a good listener. For example, when Henry warned him that the program management post has complexities and he would rather stick to the project engineer post, he did not listen. Gary ended up taking the challenge that frustrated him and later came back to his usual position in the company (Blue Spider Project). 2.3 Project Manager Selection The criterion to which the Gary, the project manager, was selected was not the right way. The process was corrupt, unprofessional and marred with nepotism. When Henry gable decided to choose Gary Anderson to be the project manager, it was not because of his qualification but because he helped in securing the contract in a way that lacks integrity. The two were partners in unethical practise that entailed a deception against the Lord Industries Group and saw them win a contract that they did not deserve (Christopher, Ogunyomi, & Badejo 2012). To some level, Gary played a victim since he was told that failure to see the corruption through he was not going to be picked for the project manager position. The position was only to be his if he could understand that “the truth doesn’t always win proposal” (Blue Spider project, p. 4). In other words, Henry did not chose Gary for the position because he was the best but because he could see the corrupt deal go through thus winning of the tender (Graham & Englund 2004). Even though Gary Anderson was not given the project management post based primarily on his qualification, he was qualified based on the requirements. First, he was a senior scientist under the Research and Development Department. Consequently, he led in all the processes that were run in the mechanical engineering part of the company (Blue Spider Project). Even Henry called him to be the most qualified personnel in the business when it comes to research and development. As a supplement, Gary Anderson was an MBA graduate thus had the technical skills needed for management purposes. However, Henry considered the degree to be of less importance in the field. Despite Gary Anderson being the best engineer in the company, he was to make the youngest of engineers. He was also to bring in to the mix what the company needed most, a project manager with speciality in Research and Development since the field had mostly people that have specialised in production-type programs (Osorio et al. 2014). Lastly, the company wanted a project manager that could match the one of Lord Industries Group who had specialised in Research and Development. Gary was, therefore, the best qualified person in the company. 2.4 The Mistrust between Customer and Contractor Mistrust between a customer and a contractor can have great impact to the project. In the case of Blue Spider Project, the contractor’s workload was increased and it became more intrusive. In explanation, the contractor was forced to host the customer in one of their offices so as to enhance communication and eliminate doubts. Mistrust also made the customer re-evaluate the terms of engagement thus making the project to be more costly on part of the contractor as more time and money is used. For example, the Lord Industries rescheduled the interchange meetings that ought to be rare to be weekly to enhance communication thus creating additional work on contractor’s side. The customer was forced to be more intrusive and engage the contractor often than the contract actually needed. On the other hand, the contractor was likely to have lost morale due to the mistrust based on the fear that the job is no longer lucrative and the customer is impossible to satisfy since he is to play the supervisor now. According to Wright (1999), micro-management can make employees lose faith and doubt their capability hence lead to quality fall. When there is fall in quality, the customer might be dissatisfied and call for the end of contract. Loss of contact can make a company lose more of its employees more so the most experienced ones thus making the company to struggle (Blue Spider Project). 2.5 Firm Fixed Price Firm Fixed Price contract is the best since it eliminated the adjustments of the project costs. According to Wang & San Miguel (2013), it gives a price that cannot be changed based on the experience of the contractor. As a result, the contractor bares most of the risk and not the customer since in case of the adjustment, the cost accrues to the customer. In other words, the contractor bares the maximum incentive linked to the controlling of project’s costs and performance. However, the contracting parties have fewer burdens when it comes to administration (Suri, Manchanda, and Kohli, 2002). The contract is more important when the party is to acquire commercial supplies, items or services of a given function (Blue Spider Project). Its substitute can be the Fixed Price Contract with Prospective Price Redetermination. According to Weitzman (1980), such contract proved the firm with a fixed firm at the initial period of contract deliveries. It also allows for the prospective redetermination of the price for the subsequent performance time. It is best suitable for the acquisition of production or quantity services since it can be used to negotiate fair fixed prices for the initial stages of a project. The problem is that it does not apply for the period that follows the performance of contract. The initial period usually has the largest amount of time that enables the parties to negotiate for the fixed price. The duration is often a year and the contract can have a ceiling price depending on the uncertainties determined and evaluated based on how much they can cost the project (Blue Spider Project). 2.6 Ethical Issues in the Project The approach of “The truth does not always win proposals” is not the right one. It is unethical and can cost the contractor greatly (Blue Spider Project, p. 4). In explanation, if the customer realises, it can even lead to termination of the contract (Siegel Watson 2013). There are a number of ethical issues in different phases of the project. At the initial phase, the contractor gave false information to the customers when they indicated that the design material could operate at temperatures above 130°F. It was also unethical for Gary to be given the post of the Project Manager under the circumstances of developing a proposal based on lies. At the planning phase, it was unethical for Gary to decide to be unreachable to the customers (Schwartz 2002). It was also inappropriate for Gary to hide the vital information and processes from the authority. Under the implementation phase, Gary ought to have not used the new raw materials minus consulting the customer in prior. Lastly, at the closeout phase; it was unethical to hide some of the 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 3 3 4 3 3.25 (3) Time management 2 2 3 4 2.75 (3) Resource management (human resource) 2 2 2 3 2.25 (2) Communication management 1 1 3 2 1.75 (2) Stakeholder management 1 1 2 2 1.5 (2) Risk management 2 2 4 3 2.75 (3) Contract and procurement management 2 3 4 3 3 (3) Base on my calculation, the whole project performed dismally. Considering the rounded off figures beside the average; Resource, Communication, and Stakeholder Management were poor (Izmailov, Korneva, and Kozhemiakin, 2016). The rest of the processes were good but none was very good or excellent. 3.0 Conclusion and Recommendations Risks should be avoided whenever appropriate and minimised whenever necessary. It is also important to engage the main stakeholders in all the processes. Such engagement should be enhances through effective and efficient communication. Competence and qualification is critical in project management and ethical consideration should be taken to notice. The effective project managers should have a set of characteristics. They ought to be proactive, visionary, and prioritizing. Project managers should also have the project end in mind, be optimistic, understanding, and a team player (Wysocki 2014). Reference List Ahmed, A, Kayis, B and Amornsawadwatana, S 2007, ‘A review of techniques for risk management in projects’, Benchmarking: An International Journal, vol. 14, no. 1, pp.22- 36. 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. Izmailov, A, Korneva, D and Kozhemiakin, A 2016, ‘Effective Project Management with Theory of Constraints’, Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 229, pp.96-103. Osorio, PCF, Quelhas, OL, Zotes, LP and Shimoda, E 2014, ‘Critical Success Factors in Project Management: An Exploratory Study of an Energy Company in Brazil’, Global Journal of Management And Business Research, vol. 14, no. 10. Rabechini Junior, R and Monteiro de Carvalho, M 2013, ‘Understanding the impact of project risk management on project performance: an empirical study’, Journal of technology management & innovation, vol. 8, pp.6-6. Sanchez, H, Robert, B, Bourgault, M and Pellerin, R 2009, ‘Risk management applied to projects, programs, and portfolios’, International journal of managing projects in Business, vol. 2, no. 1, pp.14-35. Schwartz, MS 2002, ‘A code of ethics for corporate code of ethics’, Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 41, no. 1-2, pp.27-43. Serpella, AF, Ferrada, X, Howard, R and Rubio, L 2014, ‘Risk management in construction projects: a knowledge-based approach’, Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 119, pp.653-662. Sharma, SK and Swain, N 2011, ‘Risk management in construction projects’, Asia Pacific Business Review, vol. 7, no. 3, pp.107-120. 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. Suri, R, Manchanda, RV and Kohli, CS 2002, ‘Comparing fixed price and discounted price strategies: the role of affect on evaluations’, Journal of Product & Brand Management, vol. 11, no. 3, pp.160-173. 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. Wright, RF 1999, ‘Effect of Micro Management on Job Satisfaction & Productivity: A Case Study’, Vision: The Journal of Business Perspective, vol. 3, no. 1, pp.51-61. Wysocki, RK 2014, Effective project management: traditional, agile, extreme, John Wiley & Sons, Indiana polis. Zulch, B 2014, ‘Leadership communication in project management’, Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 119, pp.172-181. Read More