Network Project Management Case Study
Added on 2020-02-19
4 Pages1111 Words142 Views
|
|
|
Assignment 1Individual Case Study AssignmentStudent’s NameMN601Network Project Management
MN601 Network Project Management2Individual Case Study Assignment1.IntroductionThis case study assignment seeks to identify issues related to non-implementation of project management methodologies faced by project managers at Cocable Company. The project in question is a delivery of four custom rapid prototype (RP) machines for Cocable Company by Frank Billings who founded a company in RP design business. The stakeholders of the project are a sub-contractor - Frank Billings; Cocable Company, and customer – GE. In terms of the project life cycle, the problem resulting in a need for change occurred at the planning phase, namely setting requirements.2.Case Study Assessments2.1.Lessons Learnt from the CaseThe first lesson to be learned is to focus more on the scope management as one the knowledge areas in cases when a project’s final product is to be custom-built. In particular, in order to identify requirements, it is important to make sure the measurements are first taken before the machinery arrives [4]. For example, project management methodologies regarding project scope planning defines that the first step is to collect requirement [1]. The case gives an understanding why collecting requirement is a crucial step of project scope planning. Collecting requirement is the process of identifying what are the needs of stakeholders. The lesson learnt from the case is that it is important to collect requirements as it gives the project members a full picture of the project objectives. The second lesson learnt from the case is to ensure that the stakeholder’s commitment to the project is reflected in a detailed plan, which is agreed upon by all stakeholders. This lesson is similar to the project management methodologies applied to the second phase of the project life cycle project planning [6]. In practice, this lesson would mean a detailed plan where necessary specs are identified. In particular, had the proper measurements been taken, had all measurements been correct then the machinery would have fit and no problems would have occurred. The measurements on the RP machines maxed out around 55 inches wherein the space needed was 62 inches [1]. This seven-inch difference resulted in increased costs of the project due to a lack of measurement and communications.2.2.Paying for ChangesDue to a lack of organisation at the planning phase of the project, it is the responsibility of Cocable Company to pay for changes in order to build new RP machines that will fit necessary specs [2]. Cocable Company provided Frank with the specs that were not agreed upon with GE. This excludes Frank from any responsibility to pay for changes. GE should not be held accountable for paying for changes as the customer made only one initial request of 62 inches. Contrary, Cocable Company has failed to inquire about needed information from the customer, GE. This resulted in the company’s failing to inform Frank Billings of the
End of preview
Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.
Related Documents