Project Execution and Control

Running head: PROJECT EXECUTION AND CONTROL 1
Project Execution and Control
Name
Institution Affiliation
Date

PROJECT EXECUTION AND CONTROL 2
Project Execution and Control
1.
i) One major mistake Corwin made was losing control of the in-house representative,
Patrick Ray. The troubles of the company were started by Patrick Ray through the
interference of the lab tests and the disgruntling of lab employees.
ii) Another mistake made by the company is poor planning. There was a mismatch
between the project manager’s plans and that of the in-house representative.
iii) Poor coordination was also another problem that the company faced. There was an
utter disagreement between the in-house representative and the project manager. All
their plans over lapped. The top management was apprehensive of choosing West as
the project manager, as demonstrated by Reddy being pessimistic of the whole project
and the choice of West being the project manager.
2.
Cowen should not have accepted the assignment because the project had a rough draft
specification and a short deadline in the review of the specifications. The deadlines for the
assignment were very short and Cowen was mainly interested and attracted by huge profits
(Joslin & Müller, 2016).
3.
Since there is a high risk of failing in a project with rough draft specification, companies
should not risk to bid on projects that do not have clear specifications (Milosevic &
Martinelli, 2016). The failure of Cowen to finish and have control on the project was based
on the fact that the specifications of the project were not clear enough.

PROJECT EXECUTION AND CONTROL 3
4
Most of the top managers were on vacation and the timeframe of making the decision to proceed
or not was also short. Therefore, the shortness of the time for preparing the proposal should
require active involvement of the top management. That is because the proposal planning process
normally provides the direction for the project (Maylor & Turner, 2017).
5
There are risks in the absence of the vice president of manufacturing in the decision of no-go
bidding. One of the risks that present itself is the issue of feasibility. The Cowin and Peterd
Company had the marketing vice presidents decide on the bidding, Gene Frimel and Dr. Frank
Delia. A problem arose because they only viewed the monetary part and not the feasibility part
(Glukhov et al., 2015).
6. Attitude of Dick Potts
Dick Roy, being the contracts man, was expected to be the official representative of the
president. However, he took a passive role in the proposal preparation, allowing Royce to make
all the decisions. He therefore exercised negligence on his role. He was supposed to provide
legal advice to the team. Another attitude that he portrayed was that of ignorance. Being part of
the team preparing the proposal was a huge role with huge responsibilities.
7.
The executive’s lack of concern for the appointment of West as the project leader
The decision for the appointment of project leader was a rush one, especially with the absence of
Dr. Reddy, the R&D director. The executive was also lax in supporting the project in any
manner. They never wanted to take an active role in the project process (Milosevic & Martinelli,
2016). That is evident by the fact that whenever West asked for support, the party of whom he