PROJ6003: Corwin Case Study - Mistakes and Recommendations

This case study analyzes the Corwin Corporation's project management failures, focusing on a specific engineering project. The analysis identifies critical errors including improper data processing, budget mismanagement, poor communication, and inadequate planning. The case study examines the justification of project acceptance, bidding processes, stakeholder involvement, and the impact of decisions made by key personnel such as Dr. Reddy, West, and Pat Ray. It explores the risks associated with decisions made, the roles and responsibilities of team members, and the importance of proper protocols, including the handling of change requests and budget overruns. The analysis provides recommendations for improving project management practices, emphasizing the need for clear communication, adherence to established methodologies, and the importance of involving the right personnel in decision-making processes. The study highlights the consequences of failing to follow these principles, and the importance of recognizing risks and addressing them promptly.

Running head: CORWIN CASE STUDY
CORWIN CASE STUDY
Name of the Student:
Name of the University:
Author Note:

1CORWIN CASE STUDY
Answer to question no 1:
The major mistakes made by Corwin was that the data available for the organization was
not processed in a proper way. Apart from that the budget of the project was not maintained
properly. In that case, there were certain misunderstanding and miscommunication between the
members of the project. Apart from that there was no proper planning for the implementation of
the project.
Answer to the question no 2:
The acceptance of the project by Corwin Company is not justified. The project was core
engineering project that was needed proper knowledge and the in-depth understanding of the
engineering. On the other hand Corwin Company has their specialty in manufacturing sector.
Apart from that the business deal and the decision making regarding taking this project was not
followed the proper protocol that led to the miscommunication between the management of
Corwin
Answer to the question no 3:
The company should not bid the project on rough draft specifications as there may be
some hidden cost for the project. Apart from that it has been seen as the R&D director was on
vacation, he was not informed about the project in detail. Apart from that it has been seen that
the bidding and the estimation of the cost were not done in a proper manner for Corwin.
Answer to the question no 4:
Before the proposal went out of the house, there should be more discussion about
accepting the project in the top management. It has been seen that the decision was taken almost

2CORWIN CASE STUDY
single handedly. Apart from that most of the members from the management were in vacation at
that time. The R&D department would be going to responsible for the execution of the project.
However, it has been seen that proper discussion was not conducted with the head of the R&D
department.
Answer to the question no 5:
There is a risk as the vice president of the manufacturing was not available during the
decision making process regarding the bidding of the project.
Answer to the question no 6:
Dick Potts was one of the contract man from the marketing department. It has been seen
that Dick Potts is completely unfamiliar with the environment and did not have any knowledge
regarding the project assigned. His role was basically being an observer and input the advice
regarding the law whenever it is needed.
Answer to the question no 7:
Dr.Reddy is the vice president of the engineering departments. In this context, he is
aware about the ability of the team members in his departments. He may is aware about the
domain knowledge of West and he may not consider him suitable to understand the project and
lead the project in a proper way.
Answer to the question no 8:
It is the approach of the organization that if the specialty product is mature to fall into full
product line, then there should be product line manager to manage the product.
Answer to the question no 9:

3CORWIN CASE STUDY
Dr. Reddy was first questioned about the decision of taking the project. At the time of
accepting the project proposal he was not present. After that he was informed that West is going
to take the responsibility of the project which was not approved by him at initial stage. Apart
from that he has no positive review about the client. However, during the development of the
project he was cooperative and was helping to get the right outcome of the project.
Answer to the question no 10:
Pat Ray’s opinion regarding the test data was contrary and this was figured out by the
project manager West. West has mentioned about the problems regarding the changes in the
matrix. He has also informed about the extra cost that the organization has to spend in order to
follow the new matrix. However, Pat Ray was not listening to him and said that Corwin is
obliged to do according to the client’s requirements as the client is paying Corwin. In this
situation, West should immediately inform this to Dr.Reddy. He should play the role of the
whistle blower as the changes in the requirements was not justified and additional requirements
were added which were not in the initial requirements.
Answer to the question no 11:
West should let the higher authority to know about his concern and the possibility of
overrunning of the budget after Pat Ray declared the first five tests as failed.
Answer to the question no 12:
The immediate procurement of all the materials was a mistake as from the case study it
can be seen that the requirements and the matrix on the basis of which the procurement done was
not verified by Pat Ray.

4CORWIN CASE STUDY
Answer to the question no 13:
Pat Ray is the representative from the client’s company. He was not an employee of
Corwin. In that case, personal visit of Pat Ray to the lab is nor permissible.
Answer to the question no 14:
The in-house representative does not have the right to remove a functional representative
from the project. If the project is not going accordingly, the in-house representative should do the
meeting with the higher authority under which the functional employee is working. The decision
can only be made by the higher authority.
Answer to question no 15:
The extra tests were not scheduled and extra cost were needed for the compilation of
those tests. In that case, the client company was not ready to pay the extra money but they were
claiming the tests. In that case, those tests should not had conducted.
Answer to the question no 16:
Dr. Reddy told that he was busy monitoring other projects. However, he agreed to help
West, the project manager to get out from the situation. From the beginning he became very
strict regarding the rules and regulations along with the following of the matrix. This attitude of
him prevented the client company to exploit the resources of Corwin.
Answer to the question no 17:
It can be said that the involvement of the Frimel can prevent the damage regarding this
contract.
Answer to the question no 18:

5CORWIN CASE STUDY
The project was regarding the application of engineering. In that case, it is not a good
decision to assign the project to a marketing person.
Answer to the question no 19:
In case, if the project does not fit into the methodology of the company, the project
should not be accepted. The acceptance of the project may get the company a good profit,
however, there is a acute chance of the project failure. In that case the company can suffer from
the loss of money.
Answer to the question no 20:
Consumers should be informed about the projects that can be suited for the methodology
of a respective company.

6CORWIN CASE STUDY
Bibliography
Eskerod, P., Huemann, M. and Savage, G., 2015. Project stakeholder management—Past and
present. Project Management Journal, 46(6), pp.6-14.
Bourne, L., 2016. Stakeholder relationship management: a maturity model for organisational
implementation. Routledge.
Tan, C.D., Zhang, Y., Sun, J., Wang, Z. and Zheng, G., 2018, December. Key Influencing
Factors for Cross-organizational R & D Project Stakeholder Management. In 2018 IEEE
International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management (IEEM) (pp.
651-655). IEEE.
Aaltonen, K. and Kujala, J., 2016. Towards an improved understanding of project stakeholder
landscapes. International Journal of Project Management, 34(8), pp.1537-1552.
Young, T.L., 2016. Successful project management. Kogan Page Publishers.
Ben Mahmoud‐Jouini, S., Midler, C. and Silberzahn, P., 2016. Contributions of design thinking
to project management in an innovation context. Project Management Journal, 47(2), pp.144-
156.
Butt, A., Naaranoja, M. and Savolainen, J., 2016. Project change stakeholder
communication. International Journal of Project Management, 34(8), pp.1579-1595.
Eskerod, P. and Huemann, M., 2016, February. Rethink! Project stakeholder management.
Project Management Institute.

7CORWIN CASE STUDY