Change Control in Lewis Project: Analysis and Strategies

This case study examines the change control challenges faced by Frank Construction Company during the Lewis Project. The company encountered issues such as vendor delays, workforce reductions, and increased client demands for updates. The case study identifies the changes required to address these issues, including improved coordination, increased manpower, and a more efficient purchase department. It analyzes the impacts of these challenges on project scope, time, cost, and quality. The document further discusses options to satisfy each change, such as recruiting expert personnel, while considering associated risks like increased financial burden. The case study concludes by highlighting the gaps in the company's change request process and emphasizing the need for better financial planning and resource allocation to ensure project success. Desklib offers similar case studies and solved assignments for students.

Running Head: PART B: CHANGE CONTROL IN LEWIS PROJECT
Part B: Change Control in Lewis Project
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note:

1PART B: CHANGE CONTROL IN LEWIS PROJECT
Table of Contents
The processes involved in submitting a request to deal with necessary changes............................2
Identify and critically analyze changes required and the impacts of them......................................3
Identify important option for each change and risk associated to this............................................6
The change request form.................................................................................................................6
References........................................................................................................................................8

2PART B: CHANGE CONTROL IN LEWIS PROJECT
The processes involved in submitting a request to deal with necessary changes
The company faced several change in controls throughout the entire time-period of Lewis
project. Frank Construction Company has to face all these changes on the request of the Lewis,
which is the client company (Zeng, Tam & Tam, 2015). Frank faced a huge delay in
performance due to the delay in vendor deliveries in purchasing equipment. There are several
processes involved in submitting a request to deal with necessary changes based on the
department and the systems where the changes have been done.
In case of purchasing equipments for Lewis Project, the company has to conduct
meetings with vendors for even the smallest purchase order. Like small vessel or small
mechanical equipments. Each time, the attendees list included people like project purchasing
agent, the buyers, the vendors, the manager of the traffic control department, the chief expeditor,
chief inspector of the project and the project engineer (Demirkesen & Ozorhon, 2017). However
the Lewis project represented were not pretty satisfied with this process and demanded for
weekly meeting with every possible people of Frank related to the Project after first three months
of the project allocation. Initially this was an impossible task for the project managers and upper
administration as meeting with everyone of this project weekly means a day loss from the job.
However, they had to meet the expectations of the Lewis Representatives. So a notice was
initiated on Tuesday about the meeting on Wednesday with the Lewis. The people of Frank
Construction Company were literally not prepared for this meeting with the Lewis, which failed
the first meeting and the Lewis representatives were left dissatisfied. To cope up with the
situation, the upper administration issued another notice for the people of the company for a pre-
meeting on Tuesdays to prepare for the meeting on Wednesday. This way the administration of

3PART B: CHANGE CONTROL IN LEWIS PROJECT
Frank construction company prepared their people for the changes in meetings asked by the
Lewis Project Representatives.
On the other hand, the company faced some problems in the purchase department due to
the inability of Bill Hall, the existing Project Purchase Agent (PPA). Bill Hall had been
dissatisfied for the ignoring his performances and promotion possibilities by the higher
administration due to which he created problems in purchase orders and the deliveries were not
managed. The company had to change the PPA and recruit Ron Katz a young professional. To
cope up with this change the company had to ensure involvement of senior officials in purchase
orders and not rely on travel expeditors. In addition, Lewis asked for reports on the purchase
orders of spare parts, which in general, Frank Construction Company used to buy just before the
arrival of major components to ensure accuracy. This was another major task for the PPA of the
company to make details report on the purchase of spare parts by breaking up the orders and
purchase list. All these changes were asked by the representatives of Lewis project to have a
vivid idea about the progress of the project.
Identify and critically analyze changes required and the impacts of them
The major changes required to change the current scenario for Frank Construction
Company, lists changes in the purchase department, better co-ordination between administration
and other departments involved in this project and last but not the least more man power.
Due to decrement in the number of contracts, the company had to follow down serge to
handle the cost of maintaining the yearly budget (Iqbal, Choudhry, Holschemacher &
Tamošaitienė, 2015). In some cases, they have to cut down people who are beneficial for the
company for their expertise. However, the company had to maintain a certain number of

4PART B: CHANGE CONTROL IN LEWIS PROJECT
employees to ensure the quality of work to the client company. In case of Lewis project, the
reduced work force have become a major issue for the company. Due to which, the
administration and chief project engineers are facing delay in vendor deliveries and purchase
order issues. In addition to this, the dissatisfaction among existing employees like the last Project
Purchase Agent is evidently another reason for the backlog (Raj & Wadsamudrakar, 2018). The
company had to deny expected promotions and other benefits to the employees even if they had
been proved beneficial for the company in past projects. Due to the dissatisfaction of the PPA
and the delays, the company had to change him and introduce another comparatively young
purchase agent to the project. In addition, the constant demands of updates on the project by the
representatives of the Lewis Project representatives were another important crisis the company
faced during the project (de Carvalho, Patah & de Souza Bido, 2015). With comparatively less
work force and other problems, they had to accommodate changes and settings for the meetings
and satisfy the queries of the representatives, which means lose in workable hours. On the other
hand, the different in work force usage and the overall improvement in the project. Despite of
using a huge part of the available work force, Frank Construction Company was not able to
improve the project to a satisfactory level, which was a huge backlog for the company.
Such problems faced by the Frank construction Company had major impacts on scope of
improvement, time required for the project, cost of it and the overall quality of the work (Mok,
Shen & Yang, 2015). With a delay in vendor delivery and other purchase issues, the company
was facing immense time delay for the overall process due to which, the expected time of
completion was delayed continuously. With a sound project plan, the engineers had to wait for
the delivery of the instruments and raw materials. This effected the overall cost of the project as
time delay ensured delay in work. The higher officials had to involve in the purchasing process

5PART B: CHANGE CONTROL IN LEWIS PROJECT
in place of travel expeditors. To accommodate the delivery of products within time the company
was to settle with higher price, which gave a hike to the overall cost of the project. On the other
hand, without enough work force, Frank Construction Company faced huge problem with the
overall project. The company had major scope of improving their condition but due to lack in
work force, other resources this seemed to be a distant goal for the experts (Serpella, Ferrada,
Howard & Rubio, 2014).Typically the failure of the company to show improvement in the
project had a huge impact on the time, cost and the overall quality of the project.
The continuously diminishing performance of Frank construction Company in the Lewis
Project has a huge impact on the four factors time, scope, budget and overall quality of the work.
as the company is constantly failing to meet the parameters of Lewis project representative, the
company has to increase the required time for the project which is delaying the overall
improvement and the work. Technically, it can be said that the performance of Frank
Construction Company is delaying the overall Lewis project and the company is losing an
important parameter of performance, which is time.
The delay and constantly decreasing performance of the company is also decreasing its
chances of reviving the constant loose it was facing before the Lewis project. The project was an
important step for the company to revive its former glory and position in the market. However,
with limited work force and constant delay in purchasing and construction works the chances of
reviving is decreasing for the company. The scope that the company will be able to complete the
project seems to be fading with the hope of the administration, that this project will be helpful to
open new pathways for the company.
The Frank Construction Company is facing huge delay in vendor delivery and overall
performance of the company. This has a huge impact on the proposed budget of the company.

6PART B: CHANGE CONTROL IN LEWIS PROJECT
The proposed budget will be exceeded to a huge price level if the process of dilation carries on.
The delay in purchase orders and other work ensures excess time spend with not profit and this
brings up the overall budget of the project.
The quality of work is also compromised as the company is failing to have a good
understanding with the vendors and the work force of the company is limited due to down serge
in employees previously. The administrative officers have to take charge of the purchase and
quality assurance of the raw materials, which is not sufficient as the project is vast and requires
expert engineers to support it. The quality of the project is also getting compromised due to the
constantly diminishing performance of the company to understand the actual requirement to
fulfil the needs of the project.
To cope up with different crisis, the company had to increase their work forces with
expert people in different important decision-making posts to ensure proper productivity and
effective utility of resources with improvement.
Identify and discuss option to satisfy each change and risks associated to them
The major change Frank Construction Company need to implement is recruiting expert
people in different posts to ensure better productivity and improved work force. Due to a major
down serge in work force, the company had to start the project with limited work force, due to
which they had to compromise with the improvement and speed of completion (Backlund,
Chronéer & Sundqvist, 2014). However, recruiting more men means they have to have a sound
financial background to support the work force, which is a risk factor for Frank construction
company with limited financial resources.

7PART B: CHANGE CONTROL IN LEWIS PROJECT
The major change over required for the project success is the increasing work force of the
company. Recruiting new and experienced project related professionals would be the best option
for Frank Construction Company to successfully execute the Lewis project the risk associated
with this option is the excess financial budget. The company had already exceeded the initial
budget proposed at time of project approval. On the other hand, the company had already faced
down serge due to lack of in-hand project, which is why the administration had to cut down man
power. This had a huge impact on the bench of experienced people in the background. Retrieving
back the talent pool of the company, the administration requires financial support, which could
bring up the financial budget of the project again and the project could fail. This is the risk
associated with the important change the company requires to implement for successful
completion of the project.
The change request form
The change request form of Frank Construction Company had a huge gap from the
proposal they presented initially. The company had to provide financial details required for the
project, by sending the amount already spent on work force, purchase order and amount more
required for the project completion. In addition to this, they had to send the increment in
manpower they are planning to recruit for completion of the project.

8PART B: CHANGE CONTROL IN LEWIS PROJECT
References
Backlund, F., Chronéer, D., & Sundqvist, E. (2014). Project management maturity models–a
critical review: a case study within Swedish engineering and construction
organizations. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 119, 837-846.
de Carvalho, M. M., Patah, L. A., & de Souza Bido, D. (2015). Project management and its
effects on project success: Cross-country and cross-industry comparisons. International
Journal of Project Management, 33(7), 1509-1522.
Demirkesen, S., & Ozorhon, B. (2017). Impact of integration management on construction
project management performance. International Journal of Project Management, 35(8),
1639-1654.
Iqbal, S., Choudhry, R. M., Holschemacher, K., Ali, A., & Tamošaitienė, J. (2015). Risk
management in construction projects. Technological and Economic Development of
Economy, 21(1), 65-78.
. Stakeholder management studies in mega construction projects: A review and future
directions. International Journal of Project Management, 33(2), 446-457.
Raj, M., & Wadsamudrakar, N. K. (2018). Risk management in construction
project. International Journal of Engineering and Management Research (IJEMR), 8(3),
162-167.
Serpella, A. F., Ferrada, X., Howard, R., & Rubio, L. (2014). Risk management in construction
projects: a knowledge-based approach. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 119,
653-662.

9PART B: CHANGE CONTROL IN LEWIS PROJECT
Zeng, S. X., Tam, C. M., & Tam, V. W. (2015). Integrating safety, environmental and quality
risks for project management using a FMEA method. Engineering Economics, 66(1).