Network Project Management: Rapid Prototyping Case Study

This report provides an analysis of a rapid prototyping case study, focusing on the challenges faced by Frank Billings in a project involving Cocable and GE. The core issues identified include a hidden scope of work, a significant communication gap between the involved parties, and the absence of intermediate product checks. The report emphasizes the importance of clear scope definition, proper documentation, and effective communication planning to avoid such issues. Recommendations include following project management methodologies, conducting stakeholder analysis, and implementing quality management plans. The conclusion stresses the vital role of project management methodologies in ensuring project success, regardless of deadlines or stringent requirements, and highlights the negative consequences of unclear scopes of work on cost, schedule, reputation, and morale. References to relevant online articles and resources are also provided to support the analysis.

Student’s Name:
Dated:
MN601: Network Project Management
Rapid Prototyping &
Frank Billings
Name of University

MN601: Network Project Management
Table of Content
Introduction.................................................................................................................................................2
Assessment of Case Study (Rapid Prototype)..............................................................................................2
Actual scope of work was hidden............................................................................................................2
Big Communication Gap..........................................................................................................................2
No Intermediate Product checking was conducted.................................................................................3
Recommendations.......................................................................................................................................3
Conclusion...................................................................................................................................................3
References...................................................................................................................................................4
1

MN601: Network Project Management
Introduction
Retro Prototyping (RP) is an emerging technology which is growing since it was first introduced in 1990.
Retro Prototyping is becoming famous because of its facility to develop a three dimensional model
prototype of the actual equipment to facilitate the information regarding the performance of the
machine.
Frank Billings was an engineering student and since that time he was dreaming of becoming an RP
expert and after working for three years in Cocable he left the job and became entrepreneur to fulfill the
dream. One fine day he got the first break from Cocable to build four models of one machine as per the
specification.
Assessment of Case Study (Rapid Prototype)
Actual scope of work was hidden
As from the case it can be easily made out that the only issue which rose at the end of the case is the
hidden scope of work which was not known to either Cocable or the Frank Billings. It might have
happened due to the absence of any clear scope document including the WBS. Frank might have just
received the contract document with the technical specifications from Cocable, the contact may be new
but the technical specifications attached to it might be the older version. Which could have got
neglected by the Cocable and obviously it was not the responsibility of Frank. So in this case Cocable is
the defaulter. It might have due to non-maintenance of proper documentation of the communication or
documents according to their date of arrival and the older version with 48 inches of model length has
reached to Frank for developing the prototypes. Maintain proper documentation is must for any project
to avoid such mess1.
Big Communication Gap
It is certainly correct that in the attached case there was a large communication gap between the
companies Cocable and GE. As GE is claiming that they have already provided the requirement of 62
inches length of model as requirement, but the issue is it was not updated in the Cocable’s database and
they were not known of the fact. So the issue is there is a big gap between GE & Cocable, they do not act
cohesively. They do not meet frequently. They do not even organize a meeting even to understand the
GE’s expectations2. Even no reporting system was established by Cocable to report the progress of the
project nor GE demanded for it. Because of the big communication gap between the two of Frank’s
2

MN601: Network Project Management
client he became the victim. In this case GE, Cocable and Frank all are equally responsible as none of the
party were willing to organize any meeting and were only concentrated I n he execution stage of the
project management. They ignored all prior steps of the execution that is initiation and planning.
No Intermediate Product checking was conducted
It is the rule of RP to check the intermediate progress of the project to check the way of its progress,
even though it may not be worth to check it but just for the satisfaction level, all the clients should have
visited Frank to check the progress3.
Recommendations
To avoid the above issues the project management methodologies or the steps of project management
should have been followed like the Initiation and Planning before directly jumping on to the job. If the
initial documents like Business case and the Project Charter would have been developed for getting it
signed by the clients and get GE involved in the project could have avoided the situation from the initial
stage itself. Even after the steps got missed out, if the proper Stakeholder Analysis 4 was done before
the actual start of job, the actual expectations of the GE could have been identified.
To avoid the above discussed issues the proper scope identification, WBS definition, communication
planning, risk assessment, quality management plan could have saved the team from facing such drastic
outcome.
Conclusion
This can be summarized that the unclear scope of work or the hidden scope can totally destroy the good
faith, moral, budgeted time and cost of the project. Using any of the project management techniques
the scope must always be made clear from the conception of the project to avoid any further confusion.
The cost of having such a mess is to be paid by all Cocable, Frank and GE terms of cost, schedule,
reputation, loss of morals and many more.
So this can be concluded that the uses of project management methodologies are very vital for all kind
of projects irrespective of its deadline and the stringent requirements.
3

MN601: Network Project Management
References
x
[1] Eshna. (2017, August) Project Documentation and its Importance. [Online].
https://www.simplilearn.com/project-documentation-article
[2] Sabyasachi. (2017, March) Why should you conduct Project Status Meetings with your team?
[Online]. https://www.simplilearn.com/project-status-meetings-with-your-team-article
[3] Mike Bracken. (2017) How to run a rapid prototyping project. [Online].
http://www.thedigitalprojectmanager.com/how-to-run-a-rapid-prototyping-project/
[4] Richard Bett. (2017, March) Best Practice – Stakeholder Identification and Management. [Online].
https://bevaglobal.com/blog-4-best-practice-stakeholder-identification-and-management/
x
4