MN601 Network Project Management Assignment 1 Case Study Analysis

This case study examines project management failures within the Cocable Company, focusing on a project involving the delivery of custom rapid prototype (RP) machines. The assignment analyzes issues arising from poor scope management, inadequate stakeholder commitment, and unclear requirements gathering during the planning phase. The case highlights the importance of proper measurement, detailed planning, and effective communication between stakeholders, including the subcontractor Frank Billings, Cocable Company, and the customer GE. The study identifies the responsibilities for cost overruns and delays, emphasizing the need for improved planning and execution of project management methodologies. Recommendations include enhanced project scope planning, stakeholder communication, and adherence to PMBOK guidelines to ensure project success. The analysis underscores the critical role of clear requirements and thorough planning in preventing project failures. The case study concludes that the failure of the project was the result of poorly identified and imprecise requirements of the RP design machines.

Assignment 1
Individual Case Study Assignment
Student’s Name
MN601
Network Project Management

MN601 Network Project Management 2
Individual Case Study Assignment
1. Introduction
This 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 Assessments
2.1. Lessons Learnt from the Case
The 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 Changes
Due 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

MN601 Network Project Management 3
necessary specs. The company purchased the product and failed to communicate the proper specs to Frank
Billings, who would have designed and manufactured an appropriate RP machine [4]. Therefore, it is the
responsibility of Cocable Company to pay for changes, including already manufactured machines, new
machines that are to be manufactured, and any costs relating to the delays of the project.
3. Recommendations
First of all, the project scope should have had a better and more organized planning. The project life cycle
should have been executed more properly. No problem occurred at imitating phase, as stakeholders
constituted their commitment to the project in the broad terms [3]. The same cannot be said about planning
phase, where stakeholders failed to develop an entire detailed plan. According to PMBOK, a project can be
regarded successful when it achieves its objectives [2]. However, in this case the objectives of the project were
hardly set, as specifications were unclear to Frank Billings. Thus, GE should have articulated the requirements
of RP machines in a more comprehensive manner.
The second mistake was made by Cocable Company as it failed to inquire about needed specs. The
company should have contacted GE one more time just to verify the necessary specs of RP machines [5]. The
company failed to gather the correct measurements, thus forfeiting any chance of the machines being in
correct measurement and calibration. Cocable Company should not have communicated Frank regarding the
development of RP machines, without having assured the actual requirements needed by GE first [4]. In the
future, Cocable Company should ask questions relating to the customer’s needs and place itself in the
customer’s situation in order to collect requirements.
4. Conclusion
In conclusion, mistakes were made that at the planning phase of the project life cycle that could have been
avoided, should project management methodologies have been followed. The main cause of project’s failure
were poorly identified and imprecise requirements of four RP design machines. If Cocable Company and Frank
were diligent in adhering to the project management methodology of setting requirements, then none of the
problems would ever happen.

MN601 Network Project Management 4
5. References
[1.] Frame, J. Davidson. "Case Studies in Project, Program, and Organizational Project Management." Project
Management Journal 43, no. 2 (2012): 103-103.
[2.] K. Schwalbe, Information technology project management (6th ed.). Course Technology, 2010.
[3.] Kerzner, Harold. Project management: a systems approach to planning, scheduling, and controlling. John
Wiley & Sons, 2013.
[4.] Milosevic, Dragan Z., Peerasit Patanakul, and Sabin Srivannaboon. Case studies in project, program, and
organizational project management. John Wiley & Sons, 2010.
[5.] Mir, Farzana Asad, and Ashly H. Pinnington. "Exploring the value of project management: linking project
management performance and project success." International journal of project management 32, no. 2
(2014): 202-217.
[6.] T.J. Kloppenborg, Contemporary Project Management: Organize, Plan and Perform, South-Western
Cengage Learning, 2012.