Network Project Management Case Study Report Analysis

This report presents a case study focused on network project management, specifically addressing the challenges encountered in rapid prototyping. The case study details a project where a machine failed to perform due to a discrepancy in the CAD model, leading to significant delays and cost overruns. The report identifies several contributing factors to the project's failure, including unclear project requirements, inadequate project management planning, a tight schedule, and insufficient testing procedures. Recommendations are provided to prevent similar issues, such as regular communication, clear specification, a robust project management plan, and realistic scheduling. The conclusion emphasizes the importance of thorough testing and effective project management practices to avoid failures and ensure project success. The report highlights that the project management team lacked proper planning and systemic methodologies, which caused the project to fail.

Running head: NETWORK PROJECT MANAGEMENT
Network Project Management
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1
NETWORK PROJECT MANAGEMENT
Table of Contents
1. Introduction......................................................................................................................2
2. Case Study Assessment...................................................................................................2
2.1. Problem Definition...................................................................................................2
2.2. Possible Causes of the problem................................................................................2
3. Recommendations............................................................................................................4
4. Conclusion.......................................................................................................................5
5. References........................................................................................................................6

2
NETWORK PROJECT MANAGEMENT
1. Introduction
The report focuses on a case study related to rapid prototyping. The aim of this report is
to highlight the project management issues of the case study. Frank Billing dreamt of building of
rapid prototyping [1]. His dream job was to work for a rapid prototype machine development as
he realized its potential in the marketplace. After completion of the Engineering degree, he went
for a job at Cocable to clear his debts and school loans. After working with the company for
three years, he finally got the chance to work on rapid prototyping. The Case study assessment is
elaborated in the following paragraphs.
2. Case Study Assessment
2.1. Problem Definition
Frank worked day and night for three months to build the machines according to the
specifications. However, the machine failed to perform in its test run although it was built
according to the specification. This mainly occurred because of a problem detected in the CAD
model. The length of the model was 62 inches long, while the actual length should have been 55
inches. This made the project fail drastically and redesigning of the RP machines would have
taken a lot of time and money. This resulted in entire project running late and in over budget.
Therefore, lesson learnt from this case is that, it is utmost essential to have a clear picture of the
requirements and specifications of a particular project.
2.2. Possible Causes of the problem
The possible causes of the problem is listed below-

3
NETWORK PROJECT MANAGEMENT
1) Frank’s machines were optimized for a length of 48 inches and 55 inches were marked
to be the safe length. 62 inches went outside the range.
2) The machines if redesigned would have required different processors, actuators and
adhesion process, which would have gone out of budget [2].
3) A proper project management plan was not considered for developing the prototype
model.
4) Thorough research about the specification of the project was not properly performed
before the project initiation.
5) The project requirements were not properly clarified. The specification of the rapid
Prototyping machines were given to Frank and he right away started working on it without
clarifying the requirements with the company further [3].
6) The scope of the project was not clearly defined. Frank did not take any follow up with
the company after initiating the work on the project. This was one of the major causes of the
problems faced with the project. It was essential to ensure that the project scope is correct by
developing a proper project plan and strategic approach to the development of the rapid
prototype machines. This was significantly important since the machines were to be built for
airplane engines and there could not be any room for error [4].
7) Another major cause of the project failure was the tight schedule. Developing the
machines according to the specifications was essential and they were needed to be perfect.
Developing a perfect product requires a considerable amount of time that was not given to Frank.

4
NETWORK PROJECT MANAGEMENT
Frank worked day and night to build the machines and the tight schedule left little room for
undergoing a proper testing phase.
8) The machines were not tested before the test run. System testing is necessary for every
product to be developed as it reveals the bugs present in a system. Frank was not entirely at fault
for this issue as it was not possible to perform proper testing procedures of the machines.
However, being a developer, he should have considered performing at least the essential testing
phases of the machine development. This could have saved him from the embarrassment, and
time loss [5].
After considering the probable causes of the problem, it can be well understood that it
was fault of the entire project management team. Lack of proper project management plan and
systemic methodologies was the source of the problem. Therefore, the payment for the changes
should be Cocable and Frank can be charged a fine for not following the specifications of the
machine properly [6].
3. Recommendations
Steps that could have been taken to avoid the problems stated above are listed below-
1) Cocable should have held regular meetings with Frank to know about the project
progress. This could have helped in identifying the problem in the initial phase of development.
2) Frank should have clarified the specification with the company before initiating the
project

5
NETWORK PROJECT MANAGEMENT
3) Frank should have developed a proper project management plan before project
initiation. This could have helped in identifying the tight schedule of the project and could have
helped him in clarifying for extra time.
4) The project should not have been done in a tight schedule as it was mainly built for an
airplane and the perfection of the machines was important.
5) Cocable should have given this project to an experienced RP machine developer [7].
4. Conclusion
Therefore, from the above discussion, it can be concluded that there were a varied
number of loophole in the project management and execution of the project. The problem with
the newly developed rapid prototype machines could have been identified in the development
stage if proper testing of the machines were performed. This could have also saved Cocable from
significant loss of time and money. Frank did a mistake of knot crosschecking the specifications
and the testing the RP machine he was building. The damage could have been controlled or
avoided if the project was not executed in a tight schedule.

6
NETWORK PROJECT MANAGEMENT
5. References
[1]I. Campbell, D. Bourell and I. Gibson, "Additive manufacturing: rapid prototyping comes of
age", Rapid Prototyping Journal, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 255-258, 2012.
[2] Pham, Duc, and Stefan S. Dimov. Rapid manufacturing. Springer Science & Business Media,
2012.
[3]H. Kerzner, Project management. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 2017.
[4] Mirza, Muhammad Nabeel, Zohreh Pourzolfaghar, and Mojde Shahnazari. "Significance of
scope in project success." Procedia Technology 9 (2013): 722-729.
[5] Larson, Erik W., and Clifford Gray. Project Management. McGraw-Hill, 2013.
[6] Young, Trevor L. Successful project management. Vol. 52. Kogan Page Publishers, 2013.
[7] Pham, Duc, and Stefan S. Dimov. Rapid manufacturing. Springer Science & Business
Media, 2012.