University Project: Project Execution Control for Corwin Corporation

This report analyzes the project execution control within Corwin Corporation, focusing on a case study involving a project with Peters Company. The report identifies the processes involved in submitting change requests, critically analyzes the required changes, and evaluates their impact on project scope, time, cost, and quality. The analysis highlights the importance of proper change management procedures, as demonstrated by Dr. Reddy's actions, which led to the cancellation of a contract. The report further explores options for satisfying change requests, along with the associated risks, emphasizing the need for careful consideration, stakeholder consultation, and risk assessment to ensure successful project outcomes. The conclusion underscores the complexity of change management and the critical role it plays in project success.

Running Head: PROJECT EXECUTION CONTROL
Project Execution Control
Name of the Student
Name of the University

1PROJECT EXECUTION CONTROL
1.0 Introduction
Corwin Corporation is an organization that manufactures and sells high quality rubber
components at low or reasonable costs. Owing to the high quality of the products, Corwin has
become a very popular organization with various clients and media inquiring about the
manufacturing process and other internal details related to production. For continuous
development of new and high quality products, Corwin Corporation has a separate research and
development (R&D) team that is dedicated towards research and development of new products.
Moreover, the organization’s operations are strongly driven towards a specific marketing
strategy that is developed as per the changes in the market.
In this report, a project in which Corwin Corporation has been involved is being analyzed
and change control requirements have been discussed.
2.0 Case Study Analysis: Corwin Corporation
2.1 Processes Involved
There are several processes involved in submitting a request to deal with the changes
necessary in the project. Generally, when there are issues occurring in a project, changes are
necessary such that these risks are addressed and the project can be brought back on track.
However, implementation of the changes is a challenge itself. The duty of change control and
management in the project is generally on the project manager (Goetsch & Davis, 2014). The
project manager needs to analyse the issue or risk first and then decide whether it requires
change management or some simple steps are enough to solve the problem. After determining
the nature of treatment, the project manager needs to identify the best strategy for introduction

2PROJECT EXECUTION CONTROL
the right change in the project. Many project managers often take wrong decisions and
implement sudden changes going with the flow and without following the specific procedures.
While submitting requests for change, it is to be clearly stated why the changes are being
introduced and whether there are any changes of new risks due to the implementation of the
change (Hayes, 2018). In the Corwin Corporation case study, it is seen that Dr. Reddy did not
follow any specific procedure and simply introduced a significant change that ultimately resulted
in the cancellation of contract with Peters Company.
2.2 Changes Required and Impacts on Scope, Time, Cost, Quality
Changes are often required in a project when it is evident that the project is not moving in
the right direction and there is too much interference of the internal and external stakeholders
that are negatively affecting the progress of the project. These changes are to be carefully
introduced such that it does not significantly affect other project factors like scope, time, cost and
quality of the project (Cameron & Green, 2015). Again, avoiding change management
procedures can also result in the project moving in the wrong direction that will ultimately lead
to the failure of the project. In the case study of Corwin Corporation, after Dr. Reddy took over
the project, he abruptly introduced changes in the project within a matter of minutes that
ultimately resulted in angering of a stakeholder from Peters Company and the contract was
finally cancelled by them. In this case, dismissing the Peters Company staff without having
sufficient evidence on other stakeholders’ claims and meeting with the staff before dismissing
him was wrong (Kerzner & Kerzner, 2017). The actual change required was to discuss with the
specific staff and also Peters Company regarding progress update and the interference caused by
their staff in the project. Accordingly, a different staff could have been requested to be provided.

3PROJECT EXECUTION CONTROL
The entire process would have increased the time and cost of the project but the project would
have stayed within the scope and would have been of high quality.
2.3 Options to Satisfy Change Request and Associated Risks
There are several options to satisfy change requests but on the same side, there are some
risks associated with them. The first option is to check the change request and provide approval
immediately if it seems reasonable (Lewis, Passmore & Cantore, 2016). However, in this case,
the possible issues occurring in the future due to the change are not analyzed and hence, major
risk possibility is ignored. The second option is to approve the change after reviewing risks but
without consulting with the client party (Harrison & Lock, 2017). In that case, the client may not
approve the change and ultimately cancel the contract as happened in the case of Corwin
Corporation.
3.0 Conclusion
From the analysis of the entire case, it is evident that change management and control is
not a simple task and it requires a lot of analysis, discussion, prioritization and other factors.
Corwin Corporation started a project with Peters Company but due to alleged unwanted
interference from one of the staffs of Peters Company, the new project manager Dr. Reddy
decided to bring a change in the project and immediately dismissed the staff without even having
a discussion session or at least a team meeting. Due to the sudden change introduced that was
also not pre-warranted in the contract, Peters Company immediately cancelled the contract.

4PROJECT EXECUTION CONTROL
References
Cameron, E., & Green, M. (2015). Making sense of change management: A complete guide to
the models, tools and techniques of organizational change. Kogan Page Publishers.
Goetsch, D. L., & Davis, S. B. (2014). Quality management for organizational excellence. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: pearson.
Harrison, F., & Lock, D. (2017). Advanced project management: a structured approach.
Routledge.
Hayes, J. (2018). The theory and practice of change management.
Kerzner, H., & Kerzner, H. R. (2017). Project management: a systems approach to planning,
scheduling, and controlling. John Wiley & Sons.
Lewis, S., Passmore, J., & Cantore, S. (2016). Appreciative inquiry for change management:
Using AI to facilitate organizational development. Kogan Page Publishers.