Project Management and Management

Orion Shield Case

What Project Management principles, if any, were violated in this case?

By Project Manager Gary Allison

One of the key principles of project management encompasses ascertaining that all project stakeholders are sufficiently informed about the project phase and status, and promptly communicating to the right parties the issues that ought to be addressed (Mauk, 2009). Gary Allison was in violation of this principle from the outset of the project. Gary failed to plan out the schedules of the project and to demonstrate them to the teams. Owing to protracted emphasis on technical testing, Allison failed to contact his partner Sarah Wilson from Space Technology Industries (STI). There were numerous instances that Sarah had entreated Gary to inform her on time. Allison was hands-on and preemptive in his expenditure reports to management. Nonetheless, devoid of informing and involving Elliot Grey prior to revealing them, Allison fostered funding issues. Moreover, his lack of planning instigated eleventh hour requests to production planning, mixed up STI with late alterations to ingredients, and in the end, led to his deliberate intent not to reveal information of the products age life to all of the project parties. In addition, Allison opted to stick to Larsen's advice and failed to reveal to consumers regarding the fact that the SEC component could not function beyond 130 degrees yet the required one was to achieve 150 degrees.

ii. By Henry Larsen, Director of Engineering

Henry Larsen violated the project management principles of transparency about project status, project definition phase, and proper communication. In particular, Larsen provided ill-advised information to Gary Allison by requesting him to falsify test results, as well as deceit STI when elucidating that new material was tested using money from Scientific Engineering Corporation (SEC). In addition, Larsen engaged in the wrong representation of contract agreements. It was considered at the outset of the project that the contract was a FPIF when it was actually an FPF. As a result, this generated additional difficulty in completing the project within the outlined budget.

iii. By Elliott Grey, Director of Program Management

The violation that Elliot Grey did was giving out additional funds beyond the budgeted amount devoid of concrete reason and without considering the risk that came along with it.

iv. By Paula Arnold, Project Engineer

Paula Arnold colluded with Henry Larsen in testing a new material JXB-3 for a number of weeks. However, this was not part of the project contract with STI as they were not permitted to spend funds from STI in testing the new material. Knowledge of such activities would have led to cancellation of the contract.

2. What structural and cultural characteristics of SEC allowed each of these individuals to behave as they did? Be specific in defining the behavior you feel was a violation or failure, and the organizational characteristic(s) that supported that behavior

3. There are structural and cultural characteristics of SEC that permitted each of the individuals to behave in the manner in which they did. To begin with, the organization lacked a proper organizational culture that would show personnel how to behave. In addition, SEC has a functional organization. In turn, this has given rise to employees being operational efficient and experts within their realm of specialization. For instance, Gary was an expert engineer and therefore not able to partake in project management. The behavior that was a violation is deceit and lack of honesty. Lack of organizational culture led to this behavior because the leaders such as Henry Larsen showed such behavior and therefore employees such as Gary Allison and Paula Arnold deemed it fit to be deceitful as well. The principles of project and general management that a project manager can rely upon to positively influence these organizational characteristics include open communication, establishing project scope, refining objectives and outlining courses of action (Mauk, 2009).

Organizational structure and culture influence the success on project management. Culture influences the behavior of project managers during the undertaking of a project. In this case, SEC has an organizational culture that lacks complete honesty and open communication. The structure also influences the management of projects. In this case, the Orion Shield project extended across functional divisions in which the project manager lacked direct functional authority over other divisions. This complicated the undertaking owing to the need for continual collaboration. According to Project Management Body Knowledge, having a participative culture within the organization makes it possible to overcome problems encountered while managing the project. With respect to organizational structure, Project Management Body Knowledge suggests a projectized organizational structure. This encompasses team members that are more often than not collected. Many of the organization's resources are involved in project work and project managers have substantial independence and authority. The structure includes units referred to as departments but report directly to the project manager (Duncan, 1996).

4. What guidance do project management principles give for creating effective communication, and what do you think Gary would have done differently if he had been well versed in those principles?

There is direction given by project management principles for creating effective communication. This encompasses developing a communication method based on stakeholder's informational requirements. In addition, the project managers ought to generate, gather, allocate, store and retrieve information. Moreover, a project manager should monitor and control communication all through the whole project life cycle (Stackpole, 2013). There are various things that Gary would have done different if he had been well versed in those principles. He would have developed a proper communications plan that would enable him to share advancement with key stakeholders and meeting particulars with the project members. In addition, he would have openly communicated to the marketing department and also all other stakeholders during the second testing.

5. Henry Larsen gave Gary three requirements for good project management. How do those compare with the project management body of knowledge? Should Gary have been given different advice?

The three requirements for good project management that Henry Larsen gave Gary included being committed, being able to write and speak well and comprehend how to motivate individuals. In contrast, the project management body of knowledge provides different requirements and these include delivering the project on time, delivering the project in accordance to the quality and specifications set and delivering it within the budget that was set (Rosenau & Githens, 2011). Gary should have definitely been given different advice. The better advice would have been to ensure that as the project manager, he properly and effectively communicates with the project members. Secondly, he should have been given advice on the importance of finding poise between technical and administrative duties. In addition, better advice should have included ensuring the funding and budget for the project is correct. This would have ensured the proper allocation of resources and proper budgeting.

6. How many departments were involved in this project, and what guidance do project management principles give for coordinating functional departments?

Four departments were involved in this project: the technical department, the engineering department, the marketing department and the administrative department. The guidance given by project management principles for coordinating functional departments is that in the event the fitting functional department of the organization is carefully chosen for achieving the project, then the department will have the central and administrative base for persons with technical know-how in the fields pertinent for the project (Bobera, 2008). What Gary could have done differently to evade Larsen's perception that he had failed as a project manager, with respect to project management principles, is to have honesty and open communication throughout the course of the project. Secondly, he should have been on top of every activity done during the testing and engage managers from the various functional departments to avoid the excess funds on top of the budget. Another principle encompasses project timelines and milestones. This would have enabled Gary to balance between technical and administrative project management.

7. Finally, did Gary fail? If SEC was awarded a sole source contract for production of the new material, why was his project perceived as a failure?