Introduction
The paper focuses on the project management problems that faced Rony’s project. The project was commissioned by The Custom Ronworking Company. The president of the company, Emelia Carpenters, contracted W.Easly Associates to conduct a post-project appraisal of Rony’s project. The project involved expansion of the company’s production facilities. The expansion included expanding the manufacturing and production residence. The plans were occasioned by a mini boom experienced in the commercial construction field in NSW, Rony’s hometown.
A decision was reached to go ahead with the expansion and Spencer Moneyworth, the vice president; Finance and Administrator were given the project management mandate. A few months into the project, significant project management problems occurred, including costs overshoots, timeline detraction, resources inadequacy, project deviancy and general project challenges risks. The failure to meet project objectives led to this consultancy report, which outlines the major causes of Rony’s project failure and provides recommendations for the same.
Purpose Statement
The overall mandate of the report is to offer an investigative response to the reasons for the failures of Rony’s project. Recommendations on how future repeats for such shortcomings can be avoided are then provided systematically. In particular, the consultancy will be looking into the project’s timeline progress and detail to identify derailment causes (Sen, 2008). The objectives, plans and executions of the project development will also be analyzed. The insights of these results will then be used to prepare an informative report on where the project managers erred and mismanaged the project. Resources management and project administration structure will also be reviewed for a conclusive statement analysis. Eventually, a remedial completion short report for the challenges of Rony’s project is presented, chartering suggestions for better executions in the future.
Factors for Rony’s Project Failure
Project Management Shortcomings
When the expansion project was started, miscommunication occasioned by sidelining of the main company heads occurred. The vice president, Finance, and Administration, Spence Moneysworth, failed to include key persons in the project planning. Keen to exhibit administrative abilities, he decided to exclude the production team in his communiqué. Consequently, the production department was not in the know concerning the expansion plans, timelines, costs, and progress. The reason for the exclusion was given as delay avoidance. The PRINCE2 theory approach, which has a provision for succinct framework definition would have been an ideal guide if and when applied. In its absence, there was the lack of the output oriented element that the PRINCE2 approach provides. The scope of the project was thus lost on Spence Moneysworth; hence, leading to a failed project.
Apparently, the production team was always too busy and would cause delays in the progress. On the contrary, not informing the production team on the progress of Rony’s project was ill informed. A 25% floor space plan expansion is significant enough to significantly affect production programs. It was inevitable therefore that the factory shop would need to adjust its output schedules after the project started. One of the major worries of Miles Faster, the production VP, was floor space inadequacy. Allegedly, the small area was thwarting production efficiency. It would therefore, would have been very critical to have the head of production in the planning and progress oversight of Rony’s project.
Failure to send formative and periodical information reports, memos and updates effectively set the production and expansion schedules on a collision course. Due to a lack of clear project communication over view, there was also lack of clear designated communication lines and means (Burrow & Kleindl, 2012). Oral communication was increasingly used as opposed to written communiqué, which would provide future reference and record keeping effectiveness.
According to Cleland and Ireland (2008), missing links in business communication render project management ineffective. When audit attempts were launched at Rony’s, there was a lot of missing links in the communication lines and registers. Most of the memos written during and involving the project were hurried and undated. There was also no central information organization routing. Information was received, processed and disseminated in an ad-hoc manner. Relevant project data was scattered among the staff that were not willing to provide insights in post project appraisal. The lack of obligated and mandated information handling undermined efforts to establish problems early in the project. Any delays, deviancy and lags in the expansion plans were as a result undetected leading to significant future problems. The result was low quality information and applications.
When the new production equipment finally came through, the production team was not ready. There was underutilization and production fell. The staff morale was understandably negatively affected. Lacking information furnishing, the employees resulted to voicing their frustrations publicly. The older staff blamed John Carpenter for introducing what they saw as complicated ideas. Clearly, the staff was not adequately filled in on Carpenter’s role and neither were they inclusively consulted before project commencement. In this scenario, the effects of the production disruption would have been less impactful had the Critical Chain Project Management (CCPM) applied. The CCPM would have helped Miles to handle the unexpected production schedule changes and manage the factory shop resources better. Most importantly, the Rony’s project would have been saved by the theory of constraints application in identifying which constraints to give priority early enough.
Miles, the production manager, was also unable to offer advice and input into the needed commercial space. As a result of the deliberate communication oversight, the expansion resulted in oversupply of retail and hotel space. In the end, exclusion of major parties, non-holistic information dissemination, communiqué disorder and structures became major project derailment causes.
Lack of Project Timeline Planning and Organization
The traditional approach theory was not followed as per the recommended sequential steps as recommended by Patel (2008). Admittedly, the initiation was well factored, but the follow up planning and design was disregarded. After Rony’s project had been approved, Moneysworth, the administrative head, and project overseer decided to skip planning. Instead, he left the detailing of the project timeline and planning to Expert Industrial Developers (EID). The outsourcing of such a critical part of the project meant that there was going to be very limited objectives scope in the plan. EID did not have the objectives scope and goals of the company in vision as did Moneysworth and his team.
As they were also working on hourly payment schedules, the commitment of the EID team was also limited to short terms and intermediate goals of Ronyworking Company. It was as a result of this ill-informed outsourcing of the planning mandate that the project failed to have a comprehensive and exhaustive scope in the end. Challenges, delays, and risks which only the management of Ronyworking would have predicatively foreseen and planned for, were missed. The project, therefore, commenced with no rigid internal structure.
The existing contingency plans also did not cover the project scope in full. Also, the plans were underutilized and totally unutilized in some cases. From the case study, there is also no information regarding the utilization of the monthly cash flow developed by the controller, Kim Cashman. The amount planned as contingency expenses were prepared in a cash flow chart by Cashman and locked away in a drawer. There is, however, no record of any reference and consultation of the said chart in the case study report. The assumed inference is that the actual costs were not recorded as part of Ronyworking’s regular book keeping as predicted.
Such oversights and unsupported presumptuous planning shortcomings contributed to project timeline underperformance. As evidence, EID reported that Rony’s project was in serious need in planning and risk forecasting. The undertaking to have EID oversees the planning under sub trade and commissioning of Schemers and Plotters (S&P) meant more problems. The planning became more decentralized and this limited accountability and control. Later, John Carpenter’s friend, Ian Leadbetter was appointed as the project manager. The inexperienced and young mechanical engineer did not help in the lifeline of the project as he also disregarded planning focus. Leadbetter center of interest was on the mechanical designing and semi-automatic programming.
Admittedly, he was well equipped with the programming of the manufacturing machinery and software management. However, he did not apply planning elements of project life cycles and monitoring concepts. When the production train procurement plans were made, there were also additional problems due to unplanned forecasts. Miles Faster thus changed the specifications of the train to increase the production capacity. Due to lack of project lifecycles and solid project timeline framework, Leadbetter found himself limited in the management of the project. The limited time, in turn, led to the making of several of errors and changes in the programming. Startup debugging was as a result increased leading to increased problems, costs, and timeline stretching.
The lack of a solid project framework governing the project timeline led to dislodged operations. The resulting outcome was a lot of undefined goals leading to undefined project progress. For example, Moneyworth and Leadbetter were oblivious to the fact that there was the need for periodical review and approval of project developments. In particular, they did not anticipate specification procedures and shop drawings review approvals submissions. Consequently such submissions by S&P and Edie Forgot, Piecemeal Corporation were left unattended.
Lack of adequate planning frameworks also allowed unmanageable scope changes. Such a scope creep was experienced when production train specifications were made. The residual effect was the additional need for five feet addition to the new buildings. The scope change naturally meant additional time and costs to the project. Patel (2008) advocates for the factoring of legal scope obligations and environmental elements in project detailing. Such were also not adequately factored in the planning. As a result, the scope for surplus paint disposal arrangements had to be upgraded. The changes came after the local inspection authority insisted the need for compliance with new environmental standards.
Management Team and Human Resource Inadequacies
One apparent problem in project Rony’s was the lack of proper job match and work placement (Pawelzik, 2009). Ian Leadbetter was not skilled enough to head a project of such magnitude. While highly skilled in mechanical engineering and software programming, Leadbetter was not equipped to lead the project. He did not have project management training and experience needed to manage the overall designing. He failed to apply project life cycles approaches and monitoring ideas in his oversight. As a result, there occurred major flaws when specifications did not meet the standards of the equipment leading to foundation problems. He contributed to personnel conflict and stains by not respecting the set bureaucratic chain (Noe, 2006).
A two-week delay in construction schedule resulted due to lack of project approval from the two as they were on vacation. Lack of accountability was also a factor in the overall shortcomings of the project. The older staff pointedly blamed John Carpenters for the alleged introduction of fangled and unnecessary ideas. It is noteworthy that all the executive staff was responsible for discussing and approving such plans before implementation. Such happened due to the lack of proper delegation, specialization and worked placement by the human resource (Narayana, Appannaiah & Sathyaprasad, 2010).
Poor Risk Management
Rony’s project lacked proper risk management in its planning and execution. Here, the most appropriate approach was the benefits realization management theory (BRM). The application of this theory would have ensured that there was a peprpertual tracking of the construction plans. Without such a model in place, there was no way to ascertain Rony’s project was in still in the track. Older employees labeled the unfortunate turn of the expansion plans as John’s ‘unnecessary’ ideas. What they failed to do was appreciate that most projects rarely work as per timeline. Instead, project management failed to identify the design and production train segments as possible project veering off elements. Complacency seems to have made the management comfortable and unwilling to take risks on John Carpenter’s proposals of subcontracting. Budget changes were therefore not adequately planned for by Kim Cashman. He assumed actual costs would be related to normal book keeping and gave no space estimations for costs exceeding planned estimates.
There were also clearly no definite contingency plans in the event of upgrading and construction being affected. When these areas were negatively affected, customer loyalty suffered greatly. The sales VP, Sharpe, as a result, made desperate marketing efforts that had only a marginal effect. As problems piled up, the management went into a fighting mode, as they started losing control of the project. Due to ambiguous contingency plans of the Rony’s project, the reaction was disorganized and unproductive. The management resulted in spending a lot of money in an attempt to solve all the problems. Had there been solid and defined contingency plans, a risk assessment would have provided direction for risk management.
Conclusion
In summation, Rony’s project was a necessary project, which was inefficiently managed. Due to lack of proper project management elements, the expansion plans fell into numerous management problems. One of the shortcomings was the lack of a proper plan to guide the project progress. Also, there was a poor matching of skills and job mandate. Lack of productive established formal communication lines was also another problem. Such inadequacy led to the chaotic and uncontrolled use of resources and management direction. Finally, the management at Rony’s lacked a proper contingency plan and risk management structures. Consequently, the following recommendations should be implemented to avoid similar problems and challenges at Ronworking Company.
Recommendation
There is a need for the company to establish structured communication lines and traditions at Ronworking. Mehta (2007) suggests that formation of communications office can be established to ensure proper processing and dissemination of information. Such would be made the mandatory attachment in ensuring storage and reference data quality in future projects. For similar undertakings, the company should also ensure accountability is assured by proper bureaucratic institutionalization. Under such a program, projects will be discussed, evaluated and approved by an executive committee. Such an approach will ensure there is a formal, structured and efficient progress of undertaking a project of such magnitude.
In that connection, the firm should consider hiring or outsourcing professional project managers where such projects are being undertaken. It is also important to do a background review of all the employees in regards to qualification and skills capabilities. Such will inform future job placement and appointment of management and administrative heads. Finally, there is the need to increase the coherence and team work spirit at Ronwork.Collins (2011) argues that Cooperation and collaborative approaches should be considered as part of the company’s culture. This will ensure timely balance and checks where potential problems and shortcomings occur.
References
Armstrong, M. & Armstrong, M. (2011). Armstrong's handbook of strategic human resource management. London: Kogan Page.
Burrow, J. & Kleindl, B. (2012). Business Management. Mason, US: Cengage Learning.
Cleland, D. & Ireland, L. (2008). Project manager's handbook. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Collins, R. (2011). Project management. New York: Nova Science Publishers.
Mehta, R. (2007). Project management. Jaipur: Aavishkar Publishers.
Narayana Reddy, P., Appannaiah, H., & Sathyaprasad, B. (2010). Business management. Mumbai [India]: Himalaya Pub. House.
Noe, R. (2006). Human resource management. Boston, Mass.: McGraw-Hill.
Patel, V. (2008). Project management. Jaipur, India: Oxford Book Co.
Pawelzik, B. (2009). Communication in business. München: Oldenbourg.
Sen, M. (2008). Business management. Jaipur, India: Oxford Book Co.
