Case Study

Star, Inc.

Star, a long-established firm specializing in manufacturing testing equipment for the tire industry, had a well-established structure with separate departments overseen by specialized functional managers. The company comprised two main technical divisions: mechanical engineering and electrical engineering. These departments both reported to an engineering vice president, who consistently came from a mechanical engineering background. Consequently, projects at Star were primarily approached from a mechanical engineering standpoint, often disregarding the crucial importance of the electrical control systems in the company's equipment. In truth, it was these very electrical control systems that set Star's equipment apart and allowed it to outperform competitors.

Due to the high level of autonomy within the departments, a culture of internal competition prevailed, where line managers often prioritized their own success rather than the overall well-being of Star. Instead of collaborating to prevent project delays, they would secretly wish that other managers would be responsible for any setbacks. This lack of cooperation led to a blame game when deadlines were missed, exacerbating the problem over time.

Customer service at Star consistently attributed all issues to the engineering department, regardless of the nature of the problem. Whether it was due to improper assembly, inadequate documentation, or component failure, engineering was always held responsible. Regardless of the specific problem encountered in the field, customer service unfailingly placed the blame on the engineering department.

Unsurprisingly, the engineering department at Star tended to attribute most issues to production, asserting that the equipment was not assembled correctly and lacked the necessary quality control measures. Engineering would design a product and then simply pass it off to production without ever providing assistance on the manufacturing floor. Any errors or suggestions reported by the production team to engineering were consistently disregarded. Engineers often held the perception that the assemblers lacked the capability to contribute to design improvements.

In the final stages, production was responsible for assembling and delivering the product to the customer. However, a common occurrence was that the production team would make design changes during assembly without involving the engineering department. This practice led to significant issues with documentation. Eventually, customer service would notify engineering that the documentation was incorrect, resulting in yet another round of conflict among the various departments.

The president of Star held a firm belief in the importance of project management, but unfortunately, his message went unheard. The prevailing culture within the company was too deeply ingrained to be easily changed. As a result, projects consistently experienced significant failures. Some of these failures were attributed to the absence of strong sponsorship or commitment from line managers. In one particular case, a project collapsed due to the project leader's inability to control the project scope. Each passing day saw the project fall further behind schedule, as additional work was added with little consideration for the original completion date. Project estimates were based on subjective intuition rather than reliable quantitative data.

The increasing delay in shipping dates was causing growing frustration among the customers. In response, the customers took matters into their own hands by assigning their own project managers as "watchdogs" to safeguard their companies' interests. These watchdog project managers were primarily responsible for ensuring the timely and complete delivery of the purchased equipment. This heightened level of customer involvement in project management became more prominent than ever before. Recognizing the need for action to achieve a level of excellence in project management, the president faced the question of what action to take and when to implement it.

Answer ALL questions:

1. Based on above case, analyze the sources that will be the most significant opposition to achieving excellence in project management.

(25 marks)

2. Evaluate the strategy that should be developed to attain a high level of proficiency in project management.

(25 marks)

3. Analyze the anticipated timeline for reaching a certain level of excellence. (25 marks)

4. Investigate the potential hazards Star may face if the customers experience with project management increases while Stars knowledge remains stagnant.

(25 marks)