Columbus Instruments, Inc. Problems had been building at Columbus Instruments, Inc. $($CIC$)$ for several years now with the new product development process. The last six high visibility projects had either been scrapped outright after excessive cost and schedule overruns or$,$ once released to the marketplace, had been a commercial disaster. In the past two years, CIC estimated that it had squandered over $$15$ million on poorly developed or failed projects. Every time a new project venture fails, the company conducts extensive post project review meetings, documentation analysis, and market research to try to determine the underlying cause. To date, all it has been able to determine is that it appears that the problems lie with the project management and development process. Something somewhere is going very wrong. You have been called into the organization as a consultant to try to understand the source of the problems that are leading to widespread demoralization across the firm. After spending hours interviewing the senior project management staff and technical personnel, you are convinced that the problem does not lie with their processes, which are up to date and logical$.$ On the other hand, you have some questions about project team productivity. It seems that every project is running late, is over budget, and has suboptimal functionality, regardless of how skilled the project manager in charge has been. This information suggests to you that there may be some problems in how the project teams are operating. As you analyze CIC$$s project development process, you note several items of interest. First, the company is organized along strictly functional lines. Projects are staffed from the departments following negotiations between the project manager and the departmental heads. Second, the culture of CIC seems to place little status or authority on that they are not even permitted to write a performance evaluation on project team members: that right applies only to the functional department heads. Third, many projects require that team members be assigned to them on an exclusive basis$$ that is$,$ once personnel have been assigned to a project, they typically remain with the project team on a full$-$time basis for the term of the project. The average project lasts about $14$ months. One morning, as you are walking the hallways, you notice a project team $$war room$$ set up for the latest new product development initiative within the company. The war room concept requires that project team members be grouped together at a central location, away from their functional departments, for the life of the project. What intrigues you is a hand$-$lettered sign you see taped to the door of the project war room: $$Leper Colony$.$ When you ask around about the sign, some members of the firm say with a chuckle, $$Oh$,$ we like to play jokes on folks assigned to new projects.$$ Further investigation of project team members suggests the sign does not amuse them. One engineer shrugs and says, $$That$$s just their way of making sure we understand what we have been assigned to$.$ Last week they put up another one that said $$Purgatory$.$ When you ask him later in the day, the project manager confirms this story and adds some interesting information: $$Around here, we use detached $($meaning centralized$)$ project teams. I get no say as far as who will be assigned to the project, and lately the functional heads have been using our projects as a dumping ground for their poor performers$.$ When you question him further, the project manager observes, $$Think about it$.$ I have no say in who gets assigned to the team. I can$$t even fill out a performance review on them. Now, if you were a department head who was trying to offload a trouble$-$maker or someone who was incompetent, what could be better than shipping them off to a project team for a year or so$?$ Of course, you can imagine how they feel when they hear that they have been assigned to one of our project teams. It$$s as if you just signed their death warrant. Talk about low motivation!$$ When you question various department heads about the project manager$$s assertions to a person, they deny that this is an adopted policy.

QUESTION $1(20$ Marks$)...$ the company is organized along strictly functional lines.$$ In light of this statement, it is clear that the Organisational

Breakdown Structure $($OBS$)$ in the case study above is most certainly the Functional OBS which seems not to be in the

favour of the project manager. Compare and contrast this Functional OBS with that of the Matrix OBS using a table and

based on this comparative analysis, recommend the OBS which is more favourable for project management. Be sure to

outline the factors that determine OBS selection.