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.$$When you question various department heads about the project manager$$s assertions to a person, they deny that this is

an adopted policy. As the head of finance puts it$,$We give the project teams our best available people when they ask.$$

However, they also admit that they have the final say in personnel assignment and project managers cannot appeal their

choices for the teams.

When you suggest to the CEO that this could be a potential reason for the poor performance of CIC$$s new product

development projects, he ponders the implications of how his organization has been staffing projects. $$OK$,$ he finally

says, $$What do you suggest that we do about it$?$QUESTION $2(20$ Marks$)$

$$Projects are staffed from the departments following negotiations between the project manager and the departmental

heads$.$ Critically discuss this statement from the case study above and make recommendations as to how both the

functional manager and project managers could negotiate a better deal in terms of acquiring new skills in the department

and competent staff on the project respectively.