SECTION A $[40$ MARKS$]$

Read the case study below and answer ALL the questions that follow.

L$.$ P$.$ Manning Corporation

In March $1991,$ the Marketing Division of the L$.$ P$.$ Manning Corporation performed a national survey to test the public$$s

reaction to a new type of toaster. Manning had achieved success in the past and established itself as a leader in the

home appliance industry.

Although the new toaster was just an idea, the public responded favourably. In April of the same year, the vice presidents

for planning, marketing, engineering, and manufacturing all met to formulate plans for the development and ultimately the

production of the new toaster. Marketing asserted that the manufacturing cost must remain below $$70$ per unit or else

Manning Corporation would not be competitive. Based on the specifications drawn up in the meeting, manufacturing

assured marketing that this cost could be met.

The engineering division was given six months to develop the product. Manning$$s executives were eager to introduce the

product for the Christmas rush. This might give them an early foothold on a strong market share.

During the R&D phase, marketing continually $$pestered$$ engineering with new designs and changes in specifications that

would make the new product easier to market. The ultimate result was a one$-$month slip in the schedule.

Pushing the schedule to the right greatly displeased manufacturing personnel. According to the vice president for

manufacturing, speaking to the marketing manager: $$I$$ve just received the final specifications and designs from

engineering. This is not what we had agreed on last March. These changes will cause us to lose at least one additional

month to change our manufacturing planning. And because we$$re already one month behind, I don$$t see any way that we

could reschedule our Christmas production facilities to accommodate this new product. Our established lines must come

first. Furthermore, our estimating department says that these changes will increase the cost of the product by at least $25$

to $35$ percent. And, of course, we must include the quality control section, which has some questions as to whether we

can actually live with these specifications. Why don$$t we just cancel this project or at least postpone it until next year?$$

QUESTION $1(20$ Marks$)$

The case study signifies discontentment and conflict between the key departments related to the project. In hindsight,

consider yourself as the appointed project manager of the project in the case study. Drawing on your knowledge of the

effective use of artifacts in project management, identify and appraise the role of artifacts in project management in the

context of the case study. Provide a comprehensive discussion on how you would have prevented the rift between the

stakeholder departments in the project in the case study.

QUESTION $2(20$ Marks$)$

It is assumed that a more streamlined and effective organisational structure could have prevented the conflict and

misunderstanding between the departments of the project in the case study. Analyse the projectised organisational

breakdown structure and discuss its advantages and disadvantages in the context of the case study. Your deliberation

must clearly express whether the proposed projectised organisational breakdown structure could have been a solution to

preventing the conflict between the departments in the project in the case study.