SNE Heavy Equipment Projects Case Study – IT – 3000 words

SNE Heavy Equipment Projects Case Study

This brief has been compiled by the New Project Manager (henceforth abbreviated “NME”) upon his assignment by the President of the SNE Heavy Equipment (the “Company”) to investigate the situation of Project Miner in Aberness, Scotland.

1. Current Situation

A preliminary analysis of the Project Miner’s status has revealed that the current situation is dire.  Some of the chief problems are outlined below:

1. • The software, which is the mainstay of the project, gives faulty drill locations; the software performs in weeks, rather than days’ time as per specification
   • The project is based on software that has not been properly tested under northern conditions. In fact, the software’s success is mainly based upon lab trials and some outside tests performed around London.
   • While basic software training has been provided to the project staff, the company did not purchase a maintenance package to go with the software.
   • The initial lab test results of the software are missing
   • Any serious support from Brainy Systems Inc (the “Subcontractor”) is contingent upon further payment.
   • Unless a solution is found within a month, the Cold Stone Minerals (the “Client”) will terminate the contract and demand the restitution of the full amount from the SNE Heavy Equipment (the “Company”).
   • There is a serious communication problem between the project team and the Client, which has generated some friction and mistrust
   • The project team as it currently stands, including the Project Manager is despondent, discouraged and unmotivated.

In order to avoid the shutdown of the project, the NME has decided to convince the Company to invest in a supporting project, Save Miner, which should unveil the problems in the current software as well as provide a modified IT solution.  The source of the software problem is currently unknown; therefore the first step will be to undertake a major analysis of the available data to uncover the problem. Once the source of the software failure is identified, a modified version should be compiled, preliminarily tested and offered to the Client to confirm its validity.

1. Project Organisation

The NPM envisages the deployment of the majority of the current Project Miner team and its head, Alfred Newman, for the duration of the Save Miner project, except for some urgent tasks that may be necessary to maintain the Project Miner ongoing. In addition, the NPM foresees the addition of short-term inputs from an outside IT Expert that has worked in Mining projects before, a Meteorologist (to study climatic conditions) and a Geo-Technical Expert (to study soil conditions). Some trustworthy Document Controllers from the Barbados project should be deployed to assist in the quick identification of valuable data about the software and its trials.

Below is summarised the Project Organisation structure as the NPM envisions it:

*Please note that, even though in Save Miner all the funds come from the parent Company, the project is considered an integral component of the Project Miner, hence the NME will still report to the Client.

For the purpose of the responsibility matrix, a RACI framework has been chosen as suggested by Verzuh (2008). Under this framework, the following acronyms have been used: R = Responsible for Activity, A = Final Approval, C = Must Be Consulted, I = Must be Informed.

1. Fact Finding Session

Due to the length of the project’s problems, the project team is most likely demoralised and suspicious of the new delegate sent from headquarters (the future NPM). Therefore, in order to obtain sufficient information without further alienating the staff, a friendly, problem-solving leadership must be assumed by the NPM.

As Weathersby (1999) emphasises, leadership is not the same as management. Management is related to a task, while leadership is about motivating people. As Maylor (2005) points out, leadership means influencing others through actions and personality. Therefore, the task of the new NPM is to inspire the team to hope in a resolution of the project. Of course, the NPM cannot promise to be the ‘saviour’ of the project, but he can show that the parent Company is committed to finding a solution and pulling the matter through. Moreover, the NPM must show that he is dedicated to the project and that he/she has a vision of what might be done to solve the problem.

Thus, the Fact-Finding Session should be about imparting a vision as much as about fact gathering. The NPM must empathetically encourage the staff to share their minds and perspective, as well as knowledge of the problems, while providing an idea of the direction and commitment of the Company and himself to the project.

1. Project Initiation Document

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Project Miner, a major project that is expected to generate high financial returns for the Company, is in serious danger of being shut down. The Company’s task of delivering and running a mining software project to the Client, has failed until today due to unknown software errors. Therefore, two options can be foreseen: either to completely shut down the project and return the £1.3 million direct revenue to the Client, or to create a new, interim project – Save Miner – that would attempt to find a viable software solution. While Save Miner is a risky endeavour, the shut down of the Project Miner would be expected to generate both financial loss and particularly loss in reputation, which may seriously affect the Company’s profits in the long run. Therefore, this PID is arguing on behalf of a short Save Miner project, of three weeks in duration, which would attempt to quickly solve the non-performance issues of the Project Miner.  Budget (£27,390) and time (15 working days) estimates are given, alongside main activities and primary risks. The project is expected to begin on 22 December 2008 and finish on 15 January 2009.

1. PROJECT HEADING

Project Title: Save Miner

Project Sponsor: SNE Heavy Equipment

Project Manager: NME

Project Time-Frame: 3 weeks (15 working days)

1. PROJECT PURPOSE

The Save Miner project is conceived as resolving the software problem of the previous Project Miner assignment, which has been performing unsatisfactorily. Project Miner was designed to set up and run an innovative software system on behalf of the Client, which would have allowed the business venture to tap into hidden precious mineral veins. Despite successful trials in the London lab and some limited tests in Kent and Dorset, the software failed to perform on-site. Unless a solution is found within a month, the Client will demand the return of the 1.3m paid, while the Company will lose a 10m expected return. The Company’s loss of finance and reputation consequences may be serious in the long run. The present project will attempt to find in a very short amount of time a solution to the software problem and thus put Project Miner back on track.

1. PROJECT BENEFITS AND SUCCESS CRITERIA

The Save Miner project is expected to identify solutions to the software problems of Project Miner, enabling the achievement of the latter assignment’s objectives. Project Miner is an important project for the Company, as it is expected to bring major returns and will have a serious impact on the Company’s abilities to win future projects in the field.

The success criterion of the project would include a software solution that would give positive drill readings within days of the programme being run. The confirmation of the solution’s feasibility would be given by the Client’s discovery of a vein in the place predicted by the trial run.

1. PROJECT SCOPE

The project will be divided into two main tasks: Identify Software Problems and Devise Modified Version. Each of these tasks will comprise a number of activities as detailed below. There will be three main project meetings: a Kick-Off Meeting, a Recap Meeting and a Close-Off Meeting. The project will not include dealing with outstanding activities on the Project Miner assignment, which will be carried on in parallel by available project team staff.

Simple Work Breakdown Structure (adapted from Haugan 2001, Maylor 2005)

Activities and Deliverables Table

1. PROJECT CONSTRAINTS

Constraints for the project include:

• Strict time frame to prove viability (3 weeks): this constraint is fixed but can be controlled to some extent through an efficient allocation of tasks.
• Limited amount of staff: there is a limited team that the Company is willing and able to invest into the project. The President can be persuaded to add the Barbados team, but may be unable to provide further expertise. Any extra requirements of internal staff may have to be negotiated with other projects.
• Access to IT expertise: the Subcontractor can provide an expert for free as he/she becomes available. Clearly, this type of ad-hoc investment would not be sufficient for the Save Miner project. A dedicated task team must be hired from Subcontractor and deployed quickly.
• Access to outside expertise: the project needs an outside IT expert with experience in mining. The ability of the PM to find this person within the short time frame may be limited. Other additional expertise should be sought either inside or outside the Company.

1. PROJECT RISKS

There are some major risks associated with this project, as presented below. These are less-than-trivial risks that will need to be monitored throughout the project. Due to the project’s short duration, a proactive attitude will be taken by the Project Manager to account for any unexpected events.  Due to high uncertainty in this project, flexible and versatile management has to compensate (Miller & Lessard 2001, Floricel and Miller 2001).

# Risk Area TCQ analysis Likelihood Impact Risk Owner

References

Floricel, S. & Miller, R. (2001) Strategizing for Anticipated Risks and Turbulence in Large-Scale Engineering Projects. International Journal of Project Management, 19, pp. 445–455.

Haugan, G. (2001). Effective Work Breakdown Structures. Management Concepts.

Maylor, H. (2005). Project Management, 3rd ed. Prentice Hall.

Miller R, & Lessard, D. (2001) Understanding and Managing Risks In Large Engineering Projects. International Journal of Project Management, 19, pp. 437–443.

Verzuh, E. (2008). The Fast Forward MBA in Project Management, 3^rd edition. John Wiley and Sons.

Weathersby, G. B. (1999). Leadership vs. Management. Management Review, 88, pp.5.