Project team A
Strathclyde Systems RoleJob Title
Angus StewartProject Manager (Bin)
Bill FergusonCorporate Commercial
Gordon BrownQuality Assurance Manager (Elab)
Rod GreenEngineering Manager (Bin)
Chris LarssonDeputy Manager (Bin)
The purpose of this summary report is too highlight issues that have been encountered by the project team on the MANSCI contract. This three-page report provides highlighted areas of concern in an effort to layout the problems and present solutions.
At the 4 weekly progress meeting with Alan Carrie of MANSCI, held on week 31 (previous meeting held on wk 28), several issues have come to light that are affecting our ability as a team to deliver this project within the ‘iron triangle’ of Cost, Time and Quality. The issues are:
Appendix 1 contains a detailed Project Cost Analysis for this project. The cost of the terminals to us from W&S was £18K and we charged MANSCI £38K making a clear profit of £200K on the 10 Terminals. At yesterdays meeting with Ian Simpson , the Senior Systems Manager at MANSCI, requested a further duplicate terminal per site. Isobel will quote this to him once we have confirmed the cost with W&S.
W&S have requested a contribution to overtime working to reduce the timescale on the modifications to the Terminals. The cost quoted is £12K to reduce to 15 days and a further £12K to reduce to 10 days. The options are:
1.Pass this cost onto the client.
2.Take the longer view with MANSCI and absorb this cost.
3.Refuse to pay W&S and enforce their contract responsibility (may be difficult as we only have a letter of intent!). 4.Get Bill Ferguson to negotiate cost down with W&S
Opto Cablayers have been reported as being in financial difficulties. This is crtitical to the project as the fibre Optic Cable is on a 35 week delivery and will be delivered to their premises. We need to move quickly to establish the seriousness of Opto’s position and move the delivery of the cable to our premises. Should the receivers be called it would certainly cause delays due to long lead time of the cable. Another Cable laying company should be lined in in the meantime as a contingency.
The lack of up-to-date budget performance figures are of great concern to both the Project Leader and the Project Manager.
The attached Gantt chart shows the current status. Key to the decision making process are the following factors:
a.The Client premises are running five to seven weeks behind schedule. b.Request to supply an additional terminal to each site wasbeing assessed by Isobel Baird, potential of one week to install necessary additional cabling delay, could be done as a parallel activity with no adverse affect to timeline. 2.Werner & Scheiss
a.Debugging the W&S Terminals, time line dependent on the overtime payment decision. 3.Fast Memory Products Ltd
a.The delay due to a fire at FMP results in a 4 week delay. (Ferguson’s estimate) 4.Powerpax Ltd
a.Power supplies from Powerpax, the impact to the timeline is unknown at the moment but will have to be monitored closely. 5.Acme Installers Ltd
a.Delays may also arise form the poor quality of the work by Acme Installers, the outcome of a third cabinet is awaited, the implication being if this fails a delay will be incurred. Second sourcing for the cabinets should be initiated. 6.Strathclyde Systems
a.Two misses on the Project Plan pointed out by the client
i.Installation of terminal after dispatch – one week
ii.Dismantling and Dispatch of the mainframe and server from the Bin to Elab and then Elab to each site after mainframe terminal tests – 3 weeks in total
Several issues have been highlighted, some of these are due to the quality of our sub-contractors,...