1. Problems Identified
1.1 Structural Strategy
1. No proper project structure - this made the execution and management of the project very ineffective. 2. Project over budget – The project estimated cost overrun of atleast 20% 3. Poor leadership/no leadership commitment - the customer requested the Divisional GM and his team to present the status of the project. However the DGM instructed Reichart to go with any other 3 or 4 functional managers 4. No Balanced Scorecard with critical success factors, including continuous review and appraisal processes. 5. Lack of a sufficient Guiding Coalition - no support from other functional managers 6. There is no control over functional managers - Reichart did all the work himself due to the lack of communication and the imbalance of power between the project managers and functional managers. 7. There are no policies and procedures in place - Top management failed to implement processes and policies based on programme and project management principles. This indicate a poor leadership approach 8. No proper resource allocation - Reichart did not have adequate resources(people) that could have stay at required pace or make up for the time already lost in the project management 9. There was a lack of project management in the organization - Reichart planning was in isolation not involving functional managers where their input was most needed. The project manager reported directly to the operations manager, the appointed assistant programme manager interfered by attempting to install a system that tracked problems. Focus should have been on solving the problems not finding innovative ways to track them, this organisation wasted $50,000. 10. There was a lack of governance structure or escalation procedures - Reinhardt’s first opportunity to escalate was six months into the project – only once it was behind schedule and over budget. 11. No authority for project manager - no authority over functional heads yet VP wanted to hold him accountable. 12. The organization lost focus on the goal of bringing the project back on track - because programme manager who procured a computer programme which was supposed to be a cure for the ailing project. This proved to be a waste of resources for the organization as the programme could not achieved what it was procured for. 13. Poor Communication - Reichart never held meetings with anyone involved in a project nor anyone who was suppose to assist with resources. Due to the huge delays in the project the customer grew impatient which created lack of trust and this resulted into the customer sending a resource to sit on site. This obviously introduced new set of problems for the project manager in a sense that the client was now interfering to the project, the change of scope was not documented, costed and tracked. Throughout this project there has been absence or leadership. 1.2 Behavioural Strategy
1. Mistrust - more documentation, meeting, customer representation, project review 2. No adequate experience - Reichart was just an assistant manager when Trophy was initiated. He was allocated as a PM due to poor reasons that he was involved with the project from its conception. This does not justify the fact the Reichart had proper PM experience and track record. 3. PM has no full control over resources - Reichart was undermined through this process. He had no control over budget as well as people allocated to his project. 4. Functional Managers looked down on Reichart and his team - due to lack skills, authority and experience. 5. Reichart set for failure - It is said that the Trophy project was already behind schedule and over the budget when Reichart was appointed. However no contingency plan in place. No Risk analysis conducted. 2. Solution Recommended
3. 2.1. Effective and efficient project management office
It is the project managers responsibility to make sure the customer is satisfied that the work scope is completed in a quality,...
Bibliography: 4.1. Steyn, P & Schmikl E. 2010. Programme Managing Organisational Transformation, Change and performance Improvement.
4.2. Kotter John P. “Leading Change” Harvard Business School Press
4.3. Kerzner H; A System Approach to Planning, Scheduling, and Control, nineth edition. John Wiley & Son 2003
4.4. Mark Piscopo, www.ProjectManagementDocs.com
Please join StudyMode to read the full document