Introduction
Project management is an essential tool in any company that arranges and organizes tasks and timelines in a way that helps meet deadlines. However, in the case of the Crosby Manufacturing project management, several identified issues had the power to disrupt the firm’s operations and jeopardize its position in the market. The purpose of the essay is to focus on the issues of misleading information and poor leadership decisions that affected the project and timeline of Crosby Manufacturing.
The essay will first focus on the background of the case, emphasizing the executive decisions. It will then concentrate on the poor leadership decisions and inaccurate information that exacerbated the situation, given a short timeline. The last considered point will be the consequences of the project issues, such as financial losses, disruption of team dynamics, and inability to meet the deadline.
A Brief Overview of the Case
First, it is essential to begin with the background of the case. In the early 2000s, Crosby Manufacturing was a $250 million-a-year manufacturer of electronic components when Wilfred Livingston was appointed president (Kerzner, 2017). His first significant action was to rearrange the seven hundred staff members into an updated matrix organization (Kerzner, 2017). This restructuring was the initial phase of Livingston’s long-term strategy to secure significant government contracts (Kerzner, 2017). The matrix appeared to be operating well, so it was necessary to start another stage of change.
A better MCCS policy had to be implemented as the second phase for the business. The goal was to “replace [the company’s] current computer with a more advanced model to update our MCCS reporting procedures” (Kerzner, 2017, p.203). During Livingston’s meeting with department managers, such as the EDP manager and MIS manager, the two not only provided optimistic scenarios for the project implementation but also failed to focus on the project risks. Consequently, the president of the company decided to “violate [the company’s] normal structure” and appoint Tim Emary from the planning group as a project leader (Kerzner, 2017, p.205).
As Livingston admitted, he is “not as knowledgeable as [MIS or EDP] people are in regard to computers, but he does know how to lay out a schedule and get the job done” (Kerzner, 2017, p.205). The project was decided to be finished in eighteen months (Kerzner, 2017). Therefore, the project management issues identified in the case involve misinformation regarding project prognosis, a reactive approach for such a long-term project, and appointing a person as the project leader who is unsuitable for such a position.
The Project Management Issues in the Case
To understand the mistakes made by the team and how they could have contributed to the project failure, it is essential to see what actions the team focused on. The main approach the team took was a reactive one. The president of the company, Livingstone, demonstrated the project as an urgent matter that had to be resolved immediately. However, the man failed to see that this was a long-term and highly strategic process that required much cooperation and careful decision-making. The results of this approach to the project are usually delays and uncertainty about meeting the deadlines (Hazır & Ulusoy, 2020).
As seen from the meeting with the department managers and the president, the team did not have a comprehensive plan to manage the project and did not anticipate potential issues. Instead, both MIS and EDP managers tried to impress the president with their optimistic scenarios. Rather than focusing on the risks and costs of the project, they believed that the team would be able to easily meet the deadlines. Moreover, stemming from this inability to focus on the goals and take a holistic approach to the project, the team had poor communication, which is illustrated in Livingstone’s decision to appoint Tim Emary as the project leader. Although the company president can appoint different people to positions they deem suitable, sometimes such decisions lack logic and can be detrimental to business operations.
In the given case, Tim Avery was a member of the planning team, and Livingstone decided to make him the leader of the project, not because of his hard skills, such as his knowledge of computer systems, but because of his soft skills, such as his ability to perform tasks successfully. However, in such a leadership position, a person must possess certain knowledge of the systems and be able to communicate clearly with other stakeholders regarding the project, risks, and progress (Cooper, 2019). Therefore, Avery might not only struggle in such an area but also put the implementation of the project at risk due to a lack of knowledge.
The results of these failures can be severe, with the first involving the inability to finish the project on time and meet the deadlines. Additionally, if the team is not able to complete the project within the specified timeline, increased costs and revenue loss can follow. Finally, poor communication and collaboration between the stakeholders can lead to decreased effectiveness and productivity and poor project outcomes. Overall, the company would be unable to find interesting contracts for improved revenues or sustain its competitive edge.
Conclusion
Hence, the case’s project management concerns include inaccurate project forecast information, a reactive approach for such a lengthy project, and the selection of an ineffective project leader. The team’s primary strategy was reactive, emphasizing the project’s urgency and the need for a quick solution. This project management method typically leads to delays and concerns about reaching deadlines. These mistakes can have serious consequences, including missed deadlines, poor communication, and exorbitant expenditures.
References
Cooper, R. G. (2019). The drivers of success in new-product development. Industrial Marketing Management, 76, 36-47. Web.
Hazır, Ö., & Ulusoy, G. (2020). A classification and review of approaches and methods for modeling uncertainty in projects. International Journal of Production Economics, 223, 1-12. Web.
Kerzner, H. (2017). Project management case studies (5th ed.). Wiley.