Ajax Project

[pic 1]

Table of Contents

1.        Executive Summary………………………        pg3

2.        Introduction………………………………...        pg4

3.        Problems and Causes……………………        pg5

                3.1.        Project Planning                        pg6

                3.2.        Organisational Structure                pg7

                3.3        Effective Project Team                pg9

5.        Recommendations………………………        ..        pg12

6.        Conclusion………………………………….        pg13

7.        Bibliography ……………………………….        pg14

List of Figures

Figure 1. Project planning steps……………….        pg6

Figure 2. Matrix organisation structure……….        pg7

Figure3. Team building outcomes……………..        pg10

List of Tables

Table 1. A matrix organisation structure…….        pg8

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

CEBEX Corporation is a huge multi-billion global company specialising in defence. Ajax is one of many defense projects that CEBEX has a contract which is funded by the U.S. Department of Defence, a high-tech security system project and Ajax is its code name. Ajax is a project that falls under the Integrated Systems & Solutions business area within CEBEX and this project is directed at designing, developing, and installing a security system at an important government installation.

Issues of poor planning, organisational structure and effective team structure were identified in this case study.  Problems that were identified were linked to poor planning, control and being accountable of each team members work efforts. No expectations were upfront nor addressing issues of responsibility, active communication and encouraging team members on being problem identifiers and solvers. Team building is another factor that the project manager addressed once and didn’t treat it as an ongoing exercise for team morale and a platform that will bring the closer and making it easy to overcome the dynamics within the divided team.

Recommendations that arose from the case included proper planning of the project which would have prevented the demise of the project where the project manager was making last minute interventions that wouldn’t have been necessary had he been vigilant. The issue of team collaboration techniques such as effective team buildings that would have been ongoing could have mitigated the failure of this project as well as creating a platform for interaction and cohesion amongst the team members.

2. INTRODUCTION

CEBEX Corporation is a huge company specialising in defence with annual sales in excess of $30 billion and a staff compliment of more than 120 000 employees worldwide. CEBEX has 5 business areas which are Aeronautics, Electronic Engineering, Information & Technology Services, Integration Systems & Solutions, and Space Systems. CEBEX acquired a high-tech security system project and gave it a code name which is Ajax, which is funded by the U.S. Department of Defence.

Ajax is a project that falls under the Integrated Systems & Solutions business area, its aimed at the homeland security business. This project is directed at designing, developing, and installing a security system at an important government installation.

Tran is appointed as a project manager for this project and has been given a team of 30 members, they are full-time hardware and software engineers. Tran identified two major risks when he started this project. He firstly discovered the technical risks inherent in the project. The design principles of the project made sense to him especially since the project used technology that has been proven regardless that it had never been applied in this particular field. Tran knew that it’s risky to use technology that been used in laboratories versus the real world and would test the patience and ingenuity of the team. This would involve integrating the audio, optical, tactile, and laser subsystems.

The second concern he had was the team dynamics whereby the team was split into two, being the hardware and electrical engineers. Issues of different skill sets, generational differences, and salary packages.

The underlying issues are made apparent, which are team dynamics, lack of organisational structure, organisational pressure to deliver, and poor project planning as a result of poor engagement of important stakeholders.

3. PROBLEMS AND CAUSES

• Failure of proper project planning and control – Tran didn’t have a proper planning session with key stakeholders, they would have realised that they were setting the team for failure an unrealistic schedule.
• No realistic timelines – People felt that the timelines were unfair and unrealistic.
• Structural challenges – Everyone reports to Tran, there are no technical managers that will concentrate on the team and delivery, Tran manages the project as well as the employees. Had there been a proper structure the failure of tests after each phase could have been prevented.
• Lack of senior management involvement - If senior management was kept in the loop they would have picked up when the project was failing to meet all deadlines and intervened.
• Communication – If proper communication channels were established early a lot of mistakes would have been picked up early instead of Tran trying to establish status meeting in the last phase as a means of damage control.
• Team dynamics – the tension between the two groups were too deep to try to remedy by a retreat. There was resentment and animosity caused by numerous dynamics between the two. There was no positive momentum and no team identity which needed Tran to pay close attention too in the beginning.
• No proper testing – Proper testing did not take place before deployment of the system, had this been done and facilitated by proper communication the failure could have been detected in time.
• No teamwork – Had there been proper and efficient team work there would have been no failures after each test. The failures after each test should have been an indicator that the team wasn’t working seamlessly together.

3.1. Project Planning

Project planning is defined as the creation of formal plans to realise the project’s objectives (Meredith and Mantel 1995). It has been stated that, “good upfront planning may reduce the number of changes required” (Kerzner, 2003)