Case Scenario 1:
A company producing electronic and audio equipment has carried out a market survey. From the results of this survey, the company plans to introduce a new "fun" model stereo tape cassette player. The devise is to have attractive styling, low price and calculated to appeal to the tastes of teenage customers. By most standards, this could be regarded as a small project, requiring simple budgeting and some program control. Everything should be straightforward.
To launch the new product design, a meeting in the chief engineer's office took place with representatives form other interested departments, such as sales and production. Harold, a design engineer, was assigned to carry out the actual development work. The purpose of this meeting was aimed at setting Harold off on the right track to create the cassette player envisaged by the company's directors on the basis of the market survey.
Harold was given a set of broad objectives. He emerged from the meeting with mental notes, rough written notes and sketches. He was given an idea of production costs, styling, performance, preferred selling price, and an approximate date for distribution and release of the unit to the market.
Harold was very enthusiastic about the project and since he is responsible to develop the first experimental model of the player, retreats into his laboratory with a few interested and devoted assistants to develop the model. This working model will be subjected to the critical attention of various experts, among whom include marketing staff, industrial designer, production engineers, and representatives from the manufacturing department.
Following successful evaluation of the prototype and incorporation of recommendations from the experts, the next stage is preparation of drawings, specifications, and a small pilot production batch of units. This stage will take longer than the development of the model. The production department decides to go ahead with some limited tooling. Production engineers set up some trial manufacturing procedures, check on tolerances and test any automatic operations.
While reflecting on the project at this point, Harold discovers that he could have specified a different amplifier, which gives higher performance at a slightly reduced price. He decides to implement the change, although, it will require a redesign of the printed circuit boards even though they have been designed and ordered in prototype quantities.
In the meantime, Harold discovers that there are new loudspeakers available, which would better fit the increased power of the new amplifier and would also perfectly fit the size and shape of the cabinet. These speakers are available at only a slightly increased price and will result in a significant increase in performance. Harold decides to go ahead with the new speakers, although, this will result in further modifications and scrapping of some work.
When the prototype batch is completed, Harold discovers that the batch has a fault, which was not detected in the laboratory model. There is a significant amount of rumble from the tape cassette drive motor. Harold has several options. He could revert to the original design, using the original amplifier and speakers or introduce a simple filter circuit to reduce the rumble. Both of these options would in Harold's opinion degrade the performance of the unit. Harold decides to modify the main power unit and specify a higher quality tape drive motor. This change will cause some additional delay and cost. The unit is completed and passes all tests and Harold is satisfied.
Question: In a 1-page response, evaluate this project in terms of its outcome and offer recommendations, if any, for improving the project.
Case Scenario 2:
The Office of the General Counsel, the U.S. Department of National Well–Being, has 50 attorneys. All office records regarding internal administrative matters are maintained manually by an administrative assistant. Office automation is limited to the use of four stand-alone word processing systems. Even here, the great bulk of paper work is produced using standard electric typewriters rather than the word processors.
John Roberts, the new general counsel who has just arrived at the Department from a major law firm, is surprised to find such a low usage of new information technology. Not only are administrative matters handled manually, but also staff attorneys have no access to computerized legal research databases, such as Lexis, which are used routinely in law firms and law schools.
Unfortunately, Mr. Roberts shares with most attorneys anxiety and befuddlement regarding technical things and is not certain how to remedy the office’s information processing deficiencies. Indeed, he is not even absolutely certain that a true deficiency exists.
Allen Kaye is the only attorney in the General Counsel’s office with a technical a background. He has recently become fascinated with personal computers and their day-to-day applications. He purchased a $300 Micro Titan computer for use at home. He now wants to turn his attention to the industry standard for offices, the Datamaster 586 AT. With the arrival of a new General Counsel, he sees an opportunity to introduce the Datamaster 586 AT into the office. He meets with Mr. Roberts and argues forcefully that their office is living in an information stone age. He shows Mr. Roberts an article that recently appeared in The Washington Post describing the power of the Datamaster 586 AT in the work place. He points out that this machine, equipped with a modem, could also be used to access various legal research databases. After half an hour of persuasive arguments, he convinces Mr. Roberts to order a Datamaster 586 AT (at $5,220) for the office.
Because of the usual procurement obstacles in the Department of National Well–Being, several months pass before the computer arrives. Meanwhile, another attorney, Robin Smith, has become intrigued with the possible uses of the computer in her work. She talks to Allen Kaye about her desire to learn something about the Datamaster 586 AT, and Kaye, delighted to find someone who shares his interest in computer applications, eagerly enumerates the computer’s possibilities. At the end of the discussion, however, he turns serious for a moment and warns Ms. Smith that she should try to contain her enthusiasm somewhat so that not too many attorneys become interested in using the computer. Should this happen, he anticipates, he and Ms. Smith will have to fight tooth and nail to get onto the machine.
Unfortunately for Ms. Smith, enthusiasm is no substitute for substantive knowledge of how computers operate. She recognizes this and decides that the most efficient way to learn about software and computer operations is through formal training. She receives permission from Mr. Roberts to approach the training department of the agency to learn whether this department can provide training assistance on the use of the Datamaster 586 AT.
The training department head responds that although the department has capabilities to train agency personnel to use microcomputer software and hardware, it has already over-committed its meager resources and will be unable to assist the Office of the General Counsel. Furthermore, he refuses to approve the use of outside contractors for training General Counsel personnel on the grounds that his office cannot adequately monitor the quality of such training—and that, additionally; such outside training undercuts the rationale of his office.
Five months later, a visitor to the General Counsel’s office sees Allen Kaye bent over a Datamaster 586 AT, lost to all things save his machine and his database, word processing, and spreadsheet software. An attorney laughingly tells the visitor that Mr. Kaye is the office’s computer nut, spending 8 hours a day—5 days a week—on the machine. He adds that because no one else in the office knows the first thing about computers, no one has the slightest idea what Kaye is doing.
Questions:
1. What steps should have been taken by the U.S. Department of National Well-Being to launch the computerization effort explicitly as a project?
2. Who are the actors – some obvious, some subtle – whose goals should be taken into account? Which of these actors may make the biggest difference between project success and failure?
3. What are the goals of these different actors? What bearing do these different goals have on how the project should be carried out?