Assignment No 1

Project Planning &

Management
Topic: Case Studies

SUBMITTED BY:-

Muhammad Awais
Reg # SP13/BEE/060/8B
SUBMITTED TO:-

Dr.Syed Muhammad Ali Tirmizi

Date:-

October 17,2016

Kombs
Engineering
(CASE #1)
In June 1993, Kombs Engineering had grown to a company with $25 million in
sales. The business base consisted of two contracts with the U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE), one for $15 million and one for $8 million. The remaining $2 million
consisted of a variety of smaller jobs for $15,000 to $50,000 each.
The larger contract with DOE was a five-year contract for $15 million per
year. The contract was awarded in 1988 and was up for renewal in 1993. DOE
had made it clear that, although they were very pleased with the technical performance
of Kombs, the follow-on contract must go through competitive bidding by
law. Marketing intelligence indicated that DOE intended to spend $10 million per
year for five years on the follow-on contract with a tentative award date of
October 1993.
On June 21, 1993, the solicitation for proposal was received at Kombs. The
technical requirements of the proposal request were not considered to be a problem
for Kombs. There was no question in anyones mind that on technical merit
alone, Kombs would win the contract. The more serious problem was that DOE
required a separate section in the proposal on how Kombs would manage the $10
million/year project as well as a complete description of how the project management
system at Kombs functioned.
When Kombs won the original bid in 1988, there was no project management
requirement. All projects at Kombs were accomplished through the traditional
organizational structure. Line managers acted as project leaders.
In July 1993, Kombs hired a consultant to train the entire organization in
project management. The consultant also worked closely with the proposal team
in responding to the DOE project management requirements. The proposal was
submitted to DOE during the second week of August. In September 1993, DOE
provided Kombs with a list of questions concerning its proposal. More than 95
percent of the questions involved project management. Kombs responded to all
questions.
In October 1993, Kombs received notification that it would not be granted
the contract. During a post-award conference, DOE stated that they had no faith
in the Kombs project management system. Kombs Engineering is no longer in
business.

QUESTIONS
1. What was the reason for the loss of the contract?
Ans: The reason behind the loss of contract was the failure of Kombs engineering in project
management requirements because DOE stated that they had no faith in Kombs project
management system. During the period of five years of contract, the Komb did no developed a
proper management system. Since more than 95% questions were related to project management,
it shows that it has now become an integral part of project.Hence the reliance only on technical
capabilities resulted in loss of contract.
2. Could it have been averted?
Ans: Yes, the situation could have been averted if company had developed a proper and mature
project management system instead of only reliance on technical expertise during the period of 5
years. Moreover,the hiring of consultant for only one month was not enough to train the entire
organization in project management.
3. Does it seem realistic that proposal evaluation committees could consider
project management expertise to be as important as technical ability?
Ans: Yes, it is very necessary to consider the project management very important because it is
key to project success in terms of achieving objective in time and within budget.Project
management is now diversily used in organizations and industries and it has the same or
probably more worth as of technical capabilities and other skills and expertise.

Macon, Inc.

(Case #2 )

Macon was a fifty-year-old company in the business of developing test equipment for the tire
industry. The company had a history of segregated departments with very focused functional line
managers. The company had two major technical departments: mechanical engineering and
electrical engineering. Both departments reported to a vice president for engineering, whose
background was always mechanical engineering. For this reason, the company focused all
projects from a mechanical engineering perspective. The significance of the test equipments
electrical control system was often minimized when, in reality, the electrical control systems
were what made Macons equipment outperform that of the competition. Because of the strong
autonomy of the departments, internal competition existed. Line managers were frequently
competing with one another rather than focusing on the best interest of Macon. Each would hope
the other would be the cause for project delays instead of working together to avoid project
delays altogether. Once dates slipped, fingers were pointed and the problem would worsen
over time.
One of Macons customers had a service department that always blamed engineering for all of
their problems. If the machine was not assembled correctly, it was engineerings fault for not
documenting it clearly enough. If a component failed, it was engineerings fault for not designing
it correctly. No matter what problem occurred in the field, customer service would always put the
blame on engineering.
As might be expected, engineering would blame most problems on production claiming that
production did not assemble the equipment correctly and did not maintain the proper level of
quality. Engineering would design a product and then throw it over the fence to production
without ever going down to the manufacturing floor to help with its assembly. Errors or
suggestions reported from production to engineering were being ignored. Engineers often
perceived the assemblers as incapable of improving the design. Production ultimately assembled
the product and shipped it out to the customer. Oftentimes during assembly the production
people would change the design as they saw fit without involving engineering. This would cause
severe problems with documentation. Customer service would later inform engineering that the
documentation was incorrect, once again causing conflict among all departments. The president
of Macon was a strong believer in project management. Unfortunately, his preaching fell upon
deaf ears. The culture was just too strong. Projects were failing miserably. Some failures were
attributed to the lack of sponsorship or commitment from line managers. One project failed as
the result of a project leader who failed to control scope. Each day the project would fall further
behind because work was being added with very little regard for the projects completion date.
Project estimates were based upon a gut feel rather than upon sound quantitative data. The
delay in shipping dates was creating more and more frustration for the customers. The customers
began assigning their own project managers as watchdogs to look out for their companies best

interests. The primary function of these watchdog project managers was to ensure that the
equipment purchased would be delivered on time and complete. This involvement by the
customers was becoming more prominent than ever before. The president decided that action
was needed to achieve some degree of excellence in project management. The question was what
action to take, and when.
QUESTIONS
1. Where will the greatest resistance for excellence in project management come
from?
Ans: The greatest resistance come from the traditional structure of the company.There was
internal competition in the organization which is existing from 50 years.The line managers were
frequently competing with one another which causes delay in the projects.Macon,the vice
president,was incharge of both departments (Electrical and Mechanical) but he had a mechanical
background which resulted in favor for the mechanical engineering department however work
from other departments outperform the company from its competitors.
3. What plan should be developed for achieving excellence in project management?
Ans: First of all,someone should take the responisbility to managing and controlling the
interdepartment competition. There should be a system which could properly define that who
reports who? and Who is responding to what ?. Secondly, additional person should have both
electrical and mechanical background. To heal and rebuild the broken relationships and internal
competitions, there should be special arrangements such as regular meetings and social events.
To retain the customers trust, the project should have no time delay.
4. How long will it take to achieve some degree of excellence?
Ans: As the company has 50 years old traditional carporate culture, Unfortunately, it will take
long time to achieve some degree of excellence. The traditional structures are often inflexible
toward the changes that occurs in environment. So it is quite long process to take over that so
called traditional structure.
4. Explain the potential risks to Macon if the customers experience with project
management increases while Macons knowledge remains stagnant.
Ans: The potential risks to Macon will result in low profit to the company because the customers
will lose trust due to bad reputation and they will find another company. The company will be
comparitively functioning slower then the changing outside environment.

Honicker
Corporation

(Case # 3)

BACKGROUND

Honicker Corporation was well-recognized as a high-quality manufacturer of dashboards for

automobiles and trucks. Although it serviced mainly U.S. automotive and truck manufacturers,
the opportunity to expand to a worldwide supplier was quite apparent. Its reputation was wellknown worldwide but it was plagued for years with ultraconservative senior management
leadership that prevented growth into the international marketplace. When the new management
team came on board in 2009, the conservatism disappeared. Honicker was cash rich, had large
borrowing power and lines of credit with financial institutions, and received an AA- quality
rating on its small amount of corporate debt. Rather than expand by building manufacturing
facilities in various countries, Honicker decided to go the fast route by acquiring four companies
around the world: Alpha, Beta, Gamma, and Delta Companies. Each of the four acquired
companies serviced mainly its own geographical areas. The senior management team in each of
the four companies knew the culture in their geographic areas and had a good reputation with
their clients and local stakeholders. The decision was made by Honicker to leave each companys
senior management teams intact provided that the necessary changes, as establishedby corporate,
could be implemented. Honicker wanted each company to have the manufacturing capability to
supply parts to any Honicker client worldwide. But doing this was easier said than done.
Honicker had an enterprise project management methodology (EPM) that
worked well. Honicker understood project management and so did the majority of Honickers
clients and stakeholders in the United States. Honicker recognized that the biggest challenge
would be to get all of the divisions at the same level of project management maturity and using
the same corporatewide EPM system or a modified version of it. It was expected that each of the
four acquired companies may want some changes to be made.
The four acquired divisions were all at different levels of project management maturity. Alpha
did have an EPM system and believed that its approach to project management was superior to
the one that Honicker was using. Beta Company was just beginning to learn project management
but did not have any formal EPM system although it did have a few project management
templates that were being used for status reporting to its customers. Gamma and Delta
Companies were clueless about project management. To make matters worse, laws in each of the
countries where the acquired companies were located created other stakeholders that had to be
serviced, and all of these stakeholders were at different levels of project management maturity. In
some countries government stakeholders were actively involved because of employment and
procurement laws whereas in other countries government stakeholders were passive participants
unless health, safety, or environmental laws were broken.
It would certainly be a formidable task developing an EPM system that would satisfy all of the
newly acquired companies, their clients, and their stakeholders.
ESTABLISHING THE TEAM
Honicker knew that there would be significant challenges in getting a project management
agreement in a short amount of time. Honicker also knew that there is never an acquisition of
equals; there is always a landlord and tenants, and Honicker is the landlord. But acting as a

landlord and exerting influence in the process could alienate some of the acquired companies and
do more harm than good. Honickers approach was to treat this as a project, and each company,
along with its clients and local stakeholders, would be treated as project stakeholders. Using
stakeholder relations management practices would be essential to getting an agreement on the
project management approach. Honicker requested that each company assign three people to the
project management implementation team that would be headed up by Honicker personnel. The
ideal team member, as suggested by Honicker, would have some knowledge and/or experience in
project management and be authorized by their senior levels of management to make decisions
for their company. The representatives should also understand the stakeholder needs from their
clients and local stakeholders. Honicker wanted an understanding to be reached as early as
possible that each company would agree to use the methodology that was finally decided upon
by the team. Senior management in each of the four companies sent a letter of understanding
to Honicker promising to assign the most qualified personnel and agreeing to use the
methodology that was agreed upon. Each stated that their company understood the importance of
this project. The first part of the project would be to come to an agreement on the methodology.
The second part of the project would be to invite clients and stakeholders to see the methodology
and provide feedback. This was essential since the clients and stakeholders would eventually be
interfacing with the methodology.
KICKOFF MEETING
Honicker had hoped that the team could come to an agreement on a companywide
EPM system within six months. But after the kickoff meeting was over, Honicker
realized that it would probably be two years before an agreement would be
reached on the EPM system. There were several issues that became apparent at
the first meeting:
Each company had different time requirements for the project.
Each company saw the importance of the project differently.
Each company had its own culture and wanted to be sure that the final
design was good fit with that culture.
Each company saw the status and power of the project manager differently.
Despite the letters of understanding, two of the companies, Gamma and
Delta, did not understand their role and relationship with Honicker on
this project.
Alpha wanted to micromanage the project, believing that everyone
should use its methodology.
Senior management at Honicker asked the Honicker representatives at the
kickoff meeting to prepare a confidential memo on their opinion of the first meeting
with the team. The Honicker personnel prepared a memo including the following
comments:
Not all of the representatives at the meeting openly expressed their true
feelings about the project.
It was quite apparent that some of the companies would like to see the
project fail.
Some of the companies were afraid that the implementation of the new
EPM system would result in a shift in power and authority.
Questions
Some people were afraid that the new EPM system would show that fewer

resources were needed in the functional organization, thus causing a

downsizing of personnel and a reduction in bonuses that were currently
based upon headcount in functional groups.
Some seemed apprehensive that the implementation of the new system
would cause a change in the companys culture and working relationships
with their clients.
Some seemed afraid of learning a new system and being pressured into
using it.
It was obvious that this would be no easy task. Honicker had to get to know
all companies better and understand their needs and expectations. Honicker management
had to show them that their opinion was of value and find ways to win
their support.
QUESTIONS
1. What are Honickers options now?
Ans: One of the option for honicker is now to establish the better interorganization relationshilps and
to build the bridge of communication between them. The second option might be revewing the plan
and make some ammendments regarding to the concerns of the companies. Also there is a window of
stepping backfoot from the plan and quit.
2. What would you recommend that Honicker do first?
Ans: He should firstly take all the companies in confidence and let them know and clear their doubts
regarding plan such as shift in power and authority .
3. What if, after all attempts, Gamma and Delta companies refuse to come on
board?
Ans: If both of the companies refuse to come then project management program should be initiated
in these two companies. Moreover, the training sessions, seminars and orther social activites should
be conducted periodically to make a path toward EPM and leaving that traditional structure.
4. What if Alpha Company is adamant that its approach is best and refuses to
budge?
Ans: In that case the Honicker should leave a decision on third party management expert team which
is agreed by both parties. The task of that particular team is to compare the EPM system of Alpha
company as well as Honickers and make a decision. The better system should be adopted entirely.No
matter even if alpha has better better approach, it should be adopted.
5. What if Gamma and Delta Companies argue that their clients and stakeholders
have not readily accepted the project management approach and they
wish to be left alone with regard to dealing with their clients?
Ans: The project management program is answer to this problem. The client and stakeholders
knowledge regarding management is need to be enhanced. Since these two companies have no
management system and they are purely traditional and inflexible towards change i.e dealing with
clients. For the time being they should be left alone but not for the far future.There should be
management system initiation and it should start its function in parallel during this time when they
are left alone.
6. Under what conditions would Honicker decide to back away and let each
company do its own thing?

Ans: If it comes the risk of insurrection inside the organization and loosing the customers faith
towards company. Additionaly if customers or clients do not agree upon these changes then
Honickers should take backstep. Although the aim of the plan is to centralized the system and take to
equal level of management but there is also a key point that the management should be customers
centric which is the backbone of the project.
7. How easy or difficult is it to get several companies geographically dispersed
to agree to the same culture and methodology?
Ans: Yes it is very difficult to get all the companies on the same page which are geographically
despersed. The main difficulty is that each companie has its own culture , their status,
methedology,time frame of project,power of authority, level of management etc all are
different.Especially the Gamma and Delta companies, which have no management system. Moreover,
the local laws and environemental and geographical conditions are hurdles.
8. If all four companies were willing to cooperate with one another, how long
do you think it would take for an agreement on and acceptance to use the new
EPM system?
Ans: If all companies agrees, even then it will take a reasonable time to adopt the new system.
Because it is not a slight change, it will impact on overall all of the companies.
9. Which stakeholders may be powerful and which are not?
Ans: Delta and Gamma companies stake holders may be powerfull because they are highly inflexible
because of traditional structure. While Alpha and Beta are already implement EPM system so they
will not show such extreme resistance.
10. Which stakeholder(s) may have the power to kill this project?
Ans: Gamma and Delta may have the power to kill this project due to sign of inflexibility and their
rigidness toward adopting change.
11. What can Honicker do to win their support?
Ans: To win their support, it is very necessary to take them in trust and highlight the importance of
EPM system. Moreover, their concerns should be given worth and proper steps should be taken
during project to win their support.
12. If Honicker cannot win their support, then how should Honicker manage the
opposition?
Ans: Taking backestep or delaying it for the time being from centralizing them to a common EPM
would be better then rather than enforcing but the locally EPM initiation at each company should be
made. For future it may come fruitful to again start this step and it can become handy in achieving
target.
13. What if all four companies agree to the project management methodology
and then some of the client stakeholders show a lack of support for use of the
methodology?
Ans: To avoid the situation, the stake holders should be involved and persued during the whole
process of project.Because the customer or client is the base of all this and it has no benefit in case if
customer or client is not satisfied.