Project Management Assignment

Submitted by
Amit Jain(32218)
Vivek Chourey(32268)
Kaushal Lama(32226)
Nitin Prabhu(32180)
Kunal Chaware(32113)
Mohd. Zubair Saifi(32237)
Anubhav Sinha(32245)

What went right?

1. The two squares were delivered as per all the constraints

2. There was a good coordination among the project team members in terms of doing what
they were expected to do
3. Rules about communication between the team members was strictly followed, with team
members interacting among themselves through the Project Manager

What went wrong?

1. Project was not completed on time and the deadline was extended thrice
2. The rules of the project were also not discussed in detail wherein it was mentioned that
the assemblers cannot speak to each other.
3. All the deliverables were not delivered. Deliverables with respect to changes in the
organization structure and others as per the requirements of the VP were not met
4. Estimating of the time was not done properly. When the project team was asked to
estimate the time for the project, the team immediately jumped into the actual design
phase
5. Instructions were not clearly understood by the project team. Everyone focused only on
his role in the entire process and not on the final deliverable. The problem statement was
not read completely by the Team
6. Project Manager was getting involved in the actual execution of the project (cutting,
painting, designing, assembly) in bits and pieces. As a result, the communication perhaps
suffered.
7. As the problem statement was not read properly by all the members of the team, there
was no clarity on the deliverable. As a result, the team ended up delivering only one
square instead of two initially. However the second square was also delivered as per the
specifications mentioned
8. Proper questions were not asked to the client about the deliverable in the context of a
doubt. There was once a discussion within the team if two squares have to be delivered or
one. However, this was not clarified with the client

SIBM-Pune, August 2010 1|P a ge

 9. When there were changes made in the deliverable, the Project Team accepted those
changes without any resistance.
10. Proper tools were not available with the proper people. The designers were designing
without the scale, the cutter was cutting without the scissors etc
11. Multitasking of roles was being done without informing
12. No knowledge transfer to assembles on “How to assemble?” by the design team, PM
assumed the role of communicator + knowledge transferor without any written document
backup

What can be done better?

1. More time should be spent on understanding the client requirements and deliverables
2. There should not be any hesitation in asking questions to the client as it is the client who
is going to accept the product or service at the end of the project. If the client
requirements are not understood properly, it doesn’t make any sense to go ahead with the
project. Rather, it is better to spend some time at the beginning of the project so that the
execution of the same is very smooth
3. Estimation of the project duration should be done based on inputs from all the team
members. Also is more time is spent on planning for the project, the implementation or
execution becomes that much easy. This would avoid overshooting of time and cost. A
realistic project estimate in terms of defining a baseline is very important for successful
completion of the project
4. Everyone in the project team, should know about the final deliverable. This would ensure
that everyone clearly knows what is expected out of him and how can he do it better.
Individual functions can innovate and improvise on their functions in order to achieve the
final objective in a better way.
5. This would also have helped in achieving the second deliverable given by the VP of the
company on organizational development for developing employees for higher roles and
responsibilities within the company
6. The project manager has to be very proactive in sensing opportunities and threats to the
projects. When there was an opportunity given which said Rs 100 for completing the
project 5 minutes ahead of time, the project manager should have taken measures to tap
these. Similarly to this, assembly expertise options also could have been explored.
Similarly, when an external environmental change happened like change in the color of
the square, it was accepted without any challenge. Some negotiations should have
happened with the client in this aspect

Project Deliverables:

Learnings from the project execution needed to be documented and an SOP was required
to be developed for similar projects in future.

SIBM-Pune, August 2010 2|P a ge

 Although not explicitly mentioned in the contract, the project needed to be completed in
minimum time & cost and with a quality that could be accepted by a third party
inspection agency.

Scope Statement:

Develop two squares of dimensions 7”x7” using seven specified shapes of various colors at
the least possible cost & time of a quality acceptable to a third party agency

WBS

Name Department/ Designation Responsibility

Communication amongst
various departments, overall co-
Amit Jain Project Manager ordination with the client &
vendors, tracking of the project
progress
Preparation of a detailed design
Kaushal Lama document of the assembly of the
Designers two squares which could be
Vivek Chourey clearly understood by the
Assemblers
To cut precise sizes of the
shapes required of appropriate
Nitin Prabhu Cutter
quality according to
specifications
To paint the shapes in
Kunal Chawre Painter appropriate color as per the
specification

Mohd. Zubair Saifi

To assemble the shapes as per
Assembler the design document provided
by the design team
Anubhav Sinha

SIBM-Pune, August 2010 3|P a ge

 Figure: Process Flow and Work breakdown structure

RASCI

PM Designer Cutter Painter Assembler

Communication R A
Design C R I I I
Cutting C A R
Painting C A A R
Assembly C A A A R

Assumptions & Constraints

Communication was only possible through the project manager

Money was a constraint as well for EMD
Technical constraint: Shapes of same color and size could not be used in the same square
No multitasking was allowed
20 minutes would be sufficient to solve the puzzle and cut/paint as well

Basis of estimation of schedule

Designing in 10 min
Cutting/Painting in 5 min
Assembly 1 min
4 min of buffer (25%)

SIBM-Pune, August 2010 4|P a ge