Question

Power Train, Ltd.

We have smashing systems for reporting, tracking, and controlling costs on design projects. Our planning of projects is better than any I have seen at other companies. Our scheduling seemed to serve us well when we were small and we had only a few projects. Now that we have many more projects and schedule using multiproject software, there are too many occasions when the right people are not assigned to the projects deemed important to our success. This situation is costing us big money, headaches, and stress!

Claude Jones, VP, Design and Operations

HISTORY

Power Train, Ltd. (PT), was founded in 1970 by Daniel Gage, a skilled mechanical engineer and machinist. Prior to founding PT he worked for three years as design engineer for a company that designed and built transmissions for military tanks and trucks. It was a natural transition for Dan to start a company designing and building power trains for farm tractor companies. Today, Dan is no longer active in the management of PT but is still revered as its founder. He and his family still own 25 percent of the company, which went public in 1998. PT has been growing at a 6 percent clip for the last five years but expects industry growth to level off as supply exceeds demand.

Today, PT continues its proud tradition of designing and building the best-quality power trains for manufacturers of farm tractors and equipment. The company employs 178 design engineers and has about 1,800 production and support staff. Contract design projects for tractor manufacturers represent a major portion of PT’s revenue. At any given time, about 45 to 60 design projects are going on concurrently. A small portion of their design work is for military vehicles. PT only accepts military contracts that involve very advanced, new technology and are cost plus.

A new phenomenon has attracted management of PT to look into a larger market. Last year a large Swedish truck manufacturer approached PT to consider designing power trains for its trucks. As the industry consolidates, the opportunities for PT should increase because these large firms are moving to more outsourcing to cut infrastructure costs and stay very flexible. Only last week a PT design engineer spoke to a German truck manufacturing manager at a conference. The German manager was already exploring outsourcing of drive trains to Porsche and was very pleased to be reminded of PT’s expertise in the area. A meeting is set up for next month.

CLAUDE JONES

Claude Jones joined PT in 1999 as a new MBA from the University of Edinburgh. He worked as a mechanical engineer for U.K. Hydraulics for five years prior to returning to school for the MBA. “I just wanted to be part of the management team and where the action is.” Jones moved quickly through the ranks. Today he is the vice president of design and operations. Sitting at his desk, Jones is pondering the conflicts and confusion that seem to be increasing in scheduling people to projects. He gets a real rush at the thought of designing power trains for large trucks; however, given their current project scheduling problems, a large increase in business would only compound their problems. Somehow these conflicts in scheduling have to be resolved before any serious thought can be given to expanding into design of power transmissions for truck manufacturers.

Jones is thinking of the problems PT had in the last year. The MF project is the first to come to mind. The project was not terribly complex and did not require their best design engineers. Unfortunately, the scheduling software assigned one of the most creative and expensive engineers to the MF project. A similar situation, but reversed, happened on the Deer project. This project involved a big customer and new hydrostatic technology for small tractors. In this project the scheduling software assigned engineers who were not familiar with small tractor transmissions. Somehow, thinks Jones, the right people need to be scheduled to the right projects. Upon reflection, this problem with scheduling has been increasing since PT went to multiproject scheduling. Maybe a project office is needed to keep on top of these problems.

A meeting with the information technology team and software vendors was positive but not very helpful because these people are not really into detailed scheduling problems. The vendors provided all sorts of evidence suggesting the heuristics used—least Page 294slack, shortest duration, and identification number—are absolutely efficient in scheduling people and minimizing project delays. One project software vendor, Lauren, kept saying their software would allow PT to customize the scheduling of projects and people to almost any variation selected. Lauren repeated over and over, “If the standard heuristics do not meet your requirements, create your own heuristics that do.” Lauren even volunteered to assist in setting up the system. But she is not willing to spend time on the problem until PT can describe to her exactly what criteria will be used (and their sequence) to select and schedule people to projects.

WHAT NEXT?

Potential expansion into the truck power train business is not feasible until the confusion in project scheduling is solved or reduced significantly. Jones is ready to tackle this problem, but he is not sure where to start. What criteria should he consider? What should be the sequence for selecting and assigning people to projects?

* PLEASE ELABORATE AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE.

Answer 1

Answer:

This case points to an awfully typical downside in observe. Students can come back up with a large type of approach counting on their expertise and business acumen. once some discussion, the authors break the category into tiny groups and raise every team to come back up with a straightforward system of rules which may be used with current project management computer code and that attacks the problems found within the gearing case. A number of the problems mentioned below ought to be thought-about once developing any resource planning system. The heuristics instructed within the text area unit so terribly economical in minimizing project delays. A serious key to their use is that the breakdown of individuals' skills and/or instrumentality type—for example, mechanical, civil, electrical engineers. Sadly, there's a trade-off. The larger the classification, the less discriminate the heuristic is in choosing the “right” individuals for comes. If the classification is additionally elaborated, the heuristics can do a more robust job of choosing, however, project delays (because of needed resources) can seemingly be magnified. The better computer code corporations have in-built flexibility for assignment individuals to come. As project priority systems and project offices become additional well-liked in project-driven organizations, planning systems that link comes to priority and folk’s assignments area unit discovery in multi-project environments. A typical student format and sequence for their approach and planning rules area unit shown below:

Rule 1: Select Key individuals manually: This choice can't be overridden by the pc or by priority; it's fastened. This rule is typically used for assignment solely very key people to a project. The rule skirts the priority system and its overuse could increase delays in alternative comes that have a high priority.

Rule 2: Priority: The priority of the project within the portfolio is employed because of the 1st cutting criterion. In alternative words, the project with the very best priority gets 1st decide on individuals required.

A Variation: Most computer code systems enable specific activities inside a project to own priority. This can be merely a priority system inside a project. Here, however, priorities area unit set manually ranking activities—1, 2, 3, n. If a resource conflict exists, the computer code assigns the resource to the activity with the very best rank. Otherwise, the quality rules of minimum slack, shortest length, and lowest number area unit used.

Clearly, this general system higher than incorporates a robust link to strategy by victimization the priority portfolio as a cutting criterion. Again, care ought to be taken to ascertain that manual choice isn't overused. Manual overuse may result in important delays on alternatives come that have a high priority. Conversely, manual intervention is accustomed to cut back the chance of a selected project being delayed. Again, the breakdown of individuals by skills isn't good. Some manual intervention is necessary. The degree of breakdown trade-off can continuously exist. Notice that a system like the one instructed higher than permits management to estimate kinds of resources that will be required within the future. The system conjointly keeps track of resource handiness by talent kind. Below is an associate collegian response to the care setting. MBA’s and executives' area unit additional creative and elaborated. Their systems are typically cowl additional exceptions and embody additional detail; however they conjointly oft miss the purpose that every one their “special cases” contribute to delays in alternative come and cut back the effectiveness of resource utilization.