Question

In this exercise, we will re-visit the case study “A day in the life” at the end of Chapter 1.

Answer these questions:

1- Based on the information provided in the case, what kind of project management structure you think this organization uses?

2- What conclusions can you draw about the organization culture? Use dimensions introduced in Chapter 3 to support your answer.

Case study:

A Day in the Life Rachel

The project manager of a large information systems project arrives at her office early to get caught up with work before her co-workers and project team arrive. However, as she enters the office, she meets Neil, one of her fellow project managers, who also wants to get an early start on the day. Neil has just completed a project overseas. They spend 10 minutes socializing and catching up on personal news. It takes Rachel 10 minutes to get to her office and settle in. She then checks her voice mail and turns on her computer. She was at her client’s site the day before until 7:30 P.M. and has not checked her e-mail or voice mail since 3:30 P.M. the p previous day. There are 7 phone messages, 16 e-mails, and 4 notes left on her desk. She spends 15 minutes reviewing her schedule and “to do” lists for the day before responding to messages that require immediate attention. Rachel spends the next 25 minutes going over project reports and preparing for the weekly status meeting. Her boss, who just arrived at the office, interrupts her. They spend 20 minutes discussing the project. He shares a rumor that a team member is using stimulants on the job. She tells him that she has not seen anything suspicious but will keep an eye on the team member. The 9:00 A.M. project status meeting starts 15 minutes late because two of the team members have to finish a job for a client. Several people go to the cafeteria to get coffee and doughnuts while others discuss last night’s baseball game. The team members arrive, and the remaining 45 minutes of the progress review meeting surface project issues that have to be addressed and assigned for action. After the meeting Rachel goes down the hallway to meet with Victoria, another IS project manager. They spend 30 minutes reviewing project assignments since the two of them share personnel. Victoria’s project is behind schedule and in need of help. They broker a deal that should get Victoria’s project back on track. She returns to her office and makes several phone calls and returns several e-mails before walking downstairs to visit with members of her project team. Her intent is to follow up on an issue that had surfaced in the status report meeting. However, her simple, “Hi guys, how are things going?” elicits a stream of disgruntled responses from the “troops.” After listening patiently for over 20 minutes, she realizes that among other things several of the client’s managers are beginning to request features that were not in the original project scope statement. She tells her people that she will get on this right away. Returning to her office she tries to call her counterpart John at the client firm but is told that he is not expected back from lunch for another hour. At this time, Eddie drops by and says, “How about lunch?” Eddie works in the finance office and they spend the next half hour in the company cafeteria gossiping about internal politics. She is surprised to hear that Jonah Johnson, the director of systems projects, may join another firm. Jonah has always been a powerful ally. She returns to her office, answers a few more e-mails, and finally gets through to John. They spend 30 minutes going over the problem. The conversation ends with John promising to do some investigating and to get back to her as soon as possible. Rachel puts a “Do not disturb” sign on her door and lies down in her office. She listens to the third and fourth movement of Ravel’s string quartet in F on headphones. Rachel then takes the elevator down to the third floor and talks to the purchasing agent assigned to her project. They spend the next 30 minutes exploring ways of getting necessary equipment to the project site earlier than planned. She finally authorizes express delivery. When she returns to her office, her calendar reminds her that she is scheduled to participate in a conference call at 2:30. It takes 15 minutes for everyone to get online. During this time, Rachel catches up on some e-mail. The next hour is spent exchanging information about the technical requirements associated with a new version of a software package they are using on systems projects like hers. Rachel decides to stretch her legs and goes on a walk down the hallway where she engages in brief conversations with various co-workers. She goes out of her way to thank Chandra for his thoughtful analysis at the status report meeting. She returns to find that John has left a message for her to call him back ASAP. She contacts John, who informs her that, according to his people, her firm’s marketing rep had made certain promises about specific features her system would provide. He doesn’t know how this communication breakdown occurred, but his people are pretty upset over the situation. Rachel thanks John for the information and immediately takes the stairs to where the marketing group resides. She asks to see Mary, a senior marketing manager. She waits 10 minutes before being invited into her office. After a heated discussion, she leaves 40 minutes later with Mary agreeing to talk to her people about what was promised and what was not promised. She goes downstairs to her people to give them an update on what is happening. They spend 30 minutes reviewing the impact the client’s requests could have on the project schedule. She also shares with them the schedule changes she and Victoria had agreed to. After she says goodnight to her team, she heads upstairs to her boss’s office and spends 20 minutes updating him on key events of the day. She returns to her office and spends 30 minutes reviewing e-mails and project documents. She logs on to the MS project schedule of her project and spends the next 30 minutes working with “what-if” scenarios. She reviews tomorrow’s schedule and writes some personal reminders before starting off on her 30-minute commute home.

Answer 1

1. Based on the information provided in the case, the firm uses a waterfall method of project management. There are few main indicators of the same. The first and foremost being the team does not have a dedicated space to developments with the clients. The clients and their representatives are held up elsewhere and there is physical distance between the teams. All the discussions and clarifications are routed through the project manager. If instead of waterfall. An agile technique was used, then the team would either have s product owner or a representative from the client side available to talk to the development team either in the same office or on call directly. Agile method encourages teams to do collaborative work and open communication channels between all partners. Another indicator of waterfall being followed is the space and distance between the manager and the team. The team as given in the case sits downstairs. The agile model encourages teams to be co-located in the same room or closer areas to minimize the gaps in communication. The team also use a traditional reporting structure where in the team updates the daily challenges and issues during face to face meetings. In the digital era, the team can share all the updates directly through digital platforms. The team is spending a lot of time daily discussing the daily issues. In agile, the daily scrum meetings are held for a very short duration so that the team can focus on the tasks at hand. While following waterfall technique is a good option, given the current gaps in the given case, moving to an agile method or a hybrid agile would help in reducing the communication gaps that are present in the case.
2. The organization encourages a jovial nature and is looking like a workplace without much stress. The meetings start late and there is not much stress put on that. The managers understand the team members could be busy with other work. This shows that the firm is an easy going firm as opposed to a strict disciplinary one. The firm also believes in finishing the given tasks and this is seen when the teams agree to share resources to complete a project which was delayed. When the project manager, Rachel checks in with the team on the work progress, they openly share the issues they are facing. This shows the openness and no presence of any barrier between the team and the manager. The case shows an incident when Rachel takes a break from work during the day and puts a do not disturb sign to lie down and rest while listening to Ravel`s string quartet in F. There are very few firms globally who encourages the team to take break during the working hours and this incident is a good sign of a well balanced workplace. This shows that the firm is focused on the employees. There are few members in other teams who provide detailed insights even though they are from different teams like the analysis provided by Chandra. Even though there are differences between the teams, the teams end up mutually agreeing towards a solution rather than holding a grudge. This shows that the workplace is a mature firm with good leaders managing all the departments. Based on the information given in the case, the firm seems a good place to work and develop. If we focus on the dimensions, then the firm is an easy going firm with focus towards a goal oriented approach. The firm is also an open system with employee focused policies,