Project management failures in the Telestar International case

Telestar International

Who do you believe is at fault in this situation?

It is difficult to determine who is at fault here. Perhaps all are equally for what should have been conducted here ahead of time is project management which would have set the direction of the project, specifying and clearly delineating its business requirements, resources, cost, and so forth, and specifying the portfolio of projects that should be undertaken to achieve them (Rajegopal et al., 2007). In this way, the project manager would have averted any problem with cost and conflict. The fault, therefore, may be largely attributed to the project manager. On the other hand, it seems to me that the project manager was correct in deciding to stop all activities as long as this would have a temporary cessation with the intention of assessing deficiencies of the project and assessing how to correct the situation.

Should the structures manager have been dedicated enough to continue to work on his own? Why or Why not?

Given the above situation, the structures manager should not have been dedicated enough to continue to work on his own since firstly all stakeholders should be involved in this significant decision, secondly, the project needs guidance and direction. The project manager was correct in deciding to stop all activities as long as this would have a temporary cessation with the intention of assessing deficiencies of the project and assessing how to correct this and the structures manager, aside from asseverating cohesion of project, would do best by agreeing to go along.

3. Can a functional manager, who considers his organization as strictly support, still be dedicated to total project success?

Much depends on the extent with which the functional manager is dedicated to the organization as a whole. In a way, too, this may be an equivocation since 'strictly support' entails dedicated concern and care for the organization as a whole (therefore dedication to success of project). Lack of this care for total project success instinctively contaminates the support.

The Bathtub Period

2. Should the key people be supported on overhead?

If Frank does not want the key people to be supported on overhead, he would have to provide a credible explanation of how Jerry would be able to retain his key people. This is particularly so since good project office personnel are always in demand. If no other means for attracting and retaining these personnel can be found and if the project is significant enough to the organization, overhead may have to be used in order to retain these key people.

3. If this were a cost-plus program, would you consider approaching the customer with your problem in hopes of relief? 4. If you were the customer of this cost-plus program, what would your response be for additional funds for the bathtub period, assuming cost overrun? 5. Would your previous answer chang if the program had the money available as a result of an underrun?

If this program were important enough to the customer of a cost-plus program, if the organization really did not have the money as a result of an under run, if I, being the customer, trusted this organization based on their reputation for delivering quality on time (and this company does seem to be conspicuous, diligent, well-organized, and cohesive as a team), I may reciprocate by offering the company funds to tide them over this bathtub period. If the organization, in turn, could rely on their reputation and the security of having a sufficient enough customer base that would tide them this money they may take the risk of approaching customers with their problems in the hope of relief.

6. How do you prevent this situation from recurring on all yearly follow-on contracts?

A carefully and punctiliously spelt out contract witnessed and agreed on by concerned parties ahead of time may prevent the situation from recurring.