Project Management Case Study: Horizon Consulting App
This paper examines the Horizon Consulting case study, in which a smartphone app development company faced the rejection of its TAT application by Apple iOS. The paper summarizes the case, identifies the core project management failures — including inadequate oversight during the planning phase — and connects the scenario to established project management process groups. It explores how Horizon's matrix organizational structure and team culture influenced the post-rejection meeting's outcomes, and concludes with suggestions for improving communication, oversight, and resource management in future development projects.
- Case Introduction and Summary: TAT app rejected by Apple; team must revise
- Case Issue Analysis: Management failed to oversee TAT project quality
- Project Management Processes Applied: Planning process groups and their role in TAT
- Matrix Organizational Structure at Horizon: Multiple reporting lines across three departments
- Suggestions for Further Improvement: Better oversight, communication, and post-meeting practices
- Conclusion: Oversight failures and lessons for future projects
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper applies real project management terminology — planning process groups, matrix organizational structure, resource allocation — directly to the case scenario, grounding abstract concepts in a concrete example.
- It maintains a clear problem-solution structure: identifying the failure (lack of oversight), explaining the relevant frameworks, and ending with actionable improvement suggestions.
- The discussion of organizational culture alongside formal structure demonstrates an understanding that successful project management depends on both systems and people.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates applied case analysis — taking an established business scenario and systematically interpreting it through academic frameworks. Rather than describing the case in isolation, the student links each event (the rejection, the post-meeting, the resource reassignment) to named project management concepts such as planning process groups and matrix reporting structures, showing how theory explains practice.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a narrative case introduction and brief summary, then moves into issue identification and process analysis. Two central analytical sections address the project management processes at play and the matrix structure Horizon uses. A recommendations section follows, and a conclusion ties together the key lessons. This format — summary, analysis, recommendation, conclusion — is typical of undergraduate business case studies.
Case Introduction and Summary
Horizon is a company that develops applications for smartphones and had been experiencing considerable success. However, things took a turn when, at a meeting attended by everyone involved in building an iPhone app, the team — including the head of the software engineering department — learned that their TAT application had been rejected by Apple iOS. TAT was a phone app for which one of the team members had served as project lead. The app was notable because it allowed subscribers to reserve and view, in real time, which swimming lanes were available at a prestigious athletic club. No one was pleased with the news.
It was understood that before the TAT app could go live, it had to be submitted and approved by Apple. This was not usually a problem, but Apple had recently been rejecting apps for a variety of reasons. One of the workers circulated a list of changes that would need to be made before Apple would approve the app. The group reviewed the list, and in some cases pushed back against the new requirements.
At the meeting, the group was not expecting the rejection and was effectively sent back to the drawing board. Management asked the engineers who had worked on the project to go back and revise everything. They suggested that the same engineers who started the project should be the ones to finish it, so they would all be reassigned to the TAT project. Those affected were expected to meet after the main meeting to determine how to address everything Apple iOS had flagged. The meeting then continued as planned, with each account manager reporting the status of their projects and sharing relevant information with the group.
Case Issue Analysis
The central issue in this case study is that the TAT project was submitted with defects, and that management failed to provide adequate oversight to ensure the app was complete and ready before submission. The team proceeded without sufficient review, which led directly to the rejection from Apple iOS.
This situation relates most closely to a group management type of process. A process can be understood as a series of actions directed toward a particular result — in Horizon's case, the successful completion and launch of the TAT project. As the case makes clear, project management process groups develop by introducing activities for planning, execution, monitoring and control, and closure (Archbold).
Project Management Processes Applied
The planning process involves developing and maintaining a practical framework to ensure a project meets the organization's needs. There are numerous strategies within a project plan — for example, a schedule management plan, a scope management plan, a cost management plan, a purchasing management plan, and others — each defining a knowledge area as it relates to the project at a given point in time (Archbold). In the Horizon Consulting case, the project team needed to develop a plan describing the work to be completed, schedule the related activities, estimate the costs of executing that work, and determine what resources would be needed to accomplish it.
In Horizon Consulting, the output of the planning process was especially important. The primary output was the completion of the project scope statement for the TAT project, which was a technology-based initiative. Planning is particularly critical in information technology projects. As the research suggests, everyone who has worked on a large information technology project involving new technology has heard some version of the principle: a dollar spent in planning upfront is worth one hundred dollars spent after the system has already been deployed.
Planning to implement the TAT project was therefore crucial. Research suggests that organizations working to implement best practices should spend at least 20% of project time in the initiation and planning phases (Archbold). In developments like this one, the effort invested in planning directly affects how difficult it will be to make changes once the system is in place — because once a project team deploys a new system, it takes a substantial amount of effort to alter it.
Conclusion
It is clear that the project lead overestimated the readiness of the engineering team's work. One lesson from this case study is that it is not enough to assume a product is ready — someone must verify it. No one reviewed the TAT project independently before submission, and the reaction from Apple iOS could likely have been avoided had management stepped in to confirm the app met all requirements.
Project management process techniques were utilized by Horizon Consulting and appeared to be largely effective administrative tools. However, the matrix organizational structure — while generally well-suited to Horizon's operations — showed a weakness in this instance: the TAT project passed through some levels of management without receiving adequate scrutiny. A matrix structure with multiple reporting lines only works as intended when those reporting relationships are actively used to provide oversight. The case ultimately highlights the importance of both structured planning and diligent review at every stage of a project's development.
Works Cited
Archbold, Kevin. The Simplified Project Management Process. 8 May 2015. Accessed 27 October 2015.
Johnson, Rose. Advantages & Disadvantages of Matrix Organizational Structures in Business Organizations. 5 May 2013. Accessed 21 October 2015.
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.