if you are a project manager and have the choice of forming your core team before or after charter approval, which would you do and why?


In the case of forming a core team after or before the approval of the charter, an individual should prefer forming team before the approval of the charter because sometimes the core team also helps the project manager in writing the rough draft in the case of most of the charters.

Forming team before preparing the charter would help the team members to understand the details about the project. This can alsoo help them in decision making at times of emergencies.

Problems have been building at Columbus Instruments, Inc. (CIC) (not its real name) for several
years now with the new product development process. The last six high-visibility projects were
either scrapped outright after excessive cost and schedule overruns or, once released to the
marketplace, were commercial disasters. The company estimates that in the past two years, it
has squandered more than $15 million on poorly developed or failed projects. Every time a new
project venture failed, the company conducted extensive postproject review meetings,
documentation analysis, and market research to try to determine the underlying cause. To date,
all CIC has been able to determine is that the problems appear to lie with the project
management and development process. Something somewhere is going very wrong.
You have been called into the organization as a consultant to try to understand the source of
the problems that are leading to widespread demoralization across the firm. After spending
hours interviewing the senior project management staff and technical personnel, you are
convinced that the problem does not lie with their processes, which are up-to-date and logical.
On the other hand, you have some questions about project team productivity. It seems that
every project has run late, has been over budget, and has had suboptimal functionality,
regardless of the skills of the project manager in charge. This information suggests to you that
there may be some problems in how the project teams are operating.
As you analyze CIC’s project development process, you note several items of interest. First, the
company is organized along strictly functional lines. Projects are staffed from the departments
following negotiations between the project manager and the department heads. Second, the
culture of CIC seems to place little status or authority on the project managers. As evidence of
this fact, you note that they are not even permitted to write a performance evaluation on project
team members: That right applies only to the functional department heads. Third, many projects
require that team members be assigned to them on an exclusive basis; that is, once personnel
have been assigned to a project, they typically remain with the project team on a full-time basis
for the term of the project. The average project lasts about 14 months.
One morning, as you are walking the hallways, you notice a project team “war room” set up for
the latest new product development initiative within the company. The war room concept
requires that project team members be grouped together at a central location, away from their
functional departments, for the life of the project. What intrigues you is a handlettered sign you
see taped to the door of the project war room: “Leper Colony.” When you ask around about the
sign, some members of the firm say with a chuckle, “Oh, we like to play jokes on the folks
assigned to new projects.”
Further investigation of project team members suggests they are not amused by the sign. One
engineer shrugs and says, “That’s just their way of making sure we understand what we have
been assigned to. Last week they put up another one that said ‘Purgatory.’” When you ask the
project manager about the signs later in the day, he confirms this story and adds some
interesting information: “Around here, we use detached [meaning centralized] project teams. I
get no say as to who will be assigned to the project, and lately the functional heads have been
using our projects as a dumping ground for their poor performers.”
When you question him further, the project manager observes, “Think about it. I have no say in
who gets assigned to the team. I can’t even fill out a performance review on them. Now, if you
were a department head who was trying to offload a troublemaker or someone who was
incompetent, what could be better than shipping them off to a project team for a year or so? Of
course, you can imagine how they feel when they hear that they have been assigned to one of
our project teams. It’s as if you just signed their death warrant. Talk about low motivation!”
When you question various department heads about the project manager’s assertions, to a
person they deny that this is an adopted policy. As the head of finance puts it, “We give the
Post a question
Answers from our experts for your tough
homework questions
Enter question
CONTINUE TO POST
17 questions remaining
Chegg tutors who can help
right now
Josh
Ph.D. in Mathemat… 581
Andre
University of OXF… 450
Arielle
Pitzer College 890
FIND ME A TUTOR
Restart your subscription to keep accessing solutions. Your Chegg Study subscription will expire on January 2, 2018. CONTINUE MY SUBSCRIPTION Chap Bookmark Show all steps: ter 6.1, Problem 2CSQ
ON
 TEXTBOOK SOLUTIONS EXPERT Q&A Search  
12/7/2017 Solved: Problems have been building at Columbus Instruments, In... |
Was this solution helpful?
project teams our best available people when they ask.” However, they also admit that they
have the final say in personnel assignment and project managers cannot appeal their choices
for the teams.
After these discussions, you suggest to the CEO that the method of staffing projects may be a
reason for the poor performance of CIC’s new product development projects. He ponders the
implications of how the projects have been staffed in his organization, and then says, “Okay,
what do you suggest we do about it?”
How would you advise the CEO to correct the problem? Where would you start?
Step-by-step solution
Case summary:
The case deals with the poor performance of Company C, which is the manufacturer of
instruments. The performance of the firm was very poor in last six months. The problems are
excessive costs, schedule overruns, and commercial disaster in the market. Person X who is a
consultant conducted an interview with senior project management staff and technical
personnel. Person X realized that the problem is not with the project development process as
they are up-to-date.
Company C is organized along with the strict functional lines. Culture of Company C gives
authority to project managers, and the people will be assigned to the project on full time basis.
On further investigation, a project manager said that the functional head would assign the team
members for the project. He added that the functional head have been using their projects as
dumping ground for poor performers. Thus, Person X concluded that the problem is with choice
of staffs for the project.
Comment
Person X’s advise to the top authority of Company C to correct the problems:
The major problem in Company C is staffing approach. There must be a smooth relationship
between the project manager and function head. The chief executive officer should take steps
to manage the relationship between them.
The first advice is that the company should have some responsibility towards the functional
heads. It must report properly for the resources requests and should assign good employees to
the team. At the same time the managers should receive credit for doing so.
Another solution is the leveling of field by giving the project manager the authority to select his
own team and the authority to evaluate the performance of the members.
Comment
Conclusion:
The problem of Company C can be reduced by adopting new management techniques and
ideas. Making the project managers to select their own team is the ultimate solution to the
problem.
Comment