Ducor Chemical

Description of the case

Ducor chemical received an R&D contract from one of their important clients
that would last for a year and would most likely need posterior follow ups.
The contract consisted in the creation of a new chemical to serve as a raw
material to the companys future products. Entitled to the success of the
project, Ducor could generate significant profits for a considerable time
period.
The project demanded lab personnel and a senior chemist, and this would
be the first time a senior chemist would be assigned to this client. As Ducor
had only 4 senior chemists employed, the project manager had to negotiate
the resource with the lab manager.
The lab manager claimed all senior chemists were equally capable of getting
the job done, and he appointed John to handle this task. However, the
project manager was not happy about it, as John was known for his lose
tongue and difficult personality. This was especially important given the fact
that it would have to be John the one communicating with the client in a
monthly basis. The lab manager showed no flexibility, and tried to minimize
the PMs reaction by saying he would be present at every meeting, which
did not happen. As expected, John lost his manners in one of the meetings,
making the client furious over his remarks and asserting they were now
evaluate the project performance to date, as well as Ducors commitment to
the project. It added that after the evaluation, they would consider if the
project should (not) be terminated or if it should be assigned to one of
Ducors competitors.
1) The line manager is responsible for several projects while the project
manager is usually responsible for one individual project.
Nevertheless, they both should make their decisions in the companys
best interests. As they are interdependent but have different goals,
conflicts are most likely to arise due to lack of coordination among
them. As such, it is imperative that there is good coordination,
reporting, communication, trust and negotiation between them. A
partnership between them could be possible by making negotiation
an institutional capability, by clearly establishing the roles of each
manager and how they relate to each other and to the companys
goals. This could be achieved through the implementation of a
sharing system of best practices. Ideally, both managers would
manage projects and resources together, thus improving cohesion
and creating synergies between departments to the benefit of all.
2) It would depend on the companys size, organizational structure, on
type of project, and on the managers experience. Here, the PJ
manager has little authority, and needs to negotiate with the line
manager for resources. This can make sense, as the line manager is

the one with higher knowledge and information regarding several

projects, therefore being the one who could potentially allocate
resources more efficiently. Nevertheless, the PJ manager should be
able to influence the composition of his project team, as he better
understands the projects and the clients requirements. If the line
manager had listened the PJ managers concerns, the whole situation
could have been avoided. In order to circumvent this type of
scenarios, it would be good to grant 50/50 authority to each manager.
This would make it easier for them to understand that they are both
working together for the company, rather than being each others
competitors, and it would promote effective sharing and
implementation of best practices.
3) Before making a line and project managers interact with each other,
their responsibilities must be clearly set in order to avoid conflicts. If
not, their decision power may overlap, and both of them may claim
authority regarding a decision (mostly due to scarce resources), thus
leading to a conflicting situation. In this scenario, there are two main
possibilities. One consists in asking to a superior figure to come in
help to make the right decision for the company; nevertheless, this
would show inability to solve problems and lack of autonomy of the
two managers, which could compromise their reliability. Another,
more advisable, possibility would be for the two managers to assess
the impact of their decision on the companys profitability. In this
case, they should ask themselves how much money would the
company loose (win) in the case of project failure (success), rank the
projects according to their relevance for the companys success, and
then proceed to make a rational, unbiased decision.
4) The company is a unit which arrange the project team. Nevertheless,
customer should be able to interfere into the project team. However
this participation is supposed to be limited. If a set of skills of a
particular employee suit the customers they should have right to
advise or ask for a given person to work on the project with them, but
the company cannot let the customer impose the whole team line-up.
However, in the end customer is the one to be satisfied therefore the
company is to demonstrate some elasticity in this matter.
5) In each organization there should be a specific set of requirements
which are expected to be filled by team members. Thus, removing a
team member which does not meet the requirements would no longer
be a problem. In order to handle the projects effectively team
members need to present appropriate quality in their work. Also in
this case it is advised not to remove the team member but search for
opportunities in place him in other projects first.

6) Project manager negotiations should have two dimensions. Both

deliverables and people are important elements of projects therefore
none of them can be neglected in the negotiation process. However it
seems that PM should rather focus on negotiating on people since the
functional resources are in a command of functional managers.

https://www.allfreepapers.com/Technology/Create-a-Partnership-Betweenthe-Project-Manager-and/84833.html
http://www.antiessays.com/free-essays/Ducor-Chemical-602571.html
http://www.drharoldkerzner.com/twenty-common-mistakes-made-by-new-orinexperienced-project-managers/