Case Study to be attempted in lieu of Mid Term examination for Project Management

Course to be submitted by 25th March, 2010 (Without fail), (Only hard copy
submitted).
Three case studies are being attached for submission to the questions given at the end of
each. Only one case study is to be attempted based upon the specialization. (Major) so
offered by the students.

Specialization offered Case study no. & Name

by a student

1. HR 1.1 Judy’s Hunt for Authenticity

2. Marketing 2.1 Paradise Lost: The Xerox Alto

3. Finance 3.1 DeHavillands Falling Comet

1
Case Study 1.1 Judy’s Hunt for Authenticity
Judy Thomas barely had time to celebrate her appointment to head her old department at
Optimal Logistics before she became embroiled in an ongoing problem with the project
management personnel. As part of her new duties. Judy was responsible for heading all
new projects at OL, a job that required her to oversee any where from 20 to 35 projects at
any time. Judy believed in holding detailed project review meetings every two weeks
with her immediate subordinates, the six – person senior systems group, to assess the
status of ongoing projects, develop resource assignments for new projects, and generally
troubleshoot the project development process. One of the senior programmers’
responsibilities was to develop a WBS for new projects and after consulting with the
junior and lead programmers, give a preliminary estimate of the time frame needed to
complete the assignment.

Judy soon noticed that her senior programmers had a much more pessimistic
assessment of the time needed to complete projects than her own view. In particular, all
project assignments seemed to her to be grossly overestimated. A a former programmer
herself, with over 10 years ‘experience, Judy had a hard time understanding how the
programmers and the senior systems managers were coming up with such lengthy
estimates.

The problem came to a head one afternoon when she received an assessment for a
routine reprogramming job that was estimated to take over 120 hours of work. Holding
the assessment in her hand, she determined to find out how this figure had been derived.
Judy first approached the lead programmer, Sid, as he sat at his desk.

“Sid, this estimate from you shows that you requested 32 hours to upgrade an
online system that only needs minor tweaks. What gives?”

Sir reacted with a start. “I never put down 32 hours. Randy asked me for my
estimate and I told him I though it would take about 24 hours of work.”

Judy pursed her lips. “Well I need to talk about that with Randy. Even allowing
for the fact that you requested 24 hours instead of 32, Sid, you and I both know that the
work we are estimating should not take anywhere near that much tie to finish.”

Sid’s response did not improve Judy’s confidence. “Um, well, Judy, the thing is
… I mean, you have to understand that there are a lot of other projects I am working on
right now and…”

Judy interrupted, “I’m not concerned with your other assignments right now. Sid,
I am trying to get a handle on this estimate. How did you get 24 hours?’

Sid squirmed in his seat. Finally, he cleared his threat and looked judy in the eye.
“Judy, the fact is that I have seven projects going on right now. If you pulled me off the
other six, I could get that routine finished in about six hours, but ZI don’t have six
uninterrupted hours. Plus, you know how Randy works. If I give him an honest estimate
and miss it, even if it isn’t my fault, he never lets me forget it, Put yourself in my
position for a moment: How would you handle this job?”

2
 Judy walked back to her desk in a thoughtful mood. “Maybe the problem around
here isn’t our ability to develop accurate estimates,” she thought. “May it’s the culture
that is pushing us to avoid being authentic with each other.”

Questions:

Q1 Identify some of the symptoms in the case that point toward culture problems in
the department?

Q2 What steps would you take to begin changing the culture in the department? In
your answer. Consider what changes you would recommend making to the reward
systems, methods for estimating activity durations, and task assignments for project
personnel?

Q3. Why do you suppose Randy took Sid’s 24 hour activity estimate and increased it
to 32 hours when the presented it to judy?

3
Case Study 2.1 Paradise Lost: The Xerox Alto
Imagine the value of cornering the technological market of personal computing. How
much would a five year win low of competitive advantage be worth to a company today?
It could easily mean billions in revenue, a stellar industry reputation, future earnings
assured, and the list goes on. For Xerox Corporation, however, something strange
happened on the way to industry leadership. In 1970, Xerox was uniquely positioned to
take advantage of the enormous leaps forward in office automation technology. It had
made. Yet it stumbled badly through its own strategic myopia, lack of nerve, structural
inadequacies, and poor choices. This is the story of the Xerox.

Alto the world’s first personal computer and one of the great what it? Stories in
business history.

The alto was not so much a step forward as a quantum leap. In place and
operating by the end of 1978. It was the first stand-alone personal computer to combine
bitmapped graphics, a mouse, menu screens, icons, an Ethernet connection, a laser
printer, and processing software. The result of the combined efforts of an impressive
collection of computer science geniuses head-quartered at Xerox’s Palo Alto Research
Centre (PARC), the Alto was breathtaking in its innovative appeal. It was PARC is
answer to Xerox’s top management command to “hit a home run.” Xerox had profited
earlier from just such a home run in the form of the Model 914 photocopier, a
technological innovation that provided the impetus to turn Xerox into a billion-dollar
company in the 1960s. The Alto represented a similar achievement.

What went wrong? What forces combined to ensure that no more than 2,000
Altos were produced and that none were ever brought to market? (They were used only
inside the company or at some university sites.) The answer could lie in the muddled
strategic thinking that went on at Xerox while the Alto was in development. The history
of Xerox during this period shows a company that stepped back from technological
leadership into a form of instrumentalism that made it content to follow IBM’s lead in
office automation. Incrementatalism refers to adopting a gradualist approach that plays it
safe, avoiding technological leaps, large risks, and consequently the possibility of large
returns. In 1974 the decision was made to launch the Model 800 magnetic tape word
processor rather than the Alto because the Model 800 was perceived as the safer bet.
Over the next five years, a series of all-timed acquisitions, lawsuits, and reorganizations
rendered the Alto a casualty of inattention. What division would oversee its development
and launch? Whose budget would support it and PARC in general? By leaving those
tough decisions unmade, Xerox wasted valuable time and squandered its technological
window of opportunity. Even when clear indications showed that competitor Wang was
in line to introduce its own line of office systems, Xerox could not take the step to bring
the Alto to market. By 1970, Xerox a unique opportunity was lost. Not longer was the
Alto a one of a kind technology, and the company quietly shelved any plans for its
commercial introduction.

The ultimate irony may have been that a company that made its name through the
phenomenal success or a highly innovative product, the Model 914 photocopier, did not
know how to handle the opportunities presented by the next phenomenon. In short, the
Alto was simply so advanced that the company seemed unable to comprehend its

4
possibilities. Executives did not have a strategic focus that emphasized a continual
progression of innovation. Instead, they were directed toward knowing head to head with
the competition in an incremental approach. That is, when IBM released a new electric
typewriter, they did the same Xerox’s organizational structure worked against any one
division or key manager becoming the champion for the Alto.

In 1979 Steven Jobs, president of Apple Computer, was given a tour of the PARC
complex and saw an Alto in use. He was so impressed with the machine’s features and
operating capabilities that he asked when it was due to be commercially launched when
told that much of this technology had been developed in 1973. Jobs recounted in his own
words that he became “Physically sick” at the thought of the opportunity Xerox had
forgone.

Questions

Q1. Do you see a logical contradiction in Xerox’s willingness to devote millions of

dollars to support pure research sites like PARC and then its refusal to commercially
introduce the products produced?

Q2. How does Xerox’s strategic vision work in favor or against the development of
radical new technologies such as the Alto?

Q3. How did other unforeseeable events combine to make Xerox’s executives
unwilling to take any new risks precisely at the time that the Alto was ready to be
released?

Q4. “Radical innovation cannot be too radical if we want it to be commercially

successful.” Argue either in favor of or against this statement.

5
Case Study 3.1 DeHavillands Failing Comet
Following the close of World War II. DeHavillnad had been looked in a battle with
Boeing Corporation to see which company could be the first to market with a viable jet-
powered air plant to take advantage of the burgeoning commercial airline market.
DeHavilland’s entry, the Comet, won the race and was introduced in 1952, well ahead of
the Boeing 707 model. The Comet was clearly a landmark aircraft for its day; featuring a
fully pressurized cabin, a well-designed interior, large, square-shaped windows, and
engines embedded in the wings, it was a trend setter I every sense of the word. When it
was offered commercially. DeHavillnad could not help but feel that it had the inside
track on a market with enormous profit potential.

Troubles began quickly after the airplane was introduced and taken into service
by among other airlines, the British Overseas Airways Corporation (BOAC). In May of
1953, a Comet was lost 22 miles from Calcutta’s airport, killing all 13 passengers and
crew on board. The preliminary assessment of the cause of the crash was listed as” Pilot
error couples with weather conditions.” No further action was taken. On January 10,
1954, 35 passengers and crew members of another Comet took off from Rome’s
Ciampino Airport for London. Just as the airplane reached its cruising altitude and speed,
it disintegrated over the Mediterrancan, near the island of Elba.

In the wake of this second mid air disaster, the aircraft were taken out of service
by BOAC for recertification testing. Following a brief examination the aircraft were
again deemed airworthy and reintroduced to the airline’s fleet. Only 16 days after its
reintroduction, a third Comet, also taking off from Rome of its way to Johannesburg, was
lost near the island of Stromboli, leading to the deaths of another 21 passengers. As in
the second case, the airplane went down in deep water, making it difficult to recover any
significant portions of the wreckage.

Following the third fatal accident in less than one year, investigators for the
British Civil Aviation Board (BCAB) organized a massive retest of the aircraft,
grounding the fleet pending extensive recertification and safety testing. Their testing
efforts were grueling Several Comets were literally tested to destruction in order to
determine potential causes of the mid-air accidents. The BCAB’s conclusions? Design
flaws in the use of the large, squared windows led to stress cracks developing in the
corners of the windows as a result of rapid pressurization and depressurization of the
cabin. The engineers speculated that once the crack had become sufficiently critical,
pressurizing and depressurization of the cabin. The engineers speculated that once the
crack had become sufficiently critical, pressurizing the cabin would lead to a catastrophic
blowout, causing a sudden “gyroscopic moment” as the aircraft.

Points

• October 26, 1952 – BOAC Comet failed to become sirborne at Rome’s Ciampino
Airport, Plane destroyed, no deaths.
• Mar 2, 1953 – Canadian Pacific Airlines Comet IA crashed at Karachi, India, on
delivery flight, Eleven crew members and technicians killed.

6
 • May 2, 1953 – BOAC Comet crashed after takeoff from Calcutta. Forty – three
person killed.
• June 25, 1953 – Union Acromoritime de Transport (UAT) Comet landed too far
down runway at Dakar, French West Africa, Plane Ploughed into concrete
abutment, Place destroyed, no deaths.
• July 25, 1953 – BOAC skidded off runway while taxing for takeoff at Calcutta
Plane’s port wing spar damaged.
• January 10, 1954 – BOAC Comet crashed off Elba Island after taking off from
Rome. Thirty – five persons killed, Parts of plane salvaged.
• April 8, 1954 – BOAC Comet crashed off Stromboli after taking off from Rome.
Twenty – one persons killed, wreckage sank into Mediterranean.

Nosed down and plunged out of control. Additional structural flaws that came to
light from the additional testing included wings that had a low resistance to fatigue, the
possibility of wing damage during too-rapid fueling, and leaking fuel lines. Indeed,
experts argued that even once these design flaws were fixed, the aircraft was not safe
beyond 1,000 flying hours before needing complete overhauling.

Above points shows the checkered history of the Comet from its introduction to
its decertification a record in which after two years, 7 million air miles, and carrying over
55,000 passengers, the aircraft was permanently grounded. DeHavilland had indeed won
the race to be first to market with a commercial jet: a race that they would have been
better to have never run at all.

Questions:

Q1. How could risk management have aided in the development of the Comet?

Q2. Discuss the various types of risk (technical, financial, commercial etc.) in relation
to the Comet. Develop a qualitative risk matrix for these risk factors and assess
them in terms of probability and consequences.

Q3. Given that a modified version of the Comet (the Comet IV) is still used by the
British government its an antisubmarine warfare aircraft, it is clear that the design
flaws could have corrected given enough time. What, then, do you see as
DeHavilland’s critical error in the development of the Comet?

Q4. Comment on this statement “Failure is the price we pay for technological
advancement.”