Crosby manufacturing corporation

a) Analyzing Team Development Models:

Five-Phase Model:
 Forming: The team was in the forming stage when the matrix structure was
introduced. Roles and responsibilities were initially unclear.
 Storming: While not explicitly mentioned, there may have been conflicts and
challenges as the team discussed feasibility, costs, and vendor evaluation.
 Norming: The team started to collaborate and discuss project aspects like
feasibility and costs. Roles were becoming clearer.
 Performing: The appointment of Tim Emary as the project leader indicated a move
towards the performing stage, with leadership support and expectations of a
detailed schedule.
 Adjourning: Although not discussed explicitly, adjourning would become relevant
once the project was completed, as the team would need to wrap up its activities,
evaluate the project, and transition to the next phase.

Punctuated Equilibrium Model:

The introduction of the matrix structure marked a significant change in the organization,
and the subsequent project to upgrade computer systems represented a pivotal moment.
This aligns with the Punctuated Equilibrium Model, emphasizing major shifts in the
team's dynamics, including the introduction of the matrix structure and the subsequent
project.

Which Model Describes Team Evolution Better:

Both models have their merits, but in this context, the Punctuated Equilibrium Model
appears to describe the team's evolution better. The introduction of the matrix structure
and the subsequent project were transformative events that significantly impacted the
team's dynamics and direction.
b) Analyzing Situational Factors:
Positively Contributing Factors to Group Performance:
 Clear Goals: The team had a clear goal of upgrading computer systems to support
MCCS reporting procedures, aligning with the company's growth plans.
 Leadership Support: Willy Livingston's commitment and the appointment of Tim
Emary as the project leader provided strong leadership support.
 Resource Allocation: The company was willing to invest a sizable amount of
money in the project, demonstrating commitment to providing necessary
resources.
 Task Interdependence: Collaboration among various departments was necessary
for the project, promoting teamwork and coordination.
Negatively Contributing Factors to Group Performance:
 Task Complexity: The project involved complex considerations such as feasibility,
costs, vendor evaluation, and software development, potentially leading to
challenges.
 Time Constraints: Livingston expressed a desire for a relatively quick project
completion (18 months), introducing potential time pressure.
 Transition Challenges: The team would have to manage a transition period with
two computer systems in operation, which could disrupt operations.
 Risk in Schedule: Livingston encouraged the identification of schedule risks,
suggesting potential uncertainties.
Efforts to Overcome Negative Factors:
 Feasibility Study: The MIS manager proposed conducting a feasibility study to
address potential complexities.
 Detailed Schedule: Livingston expected a detailed schedule with identified
milestones and risk factors, demonstrating a proactive approach to address
potential time constraints and risks.
 Vendor Evaluation: The EDP manager suggested an evaluation process for
vendors, emphasizing benchmark tests and site visits.
 Project Leader: Appointing Tim Emary as the project leader aimed to mitigate
risks by leveraging his scheduling and project management skills.
Possible Improvements to Overcome Negative Factors:
To further address potential challenges, consider the following:
 Comprehensive Risk Assessment: Conduct a detailed risk assessment and
mitigation plan to proactively address potential issues.
 Communication Plan: Establish clear communication channels to manage the
transition with two systems and keep stakeholders informed.
 Ongoing Monitoring: Continuously monitor and adapt the project schedule based
on evolving circumstances.
 External Expertise: Consider involving external experts for an independent
assessment of the feasibility study to ensure thoroughness.
 Stakeholder Involvement: Involve relevant stakeholders in decision-making and
project oversight to address potential risks and concerns.

What are the risks in the schedule of this project?

 Feasibility Study Complexity: Conducting a comprehensive feasibility study
involving input-output demands, processing, storage, and other factors might take
longer than anticipated, potentially delaying project initiation.
 Vendor Selection and Procurement: The evaluation of vendors, benchmark tests,
and negotiations can be time-consuming. Delays in selecting a vendor or acquiring
necessary hardware/software components can extend the project schedule.
 Concurrent Software Development: Initiating software development concurrently
with hardware acquisition can be risky. If hardware specifications change or issues
arise during software development, it may lead to schedule delays.
 Transition Period: The project involves a transition period with two computer
systems in operation simultaneously. Managing this transition effectively to
minimize disruptions and ensure a smooth handover is essential to avoid schedule
setbacks.
 Resource Constraints: Availability of skilled personnel, equipment, and other
resources may not align with the aggressive 18-month timeline. Resource
shortages can lead to delays in project execution.
 Scope Changes: Changes or additions to project scope, whether driven by
stakeholders or discovered during implementation, can impact the project's
timeline if not properly managed and accounted for in the schedule.
 Technical Challenges: The upgrade process may uncover unexpected technical
challenges or compatibility issues that require additional time for resolution.
 Regulatory Compliance: Adhering to regulatory requirements, especially in
government contracts, may introduce delays if compliance issues are not identified
and addressed in a timely manner.
 Communication Issues: Inadequate or unclear communication among project team
members, stakeholders, or with external vendors can lead to misunderstandings,
decision-making delays, and ultimately schedule disruptions.
 Stakeholder Engagement: Lack of active involvement and commitment from key
stakeholders can result in delays in approvals, reviews, or decisions crucial to
project progression.
 External Factors: External factors such as economic fluctuations, supply chain
disruptions, or unforeseen events like natural disasters can affect the project
timeline.
 Change Management: Managing changes to project scope or requirements
effectively is critical. Failure to handle change requests can lead to scope creep
and subsequent schedule extensions.