THE AJAX PROJECT

Ruby Amey
Southwestern College of Professional Studies
Project Management Fundamentals
MGMT 505
Dr. Light
February 11, 2012
 CEBEX CORPORATION
CEBEX is a large Defense Corporation that has
many other projects that are being all done at the
same time. This corporation makes contracts for
projects with many successes that are well known
by the reputation of the corporation. The market
for this corporation has been fast moving and
growing steadily. With billions of dollars behind
the corporation, all projects are easily within
reaching their goals. CEBEX has annual sales in
excess $30 billion with over 120,000 employees
worldwide.
 CEBEX CORPORATION
CONTINUED
CEBEX has five business areas Aeronautics,
Electronic Systems, Information and
Technology Services, Integrated Systems and
Solutions, and Space Systems. AJAX is one of
the new projects sponsored by the Integrated
Systems and Solutions Division in the
Homeland Security Business.
 PROBLEMS TRAN FACES
TECHNOLOGY GENERATION AND
PROBLEMS CULTURAL PROBLEMS

Audio Cultural Differences

Optical Generation Gaps
Tactical Salary Problems
Laser Subsystems Language and
Communication
 METHOD OF SOLVING TRANS
PROBLEMS

Spending More Money on the Project

Spending Money on a Retreat
Motivating the Team Members
Defusing problems by Answering their
Concerns
 COST ASSOCIATED WITH
THE PROJECT

Paying for the Retreat

Paying for the Facilitator
Paying for the Project
Paying for the Salaries of Experts
Overall Budget Costs
 RISK ASSESSMENT FOR PROJECT
Risk Event Likelihood Impact Detection When
Difficulty

Conducting the 4 5 1 Beginning of the project

two day retreat

Conducting all 5 4 5 Discovery of fault or

phases of testing success at the time of
each test

Not knowing 5 5 5 The difference of theory

how the and practical application
technology will of theory
respond until
after installation

Cohesion of the 3 5 2 Discovered at the

team beginning of the project

Project Risk Assessment

(Amey, 2012)
 RETURN ON INVESTMENTS
Return on Investment

The quotient of original budget and actual cost was used to calculate the cost index (CI).

Project performance indexes were used to assess the cost and schedule performances on the

project considered to be representative of the company being benchmarked. The CI and schedule

index (SI) are defined in Equations 1 and 2. Cost Index, CI = (1)

Schedule Index, SI = (2) (Kwak, 2000, p. 5).

 CONCLUSION
Tran did an effective job managing the project. He was
initially faced with problems with his personnel refusing to work
together because of cultural and age differences. He dealt with the
issue by sending his group on a two day retreat. His efforts included
hiring a facilitator to have exercises designed to create a cohesive
team. The retreat was a success.
The project progressed in five stages after installation. When
installation was complete, the five tests were executed to
determine the effectiveness of the installation, hardware and
software of CEBEX. Tran encountered problems with the project
during the second round of testing. Because of the nature of the
work, his team became discouraged again. Tran effectively
motivated his team by working with each group to boost their
motivation levels. Finally, the project is on track with the third
round of testing a success.
 Reference
Anderson, J., ., & Narasimhan, R. (1979). ASSESSING PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION
RISK: A METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH. Management Science, 25(6), 512-521.

Charvat, J. (2003). Re-engineering IT Projects: Knowing When to Stop. Cost

Engineering, 45(3), 10.

Hamilton, T. M. (1968). Clarifying Responsibility Relationships. California

Management Review, 10(3), 41-52.

Larson, E.W., & Gray, C.F. (2011). Project management the managerial
process, fifth edition. Columbus, OH: McGraw-Hill

Liu, L., & Zhu, K. (2007). Improving Cost Estimates of Construction Projects Using
Phased Cost Factors. Journal Of Construction Engineering & Management, 133(1),
91-95. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2007)133:1(91).

Kwak, Y. H. (2000). Calculating Project Management's Return on Investment.

Project Management Journal, 31(2), 38.