Cesar Sanin - 2017 ENGG6830 –Management Report Assignment Engineering Project Management Due by Friday, June 2nd 2017 at 11:55 PM The Millennium Valve Project Pointp Products manufactures valves for controlling the water level in industrial tanks. It had concentrated on products for the construction industry (valves for newly installed tanks), but now wants to move into the much larger and more lucrative replacement market. Whereas annual demand for new valves is about 100000, it is about 1 million for replacement valves. The company’s President Ulrich Fitch envisioned a new valve, the Millennium Valve, as a way to gain a share in the tank-valve replacement market. Pointp’s objective was to design and produce the Millennium Valve to be of superior quality and lower cost than the competition. Pointp decided to outsource the development and design of the new valve. It prepared an RFP (Request For proposal) that included the following objectives and requirements: Product Objectives • Innovative design to distinguish the Millennium Valve from the valves of competitors. • Be price-competitive but offer greater value. Market (user) requirements • Ease of installation • Non-clogging • Quiet operation • Ease in setting water level • Maintain water level with pressure changes • Adjustable height Pointp sent the RFP to four design/development companies and selected Indubest, Inc., primarily based on it having submitted the lowest bid. Indubest’s proposal was written by its sales and marketing departments and revised by senior management, but had no input from industrial designers, engineers, or anyone else who would work on the project. Indubest had no prior experience with industrial water valves, but its sales team saw Millennium as an opportunity to earn profits and align with a major equipment manufacturer. The marketing department prepared time and cost estimates using standard tasks and work packages from proposals for old projects. The Indubest design team assigned to the Millennium project was headed by Joe Blog, a seasoned engineer and included two industrial designers and two engineers. His first task was to research theCesar Sanin - 2017 valve market by talking to contractors, plumbers, and retailers. Blog reviewed the proposal and divided the project into phases and small work packages and prepared a Gantt chart. He concluded that the proposal had omitted several critical processes and steps, and that the project cost was substantially underestimated. He rewrote the proposal, schedule, and cost estimate. Throughout the project, the design concept, work tasks, and schedules had to be changed many times. Indubest engineers were frustrated at Pointp’s constant harping about the need for both low cost and functional superiority. It could be done, but Pointp also wanted a speedy, low-cost development effort. During the project, Indubest engineers learned that to design such a valve required more resources that they have been budgeted. Because of all the changes, Indubest exceeded the budgeted amount and had to request additional funds from Pointp four times. A major problem occurred when Indubest delivered a prototype to Pointp. Because the proposal description of the prototype was vague, Pointp expected the prototype to be a virtually finished product with replicable components, whereas Indubest understood it to be a simple working model to demonstrate design and functionality. Extra time and money had to be spent to bring the prototype up to Pointp’s expectation. To compensate, Indubest went ahead and started making productionready models. This wasted more time and money because the finished prototype showed that the production models could not be produced. Indubest did eventually design a truly innovative valve; however, the design would require substantial retooling of the factory and cost Pointp 50 percent more to produce that had been expected. Pointp, on the head of Ulrich, canceled the contract with Indubest. The work is 90 percent finished, and Pointp is attempting to complete the last 10 percent itself. Pointp has spent so far twice as much time and money on development as expected and still does not have a product to manufacture. Because of the costs, it is unlikely that the product, once development has been completed, can be priced low enough to be competitive. Post Project Appraisal The net result was that there is not a finished development to produce and sell. Company’s morale ebbed. Ulrich Fitch is now not a favorite among the employees, and was blamed for introducing this "new unnecessary valve” idea that had just spent money and time of the company. Because of this experience, Pointp Products’ President, Ulrich Fitch, hired project management consultants W. Easley Associates to conduct a post project appraisal. Easley had some difficulty in extracting solid information because Indubest refrained of any participation on it, and relevant data was scattered amongst various staff, who were at times, not keen to reveal their insights. However, interviews with the key players elicited considerable information, as has been outlined above.Cesar Sanin - 2017 Case Study Exercise This is a typical case study for a project management course. The incidents described are typical of the types of things that happen in real-life projects. They are a reflection of peoples' attitudes and the way they do things. The story of the project is set out according to its natural evolution. The commercial environment described is a very typical of that existing now. This project has served to bring to light many of Pointp Products' management shortcomings and the need for change. The problems are not difficult to spot, but can you see why they happened? What needs to be done to fix them? Your team (2 people) (see Note 3) work for W. Easley Associates on conducting the post project appraisal and have being asked to write a Report. The Report is to be no longer than a 2400 words (plus 10%) and is to be in the Short Report format along the lines indicated in the book by Dwyer, Judith, “Communication in Business” (3rd Edition) 2005, Pearson Education Australia (This book is available at the University short loans library and scanned copies are available in Blackboard). Particular reference should be made to pages 505 – 510 of the textbook to help write up the Report in the correct format. Pointp's President Ulrich Fitch wants to know what practical steps might be taken in the future to avoid such complications. These practical steps would be the recommendations to feature in the Report you are preparing. Your task is to identify the factors that contributed to Pointp’s failure to obtain the product they wanted and to show how you would run this project properly from the beginning. To justify the position you are taking, it is expected that you would look at and refer to some of the theories and studies we have seen during the lecture of ENGG6830. The reference to theories and your brief explanation of the ones you choose to use will help to ‘back up’ your arguments as to what should be done in the organization. There is no doubt that time as well as money will have to be spent on any initiatives/recommendations that are approved by the Board of Directors and there has to be a justification for the investment of any time and money at Pointp Products. The Report you generate is to be put into Blackboard via the assignments entry point button. The due date is 11.55pm, Friday, June 2nd 2017, posted into Blackboard. No paper copy will be accepted, ONLY electronic posting via Blackboard. A cover sheet (obtained from the Blackboard site inside the “Assessment” button) and the Report are to be submitted using separated links for their submissions (see Note 4). You MUST put your name and student ID on the Report. You are also urged to check for inappropriate referencing and unintended plagiarism. Fix these errors PRIOR to the final Report submission.Cesar Sanin - 2017 NOTES: 1) The above is all of the information that you will be provided with concerning this task. 2) The information is not necessarily complete and may therefore require you to make assumptions, if you do, then STATE THEM CLEARLY. 3) Partner with a classmate in order to have your team of two W. Easley Associates consultants for the assessment. Once you have your team, please send an email to [email protected] with the name of your team members. 4) Two submissions, on two different links in Blackboard to be done by the due date: a. Coversheet with the name of both team members b. Report with the names and student ID’s of both students. Names could be included as foot pages.