Crosby Manufacturing Corporation Case Study

Case Synopsis

Crosby Manufacturing Corporation was a $250-million-a-year firm that had been confronted by its own antiquity. They had become uncompetitive due to the problems with their project management cost and control system, so they were unable to meet the financial reporting requirements for customers. Company president Wilfred Livingston called a meeting in order to fix these problems, and the department managers discussed replacing their current computer systems. In this discussion, the department managers articulated the challenges and costs necessary to make the changes. Livingston deems this project so important that he deviates from the normal structure of the company and appoints skilled planner Tim Emary, who does not have as much experience with computers, as project leader.

Livingston appoints Tim Emary to be the project manager

Livingston’s decision to appoint Emary is interesting; however, it is questionable. Whatever Emary’s skill as an organizer may be, his unfamiliarity with the other departments and his inexperience with the focus of computer system reorganization does not at all qualify him to lead when his skills are contributory at best. Livingston could have come up with a more preferable solution such as asking Emary to work alongside more technologically proficient employees and tailor organization around that. Because Emary does not have true fluency in what these solutions would entail to modernize Crosby Manufacturing Corporation’s management cost and control system (MCCS), this is a recipe for inefficiency. When one considers that the MIS and EDP managers already established rough schedules, that could easily be refined, Emary’s appointment in this scenario seems almost arbitrary. Livingston had not exactly made a mistake, but instead he advocated a gross misallocation of leadership. Livingston would have been best served by slightly deviating from his matrix structure and employing more than a single manager for this project and having Emary as a third. In this sense, Livingston made a mistake by ignoring Emary’s inexperience with the other departments, which could lead to unrealistic goals and timeframes in his scheduling due to a lack of understanding. His ability, and goals, as a planner seem unfounded without the necessary knowledge. Essentially, if Emary is not informed as the others, it is possible that he does not really know what it takes to get the job done. Livingston’s decision could be considered rash and irresponsible for goals such as long-term efficiency and stability for the new systems, particularly when the other department managers seem more than capable. In other words, appointing Emary seems wholly unnecessary considering the other managers’ existing abilities. In addition, when Livingston suggested that the employees give Emary the help he needs, the whole situation seems utterly backward because Emary should help the departments.

Functional employees’ reactions to the appointment of Emary

The reaction of the functional employees would most likely range from confusion to a sense of being slighted. While Livingston’s reasoning behind appointing Emary is clear in his mind, it might be insulting to the functional employees that Livingston apparently did not find them capable enough of organizing. This is not the way to build positive organizational morale. In fact, the MIS department manager already had a rough feasibility study of the major topics and seemed familiar with its content. In addition, the EDP department manager already had a rough schedule ready, and it was a schedule which someone with more expertise seemed optimistic about with a realistic timeframe. Furthermore, the two managers seemed familiar with each other and the work involved for both parties. Livingston disregarded the rough schedules created by technologically proficient individuals, and his actions seemed, quite frankly, rude. It is certainly a stretch to think that the functional employees would react positively to Emary’s appointment, especially when his capability as a planner does not necessarily ensure awareness of the intricacies of this new system. Livingston’s eagerness to grow the business is admirable, but he seems entirely fine with sacrificing stability for speed. For example, he asked that the employees come together and complete the project within 18 months. On the other hand, the EDP manager’s schedule already suggests that the project could possibly be completed within 15 months. Because Livingston clearly ignored the EDP manager’s schedule, one would wonder if Livingston knew Emary had powerful influences elsewhere, and he based his decision on that. Regardless, it is difficult to conclude that the functional employees would be very pleased with Emary’s appointment. Adding insult to injury, this appointment violates their normal structure. If the Livingston’s structure was successful, it does not make sense that he would violate it now. This could possibly lead the employees to doubt his credibility and authority. 

Impact of cost and time constraints on networking techniques and project schedules

The impact of cost and time constraints is directly influential on a project’s schedule and thereon requires certain networking techniques. Performance and Review Technique (PERT) charts are a method of establishing a schedule and deciding what jobs immediately precede or follow each other or what jobs can be done simultaneously. In other words, this is a useful way of determining certain probabilities, objectives, time, or other elements, and calculating certain risks that would alter the direction or goals of a project. When a project is large and more complex, it needs more to be established, and it needs more resources to be allocated towards it. This is where the impacts of cost and time constraints become apparent. In the case study, the EDP manager outlines the possible constraints of Crosby Manufacturing Corporation’s project, some of which includes the availability of hardware and software and the company’s capacity for expansion. Cost and time constraints essentially determine the effectiveness, and, ultimately, the feasibility of a project. Another inherent issue of cost and time constraints is that they also could determine the quality of a project. When corporations cut corners in order to meet cost or time constraints, it is rarely to the benefit of a project.

Constraints that may compromise the project's performance quality

A possible constraint of this particular project that may compromise its quality, and that takes place within the company itself, is Livingston’s appointment of Emary. This decision may create unrealistic time or cost constraints due to his apparent lack of understanding. Other constraints are not necessarily within the company’s control. For example, some other cost constraints could include retraining employees to work with the new system that may or may not be user-friendly, the quality of the equipment such as its longevity until its obsolescence, and exactly how cost-effective the new equipment will be as it depends on the vendor from which the company decides to purchase. In addition, similar constraints may apply time-wise. In actuality, Livingston has placed one upon himself because he hopes that the project will be completed in 18 months. Within this larger constraint, smaller ones begin to accumulate in order for the project to conform to the original constraint. For example, in the EDP manager’s schedule, there are a plethora of goals to accomplish before the system changeover is complete. Should any of these events fail to be completed within their own constraint, they will delay the project as a whole from its completion. Both constraints could compromise the quality of the project since they function in tandem. Typically, the more time that is expended on a project would result in more funds allocated towards a project. While a higher cost does not necessarily result in a longer amount of time, it usually means that the project is both complex and large, and it will require an extensive amount of time. 

Reference

Kerzner, H. (2009). Chapter 12. In Project management: A systems approach to planning, scheduling, and controlling (10th ed., pp. 493-554). Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.