Read the

Case Study

associated with the specific unit carefully, then proceed as follows:

1. Prepare a response that is 750 words (+/- 75 words, excluding title page and reference page), double-spaced and follows APA format and referencing style.
2. While there is no “formula” for analyzing case studies, the following guidelines are recommended:

   Define the goals and objectives for your analysis. What questions are you trying to answer and what issues are you trying to resolve?
   Rapidly skim through the case study and get a sense for how the case study has been structured
   Read through the case study with paper and pencil and make notes as you go along

3. Structure the information in the case study: this is the key step.

   Whilst addressing the case questions, think of the information given in the case study as “raw data” that you have gathered to help you answer the questions and resolve the issues in Step 2a above.
   You need to structure this information to resolve the issues. Here are some useful dimensions along which you can structure the given information chronologically:

   evolution of the industry in which the enterprise operates (e.g., changes in technology, customer needs, competitive landscape)
   evolution of strategy – business, technology, and market – of the enterprise
   evolution of technology (including manufacturing), product platforms, and product lines of the enterprise
   the technology, product, and process development process within the enterprise
   growth (or decline) of the enterprise with respect to of market share, revenues, costs, profits, etc.
   organizational structure of the enterprise
   key decisions made at different stages in the life of enterprise, and the drivers for these decisions
   the interconnections and relationships between all the above factors

   Make extensive use of figures, tables, trees, etc. to shape your thinking during the structuring process.
   Perform any necessary analysis, for example, revenues or costs associated with different design options

4. Draw conclusions, answer questions, resolve issues, and make recommendations using the structured information in Step 3.

Case Study

LaPoint, P., & Haggard, C. (2014). Design Prototypes Inc project management (B): Planning the Alpha C306 Project. CaseCentre. Retrieved from

https://www.thecasecentre.org/main/products/view?id=156286

Page 73

Journal of the International Academy for Case Studies, Volume 20, Number 3, 2014

DESIGN PROTOTYPES INC. PROJECT
MANAGEMENT (B): PLANNING THE ALPHA C306

PROJECT

Patricia A. Lapoint, McMurry University
Carrol R. Haggard, Fort Hays State University

CASE DESCRIPTION

The primary subject matter of this case concerns project management. This case can be

used in Project Management, Operations Management, or Quality Management courses. The
case has a difficulty level of four. The case is designed to be taught in two class hours and is
expected to require four to six hours of outside preparation by students.

CASE SYNOPSIS

After 9 years at Design Prototypes Inc., Raef Conley is leading his first major project.
While Raef had worked on several small projects, he has never taken on the leadership of a
major project. The Alpha C306 project is a significant opportunity for him, one that could
advance his career in many ways. Although excited about the opportunity, Raef is also
somewhat anxious, as while there is the potential for career advancement, he is also well aware
that failure could mean the end of his career at Design Prototypes. Raef’s first task was to
assemble a project team. Although he has selected his team, he still needs to get time
commitments from the supervisors so that he can finalize the team. The case starts with Raef
completing the team selection process where he encountered an unexpected complication which
had to be resolved. The next step is to complete the project planning process. In order to do
this, the team developed a Work Breakdown Schedule (WBS). However a Critical Path Analysis
(CPA) revealed that the initial WBS did not meet the 18 month timeline established by
management, therefore the team developed a revised WBS. The case revolves around the
question of whether the revised WBS is feasible.

DESIGN PROTOTYPES INC. PROJECT MANAGEMENT (B):
PLANNING THE ALPHA C306 PROJECT

Last year was an interesting, but challenging year for Raef Conley. Currently in his tenth

year with the company, Raef felt blessed to have been on several project teams; but the most
important opportunity was his being identified as the project manager for the Alpha C306
project. The last few months of the previous year were spent in the identification, interviewing,

Distributed by The Case Centre North America Rest of the world
www.thecasecentre.org t +1 781 239 5884 t +44 (0)1234 750903
All rights reserved e info.usa@thecasecentre.org e info@thecasecentre.orgcase centre

JIACS20-03-10

P
le

as
e

no
te

th
at

y
ou

a
re

n
ot

p
er

m
itt

ed
to

re
pr

od
uc

e
or

re
di

st
rib

ut
e

it
fo

r a
ny

o
th

er
p

ur
po

se
.

Y
ou

a
re
p
er
m
itt
ed
to

v
ie

w
th

e
m

at
er

ia
l o

n-
lin

e
an

d
pr

in
t a

c
op

y
fo

r y
ou

r p
er

so
na

l u
se

u
nt

il
31

-J
an

-2
02

1.
P

ur
ch

as
ed

fo
r u

se
b

y
S

ha
nn

on
B

ra
in

B
ra

in
o

n
31

-J
an
-2
02

0.
O

rd
er

re
f F

37
37

10
.

E
du

ca
tio

na
l m

at
er

ia
l s

up
pl

ie
d

by
T

he
C

as
e

C
en

tre
C

op
yr

ig
ht

e
nc

od
ed

A
76

H
M

-J
U

J9
K

-P
JM

N
9I

O
rd

er
re

fe
re

nc
e

F3
73

71
0

Page 74

Journal of the International Academy for Case Studies, Volume 20, Number 3, 2014

and the selection of the project team members. Eleven employees were pared down from a list
of 16; all eleven were strong candidates for the Alpha C306 project, but only seven members
could be selected. After considerable and careful thought, Raef made his decisions. The team
members chosen are: Alison Whitley, Philip Lowery, Rae Beth Merson, Elroy Bennett, Pierce
Kennedy, Billy Brown, and Robert Brandon (for information on the team members see Design
Prototypes Inc. Project Management (A): Selecting the Team, 2012, authors withheld). Just
before the holidays, Raef personally met with the seven candidates chosen for the project team to
congratulate them for their commitment, and to reinforce the strong qualifications each of them
would bring to the project task. The team members were eager to begin. Raef shared with them
the tentative 18 month timeline and scheduled the first meeting for January 9th.

Raef also knew that the four who were not chosen would have to be notified of his
decision; he was not looking forward to this part of the process. He decided to tell each one in
person of his decision. Due to a family emergency, Daniel Swenson was unavailable, so Raef
was unable to contact Daniel before his Christmas break. What follows are the interviews with
Margaret Sobel, Michael Matson, and Simon Wright.

INTERVIEW WITH MARGARET SOBEL

Raef: “Hi Margaret, do you have a minute?”
Margaret: “Sure, come on in and have a seat.”
Raef: “I wanted to visit with you about the Alpha C306 project.”
Margaret: “I figured as much.”
Raef: “First, I would like to thank you for your interest in joining the Alpha C306 project

team.”
Margaret: “It was easy to show interest, as it sounds like such an exciting project.”
Raef: “Hopefully, it will be.” After taking a deep breath, Raef continues: “There is no

easy way to say this, Margaret but I am sorry to tell you that you were not selected as part of the
team.”

Margaret: “Can I ask why?”
Raef: “It was a difficult choice, one not made any easier by the fact that all 11 of you as

potential team members would bring unique qualifications to the team. You are obviously a
valued member of the company, since in your 18 years here you have worked on a number of
small projects, offering leadership on several of them. You have demonstrated that you can
work well with a team. However, for this particular project I felt that the team needed more
technical expertise, thus engineers comprise most of the team. While it may not be much solace,
you were one of the 11 finalists and that says much about how well you are perceived within the
company.”

Margaret: “While I am disappointed, I can certainly understand, as being in Project
Administration, I assumed that my selection would be an outside shot.”

JIACS20-03-10
P
le
as
e
no
te
th
at
y
ou
a
re
n
ot
p
er
m
itt
ed
to
re
pr
od
uc
e
or
re
di
st
rib
ut
e
it
fo
r a
ny
o
th
er
p
ur
po
se
.
Y
ou
a
re
p
er
m
itt
ed
to
v
ie
w
th
e
m
at
er
ia
l o
n-
lin
e
an
d
pr
in
t a
c
op
y
fo
r y
ou
r p
er
so
na
l u
se
u
nt
il
31
-J
an
-2
02
1.
P
ur
ch
as
ed
fo
r u
se
b
y
S
ha
nn
on
B
ra
in
B
ra
in
o
n
31
-J
an
-2
02
0.
O
rd
er
re
f F
37
37
10
.
E
du
ca
tio
na
l m
at
er
ia
l s
up
pl
ie
d
by
T
he
C
as
e
C
en
tre
C
op
yr
ig
ht
e
nc
od
ed
A
76
H
M
-J
U
J9
K
-P
JM
N
9I
O
rd
er
re
fe
re
nc
e
F3
73
71
0

Page 75

Journal of the International Academy for Case Studies, Volume 20, Number 3, 2014

Raef nodded in agreement.
Margaret: “Can I say that it is clear that you are familiar with my record with the

company and I appreciate your thoughtful consideration. I also would like to thank you for
personally coming to tell me of your decision. I know that this could not be easy and I
appreciate your integrity in personally informing me. It is so much better than a highly
impersonal memo or just an email.”

Raef: “You are welcome. I hope that we can work together on some future project.
Have a good day.”
Feeling a sense of relief that that meeting had gone so well, Raef, headed to the Civil
Engineering department to visit with Michael Matson. Raef found Michael in the library looking
over some blueprints.

INTERVIEW WITH MICHAEL MATSON

Raef: “Hi Michael, do you have a minute?”
Michael: “Sure, have a seat.”
Raef: “First, I would like to thank you for your interest in joining the Alpha C306

project team.”
Interrupting, Michael says: “It sounds like there is a ‘but’ coming.”
Raef: “Very perceptive and I am afraid you are right, I am sorry to tell you that you were

not selected as part of the team.”
Michael: “This is very disappointing, as an engineer, I think that I have much to offer the

team, and I am eager to demonstrate what I can do.”
Raef: “While you are an engineer, and the team consists mostly of engineers, they are

electrical engineers. As a civil engineer, your skills are perceived to be in the area of building
things and since this project involves the development of an electronic component, electrical
engineers are perceived as being able to add more to the team.”

Michael: “You know, civil engineers know about more than just steel and concrete.
Your electronic component is going to have to fit into something, and who is going to design the
casing? Huh? Component design is more than just shoving some electronics into a box, the
shape and design of the housing can affect whether and how the electronics work. Did you think
about that?”

Raef: “You make a good point. The size of the team was limited and I had to select
those individuals whose skills sets I thought would add most to the team. This is not personal
and does not reflect on you or the nature of civil engineering.”

Michael, sarcastically: “Nothing personal, I just think that you made a bad decision.”
Raef: “I am sorry you feel that way. Goodbye.”
While the Matson interview hadn’t gone as well as the one with Margaret Sobel, Raef

was relieved in that he had only one more interview to go. Raef’s last interview is with Simon

JIACS20-03-10
P
le
as
e
no
te
th
at
y
ou
a
re
n
ot
p
er
m
itt
ed
to
re
pr
od
uc
e
or
re
di
st
rib
ut
e
it
fo
r a
ny
o
th
er
p
ur
po
se
.
Y
ou
a
re
p
er
m
itt
ed
to
v
ie
w
th
e
m
at
er
ia
l o
n-
lin
e
an
d
pr
in
t a
c
op
y
fo
r y
ou
r p
er
so
na
l u
se
u
nt
il
31
-J
an
-2
02
1.
P
ur
ch
as
ed
fo
r u
se
b
y
S
ha
nn
on
B
ra
in
B
ra
in
o
n
31
-J
an
-2
02
0.
O
rd
er
re
f F
37
37
10
.
E
du
ca
tio
na
l m
at
er
ia
l s
up
pl
ie
d
by
T
he
C
as
e
C
en
tre
C
op
yr
ig
ht
e
nc
od
ed
A
76
H
M
-J
U
J9
K
-P
JM
N
9I
O
rd
er
re
fe
re
nc
e
F3
73
71
0

Page 76

Journal of the International Academy for Case Studies, Volume 20, Number 3, 2014

Wright. Raef found Simon in the break room of the main administration building, where Simon
was regaling several others about his playing golf on Saturday at the country club with the
company president and 2 VPs. As Raef entered the others returned to work.

INTERVIEW WITH SIMON WRIGHT

Raef: “Hi Simon, mind if I join you for a cup of coffee?”
Simon: “Sure, have a seat.”
Raef: “I came to see you to discuss the Alpha C306 project.”
Simon: “I am really going to enjoy working on that project, it should be a huge boost to

my career.”
Raef: “Well, Simon, while I appreciate your enthusiasm in joining the Alpha C306

project team, I am sorry to tell you that you were not selected as part of the team.”
Simon, in disbelief: “What?”
Raef: “The team is limited to 7 members and including yourself, there were 11

outstanding potential team members. Those who were selected were those whose backgrounds
would add the most to the team. Your 2 years with the company was the least of anyone being
considered. Also, your expertise in public relations, while very useful after the project is
completed, wasn’t perceived as being as valuable as the expertise of the engineers who will
actually be creating the Alpha C306.”

Simon: “Listen, while I have only been employed here for 2 years, I grew up in this
company. In case you weren’t aware, my father is the VP of Engineering, so I have spent my
whole life here. And public relations is more than just writing press releases about new products,
it is all about connections, and I have connections. When senior management has meetings on
budget, selecting products for development, or the future of the company, who do you think is
present at those meetings? I’ll tell you, I am! Not only am I there so that I will know what is
going on, but most importantly for you, I get to insert my opinion as to the appropriate decision
to be made. My background in economics and my ability to provide economic analysis is
viewed very favorably by senior management. Thus, not only do I have connections, more
importantly, I have influence.”

Raef, somewhat defensively: “I understand all of that, and those are some of the reasons
why you were considered for the team. However, at this point, the budget and timeline have
already been established, thus technical expertise was perceived as being more critical to
completing the project. I had to select those individuals who could add most to the creation of
Alpha C306.”

Simon: “You are making a HUGE mistake by not including me on the team. We will
see how the budget and timeline work out for you.”

Raef: “I am sure that you don’t mean that as a threat. I am confident that we have the
support we need. Goodbye.”

JIACS20-03-10
P
le
as
e
no
te
th
at
y
ou
a
re
n
ot
p
er
m
itt
ed
to
re
pr
od
uc
e
or
re
di
st
rib
ut
e
it
fo
r a
ny
o
th
er
p
ur
po
se
.
Y
ou
a
re
p
er
m
itt
ed
to
v
ie
w
th
e
m
at
er
ia
l o
n-
lin
e
an
d
pr
in
t a
c
op
y
fo
r y
ou
r p
er
so
na
l u
se
u
nt
il
31
-J
an
-2
02
1.
P
ur
ch
as
ed
fo
r u
se
b
y
S
ha
nn
on
B
ra
in
B
ra
in
o
n
31
-J
an
-2
02
0.
O
rd
er
re
f F
37
37
10
.
E
du
ca
tio
na
l m
at
er
ia
l s
up
pl
ie
d
by
T
he
C
as
e
C
en
tre
C
op
yr
ig
ht
e
nc
od
ed
A
76
H
M
-J
U
J9
K
-P
JM
N
9I
O
rd
er
re
fe
re
nc
e
F3
73
71
0

Page 77

Journal of the International Academy for Case Studies, Volume 20, Number 3, 2014

Feeling a sense of relief that the interviews were completed, both with those who had
been selected and those who weren’t, Raef could look forward to his holiday skiing trip where he
could relax and put the Alpha project behind him for a few days. Since he didn’t foresee any
difficulties, he would wait until the New Year to contact the 7 supervisors to confirm the
availability of the team members.

According to the model for project management (see figure 1), planning the project is the
third stage of project management. Planning the project involves the identification of the
activities/tasks required for the project, an estimation of the each activity’s task time, any
precedence relationships between activities, and the cost estimates for both normal and crash
conditions. Raef determined that it would likely take several meetings with the team to
complete the planning phase of the project. However, before the team could actually get started,
Raef had to confirm the availability of the selected team members.

Figure 1
Project Management Process Model

Selection  Initiation  Planning  Delivery  Closure

Brown & Hyer, 2010, p. 13.

As Raef prepared for his meeting with Lon Gray, Elroy Bennett’s manager, he was not
certain how Mr. Gray would respond now. After all, it had been several months since the initial
conversation with Mr. Gray to release Elroy from the department to work on the Alpha C306
Project. In any event, he would find out shortly upon his arrival to Mr. Gray’s office.

INTERVIEW WITH LON GRAY, ELROY BENNETT’S MANAGER

Raef: “Good morning, Mr. Gray. I am so glad that you could speak with me on such
short notice.”

Mr. Gray: “Call me Lon.”
Raef: “OK. As you know from our earlier discussion last year, the Project Alpha C306 is

now in the planning phase. We selected Elroy Bennett, one of your senior engineers to
participate on the project team and he has agreed. However, as you also know, he is somewhat
reluctant because of the time demands between the project and his responsibilities in the
department. I am here today to see if we can work out a mutually beneficial schedule for the
project, the department, and for Elroy.”

Lon: “Since we spoke last year, the workload in the department has dramatically
increased. Quite honestly, there was no way that I could have anticipated that the demands on

JIACS20-03-10
P
le
as
e
no
te
th
at
y
ou
a
re
n
ot
p
er
m
itt
ed
to
re
pr
od
uc
e
or
re
di
st
rib
ut
e
it
fo
r a
ny
o
th
er
p
ur
po
se
.
Y
ou
a
re
p
er
m
itt
ed
to
v
ie
w
th
e
m
at
er
ia
l o
n-
lin
e
an
d
pr
in
t a
c
op
y
fo
r y
ou
r p
er
so
na
l u
se
u
nt
il
31
-J
an
-2
02
1.
P
ur
ch
as
ed
fo
r u
se
b
y
S
ha
nn
on
B
ra
in
B
ra
in
o
n
31
-J
an
-2
02
0.
O
rd
er
re
f F
37
37
10
.
E
du
ca
tio
na
l m
at
er
ia
l s
up
pl
ie
d
by
T
he
C
as
e
C
en
tre
C
op
yr
ig
ht
e
nc
od
ed
A
76
H
M
-J
U
J9
K
-P
JM
N
9I
O
rd
er
re
fe
re
nc
e
F3
73
71
0

Page 78

Journal of the International Academy for Case Studies, Volume 20, Number 3, 2014

the department would increase so much. We acquired 2 new design projects from the product
development group, which leaves us stretched to the limit. I am afraid that I cannot spare Elroy
at all at the present time. Perhaps, at some later date, after the extra projects have been
completed, he can make time beyond his departmental duties to join your project team.”

Raef: “Oh, I am sorry to hear this. Elroy’s qualifications and experiences are just what
we need for the Alpha C306 project. I am very disappointed. Is there any way I can persuade
you to reconsider”?

Lon: “I am afraid not… unless you can convince upper management to give us 3 more
employees. ”

Raef: “Well, thank you for your time, Lon. Goodbye.”
As Raef left Lon Gray’s office, he had not anticipated such a drastic outcome. He was
now left with another decision—who to replace Elroy Bennett on the team.

INTERVIEW WITH PERRY HUDSPETH, ALISON WHITLEY’S MANAGER

Perry Hudspeth: “Raef—I was in the neighborhood and thought I would stop by. Just to
let you know, Alison is on ‘top of the world’ in joining the Alpha C306 project team. She has
been floating since you informed her of your selections. I wanted to say thank you for giving her
this opportunity so early in her career. Alison is rapidly becoming one of the shining stars in the
EE department.”

Raef: “As part of Alison’s recruitment team, I knew she would be a valuable asset to the
department and the company. Now that you are here Perry can we chat about Alison’s time for
the project?”

Perry: “Certainly. How much time are you looking for?”
Raef: “Well, of course, I would like to have her 100% of the time, but I expect that is not

realistic. Do you think you could spare her at least 65-70 percent of the time?”
Perry: “Wow, that is a lot! How long would she be committed to this amount of time?”
Raef: “As it stands currently, I can see her participation at that level for the first 12

months; after that her participation can be reduced to 40 or 50 percent.” Is that feasible for
you?”

Perry: “I think we can manage 60% for 12 months; let’s discuss this again later for the
remainder of the project.”

Raef: “I think we can make that work; thank you, Perry, for your support. I will keep
you posted on our progress and Alison’s schedule. Thanks for stopping by.”
Despite feeling discouraged following his meeting with Lon Gray, the impromptu
meeting with Perry had certainly lifted Raef’s spirits. Raef’s meetings with the other department
heads went very well, as all of department managers were able to commit to the tentative time
allocations they had made last year.

JIACS20-03-10
P
le
as
e
no
te
th
at
y
ou
a
re
n
ot
p
er
m
itt
ed
to
re
pr
od
uc
e
or
re
di
st
rib
ut
e
it
fo
r a
ny
o
th
er
p
ur
po
se
.
Y
ou
a
re
p
er
m
itt
ed
to
v
ie
w
th
e
m
at
er
ia
l o
n-
lin
e
an
d
pr
in
t a
c
op
y
fo
r y
ou
r p
er
so
na
l u
se
u
nt
il
31
-J
an
-2
02
1.
P
ur
ch
as
ed
fo
r u
se
b
y
S
ha
nn
on
B
ra
in
B
ra
in
o
n
31
-J
an
-2
02
0.
O
rd
er
re
f F
37
37
10
.
E
du
ca
tio
na
l m
at
er
ia
l s
up
pl
ie
d
by
T
he
C
as
e
C
en
tre
C
op
yr
ig
ht
e
nc
od
ed
A
76
H
M
-J
U
J9
K
-P
JM
N
9I
O
rd
er
re
fe
re
nc
e
F3
73
71
0

Page 79

Journal of the International Academy for Case Studies, Volume 20, Number 3, 2014

Raef certainly enjoyed the Christmas and New Year’s holidays as he was able to get
some much welcomed R and R. The last several months had been very stressful in assembling
the project team, but now with all team members in place except for Elroy Bennett’s
replacement, he could resume work on the project with renewed energy. The first team meeting
was just around the corner and he was eagerly anticipating a good start.

JANUARY 9 MEETING

Raef: “Good morning everyone!” It has taken us awhile to get to this day, but it is
finally here. I trust that your Christmas and New Year’s holidays were good. I had a chance to
get away to the Rockies for a ski vacation; a strong snow storm hit the area just 3 days before I
arrived so the skiing was great. How about the rest of you? Did you get a chance to get away
for some well-deserved R and R?”

Alison: “I had a chance to visit my mother in western Massachusetts; the Berkshires are
beautiful in the winter time. It was cold, but invigorating. I am glad to be back and eager to get
started on the project.”

Raef: “Well, in that spirit, let’s get started then.” Some of you may know one another,
but let’s go around the table and introduce yourselves. I spoke with Elroy Bennett’s supervisor,
and given the increased demands of the Existing Product Development Department, Elroy will
not be able to participate on the team. I am in the process of finding his replacement.”

After the round of introductions, Raef re-explains the purpose, the goals, and the
expected 18 month timeline of the team.

Raef: “As you are aware, management expects the product to be ready for launch to the
marketplace within 18 months. Our first course of action is to determine the task times and the
precedence relationships for this project to determine if the timeline is feasible. We can work
out the cost estimates and crash conditions later on after we have determined that the timeline is
feasible. I am handing out a Work Breakdown Structure for the Alpha C306 prototype product”
(See Table 1).

Raef: “As you can see, a team of product development engineers were assigned the task
of developing the specifications for the electronic component product; this has been completed.
Activity “A” is our reference point for starting the project. Let me suggest that we take each task
one at a time, determine the task time for the task and identify all precedence relationships for
the task.”

After a series of meetings the team completed the initial Work Breakdown Structure
(WBS). Table 2 identifies the initial WBS.

JIACS20-03-10
P
le
as
e
no
te
th
at
y
ou
a
re
n
ot
p
er
m
itt
ed
to
re
pr
od
uc
e
or
re
di
st
rib
ut
e
it
fo
r a
ny
o
th
er
p
ur
po
se
.
Y
ou
a
re
p
er
m
itt
ed
to
v
ie
w
th
e
m
at
er
ia
l o
n-
lin
e
an
d
pr
in
t a
c
op
y
fo
r y
ou
r p
er
so
na
l u
se
u
nt
il
31
-J
an
-2
02
1.
P
ur
ch
as
ed
fo
r u
se
b
y
S
ha
nn
on
B
ra
in
B
ra
in
o
n
31
-J
an
-2
02
0.
O
rd
er
re
f F
37
37
10
.
E
du
ca
tio
na
l m
at
er
ia
l s
up
pl
ie
d
by
T
he
C
as
e
C
en
tre
C
op
yr
ig
ht
e
nc
od
ed
A
76
H
M
-J
U
J9
K
-P
JM
N
9I
O
rd
er
re
fe
re
nc
e
F3
73
71
0

Page 80

Journal of the International Academy for Case Studies, Volume 20, Number 3, 2014

Table 1
Work Breakdown Structure

Level/Task Description Task Time/days Precedence Relationships
1.0 Alpha C306 Project
1.1 Concept*
1.1.1 Technical Analysis*
1.1.2 Product Scope Definition*
1.1.3 / A Develop Prototype: Specifications*
1.2 Requirements
1.2.1/ B End-User Requirements
1.2.2/C Application Requirements
1.2.3/D Go/No Go Decision
1.3 Reviews
1.3.1/E Prototype Review
1.3.2/F Financial Review
1.3.3/G Schedule Review
1.3.4/H Technical Capabilities Review
1.3.5/I Financial Commitment Review
1.3.6/J Go/No Go Decision
1.4 Prototype Testing
1.4.1/K Testing
1.4.2/L Results/Analysis
1.4.3/M Corrective Actions
1.4.4/N Re-tests
1.4.5O Re-tests Results/Analysis
1.5 Deployment-Test Market
1.5.1/P Trial-Test Market
1.5.2/Q Results-Test Market/Analysis
1.5.3/R Integrate Test Market Results into Product Design
1.5.4/S Final Product Specifications Review
1.5.5/T Go/No Go Decision
*These activities have already been accomplished; not part of the team’s timeline

JIACS20-03-10
P
le
as
e
no
te
th
at
y
ou
a
re
n
ot
p
er
m
itt
ed
to
re
pr
od
uc
e
or
re
di
st
rib
ut
e
it
fo
r a
ny
o
th
er
p
ur
po
se
.
Y
ou
a
re
p
er
m
itt
ed
to
v
ie
w
th
e
m
at
er
ia
l o
n-
lin
e
an
d
pr
in
t a
c
op
y
fo
r y
ou
r p
er
so
na
l u
se
u
nt
il
31
-J
an
-2
02
1.
P
ur
ch
as
ed
fo
r u
se
b
y
S
ha
nn
on
B
ra
in
B
ra
in
o
n
31
-J
an
-2
02
0.
O
rd
er
re
f F
37
37
10
.
E
du
ca
tio
na
l m
at
er
ia
l s
up
pl
ie
d
by
T
he
C
as
e
C
en
tre
C
op
yr
ig
ht
e
nc
od
ed
A
76
H
M
-J
U
J9
K
-P
JM
N
9I
O
rd
er
re
fe
re
nc
e
F3
73
71
0

Page 81

Journal of the International Academy for Case Studies, Volume 20, Number 3, 2014

Table 2
Work Breakdown Structure: Initial Timetable

Level/Task Description Task Time/days Precedence Relationships
1.0 Alpha C306 Project
1.1 Concept 20*
1.1.1 Technical Analysis 25*
1.1.2 Product Scope Definition 4*
1.1.3 / A Develop Prototype Specifications 45*/0
1.2 Requirements
1.2.1/ B End-User Requirements 60 A
1.2.2/C Application Requirements 80 A
1.2.3/D Go/No Go Decision 6 B,C
1.3 Reviews
1.3.1/E Prototype Review 14 A
1.3.2/F Financial Review 20 E
1.3.3/G Schedule Review 46
1.3.4/H Technical Capabilities Review 75 E
1.3.5/I Financial Commitment Review 10 F
1.3.6/J Go/No Go Decision 6 E,F,G,H,I
1.4 Prototype Testing
1.4.1/K Testing 92 J
1.4.2/L Results/Analysis 30 K
1.4.3/M Corrective Actions 10 L
1.4.4/N Re-tests 95 M
1.4.5O Re-tests Results/Analysis 30 N
1.5 Deployment-Test Market
1.5.1/P Trial-Test Market 50 O
1.5.2/Q Results-Test Market/Analysis 50 P
1.5.3/R Integrate Test Market Results into Product Design 100 Q
1.5.4/S Final Product Specifications Review 20 R
1.5.5/T Go/No Go Decision 6 S
*These activities have already been accomplished; not part of the team’s timeline

The team having completed the WBS (Table 2), Raef ran the software for the critical path
analysis for the WBS initial timetable. Table 3, which Raef emailed to the team, shows the
results of the Critical Path Analysis.

JIACS20-03-10
P
le
as
e
no
te
th
at
y
ou
a
re
n
ot
p
er
m
itt
ed
to
re
pr
od
uc
e
or
re
di
st
rib
ut
e
it
fo
r a
ny
o
th
er
p
ur
po
se
.
Y
ou
a
re
p
er
m
itt
ed
to
v
ie
w
th
e
m
at
er
ia
l o
n-
lin
e
an
d
pr
in
t a
c
op
y
fo
r y
ou
r p
er
so
na
l u
se
u
nt
il
31
-J
an
-2
02
1.
P
ur
ch
as
ed
fo
r u
se
b
y
S
ha
nn
on
B
ra
in
B
ra
in
o
n
31
-J
an
-2
02
0.
O
rd
er
re
f F
37
37
10
.
E
du
ca
tio
na
l m
at
er
ia
l s
up
pl
ie
d
by
T
he
C
as
e
C
en
tre
C
op
yr
ig
ht
e
nc
od
ed
A
76
H
M
-J
U
J9
K
-P
JM
N
9I
O
rd
er
re
fe
re
nc
e
F3
73
71
0

Page 82

Journal of the International Academy for Case Studies, Volume 20, Number 3, 2014

Table 3
Critical Path Analysis Initial Timetable

Activity Early Start Early Finish Late Start Late Finish Slack
A 0 0 0 0 0
B 0 60 512 572 512
C 0 80 492 572 492
D 80 86 572 578 492
E 0 14 0 14 0
F 14 34 59 79 45
G 0 46 43 89 43
H 14 89 14 89 0
I 34 44 79 89 45
J 89 95 89 95 0
K 95 187 95 187 0
L 187 217 187 217 0
M 217 227 217 227 0
N 227 322 227 322 0
O 322 352 322 352 0
P 352 402 352 402 0
Q 402 452 402 452 0
R 452 552 452 552 0
S 552 572 552 572 0
T 572 578 572 578 0

Project
Completion
Time

578

It was two weeks before Raef could get the team together again to review the results of

the Critical Path Analysis for the initial timetable.

Raef: “Hello everyone! Since our last meeting, I have been finalizing Elroy Bennett’s
replacement, and I am pleased to introduce Daniel Swenson. Daniel was one of the finalists
during the selection phase of the team project. He has graciously accepted the invitation to
participate with us on the project. Welcome, Daniel! Daniel brings strong experiential
credentials in marketing and new product development. He will be an asset to the team.”

Alison: “Glad to have you on board, Daniel! We have just started to work on the
project.” The others chime in on the welcome.

Raef: “We have the results of the Critical Path Analysis. I hope you all have had an
opportunity to review them. Daniel, we will get you up-to-speed on the initial WBS and the
Critical Path Analysis. As you can see, our initial timetable is not feasible. According to the
initial WBS (Table 3), we cannot meet the 18-month window set by management. As you can
see, we are just 30 days over the timeline. Therefore we need to make some very minor

JIACS20-03-10
P
le
as
e
no
te
th
at
y
ou
a
re
n
ot
p
er
m
itt
ed
to
re
pr
od
uc
e
or
re
di
st
rib
ut
e
it
fo
r a
ny
o
th
er
p
ur
po
se
.
Y
ou
a
re
p
er
m
itt
ed
to
v
ie
w
th
e
m
at
er
ia
l o
n-
lin
e
an
d
pr
in
t a
c
op
y
fo
r y
ou
r p
er
so
na
l u
se
u
nt
il
31
-J
an
-2
02
1.
P
ur
ch
as
ed
fo
r u
se
b
y
S
ha
nn
on
B
ra
in
B
ra
in
o
n
31
-J
an
-2
02
0.
O
rd
er
re
f F
37
37
10
.
E
du
ca
tio
na
l m
at
er
ia
l s
up
pl
ie
d
by
T
he
C
as
e
C
en
tre
C
op
yr
ig
ht
e
nc
od
ed
A
76
H
M
-J
U
J9
K
-P
JM
N
9I
O
rd
er
re
fe
re
nc
e
F3
73
71
0

Page 83

Journal of the International Academy for Case Studies, Volume 20, Number 3, 2014

adjustments to the WBS. Given the quality of this team, I am sure that we can make the
necessary adjustments in no time. So, we need to take a closer look at the activities/tasks and
their respective task times to see if these times can be reduced or activities/tasks can be
consolidated. While we are in the process of making reductions, what do you say that we cut a
little extra so that we can give ourselves a little wiggle room.”

The rest of the meeting is devoted to a lively discussion to reduce the task times and
consolidation of activities.

Raef: “Does anyone have any suggestions?”
The initial discussion saw the 7 members of the team ‘taking sides’ with those with an

engineering background pitting themselves against those from a more business background.
Thus, Alison, Philip and Rae Beth argued that it was “impossible” to cut time from the
“technical areas” (Technical Capabilities Review or any of the Prototype Testing segments)
arguing instead to cut things like the financial review time or go/no go decision time, as after all,
it should be very clear whether the product was viable or not. While the non-engineers (Daniel,
Pierce, Billy and Robert) took the opposite position, arguing that “business related” decisions
such as financial reviews were critical to the ultimate success of the product, as if the product
was not fiscally realistic, then it wasn’t realistic at all. The discussion quickly became an
argument with the two sides entrenched in their positions.

Robert wondered: “Can we really reduce these task times so that this is a feasible task?”
Pierce: “Sure we can. I see no reason why the technical capacity review (H) should take

75 days. It seems to me that task could easily be accomplished in 30 to 35 days, that would give
us all the time we need right there.”

Philip yelled at Pierce: “Hey dummy, you can put in whatever numbers you want to
make the total ‘come out,’ however, unless those numbers are realistic and achievable, then you
are just writing fiction, and not very good fiction at that.”

While Raef had thought that it was good to get the various positions out, thus had been
staying out of the fray, since the argument was becoming personal, he decided to step in.

Raef: “It seems to me that several good points have been made. As an engineer myself, I
recognize and value the time needed for technical review. However, there should be some place
where we can do some paring down. Don’t you think?”

Alison: “I think that seems reasonable. What if we were to reduce prototype testing (K)
by 15 days, surely we can test the prototype in 77 days rather than 92.”

Rae Beth: “Yes, that seems reasonable.”
Philip: “I would feel more comfortable with a 10 day reduction, down to 82 days.”

The others nod in acceptance of Philip’s willingness for a reduction.
Philip: “OK, we have made the first reduction. What does the other side have to offer?”
Daniel: “I recognize that I am new to the team, but I am confident that DP’s Marketing

department can test market the product in less than 50 days.”
Rae Beth: “So, what would be reasonable?”

JIACS20-03-10
P
le
as
e
no
te
th
at
y
ou
a
re
n
ot
p
er
m
itt
ed
to
re
pr
od
uc
e
or
re
di
st
rib
ut
e
it
fo
r a
ny
o
th
er
p
ur
po
se
.
Y
ou
a
re
p
er
m
itt
ed
to
v
ie
w
th
e
m
at
er
ia
l o
n-
lin
e
an
d
pr
in
t a
c
op
y
fo
r y
ou
r p
er
so
na
l u
se
u
nt
il
31
-J
an
-2
02
1.
P
ur
ch
as
ed
fo
r u
se
b
y
S
ha
nn
on
B
ra
in
B
ra
in
o
n
31
-J
an
-2
02
0.
O
rd
er
re
f F
37
37
10
.
E
du
ca
tio
na
l m
at
er
ia
l s
up
pl
ie
d
by
T
he
C
as
e
C
en
tre
C
op
yr
ig
ht
e
nc
od
ed
A
76
H
M
-J
U
J9
K
-P
JM
N
9I
O
rd
er
re
fe
re
nc
e
F3
73
71
0

Page 84

Journal of the International Academy for Case Studies, Volume 20, Number 3, 2014

Daniel: “I think that we can double the 10 day reduction in the testing area, and cut
marketing to 30 days.”

Billy: “Hold on a minute there, bub. You are right, you are not only new to the team, but
you only have 4 years with the company. In my 32 years here, I have seen folks like you come
and go. The “go” has mostly been due to making promises that they were not able to keep. In
order to test market the product, we have to be sure that we have the materials on hand in order
to produce a reasonable sized sample for the testing, and that takes time. Since at that point the
product is only approaching design finalization, we won’t know how much of what parts we
need to procure until the last minute. Thus, part of the ‘marketing’ time also includes getting the
materials in an appropriate quantity for constructing the test models. As materials manager, I
wouldn’t be doing my job if I weren’t looking out for the overall process.”

Daniel: “OK, you are right, of course, and I will defer to your experience. What would
be a reasonable reduction in the testing area?”

Billy: “Thank you. If you marketing whiz kids can get the data in quickly, then I think
that we could cut the testing area by 10 days, as 40 days would allow for both parts procurement
and testing the product. Do you agree?”

Daniel: “Yes, that seems reasonable.”
Raef: “Great, we have our first 20 days in reductions. Let’s see what else we can agree

on.”
The rest of the discussion was civil and the group was able to come to agreement on areas

where time could be reduced, even to the point of meeting Reef’s request for a little additional
reduction. Each “side” ended up giving approximately equal amounts of time, which meant that
although they were not delighted in having to give up time, no one felt as if they had been taken
advantage of. Thus, the group produced a revised WBS (Table 4) that they all could eagerly
endorse.

Overall, at this point, Raef was very pleased with this process. While there had been
some initial “us” versus “them” between those with an engineering background and those with a
business background, he saw that as passion in doing a good job. All of the members of the
group had reflected a strong commitment not only to doing a good job, but also to the success of
the project. The fact that they were able to compromise and arrive at a WBS that they could all
eagerly support meant that the group had become a team.

Raef: “OK, team, good job! I am glad that we were able to come together in generating
this revision. I think that this bodes well for us being a very effective team. The revised WBS
looks like a good product, however, I will run another critical path analysis to confirm that the
revised WBS (Table 4) is feasible. As soon as I get that analysis, I will email you the results.
Have a GREAT day!”

JIACS20-03-10
P
le
as
e
no
te
th
at
y
ou
a
re
n
ot
p
er
m
itt
ed
to
re
pr
od
uc
e
or
re
di
st
rib
ut
e
it
fo
r a
ny
o
th
er
p
ur
po
se
.
Y
ou
a
re
p
er
m
itt
ed
to
v
ie
w
th
e
m
at
er
ia
l o
n-
lin
e
an
d
pr
in
t a
c
op
y
fo
r y
ou
r p
er
so
na
l u
se
u
nt
il
31
-J
an
-2
02
1.
P
ur
ch
as
ed
fo
r u
se
b
y
S
ha
nn
on
B
ra
in
B
ra
in
o
n
31
-J
an
-2
02
0.
O
rd
er
re
f F
37
37
10
.
E
du
ca
tio
na
l m
at
er
ia
l s
up
pl
ie
d
by
T
he
C
as
e
C
en
tre
C
op
yr
ig
ht
e
nc
od
ed
A
76
H
M
-J
U
J9
K
-P
JM
N
9I
O
rd
er
re
fe
re
nc
e
F3
73
71
0

Page 85

Journal of the International Academy for Case Studies, Volume 20, Number 3, 2014

Table 4
Work Breakdown Structure: Revised Timetable

Level Description Task Time/days Precedence Relationships
1.0 Alpha C306 Project
1.1 Concept 20*
1.1.1 Technical Analysis 25*
1.1.2 Product Scope Definition 4*
1.1.3/A Develop Prototype 45*
1.2 Requirements
1.2.1/B End-User Requirements 60 A
1.2.2/C Application Requirements 80 A
1.2.3/D Go/No Go Decision 6 B,C
1.3 Reviews
1.3.1/E Prototype Review 14 A
1.3.2/F Financial Review 20 E
1.3.3/G Schedule Review 46
1.3.4/H Technical Capabilities Review 52 E
1.3.5/I Financial Commitment Review 10 F
1.3.6/J Go/No Go Decision 6 E,F,G,H,I
1.4 Prototype Testing
1.4.1/K Testing 82 J
1.4.2/L Results/Analysis 30 K
1.4.3/M Corrective Actions 10 L
1.4.4/N Re-tests 95 M
1.4.5/O Re-tests Results/Analysis 25 N
1.5 Deployment-Test Market
1.5.1/P Trial-Test Market 40 O
1.5.2/Q Results-Test Market/Analysis 50 P
1.5.3/R Integrate Test Market Results into Product Design 85 Q
1.5.4/S Final Product Specifications Review 20 R
1.5.5/T Go/No Go Decision 6 S
*These activities have already been accomplished; not part of the team’s timeline

REFERENCES

Authors withheld (2012). Design Prototypes Inc. Project Management (A): Selecting the Team.
Brown, K. A., & Hyer, N. L. (2010). Managing projects: A team-based approach. New York: McGraw-Hill Irwin.

JIACS20-03-10
P
le
as
e
no
te
th
at
y
ou
a
re
n
ot
p
er
m
itt
ed
to
re
pr
od
uc
e
or
re
di
st
rib
ut
e
it
fo
r a
ny
o
th
er
p
ur
po
se
.
Y
ou
a
re
p
er
m
itt
ed
to
v
ie
w
th
e
m
at
er
ia
l o
n-
lin
e
an
d
pr
in
t a
c
op
y
fo
r y
ou
r p
er
so
na
l u
se
u
nt
il
31
-J
an
-2
02
1.
P
ur
ch
as
ed
fo
r u
se
b
y
S
ha
nn
on
B
ra
in
B
ra
in
o
n
31
-J
an
-2
02
0.
O
rd
er
re
f F
37
37
10
.
E
du
ca
tio
na
l m
at
er
ia
l s
up
pl
ie
d
by
T
he
C
as
e
C
en
tre
C
op
yr
ig
ht
e
nc
od
ed
A
76
H
M
-J
U
J9
K
-P
JM
N
9I
O
rd
er
re
fe
re
nc
e
F3
73
71
0