Informatics: The Enzyme Group
- Type: Coursework
- Subject: Other / Informatics
- Topic: Writer’s choice
- Style: APA
- Number of pages: 5 pages (1375 words)
- PowerPoint slides: 0
- Additional: None
- Number of source/references: 0
- Include : Abstract page
Analyze and provide recommendations, via an APA style paper, on the attached scenario.
An organization, The Enzyme Group, has just hired a new CIO, Rebecca White, letting the previous CIO go. (The Facilitator plays the role of the Rebecca White).
The IT organization within Enzyme has a terrible reputation, and the CEO that hired Rebecca is hopeful she can make some needed changes within IT to make the organization more effective. (And improve its standing within Enzyme overall).
Rebecca has been on-board for several months. She’s not a real technology or project expert, but she does know that most of the internal projects seem to be failing miserably. There are huge cost overruns, no project seems to come in on-time, and she’s not even sure the projects that IT is doing have been vetted for feasibility. When she asks her managers during her newly established weekly department meetings about the projects underway, she never seems to get a good set of answers as to what might be wrong, what’s going well, etc. None of her managers seems to have any specific information about the projects they are overseeing, or that are being delivered. Worst of all, there isn’t a project sponsor for the projects, so therefore there is no real champion that has the authority to insure any project is successful.
She’s done some preliminary analysis on her own, and has come to the conclusion that her managers don’t seem to be able to make the right set of changes, or even recommendations to fix what is going wrong with all these various IT projects. This very well may be because her management team has been hesitant to embrace project management as its’ own discipline, but she’s not sure. They don’t seem to understand enough about project management in general, let alone how instilling some project management practices could really improve how projects are managed.
She’s decided that she’ll bring in an outside firm, Project Mentors, who’s specialty is in analyzing and recommending changes to project practices in organizations just like Enzyme. These recommendations need to be hard-hitting and impactful, as Rebecca is convinced that without some serious changes to the way projects are managed, IT will continue to flounder in the eyes of her peers and the CEO. Project management needs to be brought from its’ current state (which is pretty haphazard) into something that can accomplish Enzyme’s business objectives. (A goal Rebecca knows is critical to her own success). Above all, these recommendations are to be seen only be her.
The student plays the role of the senior consultant from Project Mentors. The consultants’ charter has been to analyze Enzyme, then provide recommendations (via a FINAL Exam Paper) to Rebecca (the Facilitator for MSCI 680) regarding the changes that will be needed to bring IT project management back in-line with company objectives.
Here is information about Enzyme and its’ management team that you will need in order to formulate your paper and your recommendations. (Since they don’t have a real organization to go and interview):
Rebecca’s IT Managers:
• The SW Engineering Manager, Errol Gonzales, has always been either a SW developer or Systems Engineer, with no real expertise in managing projects himself. His idea of managing a project is to just put in place the best (or available) SW developer on his team, provide them with some basic ideas about what a new application or software application should do, then let them run with the project. Since he doesn’t have any good ideas about project management, he doesn’t even know how to measure whether the people he puts in place to manage projects are doing well. Consequently, Errol isn’t really able to tell Rebecca during their weekly meetings how the projects he oversees are performing.
• The Operations Manager, Clint Johnson, came up through the ranks too, starting as a print room operator many years ago. He understands Enzyme’s computer operations really well, but similar to the SW Engineering Manager, he has no experience in project management.
• The Network Manager, Cassidy Tucker, is just like the other two managers; she’s never worked as a PM before, so doesn’t really have a background in good project management practices. There are always network projects underway, but just like Clint and Errol, she can’t really say how they are performing. She gets weekly email updates from her PM’s that she’s appointed to these various projects, but the emails are disjointed, don’t always report the same type of data from one project to the next, and don’t even come in a timely fashion.
Issues at Enzyme:
• There is no central organization that the PM’s belong to. They all report to the various department managers within IT, and none of those managers really seems to have any background in project management. In fact, it’s believed that those managers are a little bit threatened by the very idea of project managers having real authority.
• In the interviews with both PM’s and Department Managers, there doesn’t seem to be any understanding of the need to size projects. For example, managers seem to assign people to work various projects without a real thorough understanding of how many hours a project might actually take of that persons time, or who’s even best to work on a project at any given time.
• No PM, nor department manager, is collecting data on hours burned, hours remaining, or any type of base data needed to conduct simplistic EVM information. So, when projects are started, nobody can really tell how long they might take, so it’s difficult to say how much of a workers time might be needed.
• Each PM seems to have their own style of managing projects. Even things like status reports look different from one project to the next. Other issues are:
o Some PM’s do Lessons Learned when they are done, others do not. Therefore, the organizational experience gained from one project does not ever get passed on to the next project. The organization doesn’t seem to learn from its’ mistakes.
o Some PM’s hold regular status meetings with their teams, but others do not.
o Some are good at communicating with management about their projects, but others are not.
o There doesn’t appear to be any kind of document repository, so documentation that’s been produced is at risk of being lost. Worse yet, there are no standards for any such thing.
o No standard way of gathering/reporting metrics (EVM) and how to interpret those results.
o Most importantly, there doesn’t appear to be any consequences for managing projects poorly. Personnel just move onto the next project, repeating the same behaviors over and over without appearing to make any improvements.
o The PM’s that are being assigned to these various projects also work full-time in their respective departments, so their primary jobs are in either SW Engineering, Operations, or Network Engineering.
o Even when it’s been suggested by Rebecca that her managers begin collecting and reporting data on the various projects to gain some type of knowledge about where things stand with projects, the managers aren’t sure what exactly to collect. (Rebecca doesn’t really know herself, but thinks she has a pretty good idea). Since not one of them has any authority over another, Rebecca’s requests continue to go unanswered.
Your FINAL Exam Case Study APA Paper should include the following:
1. Title page using APA style and formatting.
3. Introduction: Summarize the central problem(s) and the principal outcome of your analysis. This is the thesis for your report and should be clearly stated in the first few paragraphs.
4. Background: Take the central problem and place it in a context, providing background information about the case. Do not reiterate all the facts stated in the case. Be sure that your written presentation focuses your analysis of the problems on the most important issues.
5. Key Problems: Identify your thoughts about the problems that exist. Start with the “who-when-where-what-why-how” typical questions. Identify the problems you see as being instrumental to the success of the company.
6. Alternatives: Now that you have placed the problem(s) into a context, you will have informed choices about the alternative solutions to the problem(s).
7. Proposed Solution: Discuss your proposed solution(s) providing solid evidence. Justify why this solution is the best option through a logical argument. The proposed solution should be specific and realistic.
8. Recommendations: Conclude your written analysis with a discussion of the implications of the problems you identified on the functioning of the organization or on the relationship among stakeholders. Be specific about what should be done and who should do it. This section discusses specific strategies that the individuals in the case can do to accomplish the proposed solution.