Barriers faced by the Sorensen Group

Sorensen group the privately owned company recently produces the world’s first electric animal fence. Additionally the company also has developed into one of the world’s leading suppliers of electric fencing systems. Though, due to lack of different managerial aspects, it fails to meet the necessary expectation of both the consumers and the company owners. The barriers for which the company fails to improve its further performance for innovation are as follows:

Inaccurate time management: The time management approach followed by the company is very weak in case of different commercial release

Improper cost management: Cost is another barrier for which they fails to adopt innovation and they are lacking in capabilities with all specified purposes for building internal capabilities.

Lack of platform strategy: Due to lack of platform strategies it fails to reuse the internet Protocols.  Moreover, the company is unable to identify the project risks

Lack of formal ideas: Formal ideas are also not generating by them and thus, the innovations are becoming product centric. From the current state of the company it is found that it is failing to deliver as much cutting edge troublesome innovation and most of the creative innovations are incremental in nature.

Lack of collaboration: The company does not have proper collaboration with the business partners and also it is more focused on development over research and its application

Improper security aspects: Lack of security is another barrier for the Sorensen Group and as the company has closed collaboration with universities thus, the company lacks internal capabilities.

In order to resolve the identified issues, the company is required to adopt some recommendations based on those recommendations the issues can be eventually resolved. The lists of recommendations for Sorensen Group are as follows:

1. 2.b) Resource name and task name of Norfolk & Chance Ltd System XYZ Rollout

Q.2.c) Answer to question C

Q.2.c (i) In order to complete the XYZ project developed by Norfolk & Chance Ltd System, total duration or time required is 103.25 days.

Q.2.c (ii) The finish date of the XYZ project is 11/30/2017.

Q.2.c (iii) In the entire project none of the activities are over allocated. The screenshot of over allocation is given below.

Q.2.c (iv) From all the resources four resources are over allocated. The name of the over allocated resources include- Matias Lester, Keaton Pearson, Raymond Page and Grant Harmon.

Q.2.c (v) The staff members of the XYZ project are allotted for different tasks however none of the tasks are over allotted.

Q.2.d (i) After leveling all the tasks the project cost over allocation, cost over allocation and other issues can also be resolved accordingly.

Recommendations for the Sorensen Group

Q.2.d (ii) After leveling all the tasks it has been found that the total duration for the completion of the XYZ rollout project has become 111.25 days.

Q.2.d (iii) According to the revised duration, the start date and the finish date of the XYZ project are respectively Mon 7/10/2017 and 12/4/2017.

Q.2.d (iv) After revision none of the tasks are found as over allocated. The evidence is given in the below diagram.

Q.2.d (v) After revision none of the resources or people are even over allocated. The evidence is given in the below diagram. 

Q.2.d) vi) The total allocated task, the total number of resources and the entire duration of the tasks are given in the below evidence diagram.

q.2.e) In order to improve the overall performance of the business organization, while developing the XYZ Rollout project, both the schedules before and after leveling the activities are compared. The total time duration for the project developed in Q2c) is 111.25, but in the update or after leveling the activities the time duration has been increased to 110.26 in the project developed in Q2.d), thus, should use the second project for completing the project. As it reduces the time thus it will also reduce the total cost of the project also.

Norfolk & Chance Ltd System XYZ Rollout – Percentage Task Completion

1. 2. G. i) Task burn Down Graph of the project progress

1. 2. g. ii)  In the previous project many activities are over allocated whereas in this project no activities are over allocated.

In the previous project four resources are over allocated whereas in this project no resource is over allocated.

1. 2. g. iv) Production of project graphs

Work status showing the percentage of work to be done

Norfolk & Chance Ltd System XYZ Rollout – Task List

Q.2.h(ii) After leveling all the resources the total time duration allotted for the XYZ project is 110.26 days.

Q.2.h (iii) After leveling the resources the revised exact finish date of the project is found as 12/11/2017.

According to the generated Milestone report of Norfolk Chance Ltd System XYZ Rollout project, it can be said that the project is 40% completed and the graph shows the baseline work, remaining work and the actual work.

Q.2.h (v) Cost status of the XYZ project

Q.2.i) In order to successfully manage the problem areas like resource over allocation while developing new tasks or process, the project manager should consider some of the activities accurately. Initially resource leveling will help the manager to identify the upcoming risks those might interrupt the project success. Besides this the other activities needed to be done include project prioritization and proper task linkage.

References

Ahern, T., Leavy, B., & Byrne, P. J. (2014). Complex project management as complex problem solving: A distributed knowledge management perspective. International Journal of Project Management, 32(8), 1371-1381.

Boud, D., Cohen, R., & Sampson, J. (Eds.). (2014). Peer learning in higher education: Learning from and with each other. Routledge.

Burke, R. (2013). Project management: planning and control techniques. New Jersey, USA.

Conforto, E. C., Salum, F., Amaral, D. C., da Silva, S. L., & de Almeida, L. F. M. (2014). Can agile project management be adopted by industries other than software development?. Project Management Journal, 45(3), 21-34.

Heldman, K. (2015). PMP project management professional exam deluxe study guide: updated for the 2015 Exam. John Wiley & Sons.

Hornstein, H. A. (2015). The integration of project management and organizational change management is now a necessity. International Journal of Project Management, 33(2), 291-298.

Joslin, R., & Müller, R. (2015). Relationships between a project management methodology and project success in different project governance contexts. International Journal of Project Management, 33(6), 1377-1392.

Kerzner, H. (2013). Project management: a systems approach to planning, scheduling, and controlling. John Wiley & Sons.

Larson, E. W., & Gray, C. (2013). Project Management: The Managerial Process with MS Project. McGraw-Hill.

Marcelino-Sádaba, S., Pérez-Ezcurdia, A., Lazcano, A. M. E., & Villanueva, P. (2014). Project risk management methodology for small firms. International Journal of Project Management, 32(2), 327-340.

Mir, F. A., & Pinnington, A. H. (2014). Exploring the value of project management: linking project management performance and project success. International journal of project management, 32(2), 202-217.

Pemsel, S., & Wiewiora, A. (2013). Project management office a knowledge broker in project-based organisations. International Journal of Project Management, 31(1), 31-42.

Sanchez, M. A. (2015). Integrating sustainability issues into project management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 96, 319-330.

Schwalbe, K. (2015). Information technology project management. Cengage Learning.

Todorovic, M. L., Petrovi?, D. ?., Mihic, M. M., Obradovic, V. L., & Bushuyev, S. D. (2015). Project success analysis framework: A knowledge-based approach in project management. International Journal of Project Management, 33(4), 772-783.

Turner, R. (2016). Gower handbook of project management. Routledge.