Applying Management Theories
Group 1 of Company A was initially formed as a group of engineering students to undertake the project of modifying and coding a Boebot to automatically move around a maze as quickly as possible. The group was formed by Dr S. Watson, the project supervisor. The group consisted of four students: J. Peters, A. Shahbandi, A. Mohammed and O. Ayoade.
The students began their project through the organised Company 1 meetings. In their first meeting they were introduced to each other, though J. Peters was absent, which disadvantaged him later in the project. The group decided that their first action would be to organise a group meeting in the week, before the next company meeting, a good pro-active decision. It was observed that no leadership took place in the group with everyone inputting questions that the group could not answer. The Part D students were then able to answer some questions. In the meeting the group did not discuss project strategy, but discussed sensor systems, there was no clear sensory system decided with A. Shahbandhi wanting to research into sonar systems and A. Mohammed continuing research into IR sensors and QTI sensors.
Over the next two weeks the group began to realise their task and formed their project structure based on the diagram, [ Figure 1 ]. The strategy overall was carried out well throughout the group, as they became more aware of mistakes that may have occurred without the plan and check stages. Once the strategy was in place, the Plan section was implemented. Within the plan stage the group took into account the following factors for equipment choice: Cost, Complexity and Achievability. An example of this method was the choice of sensors, the group decided to use IR sensors, as they were cheaper than sonar systems, they were the least complex of all the systems and achieved the groups’ requirements. This decision making process was very powerful, as it gave the groups specific criteria that they had to uphold and it prevented
The students began their project through the organised Company 1 meetings. In their first meeting they were introduced to each other, though J. Peters was absent, which disadvantaged him later in the project. The group decided that their first action would be to organise a group meeting in the week, before the next company meeting, a good pro-active decision. It was observed that no leadership took place in the group with everyone inputting questions that the group could not answer. The Part D students were then able to answer some questions. In the meeting the group did not discuss project strategy, but discussed sensor systems, there was no clear sensory system decided with A. Shahbandhi wanting to research into sonar systems and A. Mohammed continuing research into IR sensors and QTI sensors.
Over the next two weeks the group began to realise their task and formed their project structure based on the diagram, [ Figure 1 ]. The strategy overall was carried out well throughout the group, as they became more aware of mistakes that may have occurred without the plan and check stages. Once the strategy was in place, the Plan section was implemented. Within the plan stage the group took into account the following factors for equipment choice: Cost, Complexity and Achievability. An example of this method was the choice of sensors, the group decided to use IR sensors, as they were cheaper than sonar systems, they were the least complex of all the systems and achieved the groups’ requirements. This decision making process was very powerful, as it gave the groups specific criteria that they had to uphold and it prevented