Project Management Case Study: MICC
1. What problems did MICC face in the refurbishing project? What could the possible causes be?
Mid-India Construction Company (MICC) granted a refurbishing project at Director of National Institute of Management (NIM). The project should finish 8 months after contract award (Contract award: 17/11/12 Planned date for end of project: 27/06/13) before new academic term starts (01/07/13). MICC kicked off the project with one week delay on 24/11/12. One month after project commencement slow progress stresses both MICC and NIM project managers and casts the on-time project delivery on a shadow of doubt. MICC project manager realized the project resources are inadequate and unproductive. Meanwhile, NIM project manager insists that MICC should start different activity in parallel to compensate the delay of last month and mitigate the risk of overall project delay. MICC project manager has promised to NIM to increase resources and start parallel activities. Contractual penalty for major milestone delays has been explained in Exhibit 4.
There is no reward or incentive model in the contract that motivates MICC to finish the project earlier. Accordingly, MICC will not gain of fast delivery unless they want to unlock resources from this project and allocate them in other (i.e. new) projects. Therefore, MICC project manager should plan resources carefully in order to deliver project just on time. Both too early and too late delivery cause extra cost for MICC.
To sum up, there is no detailed plan, resources are insufficient and unproductive and one month has passed with a little progress. The add-hoc planning caused improper resource planning, lack of on-going control over resource productivity and project progress.
2. What could the consequences of ad-hoc project planning be to various stakeholders?
MICC:
Project delivery delay will cause contractual penalty (Exhibit 4) and longer project on-going cost (overhead) for MICC. Accordingly, MICC will gain less profit or even loss.
Mid-India Construction Company (MICC) granted a refurbishing project at Director of National Institute of Management (NIM). The project should finish 8 months after contract award (Contract award: 17/11/12 Planned date for end of project: 27/06/13) before new academic term starts (01/07/13). MICC kicked off the project with one week delay on 24/11/12. One month after project commencement slow progress stresses both MICC and NIM project managers and casts the on-time project delivery on a shadow of doubt. MICC project manager realized the project resources are inadequate and unproductive. Meanwhile, NIM project manager insists that MICC should start different activity in parallel to compensate the delay of last month and mitigate the risk of overall project delay. MICC project manager has promised to NIM to increase resources and start parallel activities. Contractual penalty for major milestone delays has been explained in Exhibit 4.
There is no reward or incentive model in the contract that motivates MICC to finish the project earlier. Accordingly, MICC will not gain of fast delivery unless they want to unlock resources from this project and allocate them in other (i.e. new) projects. Therefore, MICC project manager should plan resources carefully in order to deliver project just on time. Both too early and too late delivery cause extra cost for MICC.
To sum up, there is no detailed plan, resources are insufficient and unproductive and one month has passed with a little progress. The add-hoc planning caused improper resource planning, lack of on-going control over resource productivity and project progress.
2. What could the consequences of ad-hoc project planning be to various stakeholders?
MICC:
Project delivery delay will cause contractual penalty (Exhibit 4) and longer project on-going cost (overhead) for MICC. Accordingly, MICC will gain less profit or even loss.