Teradyne Corporation Case
Managing Complex Project Assignment
(Fall 2013)
***
Teradyne Corporation: The Jaguar project
***
By
SIMONE GUPTA
(Submission Date)
November 15th 2014
1. Compare and contrast Teradyne’s traditional project execution strategy to the approach it used in Jaguar. What was similar? What was different?
In 2001, Teradyne made fundamental changes in their strategic direction and technology. In Jaguar project, Teradyne Corporation focused more on up-front planning and design, reorganization of project team structure, the introduction of prescriptive project management (PM) processes, and use of formalized PM tools. Few comparisons between traditional project execution and Jaguar project are as follows:
Strategy
Traditional Project Execution
Jaguar Project Execution
Project scope
Goals of the project were not defined clearly up front
The requirements were not clear, the engineering and other stakeholders added many features during development that hindered in delivery time & quality
Requirements & scope were very clearly defined and focused. Huge emphasis in defining process, risk mitigation and scope
Delivery date was finalized and adding scopes during development was not allowed
PM tools
Teradyne’s culture was to mandate the use of specific tools, but it was left up to the individual divisions and managers to decide
Formalized project management tools like WBS, 3-point estimation, critical path analysis, earned value analysis were used
Visibility to higher management
There was very less visibility to higher management on the project status and phase
Clear visibility and tracking was possible. Detailed schedule and analyzed the impact of delays
Project status tracking
Progress tracking was highly variable (even within divisions, some were using ‘phase-gate’ model, detailed project planning, conduction after-action reviews, whereas others were not)
Usage of tools resulting in near accurate tracking of project status
Monthly core team
(Fall 2013)
***
Teradyne Corporation: The Jaguar project
***
By
SIMONE GUPTA
(Submission Date)
November 15th 2014
1. Compare and contrast Teradyne’s traditional project execution strategy to the approach it used in Jaguar. What was similar? What was different?
In 2001, Teradyne made fundamental changes in their strategic direction and technology. In Jaguar project, Teradyne Corporation focused more on up-front planning and design, reorganization of project team structure, the introduction of prescriptive project management (PM) processes, and use of formalized PM tools. Few comparisons between traditional project execution and Jaguar project are as follows:
Strategy
Traditional Project Execution
Jaguar Project Execution
Project scope
Goals of the project were not defined clearly up front
The requirements were not clear, the engineering and other stakeholders added many features during development that hindered in delivery time & quality
Requirements & scope were very clearly defined and focused. Huge emphasis in defining process, risk mitigation and scope
Delivery date was finalized and adding scopes during development was not allowed
PM tools
Teradyne’s culture was to mandate the use of specific tools, but it was left up to the individual divisions and managers to decide
Formalized project management tools like WBS, 3-point estimation, critical path analysis, earned value analysis were used
Visibility to higher management
There was very less visibility to higher management on the project status and phase
Clear visibility and tracking was possible. Detailed schedule and analyzed the impact of delays
Project status tracking
Progress tracking was highly variable (even within divisions, some were using ‘phase-gate’ model, detailed project planning, conduction after-action reviews, whereas others were not)
Usage of tools resulting in near accurate tracking of project status
Monthly core team