Irresponsible Sponsors BACKGROUND Two executives in this company each funded a \
ID: 329144 • Letter: I
Question
Irresponsible Sponsors BACKGROUND Two executives in this company each funded a "pet" project that had little chance of success. Despite repeated requests by the project managers to cancel the projects, the sponsors decided to throw away good money after bad money. The sponsors then had to find a way to prevent their embarrassment from such blunders from becoming apparent to all. STORY LINE Two vice presidents came up with ideas for pet projects and funded the projects internally using money from their functional areas. Both projects had budgets close to $2 million and schedules of approximately one year. These were somewhat high-risk projects because they both required that a similar technical breakthrough be made. There was no guarantee that the technical breakthrough could be made at all. And even if the technical breakthrough could be made, both executives estimated that the shelf life of both products would be about one year before becoming obsolete but that they could easily recover their R&D; costs These two projects were considered pet projects because they were established at the personal request of two senior managers and without any real business case Had these projects been required to go through the formal process of portfolio selection of projects, neither would have been approved. The budgets for these projects were way out of line for the value that the company would receive, and the return on investment would be below minimum levels even if the technical breakthrough could be made. Personnel from the project management office (PMO) who were actively involved in the portfolio selection of projects also stated that they would never recommend approval of a project where the end result would have a shelf life of one year or less. Simply stated, these projects existed merely for the satisfaction of the two executives and to get them prestige with their colleagues. Nevertheless, both executives found money for their projects and were willing to let them go forward without the standard approval process. Each executive was able to get an experienced project manager from his group to manage the pet project. GATE-REVIEW MEETINGS At the first gate-review meeting, both project managers stood up and recommended that their projects be canceled and the resources assigned to other, more promising projects. They both stated that the technical breakthrough needed could not be made in a timely manner. Under normal conditions, both of these project managers should have received medals for bravery in recommending that their projects be canceled. These recommendations certainly appeared to be in the best interests of the companyExplanation / Answer
Answer:-
In my opinion is customary for companies to allow the executives to have secret projects which do not follow normal project approval process. In the case when the projects are seen as quite sensitive, some kind of privileges are provided to the top executives by the company to carry on their secret projects from the normal project approval process so that any kind of potential sabotage of the projects can be avoided. But if we look clearly, the non-approval of these kinds of project can really hamper the overall objective of the organization as if the execution of these projects are not allowed, the executives will try to take some time covertly from the main project allocation and thus it will affect the progress and accomplishment of the core projects.
Answer:- When the project was failed, the senior managers and leaders were fired due to their laxity in handling the management of project adequately. Whenever there is a failure of any project, the responsibility must be taken by the senior managers. The managers in the lower hierarchy can be promoted to senior levels for addressing the future project requirements. With the help of improved programs and corrective measures to address the projects, managers were able to save their faces.
Related Questions
drjack9650@gmail.com
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.