Reference no: EM131279727

A major national insurer decided to evolve new business development practices. The project to implement this idea started in 2000 and was led by a succession of key senior vice presidents (VPs) as part of their executive growth. Twelve years later, the organization had still not finished with its stated purpose due to changing requirements, new ideas, a succession of leaders, and executive ambivalence. This effort had all the appearance of a major strategic initiative—three hundred people, a "war room" with a great storyboard, and lots of spokespersons. Key staff members were quick to extol the great progress made. However, when the new CEO asked, "Why are we doing this?" there was no coherent answer. Result: Within days, the entire program was scrapped. In less than a week, the project offices were vacant and phone calls went unanswered. When the project died, no one noticed except the executives who had been the project advocates. They were out of a job.

1. Explain the root cause of this situation. There was a huge disconnect between project management and the organizational strategy and strategic direction in this scenario. If so, how could this gap have been bridged?

2. Analyze the triple-constraints relationship among the project scope, cost, schedule, and quality. If quality is held constant and the scope is widened, what will happen to the cost and schedule?

3. Explain a WBS created for a project you have worked on. Was a WBS created for a project you have worked on? If so, did the team refer to the WBS while sequencing work and creating a risk plan? What was the outcome? If not, describe how the team determined tasks and sequencing. Evaluate the outcome. Cite additional challenges to a project that might result from poor work breakdown practices. The final paragraph (three or four sentences) of your initial post should summarize the one or two key points that you are making in your initial response. Justify your answers with examples and reasoning.