Reference no: EM133344262

Case: Ken was the project manager for supplying all the U.S. manufactured wafer fabrication equipment for a Japanese high technology company. One of the high-end pieces of equipment that Ken's customer was sourcing in the United States was the ion milling machine. The subcontractor for ion milling machines was located in Virginia. Ken's customer ordered four ion milling machines for their new wafer fabrication plant in Malaysia. Ken was heavily involved in putting together specifications and shipment and delivery requirements for the ion milling machines. Ken visited the ion milling machine subcontractor several times during the course of the project with and without his Japanese customer's representatives joining him. The project was scheduled to complete in 10 months. Ken was on the phone five days a week with his subcontractor's project manager discussing the status of the project. Ken updated his Japanese customer's project manager weekly on the progress made on the construction of ion milling machines.

The ion milling machine subcontractor built the best ones in the world at that time. While they were building my four standard ion milling machines, they had a large order to build 20 advanced ion milling machines from a very important customer. Everything they were doing for their important customer in their plant was blocked inside temporary plastic walls so that no one else could see the advanced ion milling machines that were being built there. Whenever Ken chatted with their engineers about their advanced product, their engineers were mum on the details. They only mentioned that these advanced ion milling machines had a 10-nanometer accuracy of uniform material removal from the surface of a 6-inch wafer. Ken had to manage the communication with his Japanese customer appropriately without getting them excited while keeping their trust and respect in him and in his subcontractor at the highest level. Ken did not report to his Japanese customer every little detail of the project. He gave them a weekly status summary of the project and a weekly updated project schedule.

There were several ups and downs every day regarding the ion milling machines' construction. Most of the down issues were solved within at most two weeks. These minute details were between me and my subcontractor's project manager. Some delays crept into my project due to the subcontractor's priority to his large advanced ion milling machines order. Ken immediately hopped on a plane from California to Virginia and showed himself at the door of his subcontractor and solved the project delay issues and other nagging issues face-to-face with him. They always found a way to catch up to the schedule by authorizing some overtime or by finding an outside machine shop that could build a component faster. Ken had to keep his credibility with his customer intact. By monitoring his subcontractor very closely and by not disturbing his customer, they completed the project on time, but they ran 5% over budget due to several overtime authorizations.

His customer was very happy with the results. Another issue was with his customer. His customer's project manager insisted that they perform a long-term capability study on all ion milling machines before they left the subcontractor's facility. However, the contract specified a short-term capability study requirement for all four machines before delivery. A long-term capability study meant taking a lot more data while running the machines. This would have delayed the shipments by at least two weeks and cost my subcontractor an extra 160 man-hours of work. Ken emphasized to his customer's project manager what their contract specified. Ken convinced him that the long-term capability studies should be performed at his factory after receiving the ion milling machines. After several discussions, he finally agreed with Ken. Ken did not even mention this extra work request from the customer to his subcontractor. Ken's subcontractor was overstretched with respect to manpower. Ken had to protect him from his customer's extra requirements. Communicating filtered information is the backbone of a project's control structure. How much information to pass on and how much you want to disturb the cart are crucial factors during the life of a project. If every little detail regarding your project goes up to your chief executive officer or goes to your customer, you are mismanaging your project.

You have to filter out the ripples in your communicated information. At the same time you have to realize what information and when to inform your higher-ups and/or your customer without any delay. A similar kind of information filtering goes both ways. If you receive some negative information regarding your customer, do not immediately spill it to your team members. Your customer might be going bankrupt. They might be shutting down your project. They might be changing project specifications. First, absorb the information yourself. Validate the information, understand its details, and weigh effects of the information on your team members, and then announce it as needed. A similar kind of information filtering should happen internally. If you hear from your boss that a layoff is going to happen in two weeks, do not run and blabber to your team members about the layoff. First, understand the details of the layoff. Does it affect your team members? This kind of information flow can be very demoralizing to a team. Then announce the upcoming layoff with details in a team meeting at an appropriate time.

LESSONS LEARNED FROM THIS PROJECT EVENT

- Do not get your customers and your subcontractors involved in every little detail of your project.

- Filter your information appropriately in order to not inadvertently rock your project's boat.

- Learn the details of a demoralizing fact before discussing it with your project team members.

Kloppenborg et al. (2014) states that organisational culture is comprised of "values, social rituals, and symbols that are shared among members of the organisation and are taught to new members". Kloppenborg et al. (2014) propose that using the types of power framework is useful in understanding a corporate culture. Identify a project that you are familiar with, and assess the main characteristics of culture types of the project. Ensure that a detailed discussion is provided to describe how each of the four (4) culture types influenced the project outcome.