Reference no: EM133315576

CASE STUDY : Overview
There are "lucky" project managers whose projects were completed "on time" and "within budget." But I am guessing they are in the minority. Everyone else has probably faced a situation where one of the following statements is true:
The project is within budget and schedule but we do not see the "expected" results
The project is taking longer than expected
The project is costing more than anticipated
I am betting that the managers of these projects used analysis tools that are considered "two-dimensional." "Budget"  and "Actual" are the two dimensions. But in looking at a broader picture, there is a much-needed third dimension- one  that reflects "performance and efficiency."
"Performance and efficiency" indicate whether or not we are actually completing the intended tasks and producing the  expected project deliverables within the designated budget and schedule. To examine this concept, let's look at the following case study.
Case Study
The Assumptions:
John is managing a software development project.
The project estimates include a total of 100 hours of development time.
There are five separate tasks that will take 20 hours each.
Each task has 4 subtasks that take 5 hours to complete.
John hires five programmers. Each will each have twenty percent of the work that can be completed concurrently.
Each programmer will charge $100 per hour. Total budget for the project is $10,000.
Based on the distribution of work, it is determined that the project can be completed within one week.
Initial Reports
At the end of the week, the programmers turn in time sheets.
A total of 90 hours is reported.
Based on this information, John quickly assumes the project is 90% complete.
John realizes that the project will not be completed on time.
John's status report claims that the project is within budget but not on time.

QUESTION: Would you agree with John's assessment of the project? Explain your rationale.