Human Resource Management Week 4 Assignment

Crosby Manufacturing Corporation Case Study

For use by University of Phoenix only. Copyright 2021 © John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Crosby Manufacturing Corporation “I’ve called this meeting to resolve a major problem with our management cost and control system [MCCS],” remarked Wilfred Livingston, president of Crosby Manufacturing Corporation. “We’re having one hell of a time trying to meet competition with our antiquated MCCS reporting procedures. Last year we were considered nonresponsive to three large government contracts because we could not adhere to the customer’s financial reporting requirements. The government has recently shown a renewed interest in Crosby Manufacturing. If we can computerize our project financial reporting procedure, we’ll be in great shape to meet the competition head on. The customer might even waive the financial reporting requirements if we show our immediate intent to convert.”

Crosby Manufacturing was a $250-million-a- year electronics component manufacturing firm in 2005, at which time Wilfred “Willy” Livingston became president. His first major act was to reorganize the 700 employees into a modified matrix structure. This reorganization was the first step in Livingston’s long- range plan to obtain large government contracts. The matrix provided the customer focal point policy that government agencies prefer. After three years, the matrix seemed to be working. Now the company could begin the second phase, an improved MCCS policy.

On October 20, 2007, Livingston called a meeting with department managers from project management, cost accounting, management information systems (MIS), data processing, and planning. Livingston: “We have to replace our current computer with a more advanced model so as to update our MCCS reporting procedures. In order for us to grow, we’ll have to develop capabilities for keeping two or even three different sets of books for our customers. Our current computer does not have this capability. We’re talking about a sizable cash outlay, not necessarily to impress our customers, but to increase our business base and grow. We need weekly, or even daily, cost data so as to better control our projects.”

MIS manager: “I guess the first step in the design, development, and implementation process would be the feasibility study. I have prepared a list of the major topics which are normally included in a feasibility study of this sort.” [See Exhibit I.]

Livingston: “What kind of costs are you considering in the feasibility study?”

MIS manager: “The major cost items include input–output demands; processing; storage capacity; rental, purchase, or lease of a system; nonrecurring expenditures; recurring expenditures; cost of supplies; facility requirements; and training requirements. We’ll have to get a lot of this information from the Electronic data processing (EDP) department.”

EDP manager: “You must remember that, for a short period of time, we’ll end up with two computer systems in operation at the same time. This cannot be helped. However, I have prepared a typical (abbreviated) schedule of my own. [See Table I.] You’ll notice from the right-hand column that I’m somewhat optimistic as to how long it should take us.”

Livingston: “Have we prepared a checklist on how to evaluate a vendor?”

EDP manager: “Besides the benchmark test, I have prepared a list of topics that we must include in evaluating any vendor. (See Exhibit II.). We should plan to call on or visit other installations that have purchased the same equipment and see the system in action. Unfortunately, we may have to commit real early and begin developing software packages. As a matter of fact, using the principle of concurrency, we should begin developing our software packages right now.

EXHIBIT I. FEASIBILITY STUDY

• Objectives of the study • Costs • Benefits • Manual or computer-based solution?

Crosby Manufacturing Corporation Case Study Page 2 of 3

For use by University of Phoenix only. Copyright 2021 © John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

• Objectives of the system • Input requirements • Output requirements • Processing requirements • Preliminary system description • Evaluation of bids from vendors • Financial analysis • Conclusions

TABLE I TYPICAL SCHEDULE (IN MONTHS)

Activity Normal Time to Complete Crash Time to Complete

Management go-ahead 0 0

Release of preliminary system specs. 6 2

Receipt of bids on specs. 2 1

Order hardware and systems software 2 1

Flow charts completed 2 2

Applications programs completed 3 6

Receipt of hardware and systems software 3 3

Testing and debugging done 2 2

Documentation, if required 2 2

Changeover completed 22 15* * This assumes that some of the activities can be run in parallel, instead of in series.

EXHIBIT II. VENDOR SUPPORT EVALUATION FACTORS

• Availability of hardware and software packages • Hardware performance, delivery, and past track record • Vendor proximity and service-and-support record • Emergency backup procedure • Availability of applications programs and their compatibility with our other systems • Capacity for expansion • Documentation • Availability of consultants for systems programming and general training • Who burdens training cost? • Risk of obsolescence • Ease of use

Livingston: “Because of the importance of this project, I’m going to violate our normal structure and appoint Tim Emary from our planning group as project leader. He’s not as knowledgeable as your people are in regard to computers, but he does know how to lay out a schedule and get the job done. I’m sure your people will give him all the necessary support he needs. Remember, I’ll be behind this project all the way. We’re going to convene again one week from today, at which time I expect to see a detailed schedule with all major milestones, team meetings, design review meetings, et cetera, shown and identified. I’d like the project to be complete in 18 months, if possible. If there are risks in the schedule, identify them. Any questions?”

Crosby Manufacturing Corporation Case Study Page 3 of 3

For use by University of Phoenix only. Copyright 2021 © John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

References

Kerzner. H. (2017). Project Management Case Studies, 5th ed. Wiley and Sons.

Grading Rubrics PM/570 v1

Page 3 of 7

Copyright 2022 by University of Phoenix. All rights reserved.

Wk 4 – Summative Assessment: Project Proposal

Criteria and Weight Accomplished

90-100% A to A-

Emerging 70-89% B+ to C-

Beginning 50-69% D+ to F

Not Evident 0% F

1. Describe the project including the situation, problem, or opportunity, scope, and assumptions. Weight: 15%

The description of the project including the problem or opportunity, scope, and assumptions was detailed.

The description of the project including the problem or opportunity, scope, and assumptions was somewhat detailed.

The description of the project including the problem or opportunity, scope, and assumptions lacked detail.

The description of the project including the problem or opportunity, scope, and assumptions was not evident.

2. Explain how the project aligns with the organization’s strategic goals and objectives and how this project delivers business value. Weight: 15%

Description of how the project aligns with the organization’s strategic goals and objectives, and how the project delivers value to the business, stakeholders, or customers was insightful.

Description of how the project aligns with the organization’s strategic goals and objectives, and how the project delivers value to the business, stakeholders, or customers was somewhat insightful.

Description of how the project aligns with the organization’s strategic goals and objectives, and how the project delivers value to the business, stakeholders, or customers was not insightful.

Description of how the project aligns with the organization’s strategic goals and objectives, and how the project delivers value to the business, stakeholders, or customers was not evident.

3. State the proposed team structure, including the project sponsor, project manager, and the primary requested resources. Weight: 10%

Description of the proposed team structure including project sponsor, project manager, and primary requested resources was clear.

Description of the proposed team structure including project sponsor, project manager, and primary requested resources was somewhat clear.

Description of the proposed team structure including project sponsor, project manager, and primary requested resources was unclear.

Description of the proposed team structure including project sponsor, project manager, and primary requested resources was not evident.

4. Establish the project’s success criteria and metrics that measure the promised business value. Weight: 25%

Identification of the project success criteria and metrics that measure the promised business value was comprehensive and insightful.

Identification of the project success criteria and metrics that measure the promised business value was adequately detailed and showed some insight.

Identification of the project success criteria and metrics and measure the promised business value was not detailed and lacked insight.

Identification of the project success criteria and metrics that measure the promised business value was not evident.

Grading Rubrics PM/570 v1

Page 4 of 7

Copyright 2022 by University of Phoenix. All rights reserved.

Criteria and Weight Accomplished

90-100% A to A-

Emerging 70-89% B+ to C-

Beginning 50-69% D+ to F

Not Evident 0% F

5. Identify the project’s milestone deliverables. Weight: 10%

Identification of project milestones was complete.

Identification of project milestones was mostly complete.

Identification of project milestones was incomplete.

Identification of project milestones was not evident.

6. Summarize current, high-level challenges or known risks, including the probability of occurrence and impact. Weight: 5%

A summary of current, high-level known project risks, probability of occurrence, and impact was clear.

A summary of current, high-level known project risks, probability of occurrence, and impact was somewhat clear.

A summary of current, high-level known project risks, probability of occurrence, and impact was unclear.

A summary of current, high-level known project risks, probability of occurrence, and impact was not evident.

7. Estimate the project’s cost. Weight: 5%

The basic estimation of primary costs was realistic.

The basic estimation of primary costs was sufficient but not wholly realistic.

The basic estimation of primary costs was unrealistic or superficial.

The basic estimation of primary costs was not evident.

8. Summarize the project proposal, including why this project should be approved and how the project may fit into the organization’s current programs or portfolios. Weight: 10%

Project summary, including supporting reasons for approval and how it fits into the organization’s current programs and portfolios was clear.

Project summary, including supporting reasons for approval and how it fits into the organization’s current programs and portfolios was mostly clear.

Project summary, including supporting reasons for approval and how it fits into the organization’s current programs and portfolios was somewhat clear.

Project summary, including supporting reasons for approval and how it fits into the organization’s current programs and portfolios was not evident.

9. Expression of Ideas/Thought and Audience Awareness: Written Communication Weight: 5%

Thoroughly put ideas and thoughts to words, using relevant content and appropriate forms of communication to convey the information.

Moderately put ideas and thoughts to words, using relevant content and appropriate forms of communication to convey the information.

Vaguely put ideas and thoughts to words, using relevant content and appropriate forms of communication to convey the information.

Did not put ideas and thoughts to words, using relevant content and appropriate forms of communication to convey the information.

Grading Rubrics PM/570 v1

Page 5 of 7

Copyright 2022 by University of Phoenix. All rights reserved.

Criteria and Weight Accomplished

90-100% A to A-

Emerging 70-89% B+ to C-

Beginning 50-69% D+ to F

Not Evident 0% F

Comprehensive awareness of audience through use of effective delivery techniques, evidence, sources, and illustrations to support stance.

Adequate awareness of audience through use of effective delivery techniques, evidence, sources, and illustrations to support stance.

Minimal awareness of audience through use of effective delivery techniques, evidence, sources, and illustrations to support stance.

Did not have an awareness of audience through use of effective delivery techniques, evidence, sources, and illustrations to support stance.