For Prof Xavier Only

Graded Case Study 2, Part III

Team Conflict

The training issue was only one source of conflict on the client side. Bernie Hays and Ed

Hallman, the communications specialists in SRT's Mechanical Department, were tasked

with installing the terminals and associated components on the trains. This would

require taking the locomotives out of service for two days each at staggered intervals.

Eager to schedule the work, Hays had reached out to Lisa Lindstrom in Transportation

Operations, who was responsible for coordinating train assignments, including taking

vehicles out of service. She refused to give Hays concrete time windows, because there

were too many issues compromising the availability of the locomotives. The conflict had

become heated, and Lindstrom had become nonresponsive on the issue.

Because Hays, Hallman, and Lindstrom were all members of the project team, Varga

was aware of the problem and realized it had the potential to impede the January

installation deadline. Schaller had also informed Varga that the ongoing tension

between Transportation Ops and Mechanical was nothing new; they had a history of

blaming each other for problems and failing to work together. He has suggested that it

might help if Varga, as an outsider, explains the importance of working out the ECO-

Stream installation schedule so they can protect their investment and get the tool up

and running.

Varga, however, is not keen on getting involved in clients' conflicts. While there are

situations internally at ECO-Trans where it is necessary to have confrontations, she is

apprehensive about making enemies on the project team, especially when they are SRT's

resources. She hopes that Lindstrom and the Mechanical guys will find a way to work

out the scheduling issues on their own.

Stakeholder Communication

Up until the eighth or ninth month of the project, Varga felt that communicating with

ECO-Trans and client stakeholders had been manageable. Early in the project, she set

up an electronic Kanban board and showed project team members how to "drag and

drop" activities into four status buckets: "Planned," "In Progress," "In Trouble," and

"Completed." Even though the board was not regularly updated, project team members

and stakeholders seemed to get ample information from weekly team meetings and

occasional information requests via email or phone. She also prepared weekly status

reports for all stakeholders.

When problems with the terminals began to plague the project, some of the stakeholders

shifted more attention to the project. As a result, project team members were getting

interrupted frequently with questions and requests for status updates on numerous

aspects of the project. For example, Roland Letessier, ECO-Trans' software specialist,

was getting urgent emails from SRT's Operations Planning Director to see where things

stood with customizing the interface. Letessier wasn't the first to complain to Varga; at

least three other team members were getting similar pressure to provide status reports

on various activities, and it was impeding their ability to get work done.

Varga brought this issue to Schaller's attention and asked for his help in funneling

communication directly to her. She asked him to remind stakeholders that all project

updates would be covered thoroughly in her weekly status reports that they all received.

Schaller agreed to do his best to mitigate the situation. He did, however, point out that

the weekly status reports were very long and detailed. While this was useful for some

stakeholders, he believed that others didn't bother to read through them.