Project Management Methodologies for GE Company- myassignmenthelp

Question: Discuss about theProject Management Methodologies for GE Company. Answer: Project management methodologies are models that are applied in planning, designing, and implementing a project to achieve predetermined project objectives [1]. Project management problems occur when project methodologies are not successfully implemented across the process of project management. Engineering projects require coordination from all stakeholders to ensure that they work as a team to meet specific goals. Project management requires effective networking to ensure alignment of the specifications of the product being manufactured [2]. The following report analyses project management problems and their possible causes a case study of Frank designing and building Rapid Prototype machines for jet engine job for Cocable Company that was contracted by GE Company. The report will also outline recommendations on how to avoid project management problems. Background information Frank Billing, a passionate entrepreneur in rapid prototyping was contracted to a project together with Cocable Company to deliver on rapid prototyping machine. The project involved Cocable Company designing and manufacturing cable installations for GE company newest jet engine. As part of the project, Cocable was required to design junction boxes and switch covers that required complex shapes and multiple designs. Frank, haven worked with Cocable for three years before resigning, presented himself for the job. Frank was contracted to custom build four rapid prototyping machines and their specifications. Frank designed and built RP machines of 48inchs that could also fit 55inch capacity. During the testing day, the RP machines did not work because the specifications required were 62inchs. This led to the project failing and a blame smarted between the three parties. Project management problems The following project management problems occurred in designing and building of the Rapid Prototypes for GE jet engine; First, there was poor communication: The communication between the GE Company, Cocable Company and Frank was poor when initiating, designing and implementing the project. There was poor communication of specifications that lead to production of RP machines that did not meet the jet engine specifications. The GE Company says it mentioned before the start contracting the Cocable Company about the RP machine specifications. Frank worked on the wrong specifications as he followed what he was told by Cocable Company. Secondly, there was inexperience in the project. Cocable Company was a specialist in manufacturing cables and cables related products that were not related to rapid prototyping. To Frank, it was the first time to work on a huge project. This led to loopholes of mistakes in executing a project that had no room for mistakes. Thirdly, there was an unreasoned deadline. The GE Company required the Cocable Company to work under tight schedules. The testing of the machine was done on the minute that left no time for correcting possible mistakes during the project. This led to fluctuating expectations from the contracting company. The project did not follow project management process. The stakeholders in the project did not have a formal project management process. The project progress was not tracked to ensuring each level success and likely loopholes are timely addressed [4].A formal systematic work schedule would have ensured mistakes are minimized and corrected at each level when measuring success and avoid last minute chaos of wrong specifications. Therefore, the ineffective network management of the project led to the failure of the project when the deadline was over and a lot of resources wasted. From the analysis, Cocable should pay for the change for failure to properly implement the project management methodologies. Recommendations The following things would have been done in the project to avoid the project failure; First, Cocable Company should have implemented a formal project management processes. This would have increased the chances of project success and minimize loopholes in the project. GE Company should have made its communication in writing at the start of the project. Mentioning specifications before the contract was signed was unofficial communication that created a loophole in the project. Cocable Company should also have formally taken specifications of the rapid prototypes required for the jet engine. Effective communication would have ensured no specification mistakes occurred in the project. GE Company should have done an appraisal of the company they were contracting. Cocable Company was specialized in manufacturing cables and had no experience in rapid Prototyping. This means that GE Company would have only contracted Cocable Company on what they were well experienced in. Cocable having experience in Rapid Prototyping would have been able to inquire about specifications and avoid last minute discovery that the RP were not working for the jet engine. Cocable Company should have implemented each level evaluation to ensure what they were working on and Franks designs were within jet engine specification. This level evaluation would havbe ensured tracking and avoids last minute detection that the RP machines were not compatible [5]. Lastly, the project should have been planned on a flexible deadline. A flexible schedule would have ensured that there was time to correct mistakes done in the designing and building of the RP machines. Conclusion Poor network project management led to the failure of the project between GE Company, Cocable limited, and Frank. Cocable failed to implement proper project management methodologies that could have ensured success of the project. Cocable Company lacked experience in Rapid Prototyping machines and GE Company did not know which led to a loophole in the project. Cocable Company should pay all the charges because it failed to implement an effective network project management methodology. Therefore, it can be concluded that effective communication and proper implementation of project management methodologies are essential when undertaking a networked contract to enhance success of a project. References [1] S. Rozenes, "The Impact of Project Management Methodologies on Project Performance", International Journal of Information Technology Project Management, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 64-73, 2011. [2] W. Wojciech Macek, "Methodologies of Project Management", Contemporary Economics, vol. 4, no. 4, 2011. [3] H. Wells, "How Effective Are Project Management Methodologies? An Explorative Evaluation of Their Benefits in Practice", Project Management Journal, vol. 43, no. 6, pp. 43-58, 2012. [4] F. Mir and A. Pinnington, "Exploring the value of project management: Linking Project Management Performance and Project Success", International Journal of Project Management, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 202-217, 2014. [5] A. Manole and I. Grabara, "METHODOLOGIES AND VISUALIZATION TOOLSOF EFFECTIVE PROJECT MANAGEMENT", Polish Journal of Management Studies, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 137-149, 2016.