Assignment 6: Assume Your Project Has Started

Assignment 6assignment 6assume That Your Project Has Started To Slip D

Assume that your project has started to slip dramatically. Let’s further assume that the project deadline is fixed and can't change. Your project currently has one developer working on a module of code with a 21-day duration on the critical path. You are desperate to shorten this timeframe and are considering adding a second resource to this activity, but the resource does not have all the right skills and might work five days just to reduce the overall time by two days. From an economic perspective, is this a good move? Why? Gold plating is what we call it when the project team does work on the product to add features that the requirements didn’t call for, that the stakeholder and customer didn’t ask for and doesn’t need. Is this a good practice from an economic perspective? Why? What is the difference between project managers who consider themselves implementers of others' solutions versus project managers who view themselves as the CEO of a small business?

Paper For Above instruction

Managing project schedules effectively is vital in ensuring timely completion, especially when facing potential delays. When a project begins to slip, project managers must evaluate options critically, considering both technical feasibility and economic implications. This paper discusses the effectiveness of adding resources to critical path tasks, the concept of gold plating in project management, and the contrasting roles of project managers as implementers versus strategic leaders akin to CEOs.

Evaluating the Addition of Resources to Accelerate the Project

In the scenario where a project is behind schedule, one instinctive response is to add more resources to the critical path activities. The idea is that additional manpower could facilitate faster completion. However, this approach—known as "adding resources"—comes with both potential benefits and drawbacks. From an economic perspective, this is often termed "cost of concurrency," which refers to the increase in costs associated with overlapping work or additional staffing.

In this specific case, the second resource does not possess the full skill set required and would need five days just to contribute the equivalent of two days' work. This calculation involves diminishing returns on resource addition, especially when skills mismatch exists. Since the second developer requires significant ramp-up time and does not directly accelerate progress proportionally, the productivity gain is limited. Over five days, if the resource only reduces the schedule by two days, the additional labor cost might outweigh the benefit of the schedule compression.

From an economic standpoint, this investment may not be justified. Efficient resource allocation should consider not only the time saved but also the costs incurred, including training, potential errors from less-skilled personnel, and increased management complexity. If the marginal cost of adding the second resource exceeds the value of the schedule compression, it is not a financially sound decision.

The Concept and Implications of Gold Plating

Gold plating involves the addition of extra features or functionalities that were not part of the original project scope. While it may seem beneficial to enhance a product, from an economic perspective, gold plating often leads to inefficient resource utilization and inflated costs without corresponding value for the customer. It risks delivering a product that exceeds the agreed scope, which can cause delays, budget overruns, and stakeholder dissatisfaction.

Economically, gold plating is usually counterproductive. It diverts resources away from the core deliverables and may introduce complexity or bugs that require additional testing and fixing. Moreover, it can create scope creep, making it difficult to meet deadlines or budget constraints. Therefore, sticking to agreed requirements and resisting the temptation to add features unnecessarily aligns better with cost-effective project management.

The Role of Project Managers: Implementers vs. Strategic Leaders

Project managers who consider themselves implementers focus primarily on executing defined tasks within set constraints, often acting as technicians or coordinators following predetermined plans. Their role emphasizes adherence to scope, schedule, and budget, often with limited strategic insight or influence over broader organizational goals.

Conversely, project managers who see themselves as the CEO of a small business adopt a strategic leadership role. They take ownership of the project’s vision, foster stakeholder engagement, manage risks proactively, and make decisions aligned with long-term goals. They consider resource optimization beyond immediate task completion, emphasizing value creation, innovation, and organizational impact.

This strategic perspective enables project managers to navigate complex environments, adapt to changes efficiently, and prioritize activities that deliver maximum business value. The CEO-like approach fosters leadership qualities, entrepreneurial mindset, and stakeholder management skills, which are critical for project success in dynamic settings.

Conclusion

In conclusion, adding under-skilled resources to accelerate a project is often an uneconomical move, given the limited productivity gains and increased costs. Gold plating is likewise detrimental from an economic standpoint, as it wastes resources on unnecessary features rather than focusing on core requirements. Finally, the role of the project manager influences project outcomes significantly; those acting as strategic leaders or CEOs tend to drive projects toward broader organizational goals, while implementers focus more narrowly on executing tasks. Effective project management combines technical understanding with strategic vision to ensure projects are delivered on time, within budget, and with maximum value.

References

• Crawford, L. (2014). Project Management Maturity Model: A Standalone Guide. CRC Press.
• Kerzner, H. (2017). Project Management: A Systems Approach to Planning, Scheduling, and Controlling. Wiley.
• PMI. (2021). A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide) – Seventh Edition. Project Management Institute.
• Meredith, J. R., & Mantel, S. J. (2017). Project Management: A Managerial Approach. Wiley.
• Cooke-Davies, T. (2002). The real success factors in projects. International Journal of Project Management, 20(3), 185-190.
• Schwalbe, K. (2021). Information Technology Project Management. Cengage Learning.
• Heldman, K. (2018). Project Management JumpStart. Wiley.
• Wysocki, R. K. (2014). Effective Project Management: Traditional, Agile, Extreme. Wiley.
• Larson, E., & Gray, C. (2018). Project Management: The Managerial Process. McGraw-Hill Education.
• Harrison, F., & Lock, D. (2017). Advanced Project Management: A Complete Guide. Gower Publishing.