Ferris HealthCare, Inc. In July Of 1999, Senior Management ✓ Solved
```html
Ferris HealthCare, Inc. In July of 1999, senior management at
Ferris HealthCare, Inc. in July of 1999, senior management at Ferris recognized that its future growth could very well be determined by how quickly and how well it implemented project management. For the past several years, line managers had been functioning as project managers while still managing their line groups. The projects came out with the short end of the stick, most often late and over budget, because managers focused on line activities rather than project work. Everyone recognized that project management needed to be an established career path position and that some structured process had to be implemented for project management.
A consultant was brought into Ferris to provide initial project management training for 50 out of the 300 employees targeted for eventual project management training. Several of the employees thus trained were then placed on a committee with senior management to design a project management stage-gate model for Ferris. After two months of meetings, the committee identified the need for three different stage-gate models: one for information systems, one for new products/services provided, and one for bringing on board new corporate clients. There were several similarities among the three models. However, personal interests dictated the need for three methodologies, all based upon rigid policies and procedures.
After a year of using three models, the company recognized it had a problem deciding how to assign the right project manager to the right project. Project managers had to be familiar with all three methodologies. The alternative, considered impractical, was to assign only those project managers familiar with that specific methodology. After six months of meetings, the company consolidated the three methodologies into a single methodology, focusing more upon guidelines than on policies and procedures. The entire organization appeared to support the new singular methodology.
A consultant was brought in to conduct the first three days of a four-day training program for employees not yet trained in project management. The fourth day was taught by internal personnel with a focus on how to use the new methodology. The success to failure ratio on projects increased dramatically.
Paper For Above Instructions
The case of Ferris HealthCare, Inc. presents a significant example of the challenges organizations face when implementing project management practices. This analysis will respond to the specific questions posed regarding the transition from multiple methodologies to a singular methodology, focusing on the underlying reasons and implications of the changes made.
1. Difficulty in Developing a Singular Methodology
Developing a singular project management methodology within Ferris HealthCare was a complex endeavor due to several interrelated factors. Firstly, the company had a diverse range of projects that required different approaches — information systems, new product developments, and corporate client onboarding were inherently distinct in their needs. Consequently, creating a unified methodology that could adequately serve all areas posed a significant challenge. Additionally, stakeholders involved in the initial development had personal interests and biases which influenced the creation of separate methodologies.
Moreover, there was a lack of initial experience with project management as a structured discipline within the organization. Many line managers, who were simultaneously project managers, had differing perspectives on project execution and priorities, which led to fragmented approaches. The absence of a unified vision hindered early attempts to establish a singular methodology, resulting in a focus on policies and procedures rather than flexible guidelines.
2. Policies and Procedures in Initial Methodologies
The initial methodologies developed at Ferris were heavily based on policies and procedures due to a prevailing organizational culture that favored structured control mechanisms. These rigid frameworks likely stemmed from a desire to minimize ambiguity and ensure that all project activities adhered to predetermined standards. In an environment where project management knowledge was limited, reliance on strict guidelines was an understandable approach, as it aimed to provide consistency and accountability in project execution.
However, this rigidity often stifled creativity and adaptability. When project managers were bound by extensive policies, they struggled to respond to the unique circumstances that each project presented. Consequently, while the intention behind these policies was to facilitate success, the actual implementation restricted managerial flexibility and contributed to project failures.
3. Acceptance of a Singular Methodology
The eventual acceptance of a singular methodology within Ferris was facilitated by the realization of the inefficiencies and complications associated with maintaining multiple methodologies. As project managers and stakeholders confronted difficulties in project assignment and execution, the need for a streamlined approach became increasingly evident. By consolidating the three methodologies, the organization fostered a collective understanding and alignment among team members, which enhanced communication and collaboration.
The support from the entire organization for the new methodology was indicative of a vital shift in perspective. Employees recognized the need for consistency and clarity in project management practices, which ultimately contributed to improved project outcomes. An emphasis on shared guidelines over strict policies further encouraged acceptance, as it allowed for greater adaptability in managing projects.
4. Guidelines over Policies and Procedures
The shift from policies and procedures to guidelines in the singular methodology was a strategic choice aimed at fostering a more agile project management environment. Guidelines provide general direction while allowing project managers the flexibility to adapt their approach based on the specific context of their projects. This change recognized the inherent complexities of project management, where a one-size-fits-all approach often proved inadequate.
Furthermore, adopting a guideline-based methodology empowered project managers to exercise their judgment and expertise while ensuring that projects remained aligned with overall organizational goals. This was essential in developing a culture of ownership and accountability, ultimately leading to improved project success rates.
5. Structure of Training Programs
Having the fourth day of the training program focused on the new methodology was a logical step. By integrating theoretical training with practical application, employees had a cohesive learning experience. The three-day foundation provided essential knowledge while the fourth day offered the opportunity to apply that knowledge to the specific guidelines of the methodology. This approach enhanced retention and understanding of the material.
Moreover, immediate application of the concepts learned fosters a clearer understanding of the organization’s new project management strategy and ensures that the learning is relevant and immediately useful. This structure supports the assimilation of new methodologies into daily operations, aiding in the transition process.
6. Role of the Consultant
The decision to have internal personnel teach the methodology instead of the consultant was likely based on several strategic considerations. Primarily, involving internal staff promotes ownership and ensures that the methodology aligns closely with the organization’s culture and operational realities. Employees may find it easier to relate to and learn from their peers who share their experiences and challenges.
Additionally, the intent may have been to bolster internal capabilities and develop a sustainable knowledge base that does not rely on external consultants for future training needs. This approach empowers the staff and enhances their skills, ultimately fostering a self-sufficient project management environment.
Conclusion
The evolution of project management practices at Ferris HealthCare underscores the importance of flexibility and adaptability in organizational management. Transitioning from multiple rigid methodologies to a singular guideline-based approach allowed for improved project success and operational efficiency. By understanding the challenges and strategic decisions made throughout this process, organizations can glean valuable insights for their project management efforts.
References
- Kerzner, H. (2017). Project Management: A Systems Approach to Planning, Scheduling, and Controlling. Wiley.
- Pearce, C. L., & Robbins, S. P. (2016). Managing Organizational Behavior. Houghton Mifflin.
- Project Management Institute. (2021). A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide). Project Management Institute.
- Wysocki, R. K. (2014). Effective Project Management: Traditional, Agile, Extreme. Wiley.
- Schmidt, C. J. (2018). The Project Manager’s Guide to Mastering Agile: Principles and Practices for an Adaptive Approach. Wiley.
- Levine, H. A. (2014). Project Management for Executives. iUniverse.
- Heagney, J. (2016). Fundamentals of Project Management. AMACOM.
- Kloppenborg, T. J. (2018). Contemporary Project Management. Cengage Learning.
- Bourne, L., & Walker, D. H. (2006). Visualizing and mapping project management. Project Management Journal, 37(1), 5-19.
- Perkins, J. (2019). A Guide to Project Management Methodologies. Routledge.
```