In This Exercise You Play The Role Of Shawna, A Project Mana

In This Exercise You Play The Role Of Shawna A Project Manager For Z

In this exercise, you play the role of Shawna, a project manager for ZAP Pharmaceutical Company. Currently, you are managing a large IT project in the healthcare industry for ZAP. Your project involves refurbishing an existing office building, installing IT infrastructure, and outfitting the area for use as a new telephone answering hub. You assumed leadership of this project a week ago from John, the previous project manager, who oversaw it from inception. The project is in the execution phase, with refurbishing and infrastructure installation ongoing concurrently. All office equipment is on order, scheduled for delivery after the completion of refurbishment and infrastructure work. The project is approximately 75% complete, and senior management is satisfied with progress. Four vendors are involved: Bear's Construction handles structural, drywall, and electrical work; Anne’s Interior Design manages carpeting, painting, and cubicle setup; Roxy’s IT Services installs IT components; Sheba’s Office Equipment provides office desks, computers, and phones. All contracts are fixed-price. Since taking over, contractual issues have arisen. A third issue has emerged, requiring your immediate attention, which you address by convening your project team to discuss the following problems and potential resolutions.

Paper For Above instruction

The first contractual issue involves Bear’s Construction claiming they are not responsible for securing inspections required by the local township. A memo signed by John during negotiations indicates that ZAP is responsible for permits and inspections. However, the current contract stipulates Bear’s responsibility for all inspections. Ignoring this discrepancy could delay the project by at least one week because Bear has taken no action to arrange inspections. As the project manager, the appropriate course of action involves verifying contractual responsibilities and engaging Bear’s Construction promptly to assign inspection duties. Given the contractual obligation, it would be prudent to remind Bear of their responsibility and collaborate on scheduling inspections to maintain project momentum. If necessary, involving the legal or contractual team to clarify responsibilities might be warranted to avoid future misunderstandings. Delaying action risks further delay, but proactive engagement can mitigate this and help keep the project’s schedule on track.

The second issue concerns the carpet installation. Anne’s Interior Design has already purchased and begun installing generic carpets that do not meet the specified wear rating, which is mandated under the Special Conditions contract section. However, the general conditions prohibit nongeneric materials, including carpets with special wear ratings. Moving forward, the decision should prioritize project timeliness and flexibility. Since the carpet with the specified wear rating has already been purchased and partially installed, halting work may cause significant delays. A reasonable resolution involves evaluating whether the installed carpet can meet future durability needs or if replacing it is feasible without substantial delay. Given that the project aims to open the facility on schedule, installing the less durable, currently installed carpet might be acceptable if it meets minimum operational requirements and timelines. Nevertheless, to uphold quality standards, options include temporarily stopping carpet work to assess the potential for upgrading or negotiating with Anne’s Interior Design for expedited replacement of the better carpet, considering increased costs and time implications. The priority should be balancing quality assurance with schedule adherence.

The third concern pertains to Sheba’s Office Equipment, which has identified a typographical error in the contract: it states that Sheba shall be paid $350,000, a figure which significantly exceeds the actual cost for the equipment, estimated around $40,000. Sheba is unwilling to ship the equipment until the full $350,000 payment is made. As the project manager, the immediate step involves formal communication with Sheba to clarify the contractual typo, verify the correct payment amount, and negotiate payment terms aligned with the actual equipment costs. A prudent action is to agree on a partial payment or escrow arrangement to facilitate delivery while resolving the discrepancy. Given budget constraints and the importance of timely equipment delivery, arranging for the shipment based on the actual market cost ($40,000) would be advisable. Additionally, reviewing the contract terms with legal counsel to amend the typo and prevent recurrence in future contracts is essential. This approach balances contractual obligations, project schedule, and budget control.

References

• Kerzner, H. (2017). Project Management: A Systems Approach to Planning, Scheduling, and Controlling. Wiley.
• PMI. (2017). A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide). Project Management Institute.
• Meredith, J. R., & Mantel, S. J. (2014). Project Management: A Managerial Approach. Wiley.
• Schwalbe, K. (2018). Information Technology Project Management. Cengage Learning.
• Heldman, K. (2018). Project Management JumpStart. Wiley.
• Harrison, F., & Lock, D. (2017). Advanced Project Management: A Structured Approach. Gower Publishing.
• Heagney, J. (2016). Fundamentals of Project Management. AMACOM.
• Leach, L. P. (2014). Critical Chain Project Management. Artech House.
• Gray, C. F., & Larson, E. W. (2017). Project Management: The Managerial Process. McGraw-Hill Education.
• Atkinson, R. (2019). Effective Project Management. Routledge.