Marketing Vice President Roger Smith Says: “I Am T

Marketing Vice President Roger Smith angrily states: “I am the customer”

XYZ Company's Customer Relations Management (CRM) Project Six months ago, the Executive Committee of XYZ Company decided to implement a CRM system to enhance operational integration between its sales, marketing, and order fulfillment units. The goal was to improve communication, provide comprehensive customer insights, and streamline processes that had historically operated independently. Responsibility for deploying this system was delegated to the IT department, with Steve McMahon appointed as the project lead. An external contractor, Computer Software Solution, Inc., was contracted to develop and implement the CRM as per a defined Statement of Work (SOW).

Initially, the project evaluation indicated satisfactory progress. However, challenges emerged when the Vice President of Marketing and Sales, Roger Smith, expressed dissatisfaction with the delivered product, emphasizing that it lacked sufficient focus on customer profiling necessary for effective market research. During subsequent communications, Mr. Smith explicitly instructed the contractor to modify the CRM features to include customer profiling functionalities, which he deemed critical for his unit’s strategic goals.

This situation raises several issues: the validity of Mr. Smith’s assertion that “I am the customer,” the contractor's obligation to follow customer requests, and how unforeseen demands should be managed through structured change control processes. Additionally, understanding the potential consequences of accommodating such a request is vital for project success and organizational coherence.

Paper For Above instruction

The assertion by Mr. Smith that “I am the customer” underscores a common expectation within project management, particularly in client-vendor relationships, that the customer’s needs and preferences should be prioritized. While this perspective emphasizes the importance of customer satisfaction and alignment with user requirements, it warrants critical examination within the scope of project governance, contractual obligations, and practical feasibility.

Merits of Mr. Smith’s assertion lie in the recognition that stakeholders, especially those representing the end-user departments like marketing and sales, possess valuable insights into what functionalities are necessary for the CRM to deliver its intended strategic benefits. In this case, Mr. Smith believes that the CRM should be a robust tool for customer profiling, facilitating market research and targeted marketing efforts. His insistence reflects a view that the end-user’s perspectives are crucial for project relevance and effectiveness. Moreover, in many project management frameworks such as Agile or stakeholder-centered approaches, the active involvement and satisfaction of key users are essential success criteria; thus, positioning the customer’s authority as paramount can be justified.

However, the extent to which Mr. Smith’s demand should be fulfilled hinges on several factors. First, the contractual terms between the organization and the contractor specify the scope, deliverables, and change management procedures. If the initial contract or Statement of Work did not explicitly include customer profiling as a feature, then the request constitutes a scope change requiring formal approval. Second, accommodating the change mid-project could impact timelines, budgets, and quality, potentially leading to overruns and delays, which must be carefully managed.

Contractors, especially those following professional standards, are generally obliged to deliver according to the agreed scope and specifications. Any deviation or addition typically necessitates a formal change order, approved by project governance structures, such as the steering committee. This ensures that modifications are systematically evaluated, resources are allocated appropriately, and unintended negative effects are minimized. Unilateral demands like Mr. Smith’s bypass established procedures, risking scope creep, quality issues, and compromised project control.

Francis Gray, the contractor’s project manager, should handle the unexpected request by advocating for adherence to formal change control processes. Instead of accepting the demand outright, Francis should explain the implications of the requested change, including the need for additional time, resources, and possible impact on overall project quality. He should request that Mr. Smith formally submit the change request in writing, specifying the desired features and justifications. Subsequently, this request should be reviewed by the steering committee, which can assess its validity against project constraints, strategic priorities, and contractual obligations.

Effective change control procedures serve as critical tools for managing such situations. They provide a structured framework for evaluating proposed changes, balancing stakeholder needs with project constraints. Proper procedures ensure that all changes are documented, impact analyses are conducted, and approval is obtained before implementation. This process not only helps prevent scope creep but also maintains transparency and accountability, ultimately contributing to project success.

If Francis acquiesces to Mr. Smith’s demands without following these procedures, several negative consequences could ensue. These include scope creep resulting in schedule delays, budget overruns, and resource reallocations. Additionally, rushed or unsystematic changes may compromise the quality or integrity of the CRM system, reducing its effectiveness. Such ad hoc modifications may also set a precedent for future demands, undermining formal governance and eroding project control. Furthermore, accommodating unapproved changes can diminish stakeholder confidence in the project management process and erode trust between the contractor, the client organization, and internal units.

In conclusion, while Mr. Smith’s assertion emphasizes the vital role of end-user input and stakeholder satisfaction, it should not override formal project management protocols. The contractor’s obligation is to deliver within the scope defined by the contract and to follow agreed-upon change management processes. Handling unexpected requests with structured procedures ensures that decisions are made transparently, risks are managed effectively, and project objectives are ultimately achieved. Recognizing that “the customer,” especially in a complex project environment, encompasses multiple stakeholders, including strategic and operational units, can help organizations balance stakeholder demands with project governance principles.

References

• Project Management Institute. (2017). A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide). 6th Edition. PMI.
• Kerzner, H. (2013). Project Management: A Systems Approach to Planning, Scheduling, and Controlling. Wiley.
• Schwalbe, K. (2018). Information Technology Project Management. Cengage Learning.
• PMI Talent Triangle. (2020). Effective Change Management. Project Management Institute.
• Highsmith, J. (2002). Agile Software Development Ecosystems. Addison-Wesley.
• Burke, R. (2013). Project Management: Planning and Control Techniques. Wiley.
• PMI. (2021). The Standard for Program Management. PMI Press.
• Lehtonen, P., & Martinsuo, M. (2009). Managing project scope and change. International Journal of Project Management, 27(4), 346-356.
• Meredith, J. R., & Shafer, S. M. (2013). Operations Management for MBAs. Wiley.
• Westland, J. (2017). The Project Management Life Cycle. Routledge.