Pert Mustang Case Study Operations 350 ✓ Solved

pert Mustang Case Studypert Mustang Case Studyops 350pert Mustang Cas

The study of the Pert Mustang Case is prepared for Vicky Roberts, the owner of Robert Auto Sales and Services (RASAS). This study will show how a 1965 Shelby mustang GT 350 can be restored to as near mint condition as possible, within 45 days or less and the remaining allotted budget of $20,000.00. This case study will show that not only is it feasible to achieve this type of restoration, but it will support Vicky Roberts’ interest in expanding her business to include vintage car restoration.

The first order of business for this project is to chronologically prioritize 22 activities, that were needed to complete the Mustang’s restoration. These activities will be listed in alphabetic form from A to V. For this case study, the Mustang will be referred to as Shelby. Vicky Roberts acquired the unrestored Shelby for $50,000.00. There is an expectation to complete the restoration of Shelby within 45 days, therefore a table was formed to highlight the priority activities and the correlating activity that preceded and/or proceeded. The other matter that was considered with the activity being executed was the cost associated with the task.

The competitive priorities such as cost, quality, customer service, and flexibility and the effect it will have on RASAS will be later discussed in this case study. This case study will support Roberts’ request to support her restoration campaign by providing the analytical data that maps out the scope of the restoration project while not surpassing her approved budget of $20,000.00 for the 22 required activities to restore Shelby to mint condition. The work breakdown structure will guide this project and assess risks or needs for crashing to accommodate the restoration of the Shelby to be ready for exhibition in the Detroit Auto Show.

Through the use of the program evaluation and review technique (PERT) and the critical path method (CPM), the project manager has defined the core tasks listed in the below table and their correlating to timing and cost. The project manager will monitor the progress of the activities and associated costs and measure the key performance indicators to predict slack for each activity.

Project Activities Table

  • Activity A: None, 2 days, $100
  • Activity B: Predecessor A, 30 days, $2,100
  • Activity C: Predecessor A, 10 days, $800
  • Activity D: Predecessor A, 7 days, $1,750
  • Activity E: None, 1 day, $200
  • Activity F: Predecessor E, 1 day, $300
  • Activity G: Predecessor F, 4 days, $1,000
  • Activity H: Predecessor F, 6 days, $1,500
  • Activity I: Predecessor F, 1 day, $200
  • Activity J: Predecessor I, 3 days, $900
  • Activity K: Predecessor I, 5 days, $1,000
  • Activity L: Predecessors D, I, 1 day, $200
  • Activity M: Predecessor E, 3 days, $210
  • Activity N: Predecessors K, L, 1 day, $200
  • Activity O: Predecessors H, J, 1 day, $240
  • Activity P: Predecessors N, O, 4 days, $2,000
  • Activity Q: Predecessor C, 1 day, $100
  • Activity R: Predecessors G, P, 1 day, $100
  • Activity S: Predecessors Q, R, 4 days, $1,700
  • Activity T: Predecessors B, S, 7 days, $2,400
  • Activity U: Predecessors M, S, 1 day, $100
  • Activity V: Predecessors T, U, 2 days, $1,000

The total estimated cost of project activities is $18,100.00. Based on the project activity chart, the restoration can be completed within the 45-day window and the budget of $20,000.00. The critical path was established and can be reviewed in the network diagram showing both start and finish times and activity slack.

The critical path begins with activity A, ensuring all orders are placed, and activities B, T, and V have an estimated slack of zero days, indicating no margin for error that may derail the project’s timeline. The project can be completed in 41 days, which is four days sooner than the deadline. This optimistic schedule ensures sufficient time for detail-oriented work, procurement, and potential unforeseen delays.

Regarding the project's competitive priorities—cost, quality, customer service, and flexibility—the data suggests that maintaining a tight control over costs is feasible without compromising quality. While vintage parts can be more expensive to source, establishing reliable supply channels can optimize costs and timeline. Once part suppliers are engaged, future projects may benefit from reduced lead times and price variability. The weekly budgeted cost is maintained at or below $3,600, aligning with the overall budget constraints.

Part substitution strategies may be employed if premium parts prove cost-prohibitive, allowing the project to deliver a near-mint condition vehicle within budget. Flexibility remains paramount—customization options, client preferences, and budget variations must be accommodated. This aligns with customer-centric philosophy, ensuring high customer satisfaction and reinforcing RASAS's reputation as a provider of high-quality vintage restorations.

Achieving the project objectives governed by strict timelines and budgets will assist Roberts in expanding her business. The successful restoration of Shelby positions RASAS as a specialty provider capable of delivering top-tier vintage car restorations. Adequate staffing, leadership, and project management based on PERT and CPM methodologies are essential for successful execution. These methods allow for precise planning, risk management, and schedule control, critical for complex projects such as vintage vehicle restoration.

In conclusion, the case demonstrates that a carefully managed project encompassing detailed activity sequencing, cost management, and schedule control can restore a high-value classic vehicle within both budget and timeframe constraints. This not only aids in achieving immediate business goals but also paves the way for future expansion and reputation enhancement in the niche vintage car restoration market.

References

  • Krajewski, L. J., Malhotra, M. K., & Ritzman, L. P. (2016). Operations management: Processes and supply chain (11th ed.). Pearson.
  • projectmanagement.com. (2020). Critical Path Method (CPM) Overview. Retrieved from https://www.projectmanagement.com
  • Kerzner, H. (2017). Project management: A systems approach to planning, scheduling, and controlling. John Wiley & Sons.
  • Liberman, J., & Shtub, A. (2005). Project management: A practical guide for engineers and students. CRC Press.
  • Meredith, J. R., & Shafer, S. M. (2019). Operations management for MBAs. John Wiley & Sons.
  • PMI. (2017). A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide). Project Management Institute.
  • Shtub, A., Bard, J. F., & Globerson, S. (2005). Projects, planning, and people: Software tools for project management. CRC Press.
  • Levine, H. (2014). Running projects in government: Budget, schedule, and management controls. Bloomberg Press.
  • Heagney, J. (2016). Fundamentals of project management. AMACOM.
  • Chase, C. W., & Jacobs, F. R. (2019). Operations and supply chain management. McGraw-Hill Education.

Related Assignments