Introduction
Project implementation is often characterised by several challenges that cause delays in the realisation of set timelines and cost overruns. Kaulio (2018) says the lack of proper collaboration among stakeholders and resistance to change are leading causes of these adverse outcomes. Consequently, it is important to manage project variables to ensure desired objectives are achieved. However, it is difficult to carry out this task theoretically because of the difficulty in accounting for all variables that affect a project.
Carter (2019) refers to this challenge as the “black box” of project management because of the struggle to predict the effects of all variables in project management. However, the Harvard digital project simulation offered a unique opportunity to understand barriers to project implementation and self-assess to complete project tasks.
Prototyping project activities in the simulation plan stood out for me because of its close semblance to the real-world work environment. Relative to this statement, Law (2019) says this type of simulation is useful in implementing project plans. Indeed, the simulation felt as if it was real, to the extent that I drew several similarities between online and offline project experiences. Consequently, the exercise made it easier for me to identify project challenges and address them effectively.
Huemann, Ringhofer and Keegan (2019) suggest that this kind of exposure could lead to the development of project careers because multiple simulations exposes a person to several work-based experiences that improve the proficiency of managing implementation issues. Key concerns that emerged in the simulation focused on human resource issues, changes in project schedules and cost overruns. They are discussed below.
Key Project Issues in Different Scenarios
Projects are often characterised by several challenges. However, each one of them is unique to a particular case or context of implementation. To this extent of analysis, the digital simulation program helped me to identify three key challenges in project management that affect the overall process: human resource challenges, project costing and scheduling.
Human Resource Challenges
In week 1 of scenario A, there were no coaching or stand-up sessions, but week two accommodated one stand-up session. In the fourth week, there were three coaching sessions, while week 6 had one stand-up session. I gradually stopped stand-up and coaching sessions by the end of the project because I believed the team members had understood their tasks.
This strategy aligns with the recommendations of Law (2019), Nijhuis, Vrijhoef and Kessels, (2018), which highlight the importance of educating team members about the complexity of projects. To do so, I selected partners who had a medium skill level and did not support an outsourcing strategy. The target date for completing the project was consistent throughout the period under analysis (200/200). However, team members had a moderate level of stress, which affected their morale.
In scenario B, management expected to launch a new printer before the competitors. In week 1, I started work on the project with a team size of three people who worked until week 6, when I was left with one person. However, I revisited this decision in week 9 after and increased the team size to four people. The high-speed target scope of the project and the need to obtain quality input, as proposed by Alami, Bouksour and Beidouri (2015), justified this decision.
Two coaching sessions were completed in week 4 but the sessions increased to four after the expansion of team size and number of tasks completed per person (3.17). Collectively, in scenario B, I encountered several human resource management issues, which led to a typical level of stress among team members.
In scenario C, outsourcing was extensive and team skills were medium. During the first and second weeks of operation, there was no coaching or stand-up sessions offered but upon realising the team was not ready to undertake additional tasks, I offered three coaching sessions from the third week until completion of the project. Team stress levels were typical but morale levels were relatively high (89/100).
I encountered similar human resource challenges in scenario D, which led to severe stress among team members and low morale. Comparatively, in week 1 of scenario D, I had no coaching or stand-up sessions. However, after the second week, I increased the number of coaching activities to four per week. Gradually, from the 12th to 15th week, I also reduced the number of coaching sessions to “0” and increased the team size from four to five during the 9th to 15th week to make up for human resource gaps.
In scenario E, I participated in four coaching sessions within the first and last three weeks to acquaint new employees with the requisite skills needed in project management and to improve product development processes. Although team members were relatively stressed, they had high morale. With a team size of three people and medium-high skill level, outsourcing was extensively practised throughout all stages of project execution.
Lastly, in scenario F, the team size comprised of four people with high levels of skills, while the outsourcing rating was extensive. Team members disagreed on the justification for assigning resources to the adoption of new and untested technology on the printer. Furthermore, other departmental heads were resource-starved. Therefore, it was imperative to show the merits of the chosen decision. Nevertheless, I developed a happy team that had high morale. Furthermore, I minimised the potential for human resource problems occurring by maintaining project schedules. Therefore, none of the employees left because I completed the project with the same number of people as I started with.
The team had a manageable workload because each member completed 0.7 tasks. Each one of them also worked for about 44 hours per week. No problems emerged in the course of the project development process and the weekly cost was $4,725. Comparatively, the team process rating was 78/100, meaning that there were some team-building issues. Coupled with a high level of stress, the team also exhibited low levels of morale, which Rispens, Jehn and Steinel (2020) attribute to weak management styles.
Project Costs
In scenario A, I completed the wireless product meeting, as set out by the management and got a score of 200/200. After completing the task in week 18, I reduced the team size to three people to keep project costs low. The reduction in team size happened after week 6. However, this strategy failed to work because project costs increased to $59,000 against management’s target of $42,500. Consequently, as highlighted in figure 1 below, the project was over budget and behind schedule.
In scenario C, I completed the project after suffering a cost overrun because I incurred $54,338 in project overheads against the management’s target of $40,700. There was a similar cost overrun in scenario D because the total cost for the project was $53,275 while the management’s target was $40,000. The same situation replicated itself in scenario E where the targeted amount of $40,000 was surpassed because the total cost incurred was $51,975.
In this case, the product launch was over-budget and behind schedule. However, from the 12th week of scenario F, I met management’s targets and completed the project under budget. The multifunction product meeting was also undertaken according to management’s expectations with a project scope rating of 300/300. This score means that I surpassed expectations and that the results were consistent throughout the project.
Thereafter, I successfully minimised project costs because the total overhead was $57,015, while management had set a target of $57,500. In this regard, I exceeded the goal by 1/200, as reported in the project resource rating score.
Scheduling
In two scenarios, management reduced the schedule for completing the project, thereby creating an urgent need to revamp manufacturing and marketing activities to pre-empt a similar product announcement by the competitor. Due to this change, I was unable to meet the deadline for the completion of the high-speed product launch because I delivered it in week 18 and opposed to week 17, which was the management’s target. Figure 2 below highlights the impact of this problem on the project’s cost structure and schedule.
In the first week of scenario C, I started the project with a team size of three people. I increased it to four during week six and later to five on the 7th week because management reduced the project timeline, as it aimed to outdo the competition. Gnyawali and Charleton (2018) refer to this strategy as a hallmark of innovation when rivals try to outdo one another through technological developments.
Nonetheless, the changes made by management to the project schedule were responsible for the delayed delivery of the product in scenario C because It was availed in week 17, while management expected this to happen on the 12th week (project schedule rating – 214/250).
In scenario D, I was supposed to deliver the project on the 15th week, but, as highlighted in figure 3 below, I was behind schedule as it was submitted on the 15th week. In the first week of scenario E, I started the project with a team of three people. However, because of limited and scheduled timelines, I expanded the team to four people.
In scenario E, I completed the multifunctional product expectations, as stipulated by management (300/300), but the delivery of the product was behind schedule because it was supposed to be delivered on week 12 but I did so on week 15 (118/125). With a team size of four people who have extensive outsourcing capabilities in scenario F, I hosted stand up meetings every fortnight within six weeks. My goal was to complete the task ahead of schedule but this was not possible as I was behind schedule.
Personal Reflection
Participating in the project simulation exercise was enlightening because I determined project outcomes without necessarily taking part in the real-world implementation of the project plan. Particularly, the ability to vary environmental conditions and investigate project outcomes through the digital simulation emerged as one of the key benefits of the learning process because I could determine the impact of variations of internal and external inputs on project outcomes. I conducted this analysis in terms of the number of employees and training opportunities provided through coaching and stand-up exercises.
Particularly, human resource challenges emerged as top reasons for missed deadlines and budget overruns across the multiple scenarios analysed. This observation is in line with the findings of Claus (2019) and Akkermans et al. (2020), which mention the potential impact of human resource challenges on project outcomes.
Lastly, the ability to slow down the simulation process and study the outcomes more keenly was a unique feature I found appealing to the simulation process. However, as has been demonstrated through cost structure analysis, it was difficult to account for the financial impact of all variables on project outcomes. This is why most of the scenarios analysed were characterised by cost overruns.
Consequently, a comprehensive simulation process should happen when project leaders have a proper understanding of what is needed to implement independent tasks and are aware of all factors pertinent to the process. The failure to account for these variables would lead to project failures and missed deadlines and milestones.
Conclusion
The project management exercise highlighted in this study helped in explaining the effects of multiple variables on project management outcomes in a controlled setting. The exercise is useful in designing future project management plans because some of the most pressing challenges are already highlighted in this paper. Therefore, better plans can be made.
Furthermore, through this simulated experience, I can also determine the correctness and efficiency of a project model without operationalizing it. Overall, the simulated experience was eye opening because of its potential to improve managerial competencies in project management.
Reference List
Akkermans, J. et al. (2020) ‘Bridging the fields of careers and project management’, Project Management Journal, 51(2), pp. 123-134.
Alami, O. M., Bouksour, O. and Beidouri, Z. (2015) ‘An intelligent project management maturity model for Moroccan engineering companies’, Vikalpa, 40(2), pp. 191-208.
Carter, P. (2019) ‘Time tactics: project managing policy implementation in a network’, Time & Society, 28(2), pp. 721-742.
Claus, L. (2019) ‘HR disruption-time already to reinvent talent management’, BRQ Business Research Quarterly, 22(3), pp. 207-215.
Gnyawali, D. R. and Ryan Charleton, T. (2018) ‘Nuances in the interplay of competition and cooperation: towards a theory of coopetition’, Journal of Management, 44(7), pp. 2511-2534.
Huemann, M., Ringhofer, C. and Keegan, A. (2019) ‘Who supports project careers? Leveraging the compensatory roles of line managers, Project Management Journal, 50(4), pp. 476-486.
Kaulio, M. A. (2018) ‘A psychological contract perspective on project networks’, Project Management Journal, 49(4), pp. 81-88.
Law, K. M. (2019) ‘Teaching project management using project-action learning (PAL) games: a case involving engineering management students in Hong Kong’, International Journal of Engineering Business Management, 11(2), pp. 1-10.
Nijhuis, S., Vrijhoef, R. and Kessels, J. (2018) ‘Tackling project management competence research’, Project Management Journal, 49(3), pp. 62-81.
Rispens, S., Jehn, K. A. and Steinel, W. (2020) ‘Conflict management style asymmetry in short-term project groups’, Small Group Research, 6(2), pp. 1-10.