WK 8_Tony_Managing Unrealistic Project Task

Problem Statement

Sometimes Project owners, management & supervisors place impossible demands on us with regards to certain project deliverables or task. I once had an experience where the cost management committee of a company I worked with demanded that the tendering process that my department (Property) was handling be moved to another department (Admin) that did not have the technical knowhow. Their concern was transparency and integrity. This did not go down well with me as the new department will not know what to do and do not have the required manpower to handle tendering. It will eventually slow down or delay the award of contracts and eventually the number of projects we were able to deliver as that was a KPI for my department. I told the committee their new proposal will not work based on the aforementioned reasons. The committee reacted so badly and verbally threatened my job. How should one handle a situation like this?

Feasible Alternatives/Solutions

1. Tell the committee we will work with the Admin Department on the tendering process

2. Accept the demand with conditions, after studying the situation and its implications

3. Accept the demand as proposed

4. Tell the committee right there that their new proposal would not work

Analysis of the feasible alternatives.

Alternative 1: Property Dept to work with Admin on the tendering process

In this option the property unit will handle technical issues/clarifications while Admin handle invitation to tender, return of same and such non technical work. By so doing property unit will not be doing everything all by themselves. While this is an option it still leaves the property dept in every phase of the process which the cost mgt committee did not want. This approach will take a slightly longer tendering time than when Property dept was solely managing it.

Alternative 2: Accept Demand with conditions

This option involves studying what has been requested to establish the pros and cons and thereafter meeting with the committee with facts and figures. The obvious advantage of this process is that the committee would be able to re-evaluate their proposal based on hard facts. The final proposal will reflect the implications such as longer tendering time and higher cost of tendering. The committee will still feel they are in charge and not see it as an affront to their authority.

Alternative 3: Accept the demand of the committee as proposed

In order to avoid conflict or confrontation accept the demand of the cost management committee and wait for the proposal to fail. The proposal will fail as the Admin Unit does not have the needed technical knowhow and manpower. There was no intention to address these limitations. For Admin to handle tendering they would have to get new staff with the technical capability. That would take time and money. So rather than save cost, they will incur more cost through this process.

Alternative 4: Tell the committee their proposal will not work; maintain status quo

This is premised on the fact that as professionals, we should tell management the truth all the time. Property dept has the professionals who were employed to manage the organizations projects and will thus do a better job than a novice. The tendering process would be faster as the knowhow and adequate resources are in the team. Management would however see it as confrontational and an-willingness to try out a new proposal or embrace change. They will also feel that Property Unit has a hidden agenda and that could be the reason why we want to maintain the status quo, i.e continue to handle the process by ourselves.

Selection Criteria/KPIs

1. Integrity

2. Timely tendering process

3. Meeting Projects Delivery targets

4. Retain good relationship with cost management committee

5. Administrative cost of tendering

Analysis and Comparison of Alternatives

All of the KPIs are equally important and so the comparative analysis will be done using the compensatory model of Nondimensional scaling. This is a popular way to standardize attribute values by converting them to nondimensional form[1].

The selection criteria in relation to the attributes are summarized in table 1 below.

TABLE 1

Attribute Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Integrity & Transparency good good Excellent fair Timely tendering fair poor poor good Meeting projects delivery targets good fair fair good Retain good relationship with CMC good fair good poor Minimizing Administrative cost good poor poor excellent

The basic principle behind all compensatory models, which involve a single dimension, is that the values for all attributes must be converted to a common scale such as dollars or utiles from which it is possible to construct an overall dollar index or utility index for each alternative [2]. A utile is a dimensionless unit of worth [3].

For the attributes in table 1 above higher numerical values are desirable so we use the formula below to convert them to their dimensionless values.

Rating = Outcome being made dimensionless – worst outcome

Best outcome - Worst outcome

TABLE 2: Dimensionless value of attributes

Attribute	Value	Rating Procedure	Dimensionless Value	Alternative
Integrity/transparency	poor	(relative rank* -1)/3	0.00
	fair		0.33	alt 4
	good		0.67	alt 1 & 2
	excellent		1.00	alt 3
Timely tendering	poor	(relative rank* -1)/3	0.00	alt 2 & 3
	fair		0.33	alt 1
	good		0.67	alt 4
	excellent		1.00
Meeting delivery targets	poor	(relative rank* -1)/3	0.00
	fair		0.33	alt 2 & 3
	good		0.67	alt 1 & 4
	excellent		1.00
Relationship with CMC	poor	(relative rank* -1)/3	0.00	alt 4
	fair		0.33	alt 2
	good		0.67	alt 1 & 3
	excellent		1.00
Minimize Administrative cost	poor	(relative rank* -1)/3	0.00	alt 2 & 3
	fair		0.33
	good		0.67	alt 1
	excellent		1.00	alt 4

* Scale of 1 to 4 used, 4 being the best (excellent).

Table 1 expressed in dimensionless values give the results in table 3 below

TABLE 3: Nondimensional Data of Alternatives

Attribute	Alternative 1	Alternative 2	Alternative 3	Alternative 4
Integrity & Transparency	0.67	0.67	1	0.33
Timely tendering	0.33	0	0	0.67
Meeting projects delivery targets	0.67	0.33	0.33	0.67
Retain good relationship with CMC	0.67	0.33	0.67	0
Minimizing Administrative cost	0.67	0	0	1
SUM	3.01	1.33	2	2.67

Selection of Best Alternative

The best alternative is selected using the nondimensional scaling model demonstrated above. In this decision model, the alternative with the highest summed score is the best and in this case it is Alternative 1 which is “Property Unit working with Admin on the tendering process”. That was exactly how it played out in the real life scenario. Property Unit brought their expertise while Admin handle non technical issues. It was no longer one department doing everything and it brought more credibility to the process.

Performance monitoring & Post Evaluation of Results

1. Until I left the organization in question the process worked.

2. It could be improved and sustained by slightly raising the manpower of Admin to more timely respond to this new tendering assignment by direct employment or deployment of a property unit staff to Admin .

References

1. Sullivan, G., Wicks, E., Koelling, C., Engineering Economy 15^th Edition.14.7.1 –Nondimensional scaling

2. Sullivan, G., Wicks, E., Koelling, C., Engineering Economy 15^th Edition.14.7 –Compensatory models

3. Ibid