Group Assignment I.

Case Analysis

Case 01: Disaster Recovery at Marshall Field’s (Another Chicago River Story)

Early in the morning on April 13, 1992, basements in Chicago’s downtown central business district began
to flood. A hole the size of an automobile had developed between the river and an adjacent abandoned
tunnel. The tunnel, built in the early 1900s for transporting coal, runs throughout the downtown area.
When the tunnel flooded, so did the basements connected to it, some 272 in all, including that of major
retailer Marshall Field’s.

The problem was first noted at 5:30 a.m. by a member of the Marshall Field’s trouble desk who saw
water pouring into the basement. The manager of maintenance was notified and immediately took
charge. His first actions were to contact the Chicago Fire and Water Departments, and Marshall Field’s
parent company, Dayton Hudson in Minneapolis. Electricity—and with it all elevator, computer,
communication, and security services for the 15-storybuilding—would soon be lost. The building was
evacuated and elevators were moved above basement levels. A command post was quickly established
and a team formed from various departments such as facilities, security, human resources, public
relations, and financial, legal, insurance, and support services. Later that day, members of Dayton
Hudson’s risk management group arrived from Minneapolis to take over coordinating the team’s efforts.
The team initially met twice a week to evaluate progress and make decisions and was slowly disbanded
as the store recovered. The goal of the team was to ensure the safety of employees and customers,
minimize flood damage, and resume normal operations as soon as possible. The team hoped to open
the store to customers 1 week after the flood began.

An attempt was made to pump out the water; however, as long as the tunnel hole remained unrepaired,
the Chicago River continued to pour into the basements. Thus, the basements remained flooded until
the tunnel was sealed and the Army Corps of Engineers could give approval to start pumping. Everything
in the second-level basement was a loss, including equipment for security, heating, ventilation, air-
conditioning, fire sprinkling, and mechanical services. Most merchandise in the first-level basement
stockrooms also was lost.

Electricians worked around the clock to install emergency generators and restore lighting and elevator
service. Additional security officers were hired. An emergency pumping system and new piping to the
water sprinkling tank were installed so the sprinkler system could be reactivated. Measures were taken
to monitor ventilation and air quality, and dehumidifiers and fans were installed to improve air quality.
Within the week, inspectors from the City of Chicago and OSHA gave approval to reopen the store.

During this time, engineers had repaired the hole in the tunnel. After water was a drained fromthe
Marshall Field’s basement, damaged merchandise was removed and sold to a salvager. The second
basement had to be gutted to assure removal of contaminants. Salvageable machinery had to be
disassembled and sanitized.
The extent of the damage was assessed and insurance claims filed. A construction company was hired to
manage restoration of the damaged areas. Throughout the ordeal, the public relations departmentdealt
with the media, being candid yet showingconfidence in the recovery effort. Customer’s had to be
assured that the store was safe and employees kept apprised of the recovery effort.

This case illustrates crisis management, an important aspect of which is having a team that moves fast to
minimize losses and quickly recover damages. At the beginning of a disaster there is little time to plan,
though companies and public agencies often have crisis guidelines for responding to emergency
situations. Afterwards they then develop more specific, detailed plans to guide longer-term recovery
efforts.

QUESTIONS

1. In what ways are the Marshall Field’s flood disaster recovery effort a project?

Why are large-scale disaster response and recovery efforts projects?

2. In what ways do the characteristics of crisis management as described in this case correspond to
those of project management?

3. Who was (were) the project manager(s) and what was his or her (their) responsibility?

Who was assigned to the project team and why were they on the team?

4. Comment on the appropriateness of using project management for managing disaster recovery
efforts such as this.
Project Management and Analysis (MBA 529)

Group Assignment I. Case Analysis (Group 2)

Case 02: Flexible Benefits System Implementation at Quick Medical Center

The management committee of Quick Medical Center wanted to reduce the cost and improve the value
and service of its employee benefits coverage. To accomplish this it decided to procure and implement a
new benefits system. The new system would have to meet four goals: improved responsiveness to
employee needs, added benefits flexibility, better cost management, and greater coordination of human
resource objectives with business strategies. A multifunctional team of 13 members was formed by
selecting representatives of departments at Quick that would rely most on the new system—Human
Resources (HR), Financial Systems (FS), and Information Services (IS). Representation from each
department was important to assuring all departmental needs would be met. The team also included six
technical experts from the software consulting firm of Hun and Bar Software (HBS).

Early in the project a workshop was held with team members from Quick and HBS to clarify and finalize
project objectives and develop a project plan, milestones, and schedules. Project completion was set at
10 months. In that time HBS had to develop and supply all hardware and software for the new system;
the system had to be brought on-line, tested, and approved; HR workers had to be trained how to
operate the system and load existing employee data; all Quick employees had to be educated about and
enrolled in the new benefits process; and the enrollment data had to be entered in the system.

The director of FS was chosen to oversee the project. She had a technical background and, prior to
serving as director, had worked in the IS group where she assisted in implementing Quick’s patient care
information system. Everyone on the team approved of her appointment as project leader, and many
team members had worked with her previously. Two team leaders were also selected, one each from
HR and IS. The HR leader’s task was to ensure that the new system met HR requirements and the needs
of Quick employees, and the IS leader’s task was to ensure that the new software interfaced with other
Quick systems.

Members of the Quick team were committed to the project on a part-time basis. Roughly 50 percent of
the time they worked on the project; the rest of the time they performed their normal daily duties. The
project manager and team leaders also worked on the project part-time. When conflicts arose, the
project took priority. Given specific performance requirements and time deadlines, the Quick top
management committee made it clear that successful project completion was imperative. The project
manager was given authority over functional managers and project team members regarding all project
related decisions.
QUESTIONS

1. What form of project management (basic, program, and so on) does this case most closely resemble?

2. The project manager is also the director of FS, only one of the departments that will be affected by
the new benefits system. Does this seem like a good idea? What are the pros and cons of her selection?

3. Comment on the team members’ part-time assignment to the project and the expectation that they
give the project top priority.

4. Much of the success of this project depends on the performance of team members who are not
employed by Quick, namely the HBS consultants. They must develop the entire hardware/software
benefits system. Why was an outside firm likely chosen for such an important part of the project? What
difficulties might this pose to the project manager in meeting project goals?
Project Management and Analysis (MBA 529)

Group Assignment I. Case Analysis (Group 3)

Case 03: Glades County Sanitary District

Glades County is a region on the Gulf Coast with a population of 600,000. About 90 percent of the
population is located in and near the city of Sitkus. The main attractions of the area are its clean, sandy
beaches and nearby fishing. Resorts, restaurants, hotels, retailers, and the Sitkus/Glades County
economy in general rely on these attractions for tourist dollars.

In the last decade, Glades County has experienced a near doubling of population and industry. One
result has been the noticeable increase in the level of water pollution along the coast due primarily to
the increased raw sewage dumped by Glades County into the Gulf. Ordinarily, the Glades County sewer
system directs effluent waste through filtration plants before pumping it into the Gulf. Although the
Glades County Sanitary District (GCSD) usually is able to handle the county’s sewage, during heavy rains
the runoff from paved surfaces exceeds sewer capacity and must be diverted past filtration plants,
directly into the Gulf. Following heavy rains, the beaches are cluttered with dead fish and debris. The

Gulf fishing trade also is affected; pollution drives away desirable fish. Recently, the water pollution level
has become high enough to damage both the tourist and fishing trade. Besides coastal pollution, there is
also concern that as the population continues to increase, the county’s primary fresh water source,
Glades River, will also become polluted.

The GCSD has been mandated to prepare a comprehensive water waste management program that will
reverse the trend in pollution along the Gulf Coast as well as handle the expected increase in effluent
wastes over the next 20 years. Although not yet specified, it is known that the program will include new
sewers, filtration plants, and stricter anti-pollution laws. As a first step, GCSD must establish the overall
direction and mission of the program.

Wherever possible, answer the following questions (given the limited information, it is okay to advance
some logical guesses; if you are not able to answer a question for lack of information, indicate how and
where, as a systems analyst, you would get it):

QUESTIONS

1. What is the system? What are its key elements and subsystems? What are the boundaries and how
are they determined? What is the environment?

2. Who are the decision makers?

3. What is the problem? Carefully formulate it.

4. Define the overall objective of the water waste management program. Because the program is wide-
ranging in scope, you should break this down into several sub objectives.
5. Define the criteria or measures of performance to be used to determine whether the objectives of the
program are being met. Specify several criteria for each sub objective. As much as possible, the criteria
should be quantitative, although some qualitative measures should also be included. How will you know
if the criteria that you define are the appropriate ones to use?

6. What are the resources and constraints?

7. Elaborate on the kinds of alternatives and range of solutions to solve the problem.

8. Discuss some techniques that could be used to help evaluate which alternatives are best.
Project Management and Analysis (MBA 529)

Group Assignment I. Case Analysis (Group 4)

Case 04:Pinhole Camera and Optics, Inc.

Semira Nesro is the newly appointed vice president of strategy for Pinhole Camera and Optics, Inc.
(motto: “See the World through a Pinhole”), a medium-sized, privately owned, manufacturing firm. The
company, now 17 years old, had experienced, up until 3 years ago, rapid growth through developing
new products and optical manufacturing processes. Semira believes that in recent years the company’s
market position has slipped because Pinhole has been unable to react quickly enough to changing
market requirements and increasing competition. The company is divided into the traditional functional
departments of research, marketing, sales, production, and so on. New product development projects
are managed by handing off responsibility between managers of the departments. Semira believes this
is the greatest contributor to Pinhole’s inability to identify and respond to market opportunities, and she
would like to create a new position, manager of new products, for the purpose of integrating
departments during product development projects.

The owner of the company, Mr. MahirKarim, disagrees. He contends that the managers of the functional
departments, most who have been with the company since its start, are excellent managers, really know
their business, and usually are able to work together. He feels there is no need to create the position,
although he wonders where such a person would come from. Mr. Mahir instead suggests that for each
new project one of the current department managers should be picked to coordinate the efforts of all
the departments. The manager would be selected from the department that has the biggest role in the
project; in other words, according to whether the project primarily involves research, marketing, or
production.

Semira is convinced that Mr. Mahir’s idea won’t improve the situation. She decides to prepare a formal
written proposal that will address the pros and cons of Mr. Mahir’s suggestions and persuade him that
the new position manager of new products must be filled by someone other than a functional
department manager. She also wants to describe how Mahir’s new development projects could be
better organized and staffed.

QUESTION:

1. If you were Semira, what would you say in the proposal?

2. Describe the company and its vision
3. What is the discrepancy/difference between semira and the company owner mr. Mahir’s idea
Project Management and Analysis (MBA 529)

Group Assignment I. Case Analysis (Group 5)

Case 05: Addis Ababa University Medical Centre

Addis Ababa University Black Lion Hospital is a larger university teaching and research hospital with a
national reputation for excellence in health care practice, education, and research. Always seeking to
sustain that reputation, the senior executive board at the medical faculty decided to install a
comprehensive medical diagnostic system. The system would be linked to the hospital’s computer
servers and be available to physicians via the computer network. Because every physician’s office at the
hospital has a PC, doctors and staff could access the system from these offices as well as from their
homes or private-practice offices. By simply clicking icons to access a medical specialty area, then keying
in answers to queries about a patient’s symptoms, medical history, and so on, a physician could get a list
of diagnostics with associated statistics.

The senior board sent a questionnaire to managers in every department about needs in their areas and
how they felt the system might improve doctor’s performances. Most managers felt it would save the
doctors’ time and improve their performances. The hospital computing and information systems (CIS)
group was assigned to investigate the cost and feasibility of implementing the system. CIS staff
interviewed medical directors and software vendors specializing in diagnostic systems. The study
showed high enthusiasm among the respondents and a long list of potential benefits. Based on the
study report, the senior board approved the system.

One year and several million birr later the project was completed. However, within a year of its
completion it was clear that the system had failed. Although it did everything the consultants and
software vendors had promised, the few doctors that did access it complained that many of the system
“benefits” were irrelevant, and that certain features they desired were lacking.

QUESTIONS

1. Why was the system a failure?

2. What was the likely cause of its lack of use?
3. What steps or procedures were missed or poorly handled in the project conception phase?
Project Management and Analysis (MBA 529)

Group Assignment I. Case Analysis (Group 6)

Case 06: X–philesData Management Corporation

X-philes Data Management Corporation (XDM) requires assistance in two large projects it is about to
undertake: Agent fox and Mulder. Although the projects are comparable in terms of size, technical
requirements, and estimated completion time, they are independent and will have their own project
managers and teams. Work for both projects is to be contracted to outside consultants.

Two managers at XDM, one assigned each to Agent fox and Mulder, prepare RFPs and send them to
several contractors. The RFP for Agent fox includes a statement of work that specifies system
performance and quality requirements, a desired completion deadline, and contract conditions. As an
incentive, the contractor will receive a bonus for exceeding minimal quality measures and completing
the project early, and will be charged a penalty for poor quality and late completion. The project will be
tracked using precise quality measures, and the contractor will have to submit detailed monthly status
reports. The RFP for Mulder simply includes a statement of the type of work to be done, an expected
budget limit, and the desired completion date.

Based on proposals received in response to the RFPs, the managers responsible for Mulder and Agent
fox each select a contractor. Unknown to either manager is that they select the same contractor, Yrisket
Systems. Yrisket is selected for the Mulder project because its specified price is somewhat less than the
budget limit in the RFP, and Yrisket has a good reputation in the business. Yrisket is chosen for the Agent
fox contract for similar reasons—good price and good reputation. In responding to the Agent fox RFP,
Yrisket managers had to work hard to get the price down to the amount specified, but they felt that by
doing quality work on the project they could make a tidy profit through the incentive offered.

A few months after the projects are underway; some of Yrisket’s key employees quit their jobs. Thus, to
meet their commitments to both projects, Yrisket workers have to work long hours and weekends. It is
apparent, however, that these extra efforts might not be enough, especially because Yrisket has a
contract with another customer and will have to start a third project in the near future.

QUESTIONS

1. What do you think will happen?

2. How do you think the crisis facing Yrisket will affect the Mulder project? The Agent fox project?