Case of Caprico
Case of Caprico
1.Enable better communication between Group and Corporate management with regard to the progress of major projects.
– Enable Group management to more closely monitor the progress of major projects.
– Provide the capability for Group personel to better manage and control major projects. Specific Objective:
1. Report and Control System:
– For communication of project activity within the Group and between Group and Corporate.
– Initially for high-cost capital projects, then for “critical”, then all others.
2. Procedures Manual:
– Document procedures and policies.
– Preliminary manual available by 30 October 2012 for use in general educational seminars.
3. Computer Support Systems:
– Survey with recommendations to establish the need for and value of computer support.
4. General Educational Package
– Provide basic project planning and control skills to personnel directly involved in project management, to be conducted by an academic authority in field. – Technical seminars in construction, engineering, contract administration and financial aspects of project management.
Question 2: Was the project successful? Why or why not?
The “Project Evaluation and Management of Projects” system (also called as AGP system) was successful. The project implementation went relatively smoothly, thanks to the ongoing consultation with the engineering managers at every step, and the regular reviews by the corporate steering committee. The roll out of AGP began with three smaller subsidiaries, and six months later the four large subsidiaries adopted it with minor changes. Overall, the corporate reaction has been positive. A number of small projects have gone through the whole sequence, and although one had a serious time overrun, in general, performance was better than on projects managed using the old systems. Early indications are that projects are much more in tune with the needs of external market.
The AGP project has used the Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) to show how the tasks relate to each other through the connections between the lines. By using WBS, corporate can identify all the tasks and the exact scope of the project work. Form this information is it possible to carry out a preliminary estimate of the costs of doing the project. It also allows the sequence of the project is understood, especially how tasks interrelate to each other and where tasks can run in parallel. The project control system, accountability, and milestones have been identified detail and clearly
Question 3: What was wrong with the previous focus on cost-benefit? Does the AGP system still include a cost-benefit analysis?
The previous systems have some mistakes. Traditionally the way most engineering projects had been appraised had been on the basis of a cost-benefit analysis. It means that the investment was expected to pay off in purely financial terms. Appraisals did not usually consider the non-financial aims of projects (such as increasing customer satisfaction). There had also been little effort to understand how well projects actually achieved their aims after they were finished. This also led to one project that made the most sense in purely financial term getting approved over one that made much more sense in marketing terms.
There had been occasions when engineering projects went far over budget or a crucial product had been late to market. Therefore, The AGP system has been applied in corporate. The AGP system still include a cost-benefit analysis because it still not evaluate the project usually on non-financial terms such as improved corporate reputation and higher customer satisfaction. AGP systems has used Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) to establish project costs and allocate task network within corporate. Although The AGP system still include a cost-benefit analysis, it was better than on projects managed using the old systems. In general, The AGP advantages are much more in tune with the needs of the external market.