Rassy and the team were concerned with the results of your analysis. They spent
the afternoon brainstorming alternative ways for shortening the project duration.
They rejected outsourcing activities because most of the work was developmental
in nature and could only be done in-house. They considered altering the scope of
the project by eliminating some of the proposed product features. After much debate,
they felt they could not compromise any of the core features and be successful
in the marketplace. They then turned their attention to accelerating the
completion of activities through overtime and adding additional technical manpower.
Rassy had built into her proposal a discretionary fund of $200,000. She
was willing to invest up to half of this fund to accelerate the project, but wanted
to hold onto at least $100,000 to deal with unexpected problems. After a lengthy
discussion, her team concluded that the following activities could be reduced at
the specified cost:
• Development of voice recognition system could be reduced from 15 days to
10 days at a cost of $15,000.
• Creation of database could be reduced from 40 days to 35 days at a cost of
$35,000.
• Document design could be reduced from 35 days to 30 days at a cost of $25,000.
• External specifications could be reduced from 18 days to 12 days at a cost of
$20,000.
• Procure prototype components could be reduced from 20 days to 15 days at a
cost of $30,000.
• Order stock parts could be reduced from 15 days to 10 days at a cost of $20,000.
Ken Clark, a development engineer, pointed out that the network contained
only finish-to-start relationships and that it might be possible to reduce project
duration by creating start-to-start lags. For example, he said that his people
would not have to wait for all of the field tests to be completed to begin making
final adjustments in the design. They could start making adjustments after the
first 15 days of testing. The project team spent the remainder of the day analyzing
how they could introduce lags into the network to hopefully shorten the project.
They concluded that the following finish-to-start relationships could be converted
into lags:
• Document design could begin 5 days after the start of the review design.
• Adjust design could begin 15 days after the start of field test prototypes.
Order stock parts could begin 5 days after the start of adjust design.
• Order custom parts could begin 5 days after the start of adjust design.
• Training sales representatives could begin 5 days after the start of test unit and
completed 5 days after the production of 30 units.
As the meeting adjourns, Rassy turns to you and tells you to assess the options
presented and try to develop a schedule that will meet the October 25th deadline.
You are to prepare a report to be presented to the project team that answers the
following questions:
1. Is it possible to meet the deadline?
2. If so, how would you recommend changing the original schedule (Part A) and
why? Assess the relative impact of crashing activities versus introducing lags to
shorten project duration.
3. What would the new schedule look like?
4. What other factors should be considered before finalizing the schedule?
