Reference no: EM133841787

Question

You learned about scoping traditional projects. Compare and contrast scoping activities for traditional and agile projects?

Using the Case Study entitled -Grayson Corporation on page 187 in the Project Management Case Studies - 6th edition-

Using your experience, describe the project management process that can be used to manage the project.

Case study: Greyson CorporationGreyson Corporation was formed in 1970 by three scientists from the University of California. The major purpose of the company was research and development for advanced military weaponry. Following World War II, Greyson became a leader in the field of research and development. By the mid?1980s, Greyson employed over 200 scientists and engineers.

The fact that Greyson handled only research and development (R&D) contracts was advantageous. First of all, all of the scientists and engineers were dedicated to R&D activities; they did not have to share their loyalties with production programs. Second, a strong functional organization was established. The project management function was the responsibility of the functional manager whose department would perform the majority of the work. Working relationships between departments were excellent.
By the late 1980s, Greyson was under new management. Almost all R&D programs called for establishment of qualification and production planning. As a result, Greyson decided to enter into the production of military weapons as well and capture some of the windfall profits of the production market. This required a major reorganization from a functional to a matrix structure. Personnel problems occurred, but none that proved a major catastrophe.

In 1994, Greyson entered into the aerospace market with the acquisition of a subcontract for the propulsion unit of the Hercules missile. The contract was projected at $200 million over a five?year period, with excellent possibilities for follow?on work. Between 1994 and 1998, Greyson developed a competent technical staff composed mainly of young, untested college graduates. The majority of the original employees who were still there were in managerial positions. Greyson never had any layoffs. In addition, Greyson had excellent career development programs for almost all employees.

Between 1997 and 2001, the Department of Defense procurement for new weapons systems was on the decline. Greyson relied heavily on their two major production programs, Hercules and Condor II, both of which gave great promise for continued procurement. Greyson also had some 30hirty smaller R&D contracts as well as two smaller production contracts for hand weapons.

Because R&D money was becoming scarce, Greyson's management decided to phase out many of the R&D activities and replace them with lucrative production contracts. Greyson believed that it could compete with anyone in regard to low?cost production. Under this philosophy, the R&D community was reduced to minimum levels necessary to support in?house activities. The director of engineering froze all hiring except for job shoppers with special talents. All nonessential engineering personnel were transferred to production units.
In 2002, Greyson entered into competition with Cameron Aerospace Corporation for development, qualification, and testing of the Navy's new Neptune missile. The competition was an eight?motor shoot?off during the last 10 months of 2003. Cameron Corporation won the contract owing to technical merit. Greyson Corporation, however, had gained valuable technical information in rocket motor development and testing. The loss of the Neptune Program made it clear to Greyson's management that aerospace technology was changing too fast for Greyson to maintain a passive position. Even though funding was limited, Greyson increased its technical staff and soon found great success in winning R&D contracts.

By 2005, Greyson had developed a solid aerospace business base. Profits had increased by 30 percent. Greyson Corporation expanded from a company with 200 employees in 1994 to 1,800 employees in 2005. The Hercules Program, which began in 1994, was providing yearly follow?on contracts. All indications projected a continuation of the Hercules Program through 2002.

Cameron Corporation, in contrast, had found 2005 a difficult year. The Neptune Program was the only major contract that it maintained. The current production buy for the Neptune missile was scheduled for completion in August 2005 with no follow?on work earlier than January 2006. Cameron Corporation anticipated that overhead rates would increase sharply prior to next buy. The cost per motor would increase from $55,000 to $75,000 for a January procurement, $85,000 for a March procurement, and $125,000 for an August procurement. In February 2005, the Navy asked Greyson Corporation if it would be interested in submitting a sole?source bid for production and qualification of the Neptune missile. The Navy considered Cameron's position uncertain and wanted to maintain a qualified vendor should Cameron Corporation decide to get out of the aerospace business.