Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

Compare and contrast Teradyne's traditional project execution strategy to the approach

it used in Jaguar? What was similar? What was different?


In the traditional approach,

 The requirements were not well defined and the stakeholders kept on adding new
features during the development there were no clear goals defined. This led to the
shift of delivery time and affected the quality.
 Individual divisions and managers had the final say for using any tools.
 Project progress and phase was not clearly visible to the higher management.
 Divisions were very inconsistent in project tracking with some using detailed project
planning, phase gate model and conduction after-action, while the rest did not use
any.
 Each market segment used a different test platform.
 Resource allocation was over committed, sometimes to the extent of 300%.

In Jaguar approach,

 Adding new features during development is not allowed, thereby helping in


finalizing delivery date. Requirements and are well defined.
 Management tools such as 3-point estimation, critical path analysis, work
breakdown structure and earned value analysis are used.
 Higher management has a clear view of the progress of the project.
 Project tracking becomes accurate with the help of tools.
 Flexible platform strategy is used for testing.
 It provided correct resource allocation but sometimes forced people into
commitment, which is not possible in real life.

What impact did the project management tools have on the Jaguar project? Specifically,
how did they change behavior? How did they influence performance?

Project management tools had 2-fold effect on Jaguar project, on one side, the project
management tools made the employees have serious attitude to their work and be more
organized and punctual. On the other side, most of the employees were not satisfied with the
results of the project management tools. They had to pay more attention to monitoring of
phases instead of thinking of improving the overall quality of their work. As a result, the project
management tools turned into the target of employees’ performance instead of helping
achieve perfect results in projects.
Also, higher management did not pay enough attention to the data provided for project
management tools and they did not get the understanding of the metrics, hence most of the
time in meeting were spend on finding the right tool, right way to report the data rather than
think about the product solutions.
The Teradyne culture of individual contribution was slowly fading and people started to feel
that they are not responsible for the project delivery timelines, hardware sub systems were
largely able to keep on track on timelines, but the software division emerged as a problem and
under enormous pressure to keep the timelines.

What were the unintended consequences of using the project management tools? What
lessons should Teradyne take away from the Jaguar project?
The project management tools made work more complicated rather than simplifying it. It was
difficult to modify them based on the projects, as the employees discover any dependencies
that need to be done during their implementation. However, there were no additional time for
such dependencies in the schedule. Then the tools did not reflect all the information.
Also, as per the rules, each person answered only for his or her phase of work. It led to the
situation where employees’ did not feel the responsibility for the whole project. Consequently
when people provided the data that was necessary for the project management tools, they did
not worry about its accuracy. Finally the project did not take into account that working with
software is different from hardware: If in hardware one part of work influences the others and
the correct order of implementation is needed, software parts could be done in different order
that made strict planning of projects not necessary.
The main takeaways are
1. It is important to include additional time for unplanned things.
2. Top management should encourage the employees to be more interested in the results
of the project in addition to their individual contributions.
3. Number of project management tools should be reduced and the accuracy of the
information entered in the tools must be increased.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi