A Case Study on Managing Multiple Projects

The case highlights ethical issues that exist within an organizational management and structure. The main problem arises as a result of the delegation of roles between top managers at a manufacturing company. The organization is identified as Eagle Crest, which is a subsidiary of an international organization, Magnum Corp. The case concentrates on three top managers in the organization, Albert, Frank, and George, who are also referred to as the ‘big three' by the employees. There is a conflict between the three managers due to differing opinions, personal backgrounds, and ambitions. As a result, they tend to portray different characters when dealing with the employees. The main problem arises when the organization is notified that it has to go through an audit.

Consequently, it is realized that Albert has been altering the company’s expenditure budgets to inflate profits. As a new employee, I am required to get on board with making sure the expected audit does not reveal the budget alterations. The top three managers, Albert, Frank, and George have worked hard to get where they are, which makes them more determined to maintain their positions. Albert, for example, wants to get a promotion and go back to Magnum Corp as a senior executive. Due to these ambitions, the managers are forced to ignore ethics and principles that safeguard the organization’s structure. As an Engineering manager, Frank and George expect me to deliver to them regardless. This is due to the overlap between manufacturing and engineering.

A problem occurs when I have to decide whether to address the ethical issue that arises. This is in altering the documents from the previous engineering manager. the fact that the job is an essential need. George and Frank expect their technical problems to be solved, each as a top priority. Given the timeline, it is essential to identify how to collect data and deliver to both managers within their expectations. Managing two projects at the same time becomes the main issue in this case. Further issues are identified as non-corporation between the managers and disregard for employees’ needs as they are expected to deliver regardless of any prevailing problem.

Part Two: Questions

Question One

Managing multiple project timelines requires discipline and resilience. As a manager, it is essential to ensure that all requirements of the top managers are met to maintain a good working relationship (Lock 5). The first step in managing multiple projects is to ensure that goals for each are defined cohesively. Having clear goals with timelines allows one to make progress and stick to the allocated time. In this case, it is important to highlight important milestones for each project to identify requirements, resources, and personnel. Milestones go along with a structured timeframe. This will show what needs to be done and by what time it should have been done. In doing so, one will have progress reports for each task, which can be submitted to the managers.

Multiple projects are managed by having a clear roadmap. This shows initiatives, deliverables, and objectives. It will be applicable in showing the entire view of each project. As such, one can determine which project is not in alignment with the timeframe (Lock 9). A timeline is essential for every project that is carried out. Constant reviews with all employees that are involved in data collection are encouraged to ensure all processes are up to date for both projects. To effectively manage two projects with a fixed timeline, one can use the MS Project software that allows multiple timeline views. In this case, an entry for each manager is created where they can access and monitor the progress. Keeping the managers involved in every goal achieved will convince them that their projects are on the right track.

Question Two

As heads of the organization, the ‘big three’ feel they have the freedom to exercise their power as they wish. This raises the issue of ethics and interpersonal aspects within the organization (Cole 178). One such case is where an employee is asked to alter documents on behalf of the managers. The ethical issues that emerge here are dishonesty, fraud, and disrespect. Frank, George, and Albert have presented a value-based and morality dilemma at Magnum Corp. In this case, everyone has to choose between wrong and right based on personal principles. The three managers have worked hard to be where they are, which means they value their work and have shown responsible behavior in their past positions. One approach to take is to remind them of workplace ethics and policies, and the consequences of overlooking them (Cole 193).

In every organization, forward-thinking employees always face potential conflicts. Therefore, it is critical to ensure that a diversity of opinions does not lead to conflicts. The three managers should be reminded that they are at the forefront of the organizational culture in ensuring employees uphold their values. In this case, they will be able to understand that it is illegal to conduct fraud. Further, ethical issues can be addressed by applying legislative policies (Cole 235). This involves applying labour and employment laws that protect employees against mistreatments. Lastly, the three managers should remember the company’s policies, mission, and vision to adhere to the expectations. There are various ways to solve ethical dilemmas within an organization, which should be the key principle in ensuring effective working relationships.

.

Question Three

Communication in every organization is directed at an effective team engagement. This becomes essential when a problem arises in the workplace. Having the right methods of communication can help in ensuring continuous workflow and minimize conflicts. Most of the conflicts within an organization can be solved through understanding and openness. The three managers were observed to hold meetings behind closed doors when the crisis emerged. Such decision making processes without involving other members of the team in an open engagement forum should be discouraged (Aquinas 235). Open door policies are useful in ensuring employees gain trust and confidence in their leaders. Effective communication involves two-way feedback where employees are allowed to give their opinions and sentiments. This is the type of communication I would use as a leader to solve the ongoing crisis.

The first step would be to sit with the three top managers and ensure they understand the repercussions of ignoring an organization’s ethics and policies. As they all have their personal goals that they hope to achieve within the company, it will be easy for them to overlook their personal interests to keep the organizational structure in perspective. It is essential to clarify the responsibilities and roles of each employee in the organization through prompt updates. Based on this, employees will be given time and a platform to express their concerns. It is essential to use a flat organizational structure where everyone communicates freely with managers without feeling demeaned (Aquinas 211). Such a structure is effective in solving problems as everyone has the opportunity to give suggestions and possible solutions.

Part Three: Problem Solving

Problem 1

George needs to determine if there is any deviation that is out of the set limits of 0.010 inch. To get this, there needs to be a control chart with a record of 20 samples that are requested. Application of a control chart will highlight an upper limit, the central line, and the lower limit of all deviations. The positive side of the allowable deviation will be the upper control limit (UCL) while the negative side is the lower control limit (LCL). In this case, 10 ± in thousandths of an inch. To set up a control chart, the first step involves plotting the available data in time order (Keller 17). In this case, the chart will have a central line as the mean deviations.

Sample

x1

x2

x3

x4

x5

1

-3

5

-2

1

3

2

0

5

-6

-2

3

3

-5

1

2

3

2

4

-1

-1

1

-2

5

5

2

-4

5

2

1

6

0

0

4

-4

2

7

0

0

2

-2

-1

8

7

-3

3

-1

0

9

0

0

2

-2

1

10

1

2

3

1

5

11

4

0

2

0

2

12

13

12

13

11

14

13

3

-3

0

1

1

14

3

-1

5

-1

-3

15

1

-1

5

4

0

16

0

0

3

-1

0

17

2

2

3

3

-2

18

1

-2

5

3

1

19

5

-1

4

2

0

20

5

0

0

3

1

The information already reveals that there was a day an intern collected data. From this, one can identify the possible cause of out-of-control data. If these recordings are included in the control chart, they would make the control chart less sensitive. This will be eliminated as a possible assignable cause for out-of-control points. The day the intern collected data will be excluded from calculating the center line and control limits. There are various methods to approach and tackle points that should not be included in the control chart. According to Keller, one way is to act as if the scenario never happened (22). In this case, the points that are out of control do not appear on the chart, and neither are their gaps, which indicate where those emitted points were located. This is achieved by 'brushing' in the MS Excel.

Another approach to address this is to only display the data that was used to calculate control limits. It is followed by an acknowledgment that not all the data was used in the calculation. This step is executed by checking the ‘leave gaps for excluded points’ box. Assignable causes are also referred to as special causes. They are usually identifiable causes of variation in a specific project process. This 'cause' is not random, and it does not happen by chance(Keller 23). In the presented case, it is easy to determine the assignable cause of the abnormal deviation. The UCL, in this case, is the largest value that a sample diameter is supposed to record while the LCL is the lowest possible value. The manufacturing unit has already set the limits, which can be plotted on the control chart. From the chart in Excel, it is possible to pinpoint whether all plotted points are within limits.

Sum #1 = 38

Average #1 = 1.9

Standard Deviation # 1= 3.713

Figure 1: Control chart for sample #1 in 20 days

Table 1: Control chart table showing standard deviation, UCL and LCL calculation

From the control chart representing the first sample, it is possible to determine if the process was in statistical control. The process is capable to produce consistent results as per the project regulations. In this case, the manager can conclude that the process is in control as no outcome is observed to be outside the UCL and LCL.

Problem 2

Assignable causes are investigated by plotting the available data on a control chart. Once the data has been scaled, it is possible to identify the points that are outside the set limits. Causes of variation may result from non-conforming project inputs, faulty control systems, and uncommitted employees. Every project should run consistently with the stipulated objectives and expected results (Lock 11). Causes of variation are often random and cannot be identified unless a control test is carried out.

Sum = 39

Average =3.9

Standard Deviation = 3.24722

Table 2: Standard Deviation, UCL, LCL, calculations

Figure 2: Control chart

From these findings, control limits can be adjusted by assuming the probable cause of variation within the project process. According to Xie, Thong Ngee, and Vellaisamy, one can adjust control limits by setting constant variations that are not affected by data (242). Being in control means that there are no out of control points. As such, one should delete all points that are out of control. The manufacturing plant is identified to be an efficient process that has a constant working process guided by an effective control system. This type of system is efficient in ensuring conformities.

Works Cited

Aquinas, P. G. Organizational behaviour: Concepts, realities, applications and challenges. Excel Books India, 2006.

Cole, Gerald A. Organisational behaviour: Theory and practice. New York, Cengage Learning EMEA, 2000.

Keller, Paul Andrew. Statistical process control demystified. New York, McGraw-Hill, 2011.

Lock, Dennis. The essentials of project management. Abingdon-on-Thames, Routledge, 2017.

Xie, Min, Thong Ngee Goh, and Vellaisamy Kuralmani. Statistical models and control charts for high-quality processes. Berlin, Springer Science & Business Media, 2012.