Case: Payton Corporation

After the first weekly labor report was analyzed, it became evident that the development lab was spending $28.50 per hour. The project manager decided to discuss the problem with the manager of the development lab.

Don’t feel like reading? Listen to the answers instead:

Payton Corporation had decided to respond to a government RFP for the R&D phase on a new project. The statement of work specified that the project must be completed within ninety days after go-ahead, and that the contract would be at a fixed cost and fee.

The majority of the work would be accomplished by the development lab. According to government regulations, the estimated cost must be based on the average cost of the entire department, which was $19.00 per hour (unburdened).

Payton won the contract for a total package (cost plus fee) of $305,000. After the first weekly labor report was analyzed, it became evident that the development lab was spending $28.50 per hour. The project manager decided to discuss the problem with the manager of the development lab.

Project manager: “Obviously you know why I’m here. At the rate that you’re spending money, we’ll overrun our budget by 50 percent.”

Lab manager: “That’s your problem, not mine. When I estimate the cost to do a job, I submit only the hours necessary based on historical standards. The pricing department converts the hours to dollars based on department averages.”

Project manager: “Well, why are we using the most expensive people? Obviously, there must be lower-salaried people capable of performing the work.”

Lab manager: “Yes, I do have lower-salaried people, but none who can complete the job within the two months required by the contract. I have to use people high on the learning curve, and they’re not cheap. You should have told the pricing department to increase the average cost for the department.”

Project manager: “I wish I could, but government regulations forbid this. If we were ever audited, or if this proposal were compared to other salary structures in other proposals, we would be in deep trouble. The only legal way to accomplish this would be to set up a new department for those higher-paid employees working on this project. Then the average department salary would be correct.  

“Unfortunately, the administrative costs of setting up a temporary unit for only two months is prohibitive. For long-duration projects, this technique is often employed.

“Why couldn’t you have increased the hours to compensate for the increased dollars required?”

Lab manager: “I have to submit labor justifications for all hours I estimate. If I were to get audited, my job would be on the line. Remember, we had to submit labor justification for all work as part of the proposal.

“Perhaps next time management might think twice before bidding on a short duration project. You might try talking to the customer to get his opinion.”

Project manager: “His response would probably be the same regardless of whether I explained the situation to him before we submitted the proposal or now, after we have negotiated it. There’s a good chance that I’ve just lost my Christmas bonus.”

What is the basis for the problem?

The primary issue in the Payton Corporation case revolves around a significant discrepancy between the estimated and the actual labor costs for the project. While the government regulations mandated the use of an average departmental cost for estimating, which came to $19.00 per hour, the real requirements of the project dictated the employment of specialists who were higher on the learning curve, thus costing $28.50 per hour. The short duration of the project, a mere 90 days, compounded the problem. The lab manager felt compelled to deploy these skilled, higher-paid employees to adhere to this tight timeline.

A significant factor that worsened the situation was a clear lack of communication. The project manager, the pricing department, and the lab manager seemed to function independently of one another. The former was blindsided by the actual costs because they were not aware of the lab’s need for specialized labor. On the other hand, the lab manager was restricted in his estimates, bound by historical standards and the necessity to justify all labor hours due to government regulations.

Furthermore, structural and administrative challenges presented themselves. A potential solution, like setting up a new department to more accurately reflect the higher average salaries of the needed specialized employees, was deemed unfeasible. This was primarily due to the administrative costs and hurdles of creating such a department for a short-duration project.

Lastly, the project’s contractual constraints – being a fixed cost and fee arrangement – meant that any budget overrun would directly cut into Payton Corporation’s profit margin. This combination of regulatory, structural, communication, and contractual challenges ultimately resulted in the present dilemma.

Who is at fault?

In the situation involving Payton Corporation, determining a singular point of fault is challenging, as a mix of elements and stakeholders contributed to the issue. The Pricing Department, responsible for translating labor hours into monetary values, leaned heavily on the government-mandated average departmental cost. This reliance, while in adherence to regulations, did not take into account the project’s unique nature or the specialized skills needed, leading to an initial underestimation of costs. Meanwhile, the Lab Manager, although he estimated hours grounded in historical standards, might have fallen short in effectively communicating the necessity for higher-paid, specialized staff for this project. The responsibility also lies partially with the Project Manager. A potential shortfall in due diligence or collaborative communication meant that the proposal was submitted without a comprehensive understanding of the project’s nuances, especially in terms of labor costs. Beyond internal dynamics, the government regulations present an inherent flaw, especially for specialized projects like this. The insistence on average departmental costs as a basis for estimates, without flexibility, can misrepresent real project needs. An overarching theme is the evident fragmentation in the organization’s structure and communication flow. Better inter-departmental communication might have flagged the cost mismatch at an early stage. Moreover, the decision to enter into a fixed-cost and fee contract without a precise cost-risk assessment paved the way for potential financial pitfalls. To sum up, while individual departments within Payton Corporation had their reasons and operated within their guidelines, the heart of the issue was systemic, encompassing gaps in communication, organization dynamics, and regulatory constraints.

How can the present situation be corrected?

Correcting the present situation with Payton Corporation requires both immediate actions to address the current project and longer-term measures to prevent such issues in the future. Here’s a strategy for both:

Immediate Solutions:

  1. Engage with the client: Initiate a dialogue with the client, detailing the unforeseen complications. By fostering understanding, there may be room for some adjustments in terms of budget or project timeline, ensuring both quality and feasibility.
  2. Rethink resource allocation: The Project Manager and Lab Manager should join forces to determine whether there are tasks that can be shifted to employees with a lower hourly rate without jeopardizing the project’s outcome or deadline.
  3. Streamline processes: Seek opportunities to enhance productivity. This could encompass the acquisition of advanced tools, employee training, or the adoption of efficient work methodologies like agile.
  4. Trim additional costs: While labor is the primary concern, there might be other cost-saving opportunities in operations or material procurement.

Strategies for the Future:

  1. Refine cost estimation: A more nuanced approach to cost estimation is required. An internal framework should be developed to identify projects that could result in uncommon expenses because of specialized demands.
  2. Bridge departmental silos: Foster frequent interactions between the pricing team, project managers, and lab managers. This ensures everyone is on the same page regarding project expectations and challenges.
  3. Invest in skill development: Broaden the skill set within the development lab. By training more employees in specialized areas, the reliance on a few high-cost individuals can be reduced.
  4. Prioritize risk evaluation: Before committing to projects, conduct thorough risk assessments that take into account the unique challenges, be it the need for expertise or timeline pressures.
  5. Revisit contract terms: In future engagements, especially those of a specialized nature, attempt to embed provisions that accommodate cost revisions based on unexpected challenges or provide a clearer, more detailed costing model.
  6. Reassess organizational design: If such scenarios arise again or for longer-term projects, consider creating distinct departments or teams that mirror the real costs and expertise needed for specific tasks.

In essence, while the current predicament demands negotiation, resource reevaluation, and operational improvements, a holistic solution for the future hinges on enhanced communication, refined estimation techniques, and a more adaptable contractual and organizational approach.

Is there any way this situation can be prevented from recurring?

To prevent such predicaments from arising again in the future, Payton Corporation should consider a holistic approach. Firstly, refining the project estimation process is paramount. By leveraging tools, historical data, and predictive analytics, the company can create estimates that go beyond mere average departmental costs, considering the unique skill sets and expertise each project necessitates. Regular coordination meetings involving project managers, pricing departments, and functional managers can also bridge communication gaps, ensuring all stakeholders grasp the project’s nuances and associated costs from the start.

Investing in employee training can help diversify the skill sets available, reducing the reliance on a few high-cost specialists and providing more flexibility in resource allocation. This pairs well with a proactive risk assessment undertaken before project bids, pinpointing potential cost overruns and other challenges that might emerge during execution. It might also be beneficial to initiate open discussions with clients about project complexities. Such open conversations can set realistic expectations and potentially lead to more flexible contractual terms.

Exploring adaptable contract models can also provide a safety net. Models that permit cost variability based on real-time resource usage or unforeseen hurdles can offer more breathing room. After each project, a thorough review assessing the successes, failures, and learnings ensures that the company continually refines its processes and approach. If specialized projects become a frequent undertaking, organizational adjustments, like the formation of specialized teams, can provide a more transparent cost and expertise structure.

Moreover, client education plays a pivotal role. By clarifying the complexities and value of the work, clients get a clearer picture, fostering understanding and better relationships. Lastly, while compliance with government regulations is non-negotiable, Payton Corporation could consider advocating for changes in strict regulations that don’t cater to specialized project nuances. Collaborative efforts with industry groups can spotlight these concerns to regulatory authorities. In essence, while the current challenge is undeniably daunting, it’s also a catalyst for Payton Corporation to enhance its methodologies and communication channels, ensuring smoother sailings in subsequent endeavors.

How would you handle this situation on a longer-duration project, say one year, assuming that multiple departments are involved and that no new departments were established other than possibly the project office?

For managing a year-long project that involves multiple departments, several integrated strategies are essential. Starting with a comprehensive project plan is foundational. This plan, developed in collaboration with representatives with representatives from all departments, should detail the scope, milestones, deliverables, and timelines. Once this blueprint is in place, a department-wise, task-specific, and time-bound budget allocation becomes pivotal. Given the extended duration of the project, it’s crucial to have regular review meetings, either monthly or quarterly. These reviews can assess progress, highlight deviations, and brainstorm solutions for encountered challenges.

When it comes to resource management, the longevity of the project offers a unique advantage. It allows for a wise mix of high-cost resources for critical tasks and lower-cost ones for less time-sensitive activities, optimizing both time and costs. However, for such resource optimization to work seamlessly, cross-departmental collaboration is essential. Encouraging open communication and forming cross-functional teams can break down silos, ensuring seamless work across the project’s span.

Moreover, with a longer timeline comes a heightened probability of uncertainties. A structured risk management process becomes essential to foresee potential risks, evaluate their effect and architect contingency plans. This forward-thinking approach aligns with a robust change management procedure, considering the vulnerability of long-term projects to evolving scopes.

On the financial front, a real-time cost monitoring system can be a game-changer. By comparing actual costs against the budget consistently, it can serve as an early alarm system for potential overruns, catalyzing timely interventions. Parallelly, consistent communication with all stakeholders, from the top brass to the client, ensures alignment and trust, keeping everyone informed of the project’s progress.

While not establishing new departments, the formation of a dedicated Project Management Office (PMO) can be invaluable. This centralized unit can ensure standardized processes, coordinate resources, and serve as the central hub for all project-related activities. Furthermore, considering the extended timeframe, there’s a window to invest in training sessions, reducing reliance on a few pricey specialists and democratizing expertise across the team.

Incorporating feedback loops can also refine the project’s approach over time. These mechanisms, which capture team experiences and insights, can instigate continuous process enhancements. And, as the project winds down, a thorough review capturing the journey’s highs and lows can inform and improve future undertakings. In essence, with meticulous planning, open communication, and iterative feedback, the labyrinth of a multi-department, year-long project can be navigated successfully, delivering value on time and within budget.

Should a customer be willing to accept monetary responsibility for this type of situation, possibly by permitting established standards to be deviated from? If so, then how many months should be considered as a short-duration project?

Determining whether a customer should shoulder monetary consequences in situations requiring deviations from set standards necessitates careful thought. A vital aspect is the level of understanding shared between the service provider and the customer regarding the project’s specifics and challenges. If unexpected costs arise from uncertainties not clarified by the customer, it seems fair to contemplate a shared financial responsibility. On the flip side, if the service provider didn’t sufficiently assess the project’s demands, leading to an underestimation, then the burden falls entirely on them. But here’s a perspective shift: if strict adherence to those initial standards compromises the project’s quality or timeliness, customers might do well to prioritize the project’s success over rigid standards. In some cases, incurring a slightly higher cost could be a trade-off for superior outcomes. The dynamics of the business relationship also come into play. If there’s a history of collaboration or potential for future projects, both parties might be more inclined to negotiate unforeseen costs, viewing it as a relationship-building move. Crucially, transparent communication should form the foundation of this process. When customers are informed early on about potential challenges or extra costs, they’re likelier to be understanding.

As for what constitutes a “short-duration project,” its definition varies based on the industry and nature of work. In sectors like construction, a timeline of 3-6 months might be seen as short. In contrast, tech projects spanning 1-3 months can be considered short-duration. For research endeavors, even a year might be deemed short given their depth. However, it’s not just the time that defines the duration but also the project’s complexity, industry standards, and the adaptability the timeframe offers to manage unforeseen challenges. The key point is that shorter projects usually offer limited room for adjustments without incurring extra expenses.

This case, and questions, is take from the book “Project Management Case Studies – Sixth Edition” – 2022, by Harold Kerzner.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *