Unlike most of the cases in this text, it is difficult to use this one as a general introduction to

project management. Because the case depends on an understanding of network planning, it will be
difficult to discuss some of the problems within the project unless students are able to interpret the
project network. Therefore, it is recommended that this case be used after (at least) the
fundamentals of network planning have been covered.
Within the case, the network technique used is a version of the project evaluation and review
technique (PERT). This uses optimistic and pessimistic time estimates to give an idea of the
inherent risks in various parts of the project. We have found that (surprisingly) one need not have
covered this issue prior to the case. Although it is very important to understand the nature of network
planning, it is not strictly necessary for students to fully understand probabilistic time estimates. In
fact, this case can be used to demonstrate the value of this statement.
Also, because there is some detail in this case, it is better if it can be tackled in groups prior to
the debriefing rather than it being analyzed by students individually. However, although individual
analysis may miss out some of the cases richness, it is still possible to use the case in this way.
Notes on questions
Question 1 Who do you think should manage the Laz-skan development project?
There is obviously no definitive answer to this question. What is important is that the class gets
a chance to debate the criteria that can be used to choose a project leader. First, ask the class to
suggest criteria that can be used to select a project leader. This can lead to many different
suggestions; the most common are shown below.
?
?
?
?
?
? Technical competence Enthusiasm and commitment to the project Organizational influence
Project management skills and/or experience The ability to devote time to managing the project The
location of the individual

It is then useful to ask the students who the candidates might be. Obviously, this is going to be
limited by the individuals who have been mentioned in the case. These are as follows:
T. S. Lim, whose idea the Laz-skan project originally was
Anuar Kamaruddin, the CEO of the Malaysian facility
Bob Brierly, the Vice-President of development
Halim Ramly, the Asian marketing Vice-President
George Hudson, Head of Instrument Development
Students may suggest bringing in an outside professional as project manager as an alternative
to any of these.
Draw up a matrix on the board with the criteria as one dimension and the various candidates as
the other. Mark the characteristics of each candidate using each criterion and using some kind of
simple scale. We use a 0-, 1-, 2- or 3-star rating system. The purpose of this is to generate a debate
about which characteristics are important for project management. Try to guide discussion towards
what is important for this particular project. In fact, this will demonstrate how difficult the selection is.
Because this is a novel project generated by a relatively small part of the group, technical
competence and enthusiasm should rate highly. However, because it is also a very different project
to the ones that have been developed before, it may be that organizational influence is also very
important. No single candidate has all of these qualities. In the end most students come round to the
conclusion that T. S. Lim should be appointed as project manager but with very strict reporting
relationship to someone else, such as Bob Brierly. Question 2 What are the major dangers and
difficulties that will be faced by the development team as they manage the project towards its
completion?
There are several issues that can emerge from discussing this question. Some of these relate
to general managerial issues while others relate to the nature of the project specifically.
General managerial issues
The first danger is related to the previous question, namely, that there are insufficiently
developed project management skills deployed on the project. This is where the relationship
between Lim and whoever is supervising him becomes vital. The other general issues include the
following.

Outsourcing some components This is being done because the time for development is short.
It may be that keeping development in-house, even if it means missing the Geneva show, may be
preferable. At least the point would need to be debated within the company.
The general approach of Lim and his team to define the architecture of the project
Lim admits that he has not consulted widely in determining this. He believes that, although he
would have liked to consult more widely, he would have taken too much time, and anyway we can
change our mind later. This is generally true only up to a point. Very often some of the fundamental
nature of the development is embedded within assumptions that are contained in the architecture.
Security and knowledge leakage Lim recognizes this as being a danger when any part of the
development is outsourced. It would be necessary to investigate how real a threat this is.
How is the development of this project going to work in the context of the teams other
commitments? This is worth debating thoroughly and is a general issue of project management.
Although projects are often described in isolation, they are nearly always part of an ongoing set of
other responsibilities and projects. We have no details of these, but it is worth bringing out the issue
in class.
Problems associated with the project specifically
Many of these can be obtained from a careful examination of the network diagram. They
include the following.
The lens is a particularly risky subcomponent of the development project. Particularly the
activity 1314 has an optimistic time of 9 weeks, a most likely time of 12 weeks and a pessimistic
time
of 30 weeks. It is worthwhile debating T. S. Lims statement that he is happy that the lens is not
part of the critical path. Of course, many students will realize that, although it is not part of the
deterministic critical path, it could easily become critical if this lens activity moves close to its
pessimistic estimate.
The vision support system part of the project contains the critical path It is worthwhile asking
the students how is it obvious that this contains the critical path. Those who remember their network
planning will realize that where events have the same earliest and latest event time, there is no float
and therefore the path must be critical. It may also be worthwhile debating whether the project could
be completed in time, assuming that the critical path remains critical. In fact, it is not entirely obvious

from the case whether it can. The project starts at the end of February (say, beginning of March)
2005 and must be completed before April 2006. This allows approximately 1 year, that is, 52 weeks
to finish the development. The total project time is 48 weeks, allowing a margin of 4 or more weeks.
However, in the context of a 1-year project, this is very small. Especially given that many of the
elements are relatively risky. In fact, for all practical purposes, this project will be very difficult to
complete in time for the Geneva show.
The control software poses a different problem. Although this part of the project is not at all on
the critical path, and although most of the activities within it are not particularly risky compared to
others in the project, it is still a complex task. In fact, it has been noted as the most difficult part of
the project to plan and estimate. Therefore, maybe we should treat these estimates circumspectly.
However, the major issue may be that the activities within this part of the project are new to the
group and they have recruited a young software engineer with some experience of this type of
work. Two points that it would be sensible to explore in practice, and debate with the class are, first,
if he is young does he have sufficient experience to be so confident, and second, if there is only him
with the skills, what if he leaves/gets ill/proves incompetent/is run over in a traffic accident and so on.
Documentation seems relatively straightforward except that most of it is subcontracted and
therefore will be partially outside the control of the project team. It is important therefore that they
should incorporate these subcontractors into the planning process.
The display system seems to be the only part of the project that does not have potential
problems.
At this point, it is useful to guide the class towards identifying three main causes of time related
risk within projects. These are as follows.
High levels of risk That is, a big difference between the most likely and the pessimistic time.
The lens is typical of this type of problem. It is not a complex part of the project in terms of the
number of interrelated activities, and the risk has been clearly stated and yet it is significant.
High levels of uncertainty (as opposed to risk) The control software is a good example of this.
There may, or may not, be problems in this part of the project; we simply do not know.
Long activities times This is the conventional critical path of the project. In this case the vision
support system represents this. The problem is simply that there may not be enough time to finish all
the activities.
Question 3 What can they do about these dangers and difficulties?

The general managerial issues discussed previously are all worth debating in the class.
However, it is as well not to spend much time on this because the discussion can become
unfocused, and some of the issues are not strictly associated with project management as such.