Appendix 3: Appendix 3: Perfect Pizza 1994 volume planning
1. Manufacturing parts through the process described above is many times more expensive than using conventional technologies in a factory. How would you go
The two issues here are speed and mobility, not cost. When the effective ‘cost’ of not having a part or a service is very high (such as in the mobile army surgical hospitals) the actual cost of providing that part or service often becomes almost insignificant. In the middle of a battle a broken down tank or truck is of little effective use. Considerations of cost at that moment do not rank very high. It is far more important to effect a repair quickly. This could be done by stocking spare parts. However, especially in complex equipment, stocking spare parts for every single part that could break would be difficult to achieve operationally. Even if (say) a spare parts kit could be organized it would need to be moved around with the piece of equipment it was supporting. This would inevitably reduce the mobility of that equipment, again, something that would render it less effective when in use.
155
© Nigel Slack, Stuart Chambers & Robert Johnston 2007
C H A P T E R 1 6
Project planning and control Teaching guide
Introduction
Project management is a relatively easy topic to teach. With only a little explanation most students can recognise it as something that they do themselves (even if they did not understand that they did it) and that clearly has relevance in all types of operation. The dilemma is not so much about how to make it relevant but about how to manage the two ‘halves’ of project management. The first half is the qualitative aspect of project management, which deals with such things as project environment, project objectives, managing the people within projects, understanding what can go wrong and so on. The second half is the way we use models (usually network models) to help with the project planning and control process. Most of us who have managed projects know that the first half, which deals with the qualitative aspects is by far the more important. Yet the quantitative side of the subject is in some ways easier to teach.
Undergraduates especially find the qualitative aspects difficult because they have relatively little experience on which to base their discussions. Even with more experienced students such as MBAs, a purely qualitative approach can become unstructured. What we tend to do is to start by introducing the nature of projects and project management and then relatively quickly get into network planning in a (very simple) quantitative sense. This allows us to get into the qualitative elements later. Especially if exercises can be set where the network diagram indicates some sort of qualitative problem, working from the model to a more generic discussion can work well.
Key teaching objectives
• To point out the ubiquitous nature of project management in everyday life as well as in operations management
• To provide an understanding of how projects are always different from each other in some way or other
• To introduce the overall stages involved in project planning and control
• To provide a basic understanding of network planning techniques, together with the associated mathematical manipulations.
Exercises/discussion points
• Exercise – Get students to identify major projects that have failed and have been described in the press. Get them to identify what aspects of project management appear to have gone wrong.
A c t i v i t y
A c t i v i t y a A c t i v i t y b A c t i v i t y c A c t i v i t y d A c t i v i t y e A c t i v i t y f A c t i v i t y g
I m m e d i a t e p r e d e c e s s o r
N o n e N o n e
b c f c a , d , e A c t i v i t y
A c t i v i t y a A c t i v i t y b A c t i v i t y c A c t i v i t y d A c t i v i t y e A c t i v i t y f A c t i v i t y g
I m m e d i a t e p r e d e c e s s o r
N o n e N o n e
b c f c a , d , e
• Teaching tip – Explaining the basic idea behind network planning is often the biggest hurdle for students. It is one of those ideas that, when they understand it, is perfectly straightforward and clear. However, until that point arrives they can be very confused. We use a simple example to introduce the idea of a network model. The details of the project in the example are not particularly important, but just understanding the three basic pieces of information for any network diagram is important. These three basic pieces of information are:
• The activities which the project consists of
• The time estimate for each of these activities
• The relationship between the activities (usually best illustrated by the idea of the
‘immediate predecessor’).
• All this information is shown in the simple example in the table. Try working from activities a and b (no immediate predecessor) onward for the first few activities.
• Teaching tip – For some students, the idea of representing the relationships between activities as a network is not immediately obvious. One way of demonstrating this is to draw a simple network diagram on several OHP transparency sheets, but with each activity on a separate sheet. Show the details of the project as has been done below.
Then build up the relationships between the activities by placing each layer of transparency, starting with activity a, then b and so on.
Nigel Slack, Stuart Chambers & Robert Johnston, Operations Management, fifth edition, Instructor’s Manual
157
© Nigel Slack, Stuart Chambers & Robert Johnston 2007 a
b
c d
f
e
g a
b aa
bb
cc dd
ff
ee
g g
Eventually the (rather confusing) figure will look as shown below.
a
b
c d
f e
g a
b
aa
bb
cc dd
ff ee
g g
Eventually, when (in this case) activity g is reached, it will become clear that the arrows need to be extended to keep the logic, as shown below.
Explain that simply by drawing the arrows in a slightly different way, the diagram can show the same relationships in a more ordered manner. Then align the transparencies to show the ordered version of the network diagram, as shown next.
Nigel Slack, Stuart Chambers & Robert Johnston, Operations Management, fifth edition, Instructor’s Manual
159
© Nigel Slack, Stuart Chambers & Robert Johnston 2007 a
c
g
b d
f e a
c
g
b d
f e a
c
g
b d
f e
Case study teaching note
United Photonics Malaysia Sdn Bhd
The United Photonics Corporation is a US-based company that manufactures lenses and precision instruments. It has a reputation for technical excellence and its products are reputed to be amongst the most technically advanced products in the global market. Recently, the instrumentation side of the company has grown faster than the lens manufacturing part of the company and now dominates sales.
The case is set in the Malaysian facility of the United Photonics Corporation. This is located just outside Kuala Lumpur (KL) in Malaysia. Starting by manufacturing sub-assemblies for its American instrumentation parent, it soon developed a laboratory for the modification of United Photonics' products for customers throughout the Asian region. In a short time, the Malaysian facility has developed a reputation within the company for technical expertise and enthusiasm.
In particular, the case focuses on the Laz-skan project that was developed by T. S. Lim’s customer service unit team in KL. It is an optical metrology device that, although complex, is seen as having significant market potential. T. S. Lim was given a three-month period in which to overcome any fundamental technical problems, assess the feasibility of the project and plan the developmental task that would lead to the prototype stage. The case contains details of the project and includes a list of all the activities and a network diagram. Although the main board of United Photonics was enthusiastic about the project, it did have some concerns regarding both the management and the feasibility of the project.
This case can be used either to bring out issues of project management, or alternatively it can be used in the part of the course that treats new product and service development (we use it for both purposes). We will assume in this teaching note that it is to be used to demonstrate some principles of project management.
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 case’s richness, it is still possible to use the case in this way.
Notes on questions