NASA Organization and Project Management
Case 2-2 Flexible Benefits System Implementation at Quick
Medical Center
26The management committee of Quick Medical Cen- ter wanted to reduce the cost and improve the value and service of its employee benefits coverage. To accomplish this it decided to procure and imple- ment a new benefits system. The new system would have to meet four goals: improved re- sponsiveness to employee needs, added benefits flexibility, better cost management, and greater coordination of human resource objectives with business strategies. A multifunctional team of 13 members was formed by selecting representa- tives of departments at Quick that would rely most on the new system—Human Resources (HR), Fi- nancial Systems (FS), and Information Services (IS). Representation from each department was impor- tant to assuring all departmental needs would be met. The team also included six technical experts from the software consulting firm of Hun and Bar Software (HBS).
Early in the project a workshop was held with team members from Quick and HBS to clarify and finalize project objectives and develop a project plan, milestones, and schedules. Project completion was set at 10 months. In that time HBS had to de- velop and supply all hardware and software for the new system; the system had to be brought on-line, tested, and approved; HR workers had to be trained how to operate the system and load existing employee data; all Quick employees had to be edu-
cated about and enrolled in the new benefits process; and the enrollment data had to be entered in the system.
The director of FS was chosen to oversee the project. She had a technical background and, prior to serving as director, had worked in the IS group where she assisted in implementing Quick’s patient care information system. Everyone on the team ap- proved of her appointment as project leader, and many team members had worked with her previ- ously. Two team leaders were also selected, one each from HR and IS. The HR leader’s task was to ensure that the new system met HR requirements and the needs of Quick employees, and the IS leader’s task was to ensure that the new software interfaced with other Quick systems.
Members of the Quick team were committed to the project on a part-time basis. Roughly 50 percent of the time they worked on the project; the rest of the time they performed their normal daily duties. The project manager and team leaders also worked on the project part-time. When conflicts arose, the project took priority. Given specific performance requirements and time deadlines, the Quick top- management committee made it clear that successful project completion was imperative. The project man- ager was given authority over functional managers and project team members regarding all project- related decisions.
QUESTIONS
1. What form of project management (basic, program, and so on) does this case most closely resemble?
2. The project manager is also the director of FS, only one of the departments that will be affected by the new benefits system. Does this seem like a good idea? What are the pros and cons of her selection?
3. Comment on the team members’ part- time assignment to the project and the
expectation that they give the project top priority.
4. Much of the success of this project depends on the performance of team members who are not employed by Quick, namely the HBS consultants. They must develop the entire hardware/software benefits system. Why was an outside firm likely chosen for such an important part of the project? What difficulties might this pose to the project manager in meeting project goals?
E
NDNOTES1. Adapted from Andrew Szilagyi, Management
and Performance, 2nd ed. (Glenview, IL: Scott,
Foresman, 1984): 7–10, 16–20, 29–32.
2. For a comprehensive review of this topic, see Don Hellriegel and John Slocum, Management, 4th ed. (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1986): 25–64.
3. One of the earliest discussions of this viewpoint appeared in F. J. Roethlisberger and W. J. Dickson, Management and the Worker (Boston: Harvard University Press, 1939).
4. See, for example, Paul Hersey and Ken Blanchard, Management of Organizational Behav-
ior: Utilizing Human Resources, 4th ed. (Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1982). This vol- ume presents the “situational leadership” the- ory and applications.
5. See Don Hellriegel and John Slocum, “Organi- zational Design: A Contingency Approach,”
Business Horizons 16, no. 2 (1973): 59–68.
6. Russell D. Archibald, Managing High-Technology
Projects (New York: Wiley, 1976): 19; Jack R.
Meredith and Samuel Mantel, Project Manage-
ment: A Managerial Approach, 3rd ed. (New York:
Wiley, 1995): 7–9; Daniel D. Roman, Managing
Projects: A Systems Approach (New York: Else-
vier, 1986): 2–10; John M. Stewart, “Making Pro- jects Management Work,” Business Horizons 8, no. 3 (Fall 1965): 54–68.
7. David Cleland and William King, Systems
Analysis and Project Management, 3rd ed.
(New York: McGraw-Hill, 1983): 191–192. 8. Keith Davis, “The Role of Project Management
in Scientific Manufacturing,” IEEE Transactions
of Engineering Management 9, no. 3 (1962):
109–113.
9. Portions of this section are adapted from Richard Johnson, Fremont Kast, and James Rosenzweig. The Theory and Management of Sys-
tems, 3rd ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1973):
395–397.
10. Cleland and King, Systems Analysis and Project
Management, 259.
11. Dick Sharad, “Management by Projects, and Ideological Breakthrough,” Project Management
Journal (March 1986): 61–63.
12. Based upon W. Hofer, “Lady Liberty’s Business Army,” Nation’s Business (July 1983): 18–28. 13. John Adams, Stephen Barndt, and Martin
Martin, Managing by Project Management
(Dayton, OH: Universal Technology, 1979): 12–13.
14. Szilagyi, Management and Performance, 489–490. 15. Alvin Toffler, Future Shock (New York: Random
House, 1970).
16. This section is adapted from Daniel Roman,
Managing Projects: A Systems Approach
(New York: Elsevier, 1986): 426–429, with the permission of the publisher.
17. Based upon information compiled by Jenny Harrison from interviews with managers in Company Alpha (fictitious name).
18. Based upon information compiled by Cary Morgan from interviews with managers of the LogiCircuit Corporation (fictitious name). 19. Information about this project contributed by
Jim Pilcher, Jeff Abbott, Nicole Pontious, Daniel Post, and Melissa Prenger.
20. Adapted from a case in R. L. Janson, Production
Control Desk Book (Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall, 1978).
21. Based upon information compiled by Darlene Capodice from interviews with managers in two accounting firms.
22. Information about this project contributed by Daniel Molson, Mike Billish, May Cumba, Jesper Larson, Anne Lanagan, Madeleine Pem- ber, and Diane Petrozzo.
23. Information about this project contributed by David Banta, Shehadeh Dides, Rachel Murdock, Agnes Rhodes-Rodriquez, and Michael Wood.
24. Portions of this section are adapted from Richard Chapman, Project Management in NASA:
The System and The Men (Washington, D.C.:
NASA SP–324, NTIS No. N75–15692, 1973). 25. Information about this case contributed by
Jennifer Koziol, Sussan Arias, Linda Clausen, Gilbert Rogers, and Nidia Sakac. For interest- ing reading about crisis management follow- ing a different crisis, the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, see Frank Saladis, “Manag- ing crisis: rebuilding Telecommunications at the World Trade Center,” Pmnetwork (August 1993): 12–18.
26. Information about this case contributed by Debbie Tomczak, Bill Baginski, Terry Bradley, Brad Carlson, and Tom Delaney. Organizational names are fictitious but the case is factual.