Implementation Plan Generic Benchmarking
Essay Preview: Implementation Plan Generic Benchmarking
Report this essay
Implementation Plan Generic Benchmarking
Our team has been studying and researching various companies to develop alternative initiatives for the Harrison-Keyes Implementation Plan and Defense. We have identified issues that connect to the concepts and can be compared with the Harrison-Keyes scenario. We have also explained how our comparison companies responded to their issues, and described various outcomes to the issues. The following information is a summary of our findings and we believe it will be of great value in our next step to finding alternative plans and solutions for Harrison-Keyes.
Company: Office Depot Inc.
The Situation
Office Depot, Inc. Founded in 1986, is one of the worlds largest suppliers of office products and services. The companys selection of brand name office supplies includes business machines, computers, computer software and office furniture, while its business services encompass a wide variety of copying, printing, document reproduction, mailing and shipping services. The company sells its products through multiple distribution channels, including over 1,000 office supply stores, direct mail services, Internet websites, business-to-business e-commerce sites, and sales forces. An S&P 500 company, Office Depot generates revenues of over US $15 billion annually and has 52,000 employees worldwide. It is headquartered in Delray Beach, Florida (Office Depot, 2008). Shortening costs and schedules in the process of developing new stores is the main concern of the company management.
The Response
“In most cases the bottom-up approach (micro-estimating) to estimate is preferred and more reliable because it assesses each work package, rather than the whole project, section, or deliverable of a project. Estimating time and costs for each work package facilitates development of the project network and a time-phased budget, which are an important need to control scheduling and cost as the project is implemented” (Gray & Larson, 2005).
Office Depot is a good example of this practice. “From a business standpoint, the faster you can open a store, the faster it will start making money. And thats obviously a good thing, especially when you have a rollout program,” says Dan Booker, VP of design and construction, Office Depot, Delray Beach, Florida. “I didnt want to get locked in with an application that was so inflexible we would have to modify our business process to the application,” he says. “I wanted it to be the other way around. Also, the system had to be flexible enough to allow for accommodations to things outside my control” (Marianne Wilson, 2007). Booker decided to use the Retail Development Manager system from e-Builder, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. The program allows retailers to automate development processes and manage costs, schedules and communication through one on-line interface. It provides construction and real estate executives with program-wide rollout information and exception reports.
The Outcome
With e-Builder, project participants can submit, track down and simultaneously redline drawings, photos and documents on line. Leases are also posted and updated on line. The system allows all team members access to the information they need and provides a clear method of accountability that keeps projects from bogging down. Managers can see instantly where things are in the process. “The e-Builder system enables us to work more efficiently,” Booker says, “which leads to faster store openings and increased profit margins. We see the potential to shave up to 60 days off our typical development cycle. That may not hold true, of course, for all locations.” Booker says that one of the biggest benefits of e-Builder is that it organizes all documents in one central place on line. “In many chains, everybody involved in a project has their own file of information on it, be it on paper, Excel or whatever,” Booker adds. “E-Builder puts all that information in one place and gives us an electronic process to track things with.”
The system decreases miscommunication between staff, architects, designers, contractors and other outside parties. Plus, with the most current versions of records and documents always available, it makes the document review process much smoother and faster (Marianne Wilson, 2007).
Company: Future Combat Systems
The Situation
Future Combat Systems (FCS) is the United States Armys principle modernization program. FCS is intended to be a joint (across all US military services) networked system of systems, although it is being developed by a US Army program office. The Boeing Company and Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) are partnered together as the lead systems integrator for this program which involves more than 550 contractors and subcontractors in 41 states. FCS program management team is an integrated team that links the Army and industry. The management team has led to the Future Combat Systems (FCS) program the ability to manage the program that consists of sensors, robotics, vehicles, weapons and a network to tie it all to soldiers. With a program of this size decision making is the hardest task for management team (Future Combat Systems, 2007).
The Response
“A good system appropriately balances the needs of both the parent organization and the project by defining the interface between the project and parent organization in terms of authority, allocation of resources, and eventual integration of project outcomes into mainstream operations” (Gray & Larson, 2005, Ch 3). Based on this principle, the FCS program is managed as a unit, not as a series of single platforms. Some 600 industry partners are linked to other Defense Department and government entities in one integrated team that is managed for the Army by Boeing [BA] and SAIC as lead system integrator (LSI) (Program management, 2007).
The Outcome
“Management methods such as “weekly earned value system” allow FCS to get an in-depth understanding of cost and schedule all the way down into the supply base every week,” Dennis Muilenburg, vice president-general manager, Boeing Combat Systems and FCS program manager said. FCS managers use a risk management system that allows them to get insight on a weekly basis. Really stepping up the battle rhythm so that they get visibility, daily and weekly visibility, that in the past might have been