Docstoc

BlueFlameConsulting_Team_8_Set III Deliverables

Document Sample
BlueFlameConsulting_Team_8_Set III Deliverables Powered By Docstoc
					Technology Based Case
       Picking
      Deliverables Set 3
           Blue Flame Consulting




    blueflameconsulting.carolynmudgett.com
                  Table Of Contents


 Project Charter                       3

 Business Case                         4-5

 Proposed Personnel                    6-7

 Team Contract                         8

 Stakeholder Register                  9

 Stakeholder Management Strategy       10

 Gantt Chart                           11

 Responsibility Assignment Matrix      12

 “Who Does What, When” Report          13

 Risk Register                         14

 Meeting Agenda for Challenge          15-18

 Change Request Form                   19

 Client Acceptance                     20-21

 Future Opportunities for Engagement   22

 Lessons Learned Report                23

 Current Picking Process               24




                                                2
                                 Project Charter

Project Title: Technology Based Case Picking
Project Start Date: 1/23/12 (Time)      Projected Finish Date: 4/27/12
Budget Information: $352,000 (Cost)

Project Manager: Andrew Glass, (412) 999-4398, apg5103@psu.edu

Project Objectives: To create a better case picking system that will reduce
errors and increase efficiency. (Scope)

Main Project Success Criteria: Main criteria for project success will be reduced
costs, lower error rate, and a more efficient system.

Approach: We will be using bar-codes for palettes and cases.

Roles and Responsibilities
Role              Name           Organization/ Position             Contact Information

Project Manager   Andrew Glass   Blue Flame Consulting/ Project
                                                                    apg5103@psu.edu
                                 Manager
                                                                    412-999-4398


Stakeholder       Larry Turner   Johnson & Johnson

Stakeholder       Anthony        Johnson & Johnson/ SME             APacit12@its.jnj.com
                  Pacitti

Project           Sarah          Blue Flame Consulting/Consultant   ssa5112@psu.edu
Consultant        Almoaiqel

Project           Timothy        Blue Flame Consulting/Consultant   cmb5661@psu.edu
Consultant        Borger

Project           William        Blue Flame Consulting/Consultant   whb5033@psu.edu
Consultant        Bowman

Project           Michael        Blue Flame Consulting/Consultant   mtt5074@psu.edu
Consultant        Toohig

Project           Carolyn        Blue Flame Consulting/Consultant   cem5326@psu.edu
Consultant        Mudgett
Comments:
We have a very strong interest in eliminating all bugs in the system early and in a very
thorough fashion. We believe our programming experience will allow us to be heavily involved
in this. We will be sure to document this area extensively as well.


                                                                                      3
                                Business Case


1. Introduction/ Background - Johnson and Johnson currently uses a paper-based
system for warehouse distribution. The time wasted and errors made in the current
system are no longer acceptable and Johnson and Johnson hopes to replace the
system with a technology based system.
2. Business Objective - Blue Flame Consulting’s strategic goals include the
continued growth and profitability through solutions made possible by modern and
stable technology. The Case Picking Project for Johnson and Johnson will support
our goals with the implementation of a bar code scanning system which is an
improvement on the current paper based system. It will also improve the
profitability on the bottom line by reducing errors and improve the speed at which
cases can be picked. As our firm focuses on these values of growth and profitability,
this project meets our criteria.

3. Current Situation and Problem/Opportunity Statement - Johnson and
Johnson currently uses a paper-based system for their case pickers. The picker will
take a paper check list of items to be collected and sets out into the warehouse. The
picker then reaches the lot as determined from the list and locates the item and
verifies the number matches the one on his/her list before collecting the item. The
picker continues this process until all the items on the list are accounted for.
However, this system has an error rate of 5% and a great deal of unnecessary time is
spent verifying items from the paper list. This presents the opportunity for us to
improve Johnson and Johnson’s case picking by providing a system that does away
with the paper and instead will use a modern technology-based solution. The
current system may not be completely failed but they are looking for a way to
possibly make improvements.

4. Critical Assumption and Constraints - The project must provide an increased
performance to pickers and reduce the amount of error pickers make with the
current system. Current pickers and management at Johnson and Johnson both must
accept the new system and adapt to the new working environment. The project will
require new software and hardware which must integrate with the current Red
Prairie inventory and SAP. The project must be completed in eight months or less
and with a budget of $352,000. The system should require minimal technical
support and be stable to prevent against a system crash which would bring case
picking to a halt.

5. Analysis of Option and Recommendation - 1. Do Nothing. Their current system
may not be perfect but works to a certain extent. 2. Purchase and modify an
additional add-on to the Red Prairie system that will allow for use of bar-code
scanners to track case picking as opposed to current paper system. 3. Create an
independent system that functions with the current Red Prairie system to allow use

                                                                                    4
of bar-code scanners for case picking.

At the moment, we believe option three to be the best choice.

6. Preliminary Project Requirements - The main features of the new case picking
system include the following: 1. Software, which functions with Red Prairie and
creates lists of cases to be compiled by the pickers. 2. New handheld bar code
scanners that communicate through wireless with the software that function with
Red Prairie. 3. The scanners will display to the picker the list of items to collect and
when an item is scanned and subsequently picked the item is checked off the list.
The scanner then displays the next closest item to be picked. 4. When a list has been
completed the case picker can drop off the items at the designated area and choose
to accept a new list of items that he/she will then collect.

7. Budget Estimate and Financial Analysis - A preliminary estimate of costs for
the project is $351,720. This estimate is based on two programmers working for
three months each; plus, the addition of a junior programmer who will work during
and after the senior programmers’ time on the project. The price of project
managers working six months through the length of the project are also included in
the estimate. Costs of training employees on use of the new system and lastly the
cost of the handheld devices for the case pickers are also accounted for in the final
costs.

8. Schedule Estimate - Our sponsor, Johnson and Johnson, would like to see the
project completed within eight months.

9. Potential Risks - There are several risks in this project. The primary risk at the
moment is a lack of high-level support which can lead to a lack of priority towards
our project and possibly lose some funding. Employees who actually interact with
our system also run the risk of rejecting the new system and being resistant to
working with it or taking the time to learn the new system. The main technical
difficulty comes with compatibility issues between our new software and the
current inventory software which can lead to increased costs, time delays and
possibly the entire system needing replaced.

10. Exhibits

Exhibit A: Financial Analysis




                                                                                        5
                            Proposed Personnel


Head Programmer
Head programmer will be in charge of most of abstract thought and design of
new software system. He will develop pseudo-code, and create a chart of the
planned steps in development of the software system, and begin to develop the
code itself. Head programmer will be a position with a minimum of 3 years of
experience, as the task will demand strong experience in the workplace,
excellent leadership skills, and the ability to troubleshoot problems quickly and
effectively. The salary will be $30.65 an hour. The expected hours of work for
this position are 8 hours a day, for a total of 520 working hours. The area of
expertise should be software development with strengths in database
management.

Assistant programmer
With the head programmer taking the front of the coding, the assistant
programmer will be the one who will come in after the coding is halfway finished
and review how the system will work within the warehouse. The assistant
programmer will make minor changes to the system as the creation reaches its
end. Once the system is laid out, the assistant programmer will take the created
program and integrate it into the already existing system. The assistant
programmer must have 3 years of experience in their field and must have a
strong grasp of human-computer interaction. The salary will be $30.65 an hour
and they will be expected to work for 8 hours a day totaling in 520 working hours.
Their area of expertise should be in software implementation with strengths in
human-computer interaction.

In-House Technical Manager
The responsibilities of the In-House Technical Manager will include management
of the warehouse’s technology and maintaining optimum operation of all
hardware and software resources through effective troubleshooting and
maintenance. The position requires at least four years within the company to
ensure both interest in and experience with the company and its IT goals and
projects. The starting salary will be $15.00 per hour, with opportunities for
promotion as their time with the company in this new position is increased. The
expected hours of work will be 8 hours per day so long as the position is held by
the same person within the company, and the position is to be upheld as a newly
created position from the completion of the project onward. Areas of expertise
should include knowledge of internal company workings, strong knowledge of the
new system being implemented, with strengths in understanding of the hardware
and software and knowledge of the business goals and practices of the
company.



                                                                                    6
Project Manager
A project manager will be assigned to work on this project with the management
team. The project manager’s roles and responsibilities are to be the lead on the
project, to be the mediator between the project and the upper management, to
spearhead the operation toward its final goal, and to be the one to take
responsibility for any mishaps that occur throughout the lifetime of the project.
The project manager will be paid the same amount as any of the other team
members, but will be the one to gain exposure across the rest of the company.
The rate for the project manager will be $30.65 an hour and they will be
scheduled to work throughout the entire lifetime of the project. The project
manager must be able to manage a team in a high stress environment, and they
must have some experience with business etiquette.

Price References:
Programmers:
http://www.indeed.com/salary?q1=Programmer&l1=Mechanicsburg%2C+PA
Project Manager:
http://www.indeed.com/salary?q1=Project+Manager&l1=Mechanicsburg%2C+PA
In-house Technical Manager: 0.5 * Programmer




                                                                                7
                            Team Contract

Project Name: Technology Based Case Picking
Project Team Members Names and Sign-off:
Name            Sign-off on Team Contract

Andrew Glass


Sarah Almoaiqel


Timothy Borger


William Bowman


Michael Toohig


Carolyn Mudgett




Code of Conduct: As a project team, we will:
·     Be punctual
·     Be respectful of peers
·     Have good communication
Participation: We will:
·     Divide work evenly
·     Everyone contribute
·     Stay on task
Communication: We will:
·     Communicate using Facebook, e-mail, Skype, etc…
·     Schedule meeting times
·     Give notice if you cannot attend meeting
Problem Solving: We will:
·     Solve problems respectfully
·     Approach LAs if needed
·     Democratic Solution
Meeting Guidelines: We will:
·     Arrive on time
·     Agree to meeting length
·     Have agenda

                                                        8
                           Stakeholder Register

Name         Organization View towards         Project Role          Position
                          project

Larry Turner JnJ             Set expectations Hired us to carry      Johnson &
                             for us and is     out the project for   Johnson
                             paying us to meet JnJ
                             those
                             expectations

Programmers Possibly from They are hired by Will create the          Contractors
            JnJ           us to create the software that will
                          software we       make the project
                          expect.           successful

Pickers      JnJ             May see change Primary Users of         Johnson &
                             as a negative and final product,        Johnson
                             resist, or a      effective
                             positive and      implementation
                             support.          will require full
                                               acceptance and
                                               proper utilization
                                               from this group

Other        Their own       Will see how we None                    Stakeholder
Consultant                   perform and learn
Org.                         from any mistake
                             we make and will
                             have chance at
                             taking future bids
                             from us.

Scanner      Their own       We are a           Provide scanners     Stakeholder
Company      (undecided      customer of
             who we will     theirs and we are
             purchase        buying in bulk. If
             from yet)       the scanners are
                             of good quality
                             and come with
                             good service they
                             may expect we
                             interact with them
                             again.



                                                                                   9
                  Stakeholder Management Strategy

Name           Position      Level of   Level of    Potential Management Strategies
                             Interest   Influence

Larry Turner   Johnson &     High       High        Have frequent virtual video chat
               Johnson                              (at least once a week) with a face
                                                    to face in person meeting bi-
                                                    weekly

Programmers    Contractors   Medium     Medium      Have daily face to face interaction,
                                                    maintain project direction and
                                                    encourage feedback from the
                                                    programmers so their needs can
                                                    be met and productivity is kept
                                                    high.

Pickers        Johnson &     Medium     Low         Make sure they are adequately
               Johnson                              trained so there is as little
                                                    frustration as possible from the
                                                    switch in technology. Maintain
                                                    and promote feedback systems so
                                                    picker support remains high and
                                                    employment of new system is
                                                    effective.

Other          Stakeholder   Medium     Low         Maintain good business practices
Consultant                                          within our company and produce
                                                    high quality product, while
Org.
                                                    maintaining high level support so
                                                    we do not lose the contract to
                                                    another organization.

Scanner        Stakeholder   Low        Low         Clearly define our demands of the
Company                                             product, and note how large our
                                                    order is likely to be to get them to
                                                    work with us. Also state how our
                                                    other warehouses may adapt this
                                                    new system if it is highly
                                                    successful.




                                                                                     10
Gantt Chart




              11
                        Resource Assignment Matrix

WBS Activities                              3.1 3.2.1   3.2.2 3.3.1 3.3.2 3.3.3

OBS Units

                 Sarah                                        S     S

                 Andy                   R                     R     R

                 Bill                                         S     S

                 Mike                                         S     S

                 Tim                                          S     S

                 Carolyn                                      S     S

                 Sr Programmer 1                R       R                 R
                 Sr Programmer 2                S       S                 S
                 Jr Programmer                          S
                 Key:
                 R = responsible, S =
                 Support required




                                                                          12
“Who Does What, When” Report




                               13
14
                                                         Risk Register
No   Rank   Risk         Description       Category      Root Cause      Triggers      Contingency      Mitigation       Risk       Status
                                                                                       plan             plan             Owner

R1   1      Lack of      JnJ higher-ups    People Risk   Project team    Change        Keep JnJ in      Keep JnJ well    Project    High level
            high level   do not support                  not keeping     occurring     the loop,        informed of      Manager    JnJ
            support      or have                         stakeholders    without       always ask for   all aspects of              employees
                         awareness of                    properly        JnJ's input   input.           the project,                are being
                         the projects                    informed.                                      including but               well
                         progress and                                                                   not limited to              informed of
                         needs. This                                                                    weekly virtual              the project
                         could lower                                                                    meetings,                   and its goals,
                         the project                                                                    consistent                  and systems
                         visibility and                                                                 feedback from               are being
                         priority, and                                                                  employees,                  developed to
                         impede                                                                         and face to                 keep them
                         funding.                                                                       face meetings               informed for
                                                                                                        to show                     its entire
                                                                                                        progress and                duration.
                                                                                                        discuss goals
                                                                                                        and any
                                                                                                        problems.

R2   2      Lack of      The pickers       People Risk   Long term       Confusion     Hold a           Training         Blue       Employee
            employee     and other                       use of old      with the      meeting/extra    sessions to      Flame      polling will
            acceptanc    employees                       system could    interface     training         familiarize      Team       be done, as
            e            resist the                      cause                         session with     employees                   well as
                         system                          resistance to                 employees        with the new                extensive
                         change.                         change                                         system.                     training to
                                                                                                                                    make them
                                                                                                                                    more
                                                                                                                                    comfortable
                                                                                                                                    and
                                                                                                                                    promotion of
                                                                                                                                    feedback.

R3   3      Lack of      Project stall     Financial     Incorrect       Unexpected    Use reserve      Have a reserve   Larry      A reserve
            funding      and inability     Risk          budget          change        money to                          Turner,    that can be
                         to continue                     projections                   cover                             Blue       spent, but
                         development                                                   shortfalls.                       Flame      ideally will
                         and                                                                                             team       not be spent,
                         implementatio                                                                                              is being
                         n.                                                                                                         worked into
                                                                                                                                    the budget.


R4   4      Poor         Misguided         People Risk   Lack of         Poor          Intervene with   Develop a        Blue       Blue Flame
            Communi      decisions, lack                 checkpoints     internal      a meeting to     plan for         Flame      team is
            cation       of feedback,                    for feedback    leadership    start the        feedback and     team       setting firm
                         and goals that                                                communicatio     communicatio                meeting
                         do not reflect                                                n back up and    n.                          requirements
                         the desires of                                                follow up                                    to maintain
                         Johnson and                                                   regularly.                                   dialogue
                         Johnson.                                                                                                   with project
                                                                                                                                    sponsor and
                                                                                                                                    other
                                                                                                                                    members, as
                                                                                                                                    well as
                                                                                                                                    promoting
                                                                                                                                    feedback
                                                                                                                                    from
                                                                                                                                    employees.




                                                                                                                                   15
R5   5   Compatibi    Time delays,       Structure/Pr   Lack of         Difference      Research          Research         In-         Technical
         -lity        cost increases,    ocess Risk     knowledge       in              potential         potential        House       Manager is
         issues       and the                           about legacy    developme       issues            issues           Technica    reviewing
         with         possibility that                  system.         nt              beforehand,       beforehand,      l           old systems
         Legacy       the entire                                        techniques      thoroughly        thoroughly.      Manager     and
         Systems      system will                                       between                           Do small scale               troubleshooti
                      have to be                                        those who                         testing early,               ng
                      replaced.                                         developed                         before time                  techniques,
                                                                        the old                           demands are                  as well as
                                                                        systems                           high.                        attempting to
                                                                        and our                                                        anticipate
                                                                        team's                                                         likely areas
                                                                        techniques.                                                    of difficulty
                                                                                                                                       with the new
                                                                                                                                       system.




R6   6   Missing      Loss of High       Sturcture/Pr   Poor            High            Have frequent     Frequently       Blue        Team is
         Scope,       Level support,     ocess Risk     planning        monetary        meetings          review           Flame       spending
         Time, and    cancellation of                   with            or work         about             progress,        Team,       considerable
         Cost goals   project.                          inaccurate      demands         problems that     maintain high    Larry       time in
                                                        models          drive us        caused the        level            Turner      planning
                                                        resulting in    past our        team to miss      involvement,                 phase, with
                                                        underestimat    pre-            goals,            act quickly                  focus on
                                                        ion and         detemined       determine         upon demands                 setting firm,
                                                        improper        targets.        how to either     to change.                   but
                                                        allocation of                   meet goals                                     attainable
                                                        resources.                      again or adjust                                goals.
                                                        Poor                            to decrease the                                Frequent
                                                        monitoring                      problems as                                    review and
                                                        and                             much as                                        meeting
                                                        controlling                     possible.                                      techniques
                                                        practices.                      Once                                           are being
                                                                                        everything is                                  drafted to
                                                                                        under control                                  maintain a
                                                                                        again,                                         nimble
                                                                                        maintain high                                  project.
                                                                                        awareness of
                                                                                        project to
                                                                                        prevent
                                                                                        recurrence.




R7   7   Improper     Ineffective        Financial      Poor            Underestim      Acquire                            Larry       Planning
         resources    utilization of     Risk           planning,       ation of        funding for                        Turner,     period has
         for ample    new system.                       improper        resources       immediate                          Project     been given
         training                                       gauging of      needed in       extra training                     Manager     high priority,
                                                        complexity      planning        for personnel.                                 and high
                                                        of new          stage, not      Review all                                     level staff
                                                        system and      corrected       aspect of                                      involved in
                                                        pickers'        lack of         implementatio                                  project has
                                                        current         funding is      n to make sure                                 been
                                                        ability.        apparent in     everything is                                  informed of
                                                                        later stages.   running at                                     what
                                                                                        optimum                                        resources
                                                                                        efficiency.                                    will likely be
                                                                                                                                       needed for
                                                                                                                                       optimal
                                                                                                                                       deployment.




                                                                                                                                      16
R8   8    Competito     Loss of          Market       Lack of         Capitalist     Re-evaluate         Maintain          Project     Project
          r releasing   dedicated        Risk         knowledge       market         approach and        cutting edge      Manager     manager is
          superior      resources used                of              drives         adjust project      practices and                 researching
          system        to develop an                 competitor's    companies      so that it is the   remain away                   competitors,
                        obsolete                      products and    to             premier             of existent                   their
                        system.                       development     outperform     system, and         competitors                   projects, and
                                                      goals.          and keep       faces no threat     and theirs                    recent
                                                                      projects       of current          goals.                        contracts to
                                                                      secret, and    obsoletion.                                       see if there
                                                                      other                                                            are
                                                                      company                                                          similarities
                                                                      may want                                                         in market
                                                                      our                                                              share, and
                                                                      contract.                                                        thus the
                                                                                                                                       possibility of
                                                                                                                                       threat.




R(   9    Database      Data loss,       Technology   Assorted and    System         If needed,          Make sure in      In-         In-House
          system        time delays.     Risk         unpredictabl    faults or      bring in            house             House       Technical
          failure                                     e. Maybe        grid failure   outside expert      technology        Technica    Manager is
                                                      power issues,   could cause    to regain           expert is         l           becoming
                                                      demands on      databases      database            maintaining       Manager     familiar with
                                                      system          to become      operation.          system                        troubleshooti
                                                      beyond          inoperation    Immediately         regularly, and                ng
                                                      capability,     al.            dedicate            kept abreast of               techniques
                                                      bugs yet to                    necessary           any changes,                  common for
                                                      be worked                      resourses to        bugs, or                      this type of
                                                      out.                           bring               complaints                    system.
                                                                                     databases           having to do
                                                                                     online with         with the
                                                                                     minimal             system.
                                                                                     downtime. Be
                                                                                     prepared to
                                                                                     pay overtime
                                                                                     to employees,
                                                                                     if necessary.




R1   10   System        Ongoing          Technology   Not enough      Unknown        Find and fix        Thorough          Program     Programmers
0         bugs          troubleshootin   Risk         testing, code   bug is able    any and all         code review,      mers        have been
          causing       g required.                   review.         to acted       errors,             testing, and                  briefed of the
          inventory     Negative                                      upon by        determine           review of                     projects
          errors        impact on                                     system.        cause of error      inventory                     priorities,
                        IRR.                                                         and eliminate.      numbers for                   and have
                                                                                                         anything that                 begun
                                                                                                         appears                       considering
                                                                                                         incorrect.                    which areas
                                                                                                         Implement                     problems are
                                                                                                         built-in double               most likely
                                                                                                         checks.                       to arise from.




                                                                                                                                      17
                      Meeting Agenda for Challenge

Date: 4/18/12
Time: 3:00 PM
Location: Virtual Meeting (Skype)
           Chair: Andrew Glass
           Attendees: Anthony Pacitti, Carolyn Mudgett, Sarah Almoaiqel,
           William Bowman, Michael Toohig, Timothy Borger


Objective: To discuss Set 3 Deliverables and have questions answered.


Questions:
   1.   Are we presenting the presentation as if we are working on the project
        currently, or proposing ideas?

   2.   Change request form:
             What is the title of the change request and change order number?
             Who are our required approvals?

   3.   What deliverables would you prefer to see in our presentation?


Next Steps (Outcomes of this meeting): (Bulleted list of who will be doing
what)
   ●    (Entire Team) Continuing to work on deliverables for submission.




Next Meeting: Wednesday, April 25th 2012 / 3:00 PM




                                                                                 18
                         Change Request Form

Project Name: Technology Based Case Picking Project
Date Request Submitted: April 11, 2012
Title of Change Request: Reduction in Schedule and Cost
Change Order Number: 000-1
Submitted by: Andrew Glass (Project Manager) 412-999-4398
Change Category: -Scope -Schedule -Cost -Technology                  -Other

Description of change requested:
   Reduce schedule by one month and reduce costs from $400,00 to
      $352,000.

Events that made this change necessary or desirable:
    Income statements are not looking good and management has decided to
      reduce budgets of several projects including our own. Furthermore,
      another project manager needs a majority of your resources due to a labor
      shortage. Therefore we are asked to shorten the project by one month.

Justification for the change/why it is needed/desired to continue/complete
the project:
    Management needs more of our resources so we are asked to reduce our
       schedule by a month so those resources we are using can be passed on
       to another project one month sooner than the original scheduled nine
       months. Management wants us to reduce our costs for their bottom line,
       so to continue it is desired by them we lower our budget by 12%.

Impact of the proposed change on:
Scope: N/A
Schedule: - 1 month
Cost: -12% ($48,000)
Staffing: N/A
Risk: We will have less money in reserves

Suggested implementation if the change request is approved:
   We are already within the time frame requested by the schedule reduction
     so there is no need to make changes for this part of the requests from
     management. However, we need to lower our budget some to fit within
     their new budget limit. To do so we will remove the necessary amount of
     money from our reserves to fit into the new budget requirements.

Required approvals:
Name/Title                         Date          Approve/Reject
Andy Glass / PM                    18 April 2012 Approve
Larry Turner / Johnson and Johnson 18 April 2012 Approve


                                                                              19
                              Client Acceptance
Project Name:               Technology Based Case Picking Project
Project Manager:            Andrew Glass
I (We), the undersigned, acknowledge and accept delivery of the work completed
for this project on behalf of our organization. My (Our) signature(s) attest to my
(our) agreement that this project has been completed. No further work should be
done on this project.

Name                  Title               Signature                         Date
Andrew Glass          Project Manager                                       4-11-12

Carolyn Mudgett       Team Member                                           4-11-12

Michael Toohig        Team Member                                           4-11-12

William Bowman        Team Member                                           4-11-12


Timothy Borger        Team Member                                           4-11-12

Sarah Almoaiqel       Team Member                                           4-11-12

Anthony Pacitti       Client/SME                                            4-11-12




   1.   Was this project completed to your satisfaction?              Yes     No

   2.   Please provide the main reasons for your satisfaction or dissatisfaction
        with this project.

The project created holds true to the credo. The project makes the warehouse
more reliable, worker friendly, and relaxed. The decrease in errors allows for a
more satisfied customer and a more enjoyable working environment. All
deadlines were met on time and all members of the project team worked well
together.




                                                                                   20
   3. Please provide suggestions on how our organization could improve its
      project delivery capability in the future.


In the future, it would be wise for your company to create a tracking program that
will keep record using an individual ID number for each case to ensure that in no
way are employees stealing products. Each case will be identical and tracked so
there is no possibility of theft. In addition to increased internal security, tracking
each case individually will allow the warehouse to ensure that there are no
mistakes in order size, quantity, or value.


                           Thank you for your feedback.




                                                                                    21
                  Future Opportunities for Engagement
         Future engagements relating to the current project include the probable
implementation of this system throughout the other warehouses in J&J’s
infrastructure. If implementation of the new picking system is as effective as
anticipated, it will likely be desirable to update all other picking systems and
practices to the new, cutting edge methods implemented in this warehouse. The
scope of these projects will likely be similar, although if they are done all at once
it will be a very large undertaking. However, in the end, the reduction in errors
across the company and the increased revenue will make the project very
worthwhile.
         Another opportunity could be to develop similar projects for other areas of
the J&J company. Likely, there are sectors other than warehouse picking and
experience less than optimal results, and could be heavily improved by proper
implementation of an IT network. This, again, could provide large monetary
gains and improve employee morale by making their daily activities less stressful.
         After completing this project, it is possible that certain characteristics of
employee morale and acceptance of change will become more apparent or
observable. From this, training programs and techniques could be developed to
improve the chances of future projects being optimally implemented with
employee support. Employee behaviour could also be monitored and measured
to see what it is they desire in the workplace, and what could be implemented or
what opportunities presented to allow them to work more efficiently.




                                                                                   22
                          Lessons Learned Report
Project Name: Technology Based Case Picking Project
Project Sponsor: Larry Turner
Project Manager: Andrew Glass
Project Dates: 1/23/12 - 4/27/12
Final Budget:      $352,000
   3. Did the project meet scope, time, and cost goals?
We were able to meet the scope, time, and cost goals.

   4.  What was the success criteria listed in the project scope statement?
Our initial goal was to complete the project in 9 months with a maximum budget
of $400,000. Recently time goals and the budget were reduced to 8 months and
$352,000 respectively.

   5.  Reflect on whether or not you met the project success criteria.
We were able to meet our goals of completing the project within the time
requirement of 8 months and the budget requirement of $352,000

   6.  In terms of managing the project, what were the main lessons your
       team learned?
We learned that time deadlines are very important. It is better to finish tasks early
in case of unforeseen circumstances that could cause delays or reduce the time
allowed for the project to be completed.

   7. Describe one example of what went right on this project.
One example that went right was the fact that we had no problem fulfilling the
scope while having a large amount of reserves in time and budget.

   8. Describe one example of what went wrong on this project.
One example of something that went wrong was communication between all
parties involved in the project. For the future, it will be important to improve the
communication for better success on projects.

   9.  What will you do differently on the next project based on your
       experience working on this project?
For the next project, we will improve the communication and have a better
understanding about what needs to be done at what point in the project.




                                                                                       23
Current Picking Process




                          24

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:7
posted:9/21/2012
language:English
pages:24