In the current organizational era, project management is a pertinent aspect of any business/organizational venture being majorly responsible for the overall growth and development of the firm entity. As such, Franklin Equipment, Ltd. is no exception, with reference to the current methodology taking into account on results dissertation chapter relating to the management of their various projects. Based in the North American nation-state of Canada, FEL is headquartered in Saint John, New Brunswick, with its main focus being on the fabrication of heavy equipment. Founded nearly a century ago, the entity has largely concentrated on the fabrication of custom-designed heavy equipment with focus on the construction industry, i.e. highway and dam construction amongst other fields, where rocks and aggregate are requisite building raw materials.
The fabrication of rock-crushing equipment/machinery is a specialized field, entailing the best of collaborative efforts, with focus on product quality, efficiency and effectiveness in its pertinent performance sectors. With such a broad range of experience, the entity has gradually come to dominate the market, especially North America, with respect to the design, fabrication and assembly of variants of both portable and stationary rock-crushing facilities/plants. Adding on to this is its advantageous position of being able to not only service its products, but also those of its various competitors, hence showcasing its great capacities and competencies. While the initial target market was the Canadian Maritime Provinces greater region, it gradually advanced to the rest of the state, with current efforts being focused on marketing its various products globally.
A major step in this direction was the recent awarding of a Middle East construction project, Project Abu Dhabi, with Charles Gatenby being assigned as its project manager. It is educated by the fact that it is he who secured the contract and received approval from the entity's top management. The project, viewed as a successful international business venture coup, was of uttermost importance to the aforementioned personally, as well as the greater organizational entity at large. It is due to the fact that major market arenas often viewed this entity as but amongst the many of existent North American vendors, hence the reluctance towards employing/contracting such entities due to existent global political ideals.
While the organizational entity had pertinent teams of officials, under the directorship of existent managers, with reference to the design, fabrication, delivery and eventual installation of such projects, there was some friction between some team members. Additionally was the presence of other pertinent aspects as a lack of will/spirit (skepticism), with reference to project completion and success. There was also the presence of friction (lack of consensus and teamwork), especially between the organization's projects design engineer, and its operations manager, responsible for project fabrication and installation. As Carl Jobe, the firm's permanent internal facilitator (consultant), I need say that the above case scenario is as such, not conducive to overall project success.
It is due to the fact that all team members need exhibit team building capacity, consensus, and understanding of each other's roles and responsibilities. Having been hired specifically as a result of Gatenby's (overall project manager) influence, the above views were gained through interviews, with the respondents sending mixed reactions, with reference to effective project implementation, input and efficiency. While Gatenby was firmly optimistic as to the team's eventual success majorly dependent on my facilitation capacities, the views aforementioned were to the contrary causing a great challenge and time ahead, especially for me, with respect to enhancing consensus, teamwork and capacity building.
In reference to the above, both Rob Perry (as the operations manager, responsible for project fabrication and installation), and Bill Rankins (as the design engineer) are pertinent facets of the overall project and are required to work together, effectively and efficiently. It entails greater cooperation, consensus building, acknowledgment, understanding, and respect for each other, with focus on their teamwork and effective individual and group output. It is influenced by the fact that both their individual contributions need to fuse/ ntegrate and consequently interact correctly, with focus being on establishing strong founded projects that are unique in design and overall appearance, as well as capacity output.
Moreover, it is a crucial fact that Elaine Bruder (finance and cost accounting manager) is as such, not optimistic about the whole operation, showcasing some skepticism as to its success. She is distant and not focused on the project ahead, with this spelling some potential future negative effects. She already projects costly overruns, as well as many missed deadlines, with reference to the venture, while in actual fact they have not yet embarked on it officially. This preset bias is fundamentally impactful on the personal and overall group output, as her docket crucially supports each pertinent step of the project. Hence, she should exude positivity focusing on various ways in which she could come up with cost-cutting measures.
While she showed her reservation by way of skepticism she, however, was not forthcoming as to the reasons behind her attitude. She as such, was utterly reluctant in identifying specific barriers she thought would negatively influence the project. While the three aforementioned personnel, crucial to the overall project's success, were showcasing negativity, Sam Stonebreaker (Human resource manager), was however optimistic as to the project's eventual successful completion, the aforementioned tensions notwithstanding. While the above team had worked on various projects in the past, the fact that Stonebreaker as the representative of HR acknowledges and entertains this friction is also potentially problematic.
His exclamation that the above friction portends to no problem, instills a sense of dissatisfaction on my part, with reference to teamwork and the overall project completion as project resources (workforce), must seamlessly interact. With such misunderstandings present, between Perry and Rankins, this ought to be of great concern to Stonebreaker, who should focus greatly on enhancing the two's greater interaction, understanding, acknowledgement, acceptance, and respect for each other's vital role-play. The two should further be explicitly informed that their cooperation, with reference to the project's overall success, is of uttermost importance. Hence, their personal differences need to be set aside, with greater concentration being focused on teamwork, cooperation, and interactivity.
With the above noted, the second meeting between Jobe and Gatenby, further provided crucial information as to the prevailing situation, as concerning the aforementioned lack of team work and spirit. When asked if the two gentlemen would work together, he was optimistic, providing signed formal goal setting between not only the two aforementioned, but also other existing project managers. Therefore, the incentive was provided to the two having them explicitly stating their goals, as well as the need to work and cooperate together. However, there was the aspect of the entity's top management's ultimatum to both employees if they did not cooperate.
It was, however, quite challenging, as it seemed biased to the favor of Perry, as Rankins was the one to be dismissed in case of any challenges or lack of cooperation. Adding to that was the fact that the one to gain from such an unfortunate occurrence was indeed in the know of this directive and hence would potentially compromise work relations to gain an advantageous ground. According to my point of view, it was the wrong step, with reference to the two individuals, current co-relational contexts.
Noting all the above, and acting on my capacity as the organization's internal facilitator, with respect to the aforementioned case scenario, I would recommend a number of measures to Gatenby.
First would be the need to understand the fact that in an organizational context, all employees need to be treated equally, of course acknowledging the existent hierarchical structures present. Thus, both Perry and Rankins need to understand that they are equal in the team and as such, are both dispensable, if push-comes-to-shove. Therefore, Perry should in fact not receive any special treatment. More to that is the need for Stonebreaker as the HR manager to better assert his authority, with reference to team members and their overall cooperative interactions. He should in fact be at the forefront of instilling cooperation between the two, giving them no room for disagreement or lack of cooperation.
With reference to Elaine, she should be encouraged to voice her concerns openly, without any fear or reservation as she is an integral part of the project's overall wellbeing and success. By controlling the finance and cost accounting department, her input is vital towards enabling the different departments interact not only efficiently, but also effectively with reference to promoting the various team's positive output. She should as such realize that the project requires the different departments work as a team, hence sharing the same positive aspirations, targets, goals and missions. Consequently, there is need for positivity, with reference to the project's overall implementation and accomplishment and therefore she should be part of the team full-heartedly, to provide her best output.In conclusion, while Gatenby as the overall project's team manager, does provide crucial leadership, providing each and every individual with space and autonomy towards project input, he should also be firm in requiring team cooperation and team-spirit. It should be educated by the fact that the project's overall success, lies squarely in the combined positive output of the various departments involved, and pertinently so, by the team leaders in charge.