Case Study - Ferris Healthcare, Inc. Senior management at Ferris recognized that its fut ure growth could very well be determined by how quickly and how well it implement ed project management. For the past several years, line managers had been function ing as project managers while still managing their line groups. The projects came out with the short end of the stick, most often late and over budget, because managers focuse d on line activities rather than project work. Everyone recognized that project management needed t be an established career path position and that some structured process had to be implemented for project management. A consultant was brought into Ferris to provide ini tial project management training for 50 out of the 300 employees targeted for eventual proj ect management training. Several of the employees thus trained were then placed on a co mmittee with senior management to design a project management stage-gate model for Fe rris. After two months of meetings, the committee identif ied the need for three different stage- gate models: one for information systems, one for new products/services provided, and one for bringing on board new corporate clients. Th ere were several similarities among the three models. However, personal interests dict ated the need for three methodologies, all based upon rigid policies and procedures. After a year of using three models, the company rec ognized it had a problem understanding how to assign the right project manag er to the right project. Project managers had to be familiar with all three methodol ogies. The alternative considered impractical, was to assign only those project manag ers familiar with that specific methodology. After six months of meetings, the company considere d the three methodologies into a single methodology, focusing more upon guidelines t han on policies and procedures. The entire organization appeared to support the new sin gular methodology. A consultant was brought in to conduct the first three days of a fou r-day training program for employees no yet trained in project management. The fourth day was taught by internal personnel with a focus on how to use the new methodology. The suc cess ratio on projects increased dramatically.

Questions:

1. Why was it so difficult to develop a singular metho dology from the start?

2. Why were all three initial methodologies based on policies & procedures?

3. Why do you believe the organization later was willi ng to accept a singular methodology?

4. Why was the singular methodology based on guideline s rather than policies and procedures?

5. Did it make sense to have the fourth day of the tra ining program devoted to the methodology and immediately attached to the end of the three-day program?

6. Why was the consultant not allowed to teach the met hodology?