Fuzzy Information Processing Society †Free Samples to Students

Question: Discuss about the Fuzzy Information Processing Society. Answer: Introduction When the project methodologies are not properly followed and maintained project management issues aroused which lead to the failure of the project [1]. This report will highlight GEs project failure, the project management problems and causes, one who should pay for the changes have been showcased along with the recommendations. Frank Billings was passionate about rapid prototyping manufacturing while he was a student. Later though he got a job at Cocable Company and was doing well, he was not satisfied with his work. He left the job and planned to start his RP business. In the mean, while he got an offer from Cocable Company that he would have to build rapid prototyping machines for GE on behalf of Cocable Company. He started his work and finished well, but unfortunately, the project failed at the time of testing. The lessons learnt from this scenario by analyzing a list of project management problems and the causes behind that No clear objectives: Frank was in charge to deliver the rapid prototype machines for the smooth functioning of the CAD model of 48 inches long though the goal to modelled the machines for 62 inches. Change of scope in between: Initially Frank was provided with the CAD model of 48 inches long but during testing, he was provided with the CAD model of 62 inches long [4]. iii. Lack of Professionalism: Both GE and Cocable are showing lack of professionalism and they both are not ready to take the blame for the project failure that will definitely result in adverse effects. Risk Management issues: Both the companies have no backup plan, there is no risk management at all [3]. It is the responsibility of the project manager to accumulate all the inputs, makes a proper plan, progress according to the plan and finally executes the project. No clear plan: GE has no fixed plan or fixed goal regarding the CAD model. Lack of Communication: GE should make contact with Frank and discuss the details and lack of communication results in disaster. vii. Cocables confusion: They stated that got the specimens from GE which were of maximum length, but GE refused that the specimens sent to Cocable were not of maximum length, but some samples [8]. Frank unaware of the fact built according to the specimens sent by Cocable. GE at first sent 48 inches CAD model then sent 62 inches CAD model while testing that shows they have no clear objective and they are inattentive. After the project failure, they are not willing to take the blame, this kind of attitude is the main reason for unproductivity [5]. iii. GEs project manager must have proper risk management, after the project failure they have no clue what so ever, that is the reason why the project failed to deliver. GE has to communicate with Frank about the details, or else they should have explained the project elaborately to Cocable, but they did not do that, that is the another reason for project failure [2]. Cocable should have communicated with GE and made a secondary check of all the specifications they got but they did not do that that is the reason the project failed. None of the three- Frank, GE and Cocable has followed the project methodologies that are the reason for project failure. The organization or individual who is responsible to pay for the changes For the project mishaps, two risks have been evolved- The deadline for the project will have to be extended. The project will now be very expensive. GE, Cocable and Frank have not followed the project methodologies that are why the project fails, so three of them are responsible. Since it is GEs project and they have to take the initiative [7]. Now they are in an ethical dilemma, they can trust and can give Cocable another opportunity to prove their worth. GE can make the whole project executed from another company. In the second case, GE will have to bear the extra cost or extra expenses [6]. Recommendations They should have adopted a project methodology model and should have followed the model strictly, they could have followed follow the agile project methodologies. At first, GE should have listed all the requirements and then should have delivered the RP machines and CAD models to Cocable. Secondly, in turns Cocable should send the deliverables to GE, this deliverable could be the asset in this mishap. Frank should work only based on the deliverables. He got four RP machine, he should have completed one and made a partial submission to GE on behalf of Cocables. This could have saved both time and money for everyone. GE could ensure their project is progressing well and would be well delivered within the stipulated time or within the stipulated deadline. In this way, Cocable can earn GE's trust and hence this, in turn, can help them in future prospects. In this scenario, the CAD model confusion can be solved at the initial phase, but now since the project failed, all of them should lea rn from the mistakes and from now onwards they should follow the project methodologies properly. Conclusion It can be concluded from the above discourse that the GE, Frank and Cocable must follow the project methodologies to avoid any mishaps in the project in future. This report highlighted all the project related problems, the reasons also have been showcased for the project methods' failures. It has also been stated in the report about who should pay for the project failure. Finally, the measures have been grandstand in the report which shows that by adopting the project methodologies the project methodologies could have been mitigated. References Kerzner, Harold.Project management: a systems approach to planning, scheduling, and controlling. John Wiley Sons, 2013. Case, Denise M., and Chrysostomos D. Stylios. "Fuzzy Cognitive Map to model project management problems."Fuzzy Information Processing Society (NAFIPS), 2016 Annual Conference of the North American. IEEE, 2016. Larson, Erik W., and Clifford Gray.Project Management: The Managerial Process with MS Project. McGraw-Hill, 2013. Schwalbe, Kathy.Information technology project management. Cengage Learning, 2015. Snyder, Cynthia Stackpole. "A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge: PMBOK () Guide." Project Management Institute, 2014. Leach, Lawrence P.Critical chain project management. Artech House, 2014. Nicholas, John M., and Herman Steyn.Project management for engineering, business and technology. Taylor Francis, 2017. Heldman, Kim.PMP project management professional exam deluxe study guide: updated for the 2015 Exam. John Wiley Sons, 2015.