Running head CHANGE CONTROL1Executive SummaryThe Lewis .docx

Running head: CHANGE CONTROL
1Executive Summary
The Lewis project has exceeded its projected cost and the
project team is running behind on the project’s time. Frank’s
team has been overwhelmed with reporting requests coming in
from Lewis’ representatives and the company’s suppliers have
affected the project’s time by delivering some of the project
parts late. At the moment, the project cost is 30% more than the
project team expected and the project team seeks some solutions
to bring it back on track.
The project team suggests the implementation of change
controls that would ensure that the project’s scope is controlled
and the costs minimized and ensure that the project is
completed on time with all the deliverables achieved. The
project team suggests the implementation of some changes in
the project team’s communication processes and how
procurements are made in order to bring the project back on
track.
Keywords: scope, deliverables, project team.
Table of Contents
2Executive Summary
4Introduction
Processes Involved in Change
Request………………………………………………………………
……….............4

4Identified Project Issues
Control Change
Requests……….......................................................................
.............................6
8Conclusion
10References
Introduction
The Lewis project is lagging behind the project sponsor’s
expectations, as the project’s cost, time and deliverable goals
seem to be unattainable with the amount of time remaining. One
of the problems that can be noticed from the project is the fact
that the project was running way over the projected budget with
the project team estimating that the project would cost 30%
above the projected budget.
Besides that, the project had experienced some serious material
delays, as the procurement processes were quite inefficient and
expensive. The core purpose of this proposal document is to
come up with an in-depth analysis of the problems that are
affecting Frank’s effectiveness in handling the project and come
up with proposed changes that could be implemented to make
the project get back on track within the remaining project time.
Processes Involved in Change Request
Due to a failure of coming up with a concrete plan, the project
team has come up with the idea of submitting a request to deal
with the changes necessary to alter the project. There are certain
processes they will have to go through in order to help the
company to get back on track. The company needs to rework on
the purpose and objectives that were initially carried out by
Frank’s before the start of the project. As the cost and time of
the project was going way up beyond the expectations, Franks’

would need to look over the scope of the project. The change
request team then fills out the change request form in which
they would identify a proposed change and then justifies the
identified change. They would continue on to identify the
impacts of change on time, cost, schedule and on stakeholders
as well. After a complete working on this change, the
management would continue on to change the management roles
for example they would set the employees according to their
positions unlike before. The management would then submit the
change request, review the proposed changes and after that, if
approved, the request will be approved. Identified Project Issues
Communication Breakdown
The project team experienced some serious communication
issues in the course of the project, which made the Lewis
project, go out of scope. To start with, Frank’s project team
required its suppliers to have a meeting with them for every part
the company acquired from them. Initially, Frank normally held
meetings with suppliers for parts that were deemed complex and
had specific design requirements.
However, for this project, the team scheduled meetings with all
the suppliers for all the parts, even for small off-the-shelf parts
that didn’t need to be modified. The meetings were not
productive, as the project team and the suppliers discussed the
same things that were discussed in their project proposals. This
communication flaw led to time-wastage, as the team was
involved in time-wasting meetings instead of actually focusing
on the project.
Besides that, the Lewis representatives needed to hold update
meetings with Frank’s project team every week on Wednesday.
Although the motive was pure from Lewis, they didn’t need to
involve the whole project team. The project team felt
overwhelmed by these weekly meetings and even had to hold
internal meetings every Tuesday in order for them to be on the
same page on the Wednesday meetings. Therefore, the project
team focused more on the meetings than the actual project work,

leading to time wastage.
Apart from that, the Lewis team always wanted constant updates
from the Frank team, which made it difficult for the Frank team
to work effectively. For example, the Lewis team wanted
special reports from the procurement team every week, a move
that made it difficult for the project team to work effectively
when it comes to the issue of identifying and preventing
problems that were related to procurement of parts.
The communication updates needed by the Lewis team went
further until they had direct access to the project team members,
a scenario that was not supposed to occur at all, as both clients
had agreed before the commencement of the project. The
communication breakdown led to communication lapses, as
Frank’s upper project management team wasn’t looped in in
some of the direct communications that took place between the
project team and Lewis’ representatives.
Procurement Flaws
As mentioned in the previous section, the project team needed
to schedule meetings with potential vendors for all parts,
instead of doing so for complex parts only. Those unnecessary
meetings caused a lot of time wastages from both teams, as
nothing concrete was achieved from such meetings. Therefore,
if Frank’s project management team had just used their normal
procurement process, the project team would have had better
project progress than it is currently.
Besides that, Frank’s project management team did not manage
the process of acquiring project spare parts effectively. The
company usually required the vendors to have lists of spare
parts ready in the last three weeks of the scheduled delivery
(assuming the order was made fifteen weeks prior to the
delivery). The vendors would use that time to come up with
accurate lists of the supply parts and their proposed shelf life.
However, since the project didn’t have a lot of float time, the
acceleration of the spare part lists acquisition processes resulted

into the project becoming more expensive whenever the
engineers needed to make changes to the plant. These changes
were accompanied with different spare part lists, a process that
became too complex to manage forcing Frank’s project team to
bring a full-time spare parts coordinator into the project.
Lack of a Risk Management Plan
Frank’s project team didn’t come up with a proper risk
management plan to address the issues that would affect the
project. Frank’s project management team was used to
conducting projects that dealt with iron and steel or petroleum
products. However, for this project, the company had to work
with both teams in order to accomplish the project.
The project team did not foresee issues where the vendors
would face some bankruptcy issues, leading to late deliveries
and affecting the Lewis project deliverables. As a mitigation
plan, the procurement team could have come up with a list of
backup providers for parts in case the primary ones were unable
to deliver on time.
Operational Inefficiencies
The project team was involved in tasks that were affecting the
effectiveness of the whole project. For example, the use of
overqualified individuals for small project tasks in order to
impress Lewis’ representatives affected the overall project costs
and man-hours used in the project. Apart from that, the request
for frequent reports and meetings between the project
stakeholders affected the project team’s effectiveness in
general, which resulted in time wastage.
Besides that, the constant reshuffle of project team
representatives and constant addition of project team members
to the project, was a clear sign that the project team had some
serious operational flows. For example, the addition of a team
member to manage the spare parts acquisition process was a
clear indication of how the process was flawed. Control Change

Request
Basically, when there are some changes occurs in project then
project manager has to deal with it and its very hard to keep the
project on track therefore it is very important to follow good
clear processes to control the change as project can easily go
out of control like frank’s project. There are always three
components on baseline project plan which are
scope(deliverables), cost or budget, time (schedule) and quality
which is beginning of project. then company have to face with
many issues, risk which have direct impact on these three
components and change is required where all representative
made change request to control it and its impact on other
components. Then recommendation and suggestions or solution
are discovered for that change which is documented on change
request log including all changes occurs during the project with
description, date, impact on other component. Then change
management control board have to attend meeting periodically
to control, analyse, evaluate and manage those changes and
once they approved the change then only those changes are used
into the project plan which also include rebase line the project
plan. Therefore, this is basic things to do while controlling
change request in project (Project Management Videos 2013).
Proposed Scope Changes
To start with, the company has to ensure that it changes its
communication strategy with Lewis’ representatives. Frank
could ensure that the project managers are the only people who
would be in contact with Lewis’ representatives. Although the
client will not like the move, it would be necessary in order to
ensure that the assigned project team members focus on the
project tasks at hand, a move that would ensure that the project
costs and deliverables are met for the remaining part of the
project. Therefore, communications should be done on a high-
level basis and proper channels followed when the project team
is reporting to the project sponsor (Meredith, Mantel Jr &
Shafer, 2017).
Apart from that, the project team would need to streamline its

operations across all organizational levels. For example, the
number of trips taken by the project team to meet the project
sponsors should be minimized and replaced with other forms of
communication. Technology has provided us with an
opportunity to communicate more efficiently and channels such
as Skype, Slack or email could be used instead of having the
team make visits, a move that saves the project’s time and leads
to efficient allocation of resources, which ensures that the
project is completed on time (Meredith, Mantel Jr & Shafer,
2017).
Finally, the problem of having late delivery of project materials
could be resolved by having the suppliers make components
available within shorter turnaround times. For this change to be
accomplished, the procurement team would have to find other
suppliers to make the components available for the cases where
some of the suppliers have filed for bankruptcy. Besides that,
Frank’s team should ensure that Service Level Agreements are
signed with suppliers before they are awarded tenders for such
projects (Snyder, 2013).
This change would require the project team to change how it
manages its spare part lists, with the project team having to
revert to its initial plan of having suppliers making them
available when the components are delivered to the company’s
production plants. Besides that, the project team could also
ensure that suppliers work together in order to have the parts
meet their specific needs. Successful companies such as Boeing
are able to assemble parts from different suppliers such as Rolls
Royce who supply the company with jet engines and have them
designed according to the company’s specifications. Frank
could use this move would save the company a lot of money,
especially when making changes to the plant’s design and SLAs
would save the project’s time.
Conclusion
Different issues that have been caused by Lewis and Frank’s
representatives have affected the project scope. Some of the

issues have something to do with communication flaws,
operational issues and other issues that have been discussed in
the change control proposal. The issues discussed have made the
project lag behind and more expensive to implement and the
project team may not complete the project on time if the same
trend continues. Therefore, the purpose of the proposed changes
is to bring the project back on track, greatly minimize on the
project’s cost and time. Therefore, there’s a possibility that the
project may not be completed on time but the work rate would
greatly be improved. References
Harrison, F., & Lock, D. (2017). Advanced project management:
a structured approach. Routledge.
Heagney, J. (2016). Fundamentals of project management.
Amacom.
kerzner, H. (2017). Project management: a systems approach to
planning, scheduling, and controlling. John Wiley & Sons.
Meredith, J. R., Mantel Jr, S. J., & Shafer, S. M. (2017). Project
management: a managerial approach. John Wiley & Sons.
Project Management Videos. (2013). How to Control Change
Requests on a Project (Streaming video). Retrieved
from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWdgFFVkPgA
Snyder, C. S. (2013). A project manager’s book of forms: A
companion to the PMBOK guide (2nd ed.). Indianapolis, IN:
Wiley Publishing.
RISK REGISTER (Snyder, 2013, P111).
Project Title: Date
Risk ID
Risk Statement
Probability

Impact
Score
Response
Scope/ Quality
Schedule/Cost

Revised Probability
Revised Impact
Revised Score
Responsible Party
Actions
Status
Comments
Scope/ Quality
Schedule/ Cost

PROBABILITY AND IMPACT MATRIX (Snyder, 2013, P118).
Project Title: Date Prepared:
Very High
High
Medium
Low
Very Low

Very Low
Low
Medium
High
Very High
It was Friday afternoon, a late November day in 2003, and Ron
Katz, a purchas-
ing agent for Robert L. Frank Construction, poured over the
latest earned value
measurement reports. The results kept pointing out the same
fact; the Lewis
project was seriously over budget. Man-hours expended to date
were running 30
percent over the projection and, despite this fact, the project
was not progressing
sufficiently to satisfy the customer. Material deliveries had
experienced several
slippages, and the unofficial indication from the project
scheduler was that, due
to delivery delays on several of the project’s key items, the
completion date of the
coal liquefaction pilot plant was no longer possible.
Katz was completely baffled. Each day for the past few months
as he
reviewed the daily printout of project time charges, he would
note that the pur-
chasing and expediting departments were working on the Lewis
project, even

though it was not an unusually large project, dollarwise, for
Frank. Two years ear-
lier, Frank was working on a $300 million contract, a $100
million contract and
a $50 million contract concurrently with the Frank Chicago
purchasing depart-
ment responsible for all the purchasing, inspection, and
expediting on all three
contracts. The Lewis project was the largest project in house
and was valued at
only $90 million. What made this project so different from
previous contracts and
caused such problems? There was little Katz felt that he could
do to correct the
situation. All that could be done was to understand what had
occurred in an effort
Robert L. Frank
Construction
Company
665
c17.qxd 12/21/12 7:00 PM Page 665
to prevent a recurrence. He began to write his man-hour report
for requested by
the project manager the next day.
COMPANY BACKGROUND
Robert L. Frank Construction Company was an engineering and
construction firm
serving the petroleum, petrochemical, chemical, iron and steel,

mining, pharma-
ceutical, and food-processing industries from its corporate
headquarters in
Chicago, Illinois, and its worldwide offices. Its services include
engineering, pur-
chasing, inspection, expediting, construction, and consultation.
Frank’s history began in 1947 when Robert L. Frank opened his
office. In
1955, a corporation was formed, and by 1960 the company had
completed con-
tracts for the majority of the American producers of iron and
steel. In 1962, an
event occurred that was to have a large impact on Frank’s
future. This was the
merger of Wilson Engineering Company, a successful refinery
concern, with
Robert L. Frank, now a highly successful iron and steel concern.
This merger
greatly expanded Frank’s scope of operations and brought with
it a strong period
of growth. Several offices were opened in the United States in
an effort to better
handle the increase in business. Future expansions and mergers
enlarged the
Frank organization to the point where it had fifteen offices or
subsidiaries located
throughout the United States and twenty offices worldwide.
Through its first
twenty years of operations, Frank had more than 2,500 contracts
for projects hav-
ing an erected value of over $1 billion.
Frank’s organizational structure has been well suited to the type
of work
undertaken. The projects Frank contracted for typically had a

time constraint, a
budget constraint, and a performance constraint. They all
involved an outside cus-
tomer such as a major petroleum company or a steel
manufacturer. Upon accep-
tance of a project, a project manager was chosen (and usually
identified in the
proposal). The project manager would head up the project
office, typically con-
sisting of the project manager, one to three project engineers, a
project control
manager, and the project secretaries. The project team also
included the necessary
functional personnel from the engineering, purchasing,
estimating, cost control,
and scheduling areas. Exhibit I is a simplified depiction. Of the
functional areas,
the purchasing department is somewhat unique in its
organizational structure. The
purchasing department is organized on a project management
basis much as the project as a whole would be organized.
Within the purchasing
department, each project had a project office that included a
project purchasing
agent, one or more project expeditors and a project purchasing
secretary. Within
the purchasing department the project purchasing agent had line
authority over
only the project expeditor(s) and project secretary. However,
for the project pur-
chasing agent to accomplish his goals, the various functions
within the purchasing
666 ROBERT L. FRANK CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
c17.qxd 12/21/12 7:00 PM Page 666

Exhibit I. Frank organization
VP Eng. VP Control VP Procurement
Purchasing
Project A
Project B
Project C
Mechanical Piping Electrical Civil Estimate Schedule
667
c17.qxd 12/21/12 7:00 PM Page 667
department had to commit sufficient resources. Exhibit II
illustrates the organi-
zation within the purchasing department.
HISTORY OF THE LEWIS PROJECT
Since 1998, the work backlog at Frank has been steadily
declining. The Rovery
Project, valued at $600 million, had increased company
employment sharply
since its inception in 1997. In fact, the engineering on the
Rovery project was
such a large undertaking that in addition to the Chicago office’s

participation, two
other U.S. offices, the Canadian office, and the Italian
subsidiary were heavily
involved. However, since the Rovery project completion in
2001, not enough new
Exhibit II. Frank purchasing organization
Mgr. Procurement
Mgr. Buying, Esp., Insp.
Project A
Project B
Project C
Admin. Assistant
Chief Inspector
InspectionMgr. Buying Mgr. Traffic Chief Expediter
Buying Traffic Expediting
Project D
Project E
c17.qxd 12/21/12 7:00 PM Page 668

work was received to support the work force thus necessitating
recent lay-offs of
engineers, including a few project engineers.
Company officials were very disturbed with the situation.
Frank’s company
policy was to “maintain an efficient organization of sufficient
size and resources,
and staffed by people with the necessary qualifications, to
execute projects
in any location for the industries served by Frank.” However,
the recent down-
turn in business meant that there was not enough work even
with the reduction in
employees. Further cutbacks would jeopardize Frank’s
prospects of obtaining
future large projects as prospective clients look to contractors
with a sufficient
staff of qualified people to accomplish their work. By contrast,
supporting
employees out of overhead was not the way to do business,
either. It became
increasingly important to “cut the fat out” of the proposals
being submitted for
possible projects. Despite this, new projects were few and far
between, and the
projects that were received were small in scope and dollar value
and therefore did
not provide work for very many employees.
When rumors of a possible construction project for a new coal
liquefaction
pilot plant started circulating, Frank officials were extremely
interested in bidding
for the work. It was an excellent prospect for two reasons.
Besides Frank’s des-

perate need for work, the Lewis chemical process used in the
pilot plant would
benefit Frank in the long run by the development of state-of-
the-art technology.
If the pilot plant project could be successfully executed, when it
came time to
construct the full-scale facility, Frank would have the inside
track as they had
already worked with the technology. The full-scale facility
offered prospects
exceeding the Rovery project, Frank’s largest project to date.
Top priority was
therefore put on obtaining the Lewis project. It was felt that
Frank had a slight
edge due to successful completion of a Lewis project six years
ago. The proposal
submitted to Lewis contained estimates for material costs, man-
hours, and the
fee. Any changes in scope after contract award would be
handled by change order
to the contract. Both Lewis and Frank had excellent scope
change control processes
as part of their configuration management plans. The functional
department
affected would submit an estimate of extra man-hours involved
to the project man-
ager, who would review the request and submit it to the client
for approval. Frank’s
preference was for cost-plus-fixed-fee contracts.
One of the unique aspects stated in the Lewis proposal was the
requirement
for participation by both of Frank Chicago’s operating
divisions. Previous Frank
contracts were well suited to either Frank’s Petroleum and
Chemical Division

(P & C) or the Iron and Steel Division (I & S). However, due to
the unusual chem-
ical process, one that starts with coal and ends up with a liquid
energy form, one
of the plant’s three units was well suited to the P & C Division
and one was well
suited to the I & S Division. The third unit was an off-site unit
and was not of par-
ticular engineering significance.
History of the Lewis Project 669
c17.qxd 12/21/12 7:00 PM Page 669
The award of the contract six weeks later led to expectations by
most Frank
personnel that the company’s future was back on track again.
The project began
inauspiciously. The project manager was a well-liked, easy-
going sort who had
been manager of several Frank projects. The project office
included three of
Frank’s most qualified project engineers.
In the purchasing department, the project purchasing agent
(PPA) assigned to
the project was Frank’s most experienced PPA. Bill Hall had
just completed his
assignment on the Rovery Project and had done well,
considering the magnitude
of the job. The project had its problems, but they were small in
comparison to the
achievements. He had alienated some of the departments
slightly but that was to

be expected. Purchasing upper management was somewhat
dissatisfied with him
in that, due to the size of the project, he didn’t always use the
normal Frank pur-
chasing methods; rather, he used whatever method he felt was in
the best interest
of the project. Also, after the Rovery project, a purchasing
upper management
reshuffling left him in the same position but with less power
and authority rather
than receiving a promotion he had felt he had earned. As a
result, he began to sub-
tly criticize the purchasing management. This action caused
upper management
to hold him in less than high regard but, at the time of the
Lewis Project, Hall was
the best person available.
Due to the lack of float in the schedule and the early field start
date, it was
necessary to fast start the Lewis Project. All major equipment
was to be pur-
chased within the first three months. This, with few exceptions,
was accom-
plished. The usual problems occurred such as late receipt of
requisition from
engineering and late receipt of bids from suppliers.
One of the unique aspects of the Lewis project was the
requirement for pur-
chase order award meetings with vendors. Typically, Frank
would hold award
meetings with vendors of major equipment such as reactors,
compressors, large
process towers, or large pumps. However, almost each time
Lewis approved pur-

chase of a mechanical item or vessel, it requested that the
vendor come in for a
meeting. Even if the order was for an on-the-shelf stock pump
or small drum or
tank, a meeting was held. Initially, the purchasing department
meeting attendees
included the project purchasing agent, the buyer, the manager of
the traffic depart-
ment, the chief expeditor, and the chief Inspector. Engineering
representatives
included the responsible engineer and one or two of the project
engineers. Other
Frank attendees were the project control manager and the
scheduler. Quite often,
these meetings would accomplish nothing except the reiteration
of what had been
included in the proposal or what could have been resolved with
a phone call or
even e-mail. The project purchasing agent was responsible for
issuing meeting
notes after each meeting.
One day at the end of the first three-month period, the top-
ranking Lewis rep-
resentative met with Larry Broyles, the Frank project manager.
c17.qxd 12/21/12 7:00 PM Page 670
Lewis rep: Larry, the project is progressing but I’m a little
concerned. We
don’t feel like we have our finger on the pulse of the project.
The information

we are getting is sketchy and untimely. What we would like to
do is meet with
Frank every Wednesday to review progress and resolve
problems.
Larry: I’d be more than happy to meet with any of the Lewis
people because
I think your request has a lot of merit.
Lewis rep: Well, Larry, what I had in mind was a meeting
between all the
Lewis people, yourself, your project office, the project
purchasing agent, his
assistant, and your scheduling and cost control people.
Larry: This sounds like a pretty involved meeting. We’re going
to tie up a lot
of our people for one full day a week. I’d like to scale this thing
down. Our pro-
posal took into consideration meetings, but not to the magnitude
we’re talking
about.
Lewis rep: Larry, I’m sorry but we’re footing the bill on this
project and
we’ve got to know what’s going on.
Larry: I’ll set it up for this coming Wednesday.
Lewis rep: Good.
The required personnel were informed by the project manager
that effective
immediately, meetings with the client would be held weekly.
However, Lewis was
dissatisfied with the results of the meetings, so the Frank
project manager

informed his people that a premeeting would be held each
Tuesday to prepare the
Frank portion of the Wednesday meeting. All of the Wednesday
participants
attended the Tuesday premeetings.
Lewis requests for additional special reports from the
purchasing department
were given into without comment. The project purchasing agent
and his assistants
(project started with one and expanded to four) were devoting a
great majority of
their time to special reports and putting out fires instead of
being able to track
progress and prevent problems. For example, recommended
spare parts lists were
normally required from vendors on all Frank projects. Lewis
was no exception.
However, after the project began, Lewis decided it wanted the
spare parts recom-
mendations early into the job. Usually, spare parts lists are left
for the end of an
order. For example, on a pump with fifteen-week delivery,
normally Frank would
pursue the recommended spare parts list three to four weeks
prior to shipment, as
it would tend to be more accurate. This improved accuracy was
due to the fact
that at this point in the order, all changes probably had been
made. In the case of
the Lewis project, spare parts recommendations had to be
expedited from the day
the material was released for fabrication. Changes could still be
made that could
dramatically affect the design of the pump. Thus, a change in
the pump after

receipt of the spare parts list would necessitate a new spare
parts list. The time
involved in this method of expediting the spare parts list was
much greater than the
c17.qxd 12/21/12 7:00 PM Page 671
time involved in the normal Frank method. Added to this
situation was Lewis’s
request for a fairly involved biweekly report on the status of
spare parts lists on
all the orders. In addition, a full time spare parts coordinator
was assigned to the
project.
The initial lines of communication between Frank and Lewis
were initially
well defined. The seven in-house Lewis representatives
occupied the area adja-
cent to the Frank project office (see Exhibit III). Initially, all
communications
from Lewis were channeled through the Frank project office to
the applicable
functional employee. In the case of the purchasing department,
the Frank project
office would channel Lewis requests through the purchasing
project office.
Responses or return communications followed the reverse route.
Soon the volume
of communications increased to the point where response time
was becoming
unacceptable. In several special cases, an effort was made to cut

this response time.
Larry Broyles told the Lewis team members to call or go see the
functional per-
son (i.e., buyer or engineer) for the answer. However, this
practice soon became
the rule rather than the exception. Initially, the project office
was kept informed
Exhibit III. Floor plan—Lewis project teams
Project
Manager
Assistant to
Project
Manager
Procurement
Advisor
Inspection
Coordinator
Vacant
Project
Control
Manager
Chief Project
Engineer
Project

Manager
Project
Engineer
Project
Engineer
Project
Engineer
Assistant
Project
Engineer
Engineer
Engineer
Cost
Control
Grey boxed text Indicates Lewis Personnel
Normal text Indicates Frank Personnel
c17.qxd 12/21/12 7:00 PM Page 672
of these conversations, but this soon stopped. The Lewis
personnel had integrated
themselves into the Frank organization to the point where they
became part of the
organization.

The project continued on, and numerous problems cropped up.
Vendors’
material delays occurred, companies with Frank purchase orders
went bankrupt,
and progress was not to Lewis’s satisfaction. Upper
management soon became aware
the problems on this project due to its sensitive nature, and the
Lewis project was
now receiving much more intense involvement by senior
management than it had
previously. Upper management sat in on the weekly meetings in
an attempt to
pacify Lewis. Further problems plagued the project. Purchasing
management, in
an attempt to placate Lewis, replaced the project purchasing
agent. Ron Katz, a
promising young MBA graduate, had five years of experience as
an assistant to
several of the project purchasing agents. He was most recently a
project purchas-
ing agent on a fairly small project that had been very
successful. It was thought
by purchasing upper management that this move was a good
one, for two reasons.
First, it would remove Bill Hall from the project as PPA.
Second, by appointing
Ron Katz, Lewis would be pacified, as Katz was a promising
talent with a suc-
cessful project under his belt.
However, the project under direction of Katz still experienced
problems in
the purchasing area. Revisions by engineering to material
already on order caused
serious delivery delays. Recently requisitioned material could
not be located with

an acceptable delivery promise. Katz and purchasing upper
management, in an
attempt to improve the situation, assigned more personnel to the
project, personnel
that were more qualified than the positions dictated. Buyers and
upper-level pur-
chasing officials were sent on trips to vendors’ facilities that
were normally han-
dled by traveling expediters. In the last week the Lewis
representative met with
the project manager, Broyles:
Lewis rep: Larry, I’ve been reviewing these man-hour
expenditures, and I’m
disturbed by them.
Larry: Why’s that?
Lewis rep: The man-hour expenditures are far outrunning
project progress.
Three months ago, you reported that the project completion
percentage was 30
percent, but according to my calculations, we’ve used 47
percent of the man
hours. Last month you reported 40 percent project completion
and I show a 60
percent expenditure of man-hours.
Larry: Well, as you know, due to problems with vendors’
deliveries, we’ve
really had to expedite intensively to try to bring them back in
line.
Lewis rep: Larry, I’m being closely watched by my people on
this project,
and a cost or schedule overrun not only makes Frank look bad,

it makes me
look bad.
Larry: Where do we go from here?
c17.qxd 12/21/12 7:00 PM Page 673
Lewis rep: What I want is an estimate from your people on what
is left, man-
hour wise. Then I can sit down with my people and see where
we are.
Larry: I’ll have something for you the day after tomorrow.
Lewis rep: Good.
The functional areas were requested to provide this information,
which was
reviewed and combined by the project manager and submitted to
Lewis for
approval. Lewis’s reaction was unpleasant, to say the least. The
estimated man-
hours in the proposal were now insufficient. The revised
estimate was for almost
40 percent over the proposal. The Lewis representative
immediately demanded an
extensive report on the requested increase. In response to this,
the project man-
ager requested man-hour breakdowns from the functional areas.
Purchasing was
told to do a purchase order by purchase order breakdown of
expediting and
inspection man-hours. The buying section had to break down the

estimate of the
man-hours needed to purchase each requisition, many of which
were not even
issued. Things appeared to have gone from bad to worse.
c17.qxd 12/21/12 7:00 PM Page 674

Running head CHANGE CONTROL1Executive SummaryThe Lewis .docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Running head CHANGE CONTROL1Executive SummaryThe Lewis .docx

Similar to Running head CHANGE CONTROL1Executive SummaryThe Lewis .docx (20)

More from healdkathaleen

More from healdkathaleen (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Running head CHANGE CONTROL1Executive SummaryThe Lewis .docx