The following pages provide details around an actual project, which took place between 2016-2018. It was a Knowledge Transfer Partnership (KTP) between 3 main stakeholders: a Higher Education Institution (Kent Business School), a Company Partner (Parker Steel) and an "Associate": one person, who is the primary conduit of knowledge transfer from the academic institution to the organisation and vice versa.

1. Background

Everyone can come up with an idea for a KTP Project, a member of the Higher Education Institution (HI) or the Company Partner (CP). Once an idea is generated there are typically conversations between the HI and CP to refine the idea and ensure that a project will potentially lead to transformational change for the CP. Once an idea is formed and both HI and CP are committed to the idea, they write a Business Case and a Project Plan, with the assistance of a "KTP Adviser". KTP advisers are members of Innovate UK (government organisation), and one advisor is assigned to each KTP project during the Pre-Project phase until project closure.

The Project Plan and Business Case are written in great detail, with stages, deliverables, KPIs, future outcomes, cost saving projections and other benefits from the project. Then these two documents (products) are submitted to the board of Innovate UK for a decision on which project will receive funding, as KTPs are partially funded by the government (Innovate UK) and partially by the Company Partner (CP). This is a very competitive programme and only highly promising projects are approved and funded. Once decision is reached and the KTP project is approved for funding, the next step is to hire an associate and set a start date for the project to begin. The project has a fixed budget from the start and a fixed end date, which are non-negotiable. Every project gets "graded" at the end by Innovate UK with A, B, C or D, where A is for outstanding. If a project does not lead to any positive impact for the stakeholders, it will not receive an A or a B. This will reflect on the reputation of the CP and HI, as well as Innovate UK, as that may mean that the project that was funded was not as promising as it seemed.

1. People

Terry - the KTP advisor on the Project, who gives advice to all stakeholders on the particularities of KTPs, explains the budget if need be, approves budget reallocation, ensures the project is progressing, deals with any issues escalated to him by the others on the project. Ensures that all interests are represented: the CP, the HI and most importantly those of the associate. Ensures that no single stakeholder is dominating the project.

Mr. Parker - CEO of Parker Steel, very passionate about the project, provides strategic guidance for the objectives. Knows the business inside out and has a clear idea on what the final solution (project outcomes) would look like for the company, as well as what the expected benefits from the project are. In addition to being CEO, Mr Parker acts as Managing Director and keeps very close eye on all senior personnel and has a say in all important decisions. After all, his great great grandfather founded the company 120 years ago and he needs to make sure all operations are aligned with his vision. The Associate will often update Mr Parker or ask a quick question in the lobby when they happened to meet.

Niaz - The academic supervisor from the HI, who helps the associate with expertise on the solution development. He would provide the associate with an idea on when the solution is of sufficient quality and evolving towards convergence.

Said - Second academic supervisor, providing ad-hoc guidance when need be and attending some, but not all regularly scheduled meetings.

David - Company supervisor for the associate, and IT manager at the CP. He is the go-to person for the associate if any "doors" need to be opened to key informants (other department heads, mid-level management and shop-floor employees) for interviews, data collection or any other data needs. The person who would ensure that the developed solution is in line with the CP interests and needs. Dave sometimes participates in some aspects of the solution development, but he is usually very busy with his day-to-day job and managerial responsibility for the IT department. This has caused many delays in data collection throughout the project. Niaz and Dave wrote the Project Plan and Business Case.

Dan and Tom - IT developers, who were brought in to support the associate with solution development. Dave is too busy, and the associate observed a need for expanding the solution development team. The associate brought this to the attention of Dave and Mr Parker and a decision was made to include Dan full time on the project as developer and Tom on part-time basis when he was available and needed. They were both answering to Dave and the Associate for their daily progress. Once the associate was ready with a certain development iteration, Dan would be the person to provide second pair of eyes, to ensure there are no bugs and the solution is compatible with the requirements.

Kyle - Senior operations manager, with great knowledge of the business. The associate would go to him with specific questions about operations, machine capacity and the general production process.

Dean - Production Manager for the CP. His team are the users of the final solution. The associate was in regular contact with him and his team of production schedulers, to understand their needs, requirements, and expectations. The production team will test the solution after a deployable version is available and let the associate know if something is missing or incorrect.

Christine - E-Commerce Manager, someone who understands the external view of the organisation and leads marketing and purchasing. The associate will go to her, to understand how this aspect of the organisation may impact the final solution.

Peter - Team leader of all programmers, he was very organised and was asked to join certain meetings, which were aimed at lessons learned and a summary with progress to date.

Clare - She provided administrative support for the project, help with the project funding submission and later was responsible for attending and minuting the Project Board Meetings.

Lina - The associate. She is responsible for all data collection and analytical aspect of the project, including mapping the current state of the organisation's processes and later quantifying all gains from the project. Lina was also responsible for developing the solution and supporting Dan and Tom with their needs. She had to ensure that all stakeholders are kept informed, ensure collaboration with all relevant departments and the users of the final solution, as well as escalate any issues and risks at the Project Board Meetings, which happen every 3 months.

1. Project Progress Reporting and Governance

The high-level project board meetings (LMC) were once every three months (as per KTP project governance guidance), and this is when Terry will travel down to Kent to find out what the progress is, to meet the associate and deal with any issues arising. The LMC were mainly attended by Dave, Lina, Niaz, Mr Parker, Terry and Clare. Said was joining every other meeting. This is where progress was reported against the Project Plan and the Business Case, which were submitted for project approval.

Lina, Dave and Niaz had monthly team meetings to discuss progress and the solution development, as well as any other issues and risks. Lina was responsible for organising and facilitating these meetings.

Lina had separate meetings with Niaz and Said and participated in various academic events to support the HI. Despite these meetings, it was common that Niaz and Said would come to an LMC or a team meeting, without being fully aware of the progress so far, and the exact nature of the solution.

Lina, Dave, Dan and Tom had up to 3 meetings in one week for a quick project progress report and discussions of any issues. Dave was usually unable to attend all meetings. Typical discussions would be whether there is a requirement which is problematic, insufficient, or perhaps not suitable to be developed at this point in time. For any serios concerns regarding major changes to the solution, Dave had to be brought into the discussion.

Lina was responsible for a few documents - A document outlining the technical aspects of the solution, the methods and approaches used to develop it and details around testing and acceptance criteria. She was also responsible for writing lessons logs, risk register and timebox plans, but she never had the time to do so. Her focus was on developing the right solution, performing all relevant analysis, and making sure the project is progressing on time. Lina was checking the Project Plan and Business Case before each LMC, but she did not make any changes to them. Any changes/deviations were agreed and noted during LMC, as long as everyone was happy with them.

Lina also attended special training with other KTP associates across the UK, who were working on other KTP projects. They shared their experience and there were some noticeable variations in the project approaches for most KTP associates. However, they all reported the inability (in terms of time) to keep proper lessons logs and risk registers, as well as maintain other documentation. Some associates reported dominance of one of the partners' interests and insufficient support from either CP supervisors or HI supervisors. Some reported that they were left to do "all the work" and preferred to just "get on with the solution development, rather than to escalate to the KTP advisor". Lina tends to be very assertive and does not shy from exerting control and raising issues and tried to encourage the other associates to do so, and to share best practice.

1. The Solution

The objectives of a KTP project are flexible in nature, so after the funding bid was approved and the associate was hired, the CEO wanted to start the project with a different solution (different objective than the one listed in the Project Plan), which was designing an all-encompassing algorithm for the entire internal supply chain of the organisation. The project board agreed, as ultimately the CP is the main beneficiary of the project. The associate was given full freedom on how to define and approach the problem, the data collection and execution, since the KTP is all about making use of talent that the CP does not have in-house. Everyone in the organisation was cooperative during the problem definition and data collection stages. This stage took 3 months, because it was not clear exactly which part of the supply chain was causing most problems and a lot of brainstorming and problem

structuring had to take place. The team also experienced the so called "Analysis Paralysis", as the quantity of data was overwhelming, and the quality was less than ideal. The all-encompassing nature of the solution and the long preparation and development period meant that the first iteration with an actual deployable solution came 8 months into the project. After bringing Dan and Tom into the project team, a more structured timeboxing of work was designed and the first solution prototype was deployed after a couple of months.

After the official launch of the solution, there was a very high resistance to change from employees, even those who provided the comments and stories in the early project stages. After the CEO enforced the use of the new tool, the CP experienced a reduction in operating cost by 15%. On the final LMC (project close) the project outcomes were very different to the ones set out in the initial Business Case and Project Plan, which were submitted to win the funding bid. The project duration was more than 2 years and some of the objectives set out in the initial Project Plan became obsolete. Despite that, the project was graded with an "A" for Outstanding by Innovate UK.

1. Stories and Comments from employees

Production Employees:

• an ideal world, we would have all materials and machines available at all our production sites, but we do not, and this is the main problem"
• do a lot of double/triple handling, which means that more than one vehicle goes to the same customer for one order"
• move a lot of material around our production sites, and this is why our stock records are incorrect"
• Mr Parker wants this tool, then good luck, but I tell you we are so understaffed, this is it...there is your problem"

"This is how we have always done things around here and we do our best and it all seems to work ok in the end, this project is useless...no offence"

CEO:

"We need a tool which will be able to show us how much our operations actually cost us. Once we know the true cost of operations, we can start making decisions on how to satisfy customer orders in the fastest and cheapest way. I want to see these options as a recommendation from the tool, fastest and cheapest option, as well as a prediction of delivery date. But we can also think about charging customers for their delivery, as long as it does not affect customer loyalty and perhaps, we can incorporate this into our final selling price. Another thing we can consider is differentiation between our online sales and those over the phone, the steel industry is still largely affected by bargaining power".

Production Manager:

"The problem is that all our production sites do not function as one, it is like each department is a different organisation and I am responsible for mine".

Group Project Task

1. Reading and Preparation

Read the case study in detail and analyse it as a team.

For your wider research and reading, you can use textbooks for PM best practice (Agile and other approaches), journal articles to shape your critical perspective on the use and adoption of Agile and other approaches to project management. Since the case study is so detailed and provides the basis to apply your knowledge in a practical setting, you are not required to research any other organisations in detail. You can, however, give examples from your work experience to support your arguments further.

When doing your literature review and background reading, have the following questions in mind "What is required from organisations to be able to build and adopt a successful approach to project management (agile or any other). What are the common barriers, risks, issues for successful project delivery, implementation, and benefits realisation? How does that relate/not relate to the case study? Why are certain projects successful/unsuccessful and what does success look like"?

You are expected to have at least 10 academic references and as many online references as you need and see fit.

1. Understanding and Application of Theory
   1. What kind of project is this (one of a kind, repetitive, any other category you see fit) Comment on the general project characteristics and their possible impact on the project governance, principles, progress, etc?
   2. Using evidence from the case study, visually represent the roles and responsibilities, supporting your answers. Outline any issues or risks you can identify regarding the roles on the project.
   3. Provide a critical comment on the use (extent of use) of the Agile Principles and Practices throughout the Project Life Cycle, using theory and material we covered in BUSN9186.
   4. How Agile is the Project and are there any other approaches you can identify which are visible and are hybridised with the Agile approach? You need to state this clearly and provide evidence from the case study.
   5. Are there any specific practices/principles from other approaches which could have been useful to adopt and why?
   6. Clearly state any issues/barriers to a smooth project management and solution development.
   7. What examples of project approach Hybridisation and project approach Tailoring can you find in the case study? (This point has a very high difficulty, and it is not compulsory to cover it. If you do choose to cover it, your grade can only be increased).
   8. your conclusion evaluate to what extent was the project successful.