Project communication:
My first thought is that Janet needs to meet with Downs and Pokorski in a face to face meeting at an operating plant to see and learn how the operation works. After the initial meeting and the development of a mutual understanding of the project concepts, responsibilities and limitations, weekly meeting could be established by telephone to track the progress of the plant and the budget, and to discuss any problems encountered or anticipated during the next week. At critical times and when Clarks feels it necessary either Downs or Pokorski would need to be onsite to assist with technical aspect of the project.
Potential communication conflicts:
As far as conflicts go I think that there are going to be many from all sides. To my understanding Clark is a sales and marketing person. She would have not been my first choice to lead this project as the technical aspects of construction and assemble of an operational plastics plant are well outside her knowledge and experience set. There may be unknown factors in play as to why she was picked but as that information was not revealed to us, I will just have to point out the obvious problems that I foresee in the near future. From the technical engineer (Downs) I see two major area of concern. First he was beat out for funding and his prototype had been handed over to Clark, this could work to our advantage if he can find the funding within the existing project to incorporate his prototype in the Huntsville plant. If the funding is not available to do this I am sure he will provide all the support that is asked for in collaboration of this project, but the underlying human emotion of resent will create obstructions albeit unintentional in his ability to work clearly and concisely with Clark. The second problem I see is Clark inability to understand the many critical tasks that she will encounter in the construction and assembly of this plant. Concepts that Downs will take for granted as known critical will be missed due to inexperience, at progress meetings when the construction engineer is briefing she will not have the technical expertise to understand what the problem processes are and where the hidden delays will crop up. She will not have a full understanding of what Downs in trying to convey over the phone at progress meetings and will not understand the full impact of many potential problems she will be facing. Many of these problems may be mitigated if she includes an experienced plant engineer on her support staff in Huntsville, but as she appears to be planning to draw from as many in-house resources as she can she will get pushback as many of the operating plants will be reluctant to send the best and brightest.
I do not see as many problems with the communication process with Pokorski, except that she seems to think that the day-to-day operations of existing plants does not require talent. This is a sad misperception, and attests to her marketing and sales background and this is where the communication problems will arise with Pokorski. Much like with Downs, her lack of experience in the operations of the plant will cause her to miss critical process problems as they arise or not completely understand the magnitude of a problem as it occurs. Again if she brings in an experiences operations manager to work the project closely with her, she may be able to cope with the problems that will inevitably happen during this project.
Another aspect I see as a major problem in the communication process will be Clark’s attitude. While she was awarded this project to bring the Huntsville plant online her gross under estimation of what it takes to operate and maintain the day-to-day operations of a manufacturing plant are absolutely astounding.
How to resolve the communication issues; after the first meeting if Clark does not greatly adjust her way of thinking, I do not see any workable resolution. If the light dawns on her that she is grossly under qualified to attempt this task on her own and the operations of the existing plants are extremely burdensome. If both of these issues become clear in her mind and she works in a cooperative manner with both Downs and Pokorski it is a workable project that with the proper team work should come to fruition. If she maintains her current train of thought this project is doomed and Downs and Pokorski need to address the issue with the Board of Directors.
Project risks:
Permits issues – Address the building permits with the city/county planning commission in advance at a Seitz corporate sponsored event. Do the homework in advance, know what the planning council will approve before submission of the plans. Do not argue non-relevant plan changes with the city/county planning engineer make the recommended changes and move along
Labor issues – If there is a labor problem looming for the chosen contractor, explain to the contractor early that the time line is critical. If there is going to be a work stoppage due to labor issues we will bring in an alternate contractor to keep the time line current. If the awarded contractor is out for ten work days the contract will be void and the alternate will keep the contract to completion. Again, do the homework in advance, see which contractors are dealing with union issues; make this a part of the selection process through risk analysis. If there is a high likelihood of labor issues then there is a low likelihood of that contractor being selected.
Material cost issues – This needs to be factored into the project budget, in today’s economic turmoil one cannot be short sighted regarding the cost of building material. I might add as much as 20% for the cost of material in a project this long. Should the market rebound after the next election for whatever reason it is not unforeseeable for there to be a rapid rise in material costs. If we do not allot for this we could go over budget as a scope reduction is not an acceptable alternative.