Question #1
When I was working in a small-sized project for my client, there arose a need to monitor, track and collect a lot of data based on the day-to-day progress of the work. It was decided that we build a dashboard application so that all those data can be fed into this application and we could draw meaningful interpretations from it. Building a dashboard-application was a project in itself and would require quite a lot of resources. Given the stringent timelines, I suggested the use of a dashboard tool that was readily available in the market. The client manager did not have an idea about it and so my delivery manager was not favouring this idea. I created a proof of concept and showcased how efficiently this can be done, but my manager did not accept it since it was a third-party tool. He insisted on creating an in-house tool for dashboard creation. Due to lack of support from my delivery manager, we had to drop that idea that could have significantly saved time and money for the client.
Stakeholders
Client organization, client manager, our organization, employees from client-side and company side working on this project, Dashboard-tool organization.
Analysis
The implementation of the solution using a third-party software was straight forward and the manager did not want to provide them an out-of-the-box solution. Rather than that, he wanted to create more opportunities by increasing the number of projects. While I understood his good intentions towards better profitability for the company, it also created immense pressure in the members of the project due to this unplanned addition. We did not have enough bandwidth to cover this new work along with the hectic schedule in hand already.
Conflict
While this project could have saved time and money for both parties, my manager insisted on creating the tool for the long-run. This can later on be converted into a customizable product that could be used within the company for similar requirements. I tried to convince my manager that there are already companies that have come up with this product and there is no need to create this unless we have separate funding for this project. This conflict of interest later on made me move out of that project.
Strategic Response
Since I had a very good rapport with my group head, I conveyed this idea to him. It was taken up for analysis by the senior management and later on they decided to buy licenses for that tool in order to meet simple and less complex dashboard requirements in an efficient manner. Though I was unable to implement that solution on that project, I was able to persuade my management to consider this option that ended up saving a lot of time and money.

Question #2
The partnerships that were present during the implementation of one of the projects are as follows: 1. Partnership with Microsoft – for Visual Studio tools 2. Partnership with Telerik – for Kendo UI tools
These partnerships were maintained by the client organization since the licenses for the software that we used were procured by them. So when we were working on the latest build of one of the tools developed by Telerik, we ran into issues that hampered our development progress. When the company was unable to provide a fix within the stipulated time as mentioned in the Service Level Agreement (SLA), we had no choice but to look for alternatives.
The modification that was required in this partnership was the agreement period. In the field of computer technology, where overnight changes do not come as a surprise, the relatively long 2-year agreement with the vendor company forced us to stick with them and use their products despite reducing trust and usage. The agreement period should be relatively shorter for these kind of relationships and a break-clause should be included. The reason behind this change is that the vendor companies do not have complete control on whether they would be able to provide the agreed level of service. While there are clauses to cover penalty, ultimately the project would end up suffering the consequences and the risk of project delay is lot more penalizing that any kind of compensation we would eventually receive through these agreements. And the suitability of the tools may change over time and given an intensely-competitive technology market, a product could enter, rule and go into obsolescence.
After that two-year period, the contract was terminated and we adopted a new vendor to provide tool solutions for us. The agreement period was revised and the client company started working on an in-house project to develop tools in parallel in order to reduce/avoid dependency on external sources for critical projects. Thus the partnerships eventually changed and though the former partner is still an active vendor in other business divisions that are having a B2C model, the division in question that happened to be a B2B model had more criticality attached to it.

Question #3
The informal network that a person forms during one’s professional tenure is one of the key factors that is responsible for making the workplace better for oneself.
Advice Network
In my parent project, there were multiple projects under a common umbrella that shared resources at the same time. While we work on one project, we also build a network with the other project members who end up building the component that precedes or succeeds our component. Thus, in order to better understand the overall flow of the application, we connect with the other team members and understand them better. We had cross-team training programs to enhance our technical skills. I had strong technical skills so usually my colleagues come to me for any kind of code-related issues that they might have.
Trust Network
In my company, there was an instance where an entire team decided to quit at the same time because one of the key members of the team was reportedly removed from the project. The manager was surprised at the popularity level of this person as he used to be a very calm. It so happened that the manager had to reinstate him in the project for the smooth functioning and was actually transferred to another project. The person in question became the manager of that project. His whole team backed him when he faced an issue in the project.
Communication Network
The employees who are in the managerial level have a habit of meeting for lunch at least once in a week. They use this meeting to discuss the resources moving in and out of their project, constraints and issues faced. This way they were able to understand the available resource pool that is going to be created well in advance so that they could map them for their relevant foreseeable requirements. Also, if the same issue/constraint was faced by another team before, they were able to arrive at solution in no time. Also, since the solution is supported by the empirical evidence, there was ample opportunity for the manager to get in touch with the person/team in question and get all the required information related to the problem and the implemented solution. This would enable the manager to tailor the solution for his problem suitably.

Question #5
I am from Tata Consultancy Services. I am providing the hierarchical structure of my project. I would prefer to call this “Project Divisional Structure”. The structure is divided based on the projects. When one project is complete, people often move to the next project under a new project leader. The support functions are in the horizontal of the organization, so I did not describe them here. The Group Leader is typically the head of an account or a relationship. He manages the partnership on the highest level, only next to the domain head. The projects are divided usually based on the function (i.e. development, maintenance or support) or technology used.
The Delivery manager is responsible for the smooth functioning and timely delivery of the projects that are given to him. The projects are usually in offshore/onshore model and the manager is responsible for allocating resources to projects, provide necessary training as required and reports to the Group Leader. The Project Leader manages one or several projects based on similarity and ensures that the team members who work under him are sending their deliverables in timely fashion. The team members work on various kinds of projects and are at the bottom-most level in the hierarchy.

Question #6
The above mentioned structure is for the organizational reporting purposes. The hierarchy is quite flexible in order to accommodate the different needs of different types of clients from various sectors. The organizational culture allows us to operate under Global Network Delivery Model (GNDM) where the work happens from multiple geographies at the same time. The company also divides its operations into two broad categories for better control – the global operations and the local operations. While the mission and vision remain the same, the heads of the different countries ensure that the policies and structures are in accordance to the business and geography in which they operate. The policy framework allows TCS to expand into new business opportunities and geographies while leveraging on the current strengths and lessons from the related geographies.
TCS mainly generates revenue using its IT services and support for clients across the globe. The technologies that are used are extremely diverse and usually are tailor-made according to the needs of the customer. As the company grew in size, one of the biggest challenges was to ensure that the payroll system was able to assimilate huge volumes of data. In the process of expanding its footprint in the global arena, TCS ensured that it creates a robust framework that is scalable and efficient. The underlying model that was discussed before is one of the key parameters that is instrumental in success. Also, the organizational culture often reflects the ethics and values of the TATA conglomerate and TCS ensures that the company involves itself actively in various social activities in and around the campus in almost every geography.
The organizational structure discussed above is an embodiment of the strategy at a minor level and the company as a whole is a myriad of organizational structures to suit various needs that arise within the company and the market as a whole.