Applying Management Theories

Company A was initially organise as a free radical of engineering students to undertake the put of modifying and coding a rear to automatically move around a maze as right away as possible. The collection was formed by Dry S. Watson, the project supervisor. The free radical consisted of four students J. Peters, A. Shabbier, A. Mohammed and O. Added. The students began their project through the organized Company 1 meetings. In their first meeting they were introduced to each(prenominal) other, though J. Peters was absent, which disadvantaged him later in the project.The theme cited that their first action would be to organize a mathematical group meeting in the week, before the next company meeting, a veracious pro-active decision. It was observed that no leadership took place in the group with every iodine inputting questions that the group could not answer. The Part D students were consequently able to answer about questions. In the meeting the group did not discuss p roject system, save discussed sensor systems, there was no clear sensory system distinguishable with A. Shabbier wanting to research into sonar systems and A.Mohammed continuing research into IR sensors and diverge sensors. Over the next two weeks the group began to realize their task and formed their project structure based on the diagram, foresee 1 . The strategy overall was carried out well throughout the group, as they became more aware of mistakes that may admit occurred without the plan and check mark stages. Once the strategy was in place, the Plan section was implemented. Within the plan stage the group took into method of accounting the following factors for equipment choice Cost, Complexity and Acceptability.An example of this method was the choice of sensors, the group decided to do IR sensors, as they were cheaper than sonar systems, they were the east heterogeneous of all the systems and achieved the groups sine qua nons. This decision making process was ve ry powerful, as it gave the groups particular criteria that they had to uphold and it prevented members from verging off topic, which they were pr unrivaled to doing. Figure 1 Plan check do act (PICA) model A main failure of the group however, was that they did not choose a project leader.Their failure resulted in a leaderless structure to the group, immediately disadvantaging the group, as there was no one to discover key decisions. This can be seen by accents formed in the group with regards to sub-systems. The group decided to create sub-systems and allocate a person per sub-system, though this was a sensible systematic approach (though it could have been improved by using at a job determination chart, such as in Figure 21). Breaking down the sub-systems affected the group with near tasks much simpler and straight forward than others. This process direct to J. Peters and A. Mohammed wanting the identical roles.The decision was made by the rest of the group that A. Mohamm ed would be repair suited to the desired role. J. Peters had little contact with the group up until that slur and this showed in the groups decision. J. Peters was left with the difficult task of producing the interim report for the group. This was a poor decision by the group as it meant that they issue similarly arose from the sub-system approach, where during one week more than one member of the group was absent. This led to a halt in procession of the project in the areas where squad members were away, as absent team members knew their role, but the other team members did not.This should have been factored into the projects risk contingency plan however this was yet to be created by J. Peters. This failure resulted in a week without progress and certainly created tension not only thin the group, but between the group and supervisor as well. A better strategy would have been to split the design into sub-systems, but within each sub-system, tasks could be created and given to members of the group, allowing more than one group member to have knowledge of each sub-system to en positive(predicate) progress continues.What sequence? Who else? How to interface with the facilities? Environmental conditions? How much autonomy? Skills? Where to locate? Tasks? Figure 2 A Job design chart, enabling users to identify each role After the fourth week it was clear that A. Shabbier had taken bestir of the project, which could be a positive factor of not immediately selecting a group leader, as it allowed time for the more dedicated person the project to take control, effectively becoming the natural leader.His indecision however, led to a long hold up within an exercise the group carried out. A requirement that the group made was to increase the speed of the robot. The group originally remote the wheel and replaced it with a larger wheel increasing the speed, a sound idea however, their plan did not consider that they were not allowed to remove move from the Boot . Therefore the approach taken by he group was to use their project PICA strategy and they were able to modify the wheel by creating an extension to use the original wheel as a ray of light for a larger wheel.This shows good initiative from the group, however the issue should not and would limitation control. The group would have been better to choose a proceeds design strategy, where they generated a supposition, which they could feedback to the supervisor in a company meeting, who could then evaluate the groups design, making sure it is suitable for the set requirements. This would make sure the design fits the requirements and if not, it could be improved until it did. The groups strategy for their hardware sub-system had certain requirements, one of which included a LED display.The display was a creative concept as many ideas in the group were however there was a delay in delivery (due to the University) which the group had not planned for. This delay was unplanned for with n o risk contingency plan in place. This hence meant the group had to alter their Giant chart to their needs at that time. This was naughtily planned, as a better Giant chart would have had tautologic time allocated for work that could not be completed at the specific time.