Teradyne Corporation: The Jaguar Project.
A lot of lessons were learned from the Jaguar project. First, project management tools are valuable to successful projects however; the people using these tools must understand the significance of the tools and how to utilize them to their advantage. Training staff to understand and effectively use the project management tools would have seen a response to metrics, and may have possibly avoided the software catastrophe. Second, tools that are being used must be supported and encouraged by management. Having some teams use the tools, and others not, breeds confusion and inability to speak the same language when reporting goals and progress.
The ability to be flexible and to mitigate risk is essential to project management. All of the tools used in the jaguar project were good, valuable tools but their effective application was lacking due to ineffective communication throughout the project. “Tools make things better if people using them accept and understand what they are for and how they work” (Brown, 2004). This was not the case for those implemented at Teradyne
There was very little discussion of risk management planning. Utilizing risk scoring analysis and risk mitigation strategies can assist teams to deal with unknowns. Risk management prepares teams to identify, analyze, mitigate and control risk.
The TQM concept took the better part of five years to be incorporated in most aspects of work at Teradyne. The Jaguar introduced changes in project management methodology that would have been better implemented, had Teradyne spent time upfront to change the organizational culture. These were significant project management changes. Time to understand, embrace and embed them into daily operations was required.
If I were O’Brien, I would continue to use all of the identified tools to successfully manage projects. They each have strengths if applied correctly. I would apply the lessons learned to future projects at Teradyne. Providing companywide education and training in an effort to change the culture to include employee level responsibility, understanding and accountability is essential. Teradyne had great people, highly educated and capable of delivering but, they simply did not buy-in to the processes that O’Brien was attempting to use. Frustration and decreased engagement lead to delay, overspending, and a less than adequate product at project end.
Teradyne Corporation: The Jaguar Project.
A lot of lessons were learned from the Jaguar project. First, project management tools are valuable to successful projects however; the people using these tools must understand the significance of the tools and how to utilize them to their advantage. Training staff to understand and effectively use the project management tools would have seen a response to metrics, and may have possibly avoided the software catastrophe. Second, tools that are being used must be supported and encouraged by management. Having some teams use the tools, and others not, breeds confusion and inability to speak the same language when reporting goals and progress.
The ability to be flexible and to mitigate risk is essential to project management. All of the tools used in the jaguar project were good, valuable tools but their effective application was lacking due to ineffective communication throughout the project. “Tools make things better if people using them accept and understand what they are for and how they work” (Brown, 2004). This was not the case for those implemented at Teradyne
There was very little discussion of risk management planning. Utilizing risk scoring analysis and risk mitigation strategies can assist teams to deal with unknowns. Risk management prepares teams to identify, analyze, mitigate and control risk.
The TQM concept took the better part of five years to be incorporated in most aspects of work at Teradyne. The Jaguar introduced changes in project management methodology that would have been better implemented, had Teradyne spent time upfront to change the organizational culture. These were significant project management changes. Time to understand, embrace and embed them into daily operations was required.
If I were O’Brien, I would continue to use all of the identified tools to successfully manage projects. They each have strengths if applied correctly. I would apply the lessons learned to future projects at Teradyne. Providing companywide education and training in an effort to change the culture to include employee level responsibility, understanding and accountability is essential. Teradyne had great people, highly educated and capable of delivering but, they simply did not buy-in to the processes that O’Brien was attempting to use. Frustration and decreased engagement lead to delay, overspending, and a less than adequate product at project end.
Teradyne Corporation: The Jaguar Project.
A lot of lessons were learned from the Jaguar project. First, project management tools are valuable to successful projects however; the people using these tools must understand the significance of the tools and how to utilize them to their advantage. Training staff to understand and effectively use the project management tools would have seen a response to metrics, and may have possibly avoided the software catastrophe. Second, tools that are being used must be supported and encouraged by management. Having some teams use the tools, and others not, breeds confusion and inability to speak the same language when reporting goals and progress.
The ability to be flexible and to mitigate risk is essential to project management. All of the tools used in the jaguar project were good, valuable tools but their effective application was lacking due to ineffective communication throughout the project. “Tools make things better if people using them accept and understand what they are for and how they work” (Brown, 2004). This was not the case for those implemented at Teradyne
There was very little discussion of risk management planning. Utilizing risk scoring analysis and risk mitigation strategies can assist teams to deal with unknowns. Risk management prepares teams to identify, analyze, mitigate and control risk.
The TQM concept took the better part of five years to be incorporated in most aspects of work at Teradyne. The Jaguar introduced changes in project management methodology that would have been better implemented, had Teradyne spent time upfront to change the organizational culture. These were significant project management changes. Time to understand, embrace and embed them into daily operations was required.
If I were O’Brien, I would continue to use all of the identified tools to successfully manage projects. They each have strengths if applied correctly. I would apply the lessons learned to future projects at Teradyne. Providing companywide education and training in an effort to change the culture to include employee level responsibility, understanding and accountability is essential. Teradyne had great people, highly educated and capable of delivering but, they simply did not buy-in to the processes that O’Brien was attempting to use. Frustration and decreased engagement lead to delay, overspending, and a less than adequate product at project end.
Teradyne Corporation: The Jaguar Project.
A lot of lessons were learned from the Jaguar project. First, project management tools are valuable to successful projects however; the people using these tools must understand the significance of the tools and how to utilize them to their advantage. Training staff to understand and effectively use the project management tools would have seen a response to metrics, and may have possibly avoided the software catastrophe. Second, tools that are being used must be supported and encouraged by management. Having some teams use the tools, and others not, breeds confusion and inability to speak the same language when reporting goals and progress.
The ability to be flexible and to mitigate risk is essential to project management. All of the tools used in the jaguar project were good, valuable tools but their effective application was lacking due to ineffective communication throughout the project. “Tools make things better if people using them accept and understand what they are for and how they work” (Brown, 2004). This was not the case for those implemented at Teradyne
There was very little discussion of risk management planning. Utilizing risk scoring analysis and risk mitigation strategies can assist teams to deal with unknowns. Risk management prepares teams to identify, analyze, mitigate and control risk.
The TQM concept took the better part of five years to be incorporated in most aspects of work at Teradyne. The Jaguar introduced changes in project management methodology that would have been better implemented, had Teradyne spent time upfront to change the organizational culture. These were significant project management changes. Time to understand, embrace and embed them into daily operations was required.
If I were O’Brien, I would continue to use all of the identified tools to successfully manage projects. They each have strengths if applied correctly. I would apply the lessons learned to future projects at Teradyne. Providing companywide education and training in an effort to change the culture to include employee level responsibility, understanding and accountability is essential. Teradyne had great people, highly educated and capable of delivering but, they simply did not buy-in to the processes that O’Brien was attempting to use. Frustration and decreased engagement lead to delay, overspending, and a less than adequate product at project end.
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as doc, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 11
MSTM- 6034
Project Management in the Offshore,
Health, Fisheries and Engineering Technolog En!ironments Mod"le #$ Project Management F"ndamentals Gino, F. & Pisano, G., 2006: Teradyne Corporation: The Jaguar Project. S"%mitted % Tona Somerton Tuesday, October 15, 2013 0 Ta%le of &ontents Overview ....... 2 Problem Statement .... 4 lternatives ....... 4 lternative nalysis .. 5 !ourse o" ction .... # $e"erences ..... 10 1 O!er!ie' &om(an$ Teradyne !or%oration Em(loees$ Over &000 Fo"nded$ 1#&0 by le' ()rbelo"" and *ic+ (e,ol". !lassmates "rom -.T )"siness$ Production o" e/ui%ment "or testin0 semiconductors Sales$ 11.2 billion in 2004. Mar*et$ ,orld)s lar0est su%%lier, ,orldwide+ ,e("tation$ 3nown "or reliability, test s%eed and tec4nical %er"ormance )"siness -nits$ 15 Semiconductor test, 25 ssembly Test, 35 6roadband Test, 45 !onnection Systems, 55 (ia0nostic Solutions. &"lt"re$ 7n0ineerin0, driven by %er"ormance. !asual dress, cubicle o""ice s%aces, encoura0ed individual initiative. 8on0 4ours is t4e norm, recruitment 9 retention were no issue. O(erating. (roject (rocesses in (lace (rior to the /ag"ar Project$ .ntroduced in t4e 1##0)s: Total ;uality -ana0ement <T;-5, $evolutioni=in0 %roduct develo%ment <$P(5, 7n0ineerin0 Process .m%rovement Team <7P.T5, 00re0ate Process %lannin0 <PP5, P4ase:0ate model, and >a"ter:action? review. Sit"ation$ 6y 1##& it is clear t4at T;- is not ta+in0 4old in en0ineerin0. Pro@ects continued to be late and over bud0et. $P( was introduced alon0 wit4 7P.T, PP, P4ase:0ate 9 >"ter:action? review. *one were used consistently. Pro0ress remained 4i04ly variable. Some divisions were still over committin0 and t4ey continued to come u% wit4 unrealistic sc4edules. .n 2001, to res%ond to a c4an0in0 mar+et, Teradyne senior mana0ement made a %ivotal strate0ic decision. T4e com%any decided to embrace t4e "le'ible %lat"orm strate0y, abolis4in0 t4e mar+et:se0ment "ocused %lat"orm, "oldin0 it into a sin0le %lat"orm en0ineerin0 0rou%, %roducin0 a test system t4at could test multi%le ty%es o" devices. T4is %ro@ect 0rou% was code:named >Aa0uar?. T4e %ro@ect was lead by a 25 year veteran o" Teradyne)s en0ineerin0 or0ani=ation, Aac+ O) 6rien. critical tar0et date o" Aune 30 t4 , 2004 was decided "or be0innin0 t4e s4i%ment o" t4e new tester. 2 O)6rien %resented a B5 %a0e %resentation to Senior -ana0ement in -ay o" 2002 detailin0 t4e system arc4itecture, desi0n, and "unction s%eci"ications, tar0et %er"ormance s%eci"ications and t4e %ro@ect e'ecution %lan. T4e %ro@ect was or0ani=ed into a set o" %ro@ect teams, eac4 "ocused on a %articular subsystem tas+. >core team? o" leaders "rom eac4 subsystem team as well as t4e %ro0ram mana0er 3evin Ciebel and t4e %ro@ect lead O)6rien was "ormed. T4is team met mont4ly in %erson 9 wee+ly via telecon"erence to ensure a%%ro%riate levels o" inte0ration across all sites. Dormali=ed %ro@ect mana0ement tools were used durin0 t4e Aa0uar %ro@ect. T4ese tools includedE ,or+ brea+down structure, 3:%oint estimation, critical %at4 analysis 9 earned value analysis. T4e team was "le'ible and res%onded to delays by reallocatin0 resources, never c4an0in0 t4e "i'ed customer:s4i% date. Fardware remained a4ead o" sc4edule usin0 t4ese metrics. Some teams did not rely on t4e %ro@ect mana0ement tools metrics, so"tware)s metrics indicated issues wit4 com%letin0 %lanned tas+s but, t4ey were >in denial? and constantly communicated t4at t4ey could catc4 u%. .n Se%tember o" 2003 Teradyne received word t4at one o" t4e lar0est semiconductor com%anies in t4e world, l%4aTec4 was about to commit to a com%etitors system. Teradyne)s system was not sc4eduled to be ready "or evaluation until Aune, ten mont4s later. Teradyne convinced l%4aTec4 to wait "or t4em to "inis4 t4eir %roduct, to 0ive t4em a c4ance to bid on t4e business. l%4aTec4 4ad one conditionE t4ey wanted t4e system "or evaluation by -arc4 30, 2004. dditional resources were committed to t4e So"tware team. s t4e deadline closed in t4e so"tware team s4i"ted its e""ort to "i'in0 bu0s, 4avin0 to ma+e concessions on ori0inally %lanned "eatures. On -arc4 30 t4 , 2004, as %romised t4e "irst com%lete system was s4i%%ed "or evaluation. ll o" t4e 4ardware met s%eci"ications but, so"tware did not incor%orate all "eatures initially re/uested by t4e customer. T4e so"tware was "unctional but, was also laden wit4 bu0s. Teardyne s%ent t4e ne't si' mont4s 3 u%0radin0 t4e system "or l%4aTec4. T4eir wor+ %aid o"", in Se%tember 2004 l%4aTec4 selected t4e Teradyne system. T4ere was a cost to t4is victory, t4e remainder o" t4e %ro@ect: includin0 develo%ment o" "eatures "or ot4er customers: was delayed. So"tware teams were consumed wit4 "i'in0 bu0s and "ell "urt4er be4ind sc4edule by si' mont4s. .n t4e >a"ter:action? review. .ssues wit4 t4e a%%lication o" Pro@ect mana0ement tools are identi"ied and t4ere are lessons to be learned "or "uture %ro@ect mana0ement at Teradyne. <Cino, D. 9 Pisano, C., 200&5 Pro%lem Statement .n +ee%in0 wit4 Teradyne)s %rocess o" continuous im%rovement, O)6rien and t4e senior mana0ement are now be0innin0 t4e %rocess o" dissectin0 t4e %ro@ect to identi"y lessons learned. .t was evident t4at t4e %ro@ect did not meet customer s%eci"icationsE it was over bud0et and was beyond deadlines. T4e team 4ad stru00led wit4 t4e use o" Pro@ect -ana0ement tools. ccordin0 to Pinto 2013, >t4e /uadru%le constraint is t4e standard o" %ro@ect success.? %ro@ect is seen as success"ul i", t4e %ro@ect is on time, wit4in bud0et, meets t4e %ro@ects 0oal s%eci"ications, and is acce%table to t4e intended client. Gsin0 t4is de"inition, t4e Aa0uar %ro@ect was not success"ul. ,4at went wron0 wit4 P- tool a%%lication in t4is %ro@ect "or t4e outcome to be a %ro@ect t4at wasE over bud0et, o"" sco%e and beyond t4e e'%ected timelines and, w4at can be im%roved u%on to %revent similar occurrences in "uture %ro@ects at TeradyneH 0lternati!es %ro@ect mana0er is "aced wit4 a number o" res%onsibilities. mon0 t4ese res%onsibilities areE selectin0 a team, develo%in0 %ro@ect ob@ectives and a %lan "or e'ecution, %er"ormin0 ris+ mana0ement activities, cost estimatin0 and bud0etin0, sc4edulin0 and mana0in0 resources. ." we ta+e t4ese res%onsibilities into consideration and analy=e 4ow O)6rien a%%roac4ed mana0in0 t4em durin0 t4e Aa0uar Pro@ect, we are able to identi"y t4e %ro@ects stren0t4s, and evaluate wea+nesses to en4ance "uture %ro@ects. 4 lternatives to success"ully mana0e Teradyne %ro@ects revolve around t4e a%%lication o" "ormali=ed Pro@ect mana0ement tools. T4ese tools include %rocesses traditionally used at Teradyne, as well as t4ose introduced "or s%eci"ically "or t4e Aa0uar %ro@ectI 15 Total ;uality -ana0ement 25 P4ase:0ated -odel 35 ,or+ brea+down structure, <,6S5 45 3:%oint estimation <P7$T5 55 !ritical %at4 analysis, <!P5 &5 7arned value analysis, <7J5 naly=in0 eac4 tool a%%lied at Teradyne may reveal w4at 4a%%ened durin0 t4e Aa0uar %ro@ect and, o""er o%%ortunities to more e""ectively mana0e "uture %ro@ects at Teradyne. 0lternati!e 0nalsis 0lternati!e #$ Total ;uality -ana0ement Pros &ons Provides em%loyee %roblem solvin0 tec4ni/ues 9 tools. $educes lead time (ecreases %roduction de"ects 7liminates waste, reduces %roduction costs. .denti"ies redundancies, addin0 %ro"it. .m%roves %roductivity .m%roves morale $e/uires e'tensive em%loyee trainin0 Productivity may be reduced durin0 trainin0. .m%lementation ta+es em%loyees away "rom duties. $e/uires c4an0e in mindset, attitude 9 met4ods. $e/uires clear e""ective communication ot4erwise "ear o" c4an0e leads to resistance. Ta+es time, small incremental im%rovements. <3elc4ner, 20135 t Teradyne t4e en0ineers resisted T;- and "elt it was, >an encroac4ment on t4eir "reedom?. .ne""ective communication and lac+ o" em%loyee education may 4ave been a "actor leadin0 to t4e resistance and "ailure o" t4is a%%roac4. -ana0ement t4en "ocused on a %roduct develo%ment initiative, >revolutioni=in0 %roduct develo%ment?. T4e com%any)s %roblems were seen as "allin0 into two cate0ories. T4e "irst, was over commitment. T4is was addressed by t4e a%%lication o" 00re0ate Pro@ect Plannin0 <PP5 w4ic4 would see t4e com%anyE only ta+in0 on %ro@ects t4at were 5 ali0ned wit4 t4eir strate0ic %lan andE only committin0 to %ro@ects w4en ade/uate and a%%ro%riate resources were available. T4e second cate0ory was %oor %ro@ect %lannin0. Coals and sco%e were not clearly de"ined, %ro@ects tended to e'%and, and became delayed. -ilestones were not well de"ined and were o"ten missed. Sc4edules 4ad little ri0or as t4ey were not trac+ed and mana0ement could not tell w4en t4ey needed to intervene. T4ere was no one individual res%onsible "or a 0iven %ro@ect. T4ese concerns were addressed by im%lementin0 a %4ase:0ate model. 0lternati!e 1$ P4ase:0ated -odel Pros &ons ccelerated %roduct develo%ment 6rea+s down com%le' %rocesses Provides overview enablin0 %rioriti=ation and "ocus !ross "unctional, involves em%loyees !an be combined wit4 %er"ormance metrics. T4e a%%roac4 is se/uential. 7'%erts believe %roduct develo%ment s4ould be %arallel. (oes not su%%ort creation o" new ideas. Tension e'ists between or0ani=in0 and creativity. <!oo%er, 20135 T4e intent o" t4e %4ase:0ate model at Terdyne was to %rovide well de"ined milestones and review %oints "or %ro@ects. Fowever, Teradyne >did not mandate t4e use o" any s%eci"ic tools and le"t it u% to individual divisions and mana0ers to decide w4ic4 recommendations to "ollow? <Cino 9 Pisano, 200&5. ,4ile some divisions embraced t4e a%%roac4 ot4ers i0nored it. Pro0ress varied, and "rustration 0rew. T4ere was very little be4avioral c4an0e, %ro@ects were still overcommitted and unrealistically sc4eduled. strict ad4erence to t4e use o" t4ese toolsK models would 4ave decreased t4e sc4edulin0 9 resource issues wit4in t4e com%any. O)6rien attem%ted to address sc4edulin0, bud0etin0 and de"inition o" res%onsibilities wit4 t4e additional tools "or t4e Aa0uar %ro@ectI ,6S, 3:%oint estimation, !P 9 7J. 0lternati!e 3$ ,or+ brea+down structure 0d!antages of a good 2)S 3angers of a (oor 2)S Dorces t4e team to create detailed ste%s T4e timeline may be lon0er 6ud0et may be mismana0ed & lays t4e 0roundwor+ "or sc4edule and bud0et !reates em%loyee accountability. !reation breeds em%loyee en0a0ement. ssi0nments o" team members may not be clear 7m%loyees are not as li+ely to be en0a0ed in t4e wor+ because t4ey are not accountable "or outcomes. <70eland, 20115 0lternati!e 4$ 3:%oint estimation Pros &ons Provides boundaries on e'%ectations around time and costs 6est used in uni/ue %ro@ects w4ere t4ere are many un+nowns. Ta+es a lot o" wor+, re/uires 3 estimates. Still utili=es estimations, actual may be muc4 better or worse. <Product 9 %rocess innovation, 20125 0lternati!e 4$ !ritical %at4 analysis Pros &ons !an calculate e'actly 4ow lon0 a %ro@ect will ta+e. Provides ability to tell customers com%letion timelines. .denti"ies w4ic4 activities are time critical. Provides o%%ortunity to create slac+ time reducin0 %rocessin0 at critical %oints to ti04ten u% turn around. 6ased u%on ideal situations, does not ta+e into account un"oreseen events. Timelines may be s+ewed i" t4in0s 0o wron0. $elies on %ast data to "ormulate com%letion time %redictions: di""icult "or new com%anies. Docuses %rimarily on time, ne0lects /uality and cost control. <.n0ram, 20135 0lternati!e 6$ 7arned value analysis Pros &ons Gses /uantitative metrics to evaluate %ast %ro@ect %er"ormance. Predicts "uture %er"ormance e'tra%olatin0 "rom t4e %ast. 7ncoura0es ta+in0 corrective action in res%onse to analysis results. $elies on assum%tion t4at "uture can be %redicted "rom %ast %er"ormance. T4ere is no 0uarantee t4at t4e 7J will be true. <Fillson, 20045 O)6rien)s "ormation o" a sin0le team was a si0ni"icant c4an0e. T4ese c4an0es were more t4an %rocess c4an0es t4ey re/uired c4an0es to core cultural values. T4e B c4an0e "rom wor+in0 inde%endently to becomin0 a %art o" a lar0er re%ortin0 structure t4at ma+es cross "unctional decisions was "orei0n and removed %revious autonomy. Teradyne did use a ,6S durin0 t4e @a0uar %ro@ect. O)6rien)s B5 %a0e %resentation laid t4e 0roundwor+ "or sc4edule, bud0et, and em%loyee accountability. T4is was an element t4at 4ad not been underta+en at Teradyne. Coals, sco%e, and milestones 4ad never been clearly de"ined be"ore. Peo%le resisted t4e tools because t4ey "orced t4em to commit. $e"usin0 to commit was a %art o" t4e reason w4y t4e so"tware team 0ot critically be4ind sc4edule. T4e tools %roduced metrics, advisin0 teams o" w4ere t4ey were in t4e %ro@ect timeline 4oweverE t4e >red "la0s? were essentially i0nored by some teams, t4e so"tware team es%ecially. T4is sc4edulin0 issue meant t4e team 4ad to ma+e concessions to meet deadlines. Ori0inal customer re/uested "eatures were cut to save time c4an0in0 t4e sco%e o" t4e %ro@ect. 7m%loyee en0a0ement and buy:in was low. T4e tools were new and some em%loyees "elt t4ey were more cumbersome t4an use"ul. T4e "eelin0 at Teradyne was t4at, sometimes t4e tools 0ot in t4e way. Jaluable time was s%ent deci%4erin0 tool metrics and w4et4er t4ey were reliable rat4er t4an res%ondin0 to t4em. ri0id %redetermined sc4edule became less meanin0"ul over time. T4ey wor+ed to stay on sc4edule but, missed t4at t4ey were ma+in0 concessions and c4an0in0 t4e %ro@ect deliverables. T4e metrics t4at were i0nored by mana0ement re0ardin0 t4e so"tware delays may 4ave been avoided i" additional resources were added as soon as t4ey noticed t4e timeline sli%%in0. ,4en t4e sc4edule was even "urt4er s4ortened t4is %ut enormous %ressure on so"tware team and t4e end result was a %roduct t4at was not as s%eci"ied initially. .t was t4e tools t4at allowed t4e com%any to res%ond to l%4aTec4 and t4eir use made t4em con"ident t4ey could meet t4e milestones. Fowever, t4e @a0uar %ro@ect i0nored /uality, and cost control w4en %laced under %ressure to meet t4e deadlines, one o" t4e identi"ied disadvanta0es o" t4e !P. &o"rse of 0ction lot o" lessons were learned "rom t4e Aa0uar %ro@ect. Dirst, %ro@ect mana0ement 2 tools are valuable to success"ul %ro@ects 4oweverE t4e %eo%le usin0 t4ese tools must understand t4e si0ni"icance o" t4e tools and 4ow to utili=e t4em to t4eir advanta0e. Trainin0 sta"" to understand and e""ectively use t4e %ro@ect mana0ement tools would 4ave seen a res%onse to metrics, and may 4ave %ossibly avoided t4e so"tware catastro%4e. Second, tools t4at are bein0 used must be su%%orted and encoura0ed by mana0ement. Favin0 some teams use t4e tools, and ot4ers not, breeds con"usion and inability to s%ea+ t4e same lan0ua0e w4en re%ortin0 0oals and %ro0ress. T4e ability to be "le'ible and to miti0ate ris+ is essential to %ro@ect mana0ement. ll o" t4e tools used in t4e @a0uar %ro@ect were 0ood, valuable tools but t4eir e""ective a%%lication was lac+in0 due to ine""ective communication t4rou04out t4e %ro@ect. >Tools ma+e t4in0s better i" %eo%le usin0 t4em acce%t and understand w4at t4ey are "or and 4ow t4ey wor+? <6rown, 20045. T4is was not t4e case "or t4ose im%lemented at Teradyne T4ere was very little discussion o" ris+ mana0ement %lannin0. Gtili=in0 ris+ scorin0 analysis and ris+ miti0ation strate0ies can assist teams to deal wit4 un+nowns. $is+ mana0ement %re%ares teams to identi"y, analy=e, miti0ate and control ris+. T4e T;- conce%t too+ t4e better %art o" "ive years to be incor%orated in most as%ects o" wor+ at Teradyne. T4e Aa0uar introduced c4an0es in %ro@ect mana0ement met4odolo0y t4at would 4ave been better im%lemented, 4ad Teradyne s%ent time u%"ront to c4an0e t4e or0ani=ational culture. T4ese were si0ni"icant %ro@ect mana0ement c4an0es. Time to understand, embrace and embed t4em into daily o%erations was re/uired. ." . were O)6rien, . would continue to use all o" t4e identi"ied tools to success"ully mana0e %ro@ects. T4ey eac4 4ave stren0t4s i" a%%lied correctly. . would a%%ly t4e lessons learned to "uture %ro@ects at Teradyne. Providin0 com%anywide education and trainin0 in an e""ort to c4an0e t4e culture to include em%loyee level res%onsibility, understandin0 and accountability is essential. Teradyne 4ad 0reat %eo%le, 4i04ly educated and ca%able o" deliverin0 but, t4ey sim%ly did not buy:in to t4e %rocesses t4at O)6rien was attem%tin0 to use. Drustration and decreased en0a0ement lead to delay, overs%endin0, and a less t4an ade/uate %roduct at %ro@ect end. ,eferences # !oo%er, $. <20135 -ana0in0 Product (evelo%ment. 7'%lanation o" t4e Sta0e:0ate model o" $obert C. !oo%er. <)225 in 12anage: The e!ecuti"e #ast trac$. $etrieved "rom 4tt%IKKwww.12mana0e.comKmet4odsLcoo%erLsta0e:0ate.4tml 70eland, 6. <2011, Debruary 225 6ene"its o" t4e ,or+ 6rea+down Structure. .n Project anage%ent Tips. $etrieved "rom 4tt%IKK%mti%s.netKbene"its:wor+:brea+down: structureK Fillson, (. <20045. 7arned Jalue and $is+ -ana0ementI Practical Syner0y. .n &is$ 'octor. $etrieved "rom 4tt%IKKwww.ris+:doctor.comK%d":"ilesKcev:b1004.%d" .n0ram, (. <20135 !P- 9 P7$T ,ea+nesses 9 Stren0t4s. .n (%a)) *usiness 'e%and edia. $etrieved "rom 4tt%IKKsmallbusiness.c4ron.comKc%m:%ert:wea+nesses: stren0t4s:1022.4tml 3elc4ner, 8. <20135 dvanta0es 9 (isadvanta0es o" Total ;uality -ana0ement Strate0ies. .n (%a)) *usiness 'e%and edia. $etrieved "rom 4tt%IKKsmallbusiness.c4ron.comKadvanta0es:disadvanta0es:total:/uality:mana0ement: strate0ies:221&0.4tml Pinto, A.3. <20135. Project anage%ent: +chie"ing Co%petiti"e +d"antage. Toronto, O*I Pearson 7ducation .nc. Product 9 Process .nnovation .nc. <20125 Pro@ect -ana0ement 7stimatin0 Tools 9 Tec4ni/ues. .n Process anage%ent Guru. $etrieved "rom 4tt%IKKwww.%[email protected] 10