Compare and Contrast Teradyne

1.
Compare and contrast Teradyne's traditional project execution strategy to the approach it used in
Jaguar? What was similar? What was different?
Teradyne’s traditional project execution strategy was different from Jaguar project. Teradyne’s
traditional project execution strategy was focused on the result of the project but not on the tools
which are used for the project implementation. We could observe democracy in all steps of
projects. The top managers did not check each step of the employees and did not measure their
performance. Operating process was not under control. Moreover, the strategy of the company
was not aimed to improve the service. Plans were not worked out properly. Therefore, the
employees had to add some operations during the implementation of the project. The
performance was of poor quality and projects were delayed.
In contrast, Jaguar project was based on the principle of checking each tool by which the project
is realized. In Jaguar project much attention was paid to concept development and product
planning. The main task was to satisfy the needs of the customers. If an operation was fulfilled
lately, the managers should answer for these delays. Even if some phases of the project
implementation were delayed, the whole project should be finished in time. Each employee
should have checked the effectiveness of the work by project management tools that include
work breakdown structure, 3-point estimation, critical path analysis, and earned value analysis.
2. What impact did the project management tools have on the Jaguar project? Specifically, how did
they change behavior? How did they influence performance?
The project management tools had double effect on the Jaguar project.
On the one hand, the project management tools made the employees have more serious
attitude to their work and be more punctual and organized. Initially, employees checked whether
the work process performed correctly with the help of managers. Then, they began to check their
action themselves.
On the other side, most of the employees were not satisfied with the results of the project
management tools turned into the target of the employees’ performance instead of helping to
achieve perfect result in projects. The project management tools allowed the company to fulfill the
projects in time. However, they affected the quality of the performance. People did not have time
for improving systems quality in chase of the implementation of plans and monitoring of each step
of the work.
1. Compare and contrast Teradyne's traditional project execution strategy to the approach it used
in Jaguar. What was different and what was similar?
In the traditional approach,

- The requirements were not well defined and the stakeholders kept on adding new features to
during the development there were no clear goals defined. This led to the shift of delivery time
and affected the quality.
- Individual divisions and managers had the final say for using any tools.
- Project progress and phase was not clearly visible to the higher management.
- Divisions were very inconsistent in project tracking with some using detailed project planning,
phase gate model and conduction after-action, while the rest did not use any.
- Each market segment used a different test platform.
- Resource allocation was over committed, sometimes to the extent of 300%.
In Jaguar approach,
- Adding new features during development is not allowed, thereby helping in finalizing delivery
date. Requirements and are well defined.
- Management tools such as 3-point estimation, critical path analysis, work breakdown structure
and earned value analysis are used.
- Higher management has a clear view of the progress of the project.
- Project tracking becomes accurate with the help of tools.
- Flexible platform strategy is used for testing.
- It provided correct resource allocation but sometimes forced people into commitment, which is
not possible in real life.
2. What impact did the project management tools have on the Jaguar Project? Specifically, how
did it change behaviour? How did it impact performance?
• Jack O’Brien, the head, was convinced that the tools would provide a robust means to
communicate the project status to management and to identify critical issues.
• A separate ‘program management’ function was established to facilitate the use of the
tools.
• Data was entered into a scheduling program to ensure convergence of the schedules
across all the sub-teams.
• The inter-temporal relationship between every task was specified in advance so the
impact of delay of a task on other tasks could be calculated.
• The tools allowed the tasks to be simulated in three different scenarios.
• The management team was skeptical with regards to the project metrics and did not pay
enough attention to the data.
• The hardware subsystems managed to hit new milestones, but the software kept on
falling behind schedule.

Compare and Contrast Teradyne

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Compare and Contrast Teradyne

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Compare and Contrast Teradyne

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1.

In the traditional approach,

You might also like