Case Study of magnetic seperation in the processing.pptx

Case Study of magnetic seperation in the processing.pptx

1. Case Study: PM & Customer Interface Presentation on

2. Meetings over Invoice Invoice was sent to utility. No respond after 90days, usually would respond after 60 days. Brown called the utility. They eventually sent 1.2m till oct-1990 Roger Robert; sale manager for BWNS, received letter for meeting. Doyle; manager of contract management for BWNS with Roger Robert traveled to Green Meadow to meet NLP officials: Sly Simon Lou Mayhew (contract negotiator for NLP on site). Rick jones No further payment & interest of 300,000 on overpay. The official were still unaware that conversion of contract. Were show memo from Stan Goodson (site manager). First mistake? Lou Mayhew was the contract negotiator

3. Negotiation Finally agreed on the contract conversion. Second meeting on reason of delay and overcrowd of personnel. Delay due to late turn over of generator Overcrowd was solved from documentation. Third meeting requested with incorporating of all the technical staff No result. No further meeting held. Last paid 400,000 Doyle knew to balance the shortfall and long term relationship. Future five outage project. New terms and condition from utility. Conventional proposal of BWNS, won the technical recommendation and best price. Still project awarded to Westinghouse. What to do four the remaining four project? Ramification of relationship

4. Question/Answers. What did Brown and BWNS do well in this situation? What could have been done better? Answer: They shouldn’t have insisted on the full payment but rather considered long term relationship with the customers. They should have insured them the no possibility of the mistakes in the future.

5. 2.What factors outside Brown’s control interfered with his efforts to work with the utility? Answer: 1.The delay of the turning over of the three generator on time. 2.The rejecting of the badging process which was already completed

6. 3.What skills does it take to be an effective interface with the customer? Has this project been successful for BWNS? Answer: -Know the decision maker authorized from the customer. -Work with the customer as a partner. -Send invoices daily or at least weekly The project completed but was successful for the BWNS as they didn’t receive full payment and lost long term relationship with the customer NLP.

7. 4.In what ways was the project scope expanded? Would you consider this to be “scope creep” (see Chapter 11)? Answer: First the badging process. Second the U-band relief and added plug inspection.

8. 5.Is the customer always right? Do you think any of the “common reporting problems” described in the chapter may have occurred here? Answer: Yes, as the customer is the ultimate stakeholder. So his will should always be given priority.

9. 6. Should BWNS try to win back NLP’s business at this time? How could Brown eventually win back NLP’s business? What should he do? Answer: Yes BWNS should win back NLP’s business as they had a good relationship in the past. He could win it back by focusing more on the term and condition of utility rather than on the technical and budget factor in the proposal of the remaining four projects.