How to Deal with a Project that is Off Course Towards the end of the 20th century, department store legend, Sears, found itself struggling to stay afloat amidst the successes of big-box stores like Target and Walmart, and high-end department stores like Saks Fifth Avenue (Ruesink 2015). Kmart stockholders began to discuss the possibility of a merger (project) with Sears in hopes to increase the organizations’ bottom line, minimize competition, and increase diversification. Throughout the merge, strategies were discussed to maintain project management principles but like most projects conflict arose. If a new project manager, such as myself, were to be selected to make project changes, it would be to ensure that the stockholders objectives
…show more content…
Meeting cost specifications was a big driving force for this merge. In the beginning they were successful, Kmart shares increased almost 27% and Sears increased 27%. Project managers goal of the project was to convert prime Kmart locations to Sears; sell real estate; open new stores; perhaps buy back shares to drive the stock. Meanwhile, rival retailers will keep growing (Johnson 2004). The harsh reality of this merger is that both stores didn’t have a clearly defined appeal and brand which contributed to their declined success. The project manager should’ve broadened their perspectives during planning to capture additional criteria needed to satisfy stakeholders’ and deliver business objectives. The misuse of triple constraints will not promote project (merger) …show more content…
d.). The stockholders and project managers misused their use of triple constraints throughout the merger. Costs were supposed to decrease and sales to skyrocket, but due to poor planning and miscommunication it resulted in the exact opposite. It’s clear the acquisition has been a failure so far, and the future doesn’t look promising. Sears Holdings is speculated as the next big retail failure, having lost 7 billion over the past four years (Ruesink 2015). Project managers should have communicated with both retailers understood their project goals and objectives. The merger should not have taken place and alternatives should have been
Meeting cost specifications was a big driving force for this merge. In the beginning they were successful, Kmart shares increased almost 27% and Sears increased 27%. Project managers goal of the project was to convert prime Kmart locations to Sears; sell real estate; open new stores; perhaps buy back shares to drive the stock. Meanwhile, rival retailers will keep growing (Johnson 2004). The harsh reality of this merger is that both stores didn’t have a clearly defined appeal and brand which contributed to their declined success. The project manager should’ve broadened their perspectives during planning to capture additional criteria needed to satisfy stakeholders’ and deliver business objectives. The misuse of triple constraints will not promote project (merger) …show more content…
d.). The stockholders and project managers misused their use of triple constraints throughout the merger. Costs were supposed to decrease and sales to skyrocket, but due to poor planning and miscommunication it resulted in the exact opposite. It’s clear the acquisition has been a failure so far, and the future doesn’t look promising. Sears Holdings is speculated as the next big retail failure, having lost 7 billion over the past four years (Ruesink 2015). Project managers should have communicated with both retailers understood their project goals and objectives. The merger should not have taken place and alternatives should have been