Late Submission Policy This assignment is subject to the Late Submission penalty policy, namely 5% per day for three days.
Late Submission Policy
- This assignment is subject to the Late Submission penalty policy, namely 5% per day for three days.
- This page will close and will not allow further submissions after this Late Submission period has expired.
- In the event of an emergency situation preventing you from submitting within this time frame, special permission must be obtained from your instructor. Documentation substantiating emergency is required. In such a circumstance, if the extension is granted, the professor will reopen the submission function for you on an individual basis.
- Please do not email your submissions to your professor, either before or after the due date; all coursework should be submitted through the online course (Moodle).
Objectives
Upon successful completion of the Unit 4 case study, students will be able to
- explore the various roles, responsibilities, traits, skills, and situation handling abilities required of a project manager;
- describe the importance of skills (soft and people) to get into a project management role;
- demonstrate awareness and learning about how to deal with stakeholders in the project environment for successful end results; and
- identify the potential pitfalls of a wrong decision in a transformational project.
Brief Description
This case focuses on understanding the relevance and impact of different project leadership style on project success.
Read the following case study. Provide a summary of the case and use examples from the case to:
- Discuss the ways in which wrong decision making can impact the success of a project.
- Highlight the various leadership styles that were utilized in the case. Give examples specifically from the case.
- Identify instances in which soft/people skills were utilized. How effective were these?
Case Study
Banerjee, A. (2017). A cased based comparative analysis of project management leadership styles. The Case Centre.
Submission Instructions
- Submission should be a maximum of 3 pages double-spaced (excluding title page and reference page) and should follow APA referencing style.
- All submissions should be done through Turnitin with a similarity level no greater than 15%.
Evaluation
Unit Case Study 2 will be marked in its entirety out of 100. The following rubric indicates the criteria students are to adhere to, and their relative weights to the assignment overall. Grades and/or feedback will be made available to students no later than one week after submission.
Activity/Competencies Demonstrated% of Final Grade1. Application of Case Analysis Methodology/Content (60%) a. Identified and clearly/concisely stated the problem, including the decision to be made within the context of the case./10b. Summarized the pertinent facts in the case to describe the background/10c. Demonstrated a thorough analysis supported by evidence from the case. The analysis should be guided by the case questions and should apply course concepts./10d. Identified a viable set of alternatives to solve the stated problem and effectively evaluated the identified alternatives./10e. Recommended the most viable solution./10 f. Defined a clear action plan./102. Format and Writing (40%) a. Included all components of report (title page, all 6 case study analysis methodology steps with headings, references page)/20b. Spelling and grammar/10c. APA formatting (title, headings, references)/10 Total
E du
ca tio
na l m
at er
ia l s
up pl
ie d
by T
he C
as e
C en
tr e
C op
yr ig
ht e
nc od
ed A
76 H
M -J
U J9
K -P
JM N
9I
OM-1-0043 | January 30th 2017
It was rainy and humid as Dr. Arnab Banerjee looked out of the window. Summer had arrived in Germany and so had the good time. Dr. Arnab Banerjee told the team, “Looking back, this is the time we have been waiting for.” The happy moment was well cherished by Dr. Banerjee as it was a month since the German Driveshaft Manufacturing Plant of Dream Driveline Corporation had gone live and things were going pretty well. ‘It is time to review and analyze the work my team has been doing since last 12 months in Europe,’ he thought to himself. He recollected his onboarding to the project some 12-13 months ago when his company (Systems Group) won the project to transform the supply chain of Dream Driveline Corporation’s three plants in Europe. Dr. Banerjee, as the program manager for the transformation project in Europe, led a talented team of consultants. The transformational project consisted of business process re-engineering (BPR) and enterprise resource planning (ERP) implementation for the plants in France, Sweden and Germany. The overall outcome of the European sojourn was a mixed bag: It was mediocre success in the beginning, disappointing in the middle and successful towards the end. ’Although tough, working on the project has been a great learning experience which needs to be shared with others,’ Dr. Banerjee thought and smiled, as he returned to France from Germany.
While bidding adieu to his friends in Europe over a farewell dinner with some nice wines, baguettes and cheese, everyone was eager to hear from Dr. Banerjee about his experience in Europe. Dr. Banerjee said professionally there was one aspect he would reminisce most about. With the eager listeners looking at him in anticipation, Dr. Banerjee continued while sipping a glass of wine, “I worked in three plants for the transformation project. One plant based out of France, another in Sweden and the third in Germany, each of which had its own plant manager responsible for the respective Information Technology (IT) led process re-engineering transformation followed by ERP implementation in their respective plants. I can definitely say the failure or success of the massive transformation project, to a great extent, hinged on these three people. The results in the three plants were different in each case, and can be attributed largely to the different project management styles of the three plant managers. Though
This Case Study was written by Dr. Arnab Banerjee, Principal Consultant, Enterprise Application Services – Oracle Supply Chain Competency, Infosys Ltd. It is intended to be used as the basis for classroom discussion rather than to illustrate either effective or ineffective handling of a management situation. The case study is based on generalized experiences.
© www.etcases.com
No part of this publication may be copied, stored, transmitted, reproduced or distributed in any form or medium whatsoever without the permission of the copyright owner.
© www.etcases.com
A case based comparative analysis of project management leadership styles
617-0061-1
Distributed by The Case Centre North America Rest of the world www.thecasecentre.org t +1 781 239 5884 t +44 (0)1234 750903 All rights reserved e [email protected] e [email protected] centre
P le
as e
no te
th at
y ou
a re
n ot
p er
m itt
ed to
r ep
ro du
ce o
r re
di st
rib ut
e it
fo r
an y
ot he
r pu
rp os
e. Y
ou a
re p
er m
itt ed
to v
ie w
th e
m at
er ia
l o n-
lin e
an d
pr in
t a c
op y
fo r
yo ur
p er
so na
l u se
u nt
il 13
-J an
-2 02
3. P
ur ch
as ed
fo r
us e
by H
un g-
Y eh
K o
on 1
3- Ja
n- 20
22 .
O rd
er r
ef F
43 53
10 .
E du
ca tio
na l m
at er
ia l s
up pl
ie d
by T
he C
as e
C en
tr e
C op
yr ig
ht e
nc od
ed A
76 H
M -J
U J9
K -P
JM N
9I
© www.etcases.com
OM-1-0043 | A case based comparative analysis of project management leadership styles
2
people wanted to hear more about his experience, Dr. Banerjee said he would like to touch upon the separate outcomes in the plants once he himself had analyzed them well enough. After bidding adieu to everyone, while Dr. Banerjee was returning to his hotel room, something at the back of his mind haunted him.
Sipping a cup of Espresso at the Charles De Gaulle Airport in France, while waiting for his flight Dr. Banerjee pondered over the key factors in the project management style that made one plant’s IT transformation and ERP implementation successful, even as another ended in disappointment. He wanted to understand this well so that next time over he would be better equipped to identify any lacunae at the very onset of the project, and the projects could be better controlled and improvised as needed. He wondered how his experience of interacting with different project management managers, their styles, leadership, challenges and situation handling could be accommodated in academics and be made a part of learning in subjects of Information Technology and Project Management. To start the process of putting his thoughts together, Dr. Banerjee decided to do a sneak-peek into each plant manager’s way of working, who they were and what their strengths and weaknesses were; and then compare among the three managers these attributes in order to identify what actually worked in whose favor and why. With this methodology, Dr. Banerjee thought, he might come up with a wishlist of project management leadership approach for such IT Transformation projects.
As the flight took off, Dr. Banerjee decided to put to good use the long flight to India by outlining the attributes of all three plant managers separately, followed by drawing out a comparison among them and doing a Strength-Weaknesses, analysis; and finally identifying the traits that may be the recipe for success in such projects.
Dr. Banerjee started to do that for one plant at a time. He thought of penning down all factors which he thought helped the transformation project succeed directly or indirectly. Dr. Banerjee was clear that he would have to complete the stories of success (or failure) of the transformation projects individually before drawing out comparisons among them.
The Manufacturing Plant in Nimes, France: Out of the three manufacturing plants in Europe, the one in France was the smallest. Owing to the size of the plant, the manpower was limited. Although the plant was manufacturing far more complex products compared to the Sweden and German plant but due to its size and other circumstantial reasons the number of people serving the plant were less. This was a big hurdle in executing IT projects which needed significant time and effort from almost all key members. The plant manager Gerard was a young dynamic manager who had been at the helm of affairs for four years now. He joined the company as apprentice and quickly moved up the ladder to become the operations manager and then plant manager over 16 years. Due to shortage of staff members, he received very little support for the project from the people at the plant, who were busy with their daily routine work. The IT team in the organization was represented by just one person, a challenge for which Gerard seemed to have no solution. As Dr. Banerjee highlighted these problems, Gerard understood the problem and the serious consequences the project was headed towards. Gerard quickly called for a staff meeting and identified each person’s role in the project as per their respective areas of responsibility and skills. For IT tasks, he himself chipped in and was ready to learn with a hands-on approach. There were few members who readily accepted the challenge and looked forward
617-0061-1
P le
as e
no te
th at
y ou
a re
n ot
p er
m itt
ed to
r ep
ro du
ce o
r re
di st
rib ut
e it
fo r
an y
ot he
r pu
rp os
e. Y
ou a
re p
er m
itt ed
to v
ie w
th e
m at
er ia
l o n-
lin e
an d
pr in
t a c
op y
fo r
yo ur
p er
so na
l u se
u nt
il 13
-J an
-2 02
3. P
ur ch
as ed
fo r
us e
by H
un g-
Y eh
K o
on 1
3- Ja
n- 20
22 .
O rd
er r
ef F
43 53
10 .
E du
ca tio
na l m
at er
ia l s
up pl
ie d
by T
he C
as e
C en
tr e
C op
yr ig
ht e
nc od
ed A
76 H
M -J
U J9
K -P
JM N
9I
A case based comparative analysis of project management leadership styles | OM-1-0043
© www.etcases.com 3
to meeting those, but there were some others who didn’t agree to accommodate with this extra work, citing personal reasons.
But Gerard, who had maintained tremendous camaraderie with his team and was extremely easy going, soon became successful in bringing the unwilling members together into the project. He hired temporary employees, as subordinates to the already existing members who were unwilling to take on additional work for the plant’s IT transformation and ERP implementation project. He asked the previously reluctant employees to transfer all routine work, but decision making, to the temporary employees to ease the extra burden on the former. He was empathetic towards his own people, but at the same time he had an eye on the project timelines and its need. These steps did bring in some success to the project.
Another major roadblock to success in the transformation project was data conversion where data from an existing system was to be transferred to the new system. It was a critical task and there was no one to do it. Neither did anyone from his team came forward to take it up nor did Mr Gerard have the experienced of doing it. After discussing with Dr. Banerjee, Gerard decided to lead the data conversion work, a massive task considering the scope of the project, but he was unfazed and pretty determined make it a success. He spent long hours and had multiple discussions with Dr. Banerjee and his team understanding what he needs to do and how he needs to do. Mr Gerard put in his best effort to understand and execute the data conversion task. By taking the biggest challenge himself and leading from front on most of the discussions, he was able to create an environment of cohesiveness and compassion among his team mates.
With the help of Dr. Banerjee, Gerard was able to involve himself in the project with clearly defined activities for himself and for his team members. Gerard would connect with his team on weekly basis and take stock of the situation and follow up with them to monitor progress. During the solution design process, he was an important cog in the wheel as he had complete understanding of the plant process with all finer details. His capability to judge a situation, his skill to reinforce confidence among his team, and the ability to bring everyone together helped him achieve the goal.
Cutover Process
Both the business team and IT team were involved in the cutover process. Together, they first discussed about how to handle the cutover process. The IT team decided to split the cutover process into four phases, and fixed the estimated time for all the phases. The first phase was the cutover data migration process which was marked at around seven hours. The second phase was the preparation for smoke test, a critical phase, was provided with five hours for the job. The third phase, the smoke test by lead users, was allocated four hours. For the smoke test, the leads were involved in identifying the vital areas to be tested (the ones that were feasible to be tested in the said time). The third phase was considered a go/no-go check for entry into the fourth phase, which was dependent on the success of the third phase. The fourth phase was when the transactional system was opened to all lead users to use the new IT system for business process transactions, followed by all users.
Gerard made sure he set the expectations straight with his team, and told them to expect issues of all kinds. He referred the plant’s transition as akin to a baby’s birth. He said, “It will be a happy moment,
617-0061-1
P le
as e
no te
th at
y ou
a re
n ot
p er
m itt
ed to
r ep
ro du
ce o
r re
di st
rib ut
e it
fo r
an y
ot he
r pu
rp os
e. Y
ou a
re p
er m
itt ed
to v
ie w
th e
m at
er ia
l o n-
lin e
an d
pr in
t a c
op y
fo r
yo ur
p er
so na
l u se
u nt
il 13
-J an
-2 02
3. P
ur ch
as ed
fo r
us e
by H
un g-
Y eh
K o
on 1
3- Ja
n- 20
22 .
O rd
er r
ef F
43 53
10 .
E du
ca tio
na l m
at er
ia l s
up pl
ie d
by T
he C
as e
C en
tr e
C op
yr ig
ht e
nc od
ed A
76 H
M -J
U J9
K -P
JM N
9I
© www.etcases.com
OM-1-0043 | A case based comparative analysis of project management leadership styles
4
but expect issues. At the same time remember we have the best team of doctors available for us and we are sure the baby will do well.” He reaffirmed that Dr. Banerjee and he had a very good team that had spent a lot of time together to design a good system, which would turn out well. All users were asked to report to their managers for any issues and managers were tasked to channelize issues to appropriate members and resolve in the quickest possible time.
The cutover data migration process went fine. However, the second phase of preparation of smoke test ran into rough weather. The allocated time of five hours didn’t work out and Dr. Banerjee informed it was going to take more than 15 hours to catch up. But Gerard held his nerve. He gave time to Dr. Banerjee’s team as well as to his own to recover. He asked his team to work late night and come back early in the morning and provide every kind of possible support to the IT team in order to recover and go live. He and his team rallied behind Dr. Banerjee’s IT team as a unified force and finally they went live. It was a moment of joy for both teams as the ‘baby was born’!
Post Go Live Support Scenario
After the Go Live (Cutover to new system), Mr. Gerard threw a big party to celebrate it with his team. He invited everyone directly involved with the project, and wholeheartedly appreciated their efforts. He lauded the successful fulfillment of the function leads’ responsibilities, and asked the next level reportees to step up and get involved in issue identification and resolution. Mr. Gerard then draw out a strategy to share the learnings and ownerships of the IT system from Managers who were directly involved in the transformation to their subordinates. He mandated the next level (like supervisors, clerks, and operators) who were trained to get more learning (from their managers) and become in charge of their area or department functions in the IT function. He started having a daily follow-up meeting on issues with a clear mandate to his reportees that each of them would give an update. Dr. Banerjee’s team was asked to provide update on issues with the IT team. Every issue had a clear deadline and an action plan. There were times when everyone wanted to transfer to others issues certain issues. Gerard made sure that every issue resolution bottom line rested with his team members and they in turn had to follow up with IT team.
During the initial one month, logistics team got into major issues, and the logistics lead had a very tough time managing customer deliverables. There were issues with the system, people’s learning as well as process design to an extent. Dr. Banerjee had a long meeting with Gerard, discussed with him the problems and providing a resolution timeframe and roadmap. As soon as Gerard understood the situation as well as the roadmap, he met his own customers and apprised them of the situation: the problems, how he is working around those to mitigate risks and the timeframe to come out of it. He also held meetings with his own team members and asked them to be patient and work closely with Dr. Banerjee’s team to come out of the problem. Gerard made sure there were no blame games or passing around of responsibilities. As he was transparent with his customers, his team backed him and worked with Dr. Banerjee along the path chosen.
During the Post Go Live stabilization phase, Gerard asked his team to identify business improvement areas and priorities them. As there were quite a few of them he asked his team to prioritize based on customer impact and monetary impact, and thus he was transparent and removed the chance of undue favour to anyone.
617-0061-1
P le
as e
no te
th at
y ou
a re
n ot
p er
m itt
ed to
r ep
ro du
ce o
r re
di st
rib ut
e it
fo r
an y
ot he
r pu
rp os
e. Y
ou a
re p
er m
itt ed
to v
ie w
th e
m at
er ia
l o n-
lin e
an d
pr in
t a c
op y
fo r
yo ur
p er
so na
l u se
u nt
il 13
-J an
-2 02
3. P
ur ch
as ed
fo r
us e
by H
un g-
Y eh
K o
on 1
3- Ja
n- 20
22 .
O rd
er r
ef F
43 53
10 .
E du
ca tio
na l m
at er
ia l s
up pl
ie d
by T
he C
as e
C en
tr e
C op
yr ig
ht e
nc od
ed A
76 H
M -J
U J9
K -P
JM N
9I
A case based comparative analysis of project management leadership styles | OM-1-0043
© www.etcases.com 5
The Manufacturing plant in Gothenberg, Sweden
The plant in Gothenberg, Sweden was twice in size compared to the Nimes plant in France. The plant produced both sub-assemblies (like joints) and driveshafts for its customer, and hence the business process was much more complex. Some of the major customers of the plant were very demanding due to their sheer dependence on the plant. The plant was led by Lucas Olsson. Lucas has joined the company as its Plant Manager four years ago. He was hired from an auto manufacturing unit with a massive 25 years of experience. He was very well qualified, with a management and engineering degree but no IT transformation experience, and well regarded for his engineering skills in the plant. The plant, due to its size and complexity, had more employees compared to Nimes plant.
Lucas Olsson, even as the the manager for the transformation project, decided to hire a part-time project manager, Johan Popovic, to help him out. Lucas decided to adopt a hands-off way, vesting all decision-making power on Johan. Lucas did this as he considered his other responsibilities (of that being a plant manager) were of primary importance and had no bandwidth for this project. Johan came to the project with some transformational experience, but how good it was for Dream Driveline Corporations was yet to be seen.
The IT team in the organization was lean. When Dr. Banerjee pointed this out to Lucas Olsson, he quickly passed on the issue to Johan to solve. Johan quickly jumped and offered himself as an additional IT person. He was clear that this needs to be solved by him and not by others. Dr. Banerjee also highlighted the problem of lack of people’s participation in the business process mapping and solution consideration. Johan believed that this was due to the bandwidth of employees and offered himself to help the project fill in gaps as and when required. As Johan was a part-time employee and a newcomer, most of the employees didn’t even know him well. Slowly Lucas assured all function leads that Johan, due to his transformational experience, can fill up as a project manager as well as a business function lead. This led to a situation that rendered most of the business function leads uninterested in the project.
Johan was new and lacked depth in understanding of the process, leading to desynchronized solutions. Also, the process map being developed lacked future perspective, something that only function leads could provide. Johan started lagging behind in all his activities as he couldn’t dedicate time and attention to the many things as he was into. He was seeking clarification from function leads as and when required, but the information was distorted as leads were not clear on the overall approach. This was leading to a skewed and distorted solution development. Since Johan was not the function lead, to him every requirement was of high importance and there was no prioritization. He believed data conversion (enterprise data) was System Group’s (IT team) responsibility and he himself decided to remain completely out of it. Not only did Johan lack camaraderie with the team, he also lacked a rapport with the function leads, which is normally difficult to develop in a short span. These two softer issues were going against Johan as well as against the project.
Dr. Banerjee understood these problems and the disastrous results it might lead to, for the transformation project. He asked Lucas to setup a daily meeting to bring all stakeholders from the business function onto the same page. Lucas did so, but the daily meetings were held among the factory members while the IT Team (Systems Group) members were kept out and Mr. Lucas himself was not driving these
617-0061-1
P le
as e
no te
th at
y ou
a re
n ot
p er
m itt
ed to
r ep
ro du
ce o
r re
di st
rib ut
e it
fo r
an y
ot he
r pu
rp os
e. Y
ou a
re p
er m
itt ed
to v
ie w
th e
m at
er ia
l o n-
lin e
an d
pr in
t a c
op y
fo r
yo ur
p er
so na
l u se
u nt
il 13
-J an
-2 02
3. P
ur ch
as ed
fo r
us e
by H
un g-
Y eh
K o
on 1
3- Ja
n- 20
22 .
O rd
er r
ef F
43 53
10 .
E du
ca tio
na l m
at er
ia l s
up pl
ie d
by T
he C
as e
C en
tr e
C op
yr ig
ht e
nc od
ed A
76 H
M -J
U J9
K -P
JM N
9I
© www.etcases.com
OM-1-0043 | A case based comparative analysis of project management leadership styles
6
meetings. The style of working of Johan was more authoritative than collaborative. He believed in passing on requirements for a solution rather than working out a solution. When Dr. Banerjee highlighted these problems, Lucas didn’t give a heed to these observations as he believed Johan was doing the right thing in the interest of the team. With most of the function leads out of sync, with solutions missing the critical links and data conversion completely out of synch with solution and struggling, the transformation project was in trouble.
User Acceptance Testing: The user acceptance test was held, with Johan leading the testing. He himself tested most of the function (while it should have been the function leads doing it) and he invited the function leads to demonstrate the system. The demo was disastrous. The function leads complained the process shown was far from being complete and lacked depth, and with many key requirements were missing. The correctness of data used for testing was nowhere near to what the leads expected. With the user testing, started the training. As only Johan was mostly involved in the solution development, he started training the end users. The training became a requirement-gathering session, as users started giving new requirements when they saw the system for first time. Thus, came a situation where, at the end of User Acceptance Testing, there were new requirements which needed to be mapped in the system, tested and made ready for Go Live. Though it was easy to pass the blame on Johan, Dr. Banerjee decided to work out a solution for the situation.
Go Live Postponement: Dr. Banerjee had a meeting with Lucas and the financial heads, and explained to them that the plant was nowhere ready to use the new system and that it was now in complete mess. The sentiments in all departments and areas were very clear. The system was in no place to go live and being used, and if this was forced the system will bring the business to its knees. Lucas was quick to pass the blame to Dr. Banerjee’s IT team. As per Lucas it was the IT team which lacked direction and that’s why Johan messed it up. But, they all agreed it was in a mess. So, as suggested by Dr. Banerjee, the go live was postponed and a new timeline was worked out.
Dr. Banerjee now worked with the Steering Committee of Dream Driveline Corporations to put the project management on to Lucas. Lucas understood the problem and accepted to spearhead the solution design and meetings. But Lucas soon began following up with Johan rather than leading the solutioning process, data conversions and project management. It was expected Lucas would lead from the front but it was not to be. Though better, with Lucas following the project closely, yet it did not yield proper results.
Cutover Process: Lucas and Johan together with other plant IT team members discussed the cutover process. No function leads were involved in the discussion. Based on experience in Nimes plant, time availability was revised but Lucas was clear that the requested time was not feasible (to be provided) and was thus reduced. Dr. Banerjee’s team requested to review the timelines, but was denied. The cutover process was split into four phases. The IT Team provided the estimated time available for the four phases. The first phase was the cutover data migration process, which had asked for nine hours, but was provided with only five hours. The second phase, the critical preparation for smoke test, was provided with only five hours. The third phase was the smoke test by lead users, which was allocated four hours. This third phase was considered a Go/ No Go check marking entry into the fourth phase, which was dependent on the success of the third phase. The fourth phase opened the transactional
617-0061-1
P le
as e
no te
th at
y ou
a re
n ot
p er
m itt
ed to
r ep
ro du
ce o
r re
di st
rib ut
e it
fo r
an y
ot he
r pu
rp os
e. Y
ou a
re p
er m
itt ed
to v
ie w
th e
m at
er ia
l o n-
lin e
an d
pr in
t a c
op y
fo r
yo ur
p er
so na
l u se
u nt
il 13
-J an
-2 02
3. P
ur ch
as ed
fo r
us e
by H
un g-
Y eh
K o
on 1
3- Ja
n- 20
22 .
O rd
er r
ef F
43 53
10 .
E du
ca tio
na l m
at er
ia l s
up pl
ie d
by T
he C
as e
C en
tr e
C op
yr ig
ht e
nc od
ed A
76 H
M -J
U J9
K -P
JM N
9I
A case based comparative analysis of project management leadership styles | OM-1-0043
© www.etcases.com 7
system first to all lead users to use the new IT system for business process transactions, followed by all users.
Lucas had limited interaction and communication about the project except with Johan. Johan was working on the project in isolation. Lucas exuded a lot of confidence and was sure the go live will be very successful. All users were asked to report their problems to Johan and Dr. Banerjee’s team directly. Lucas kind of maintained a distance from the project, citing bandwidth issues, and expected every issue to be taken care of by Johan.
The cutover data migration process went fine. The second phase “ preparation of smoke test “ got into real trouble. The allocated time of four hours didn’t work out and by the end of the allotted time, it was clear that there would be significant delay in the process. It was decided to postpone the cutover by few weeks and the team (mainly function leads) will work closely with Dr. Banerjee’s team to work it out. The main reason for this problem was at the end, where the functional leads were trying to work on the system which they were not comfortable with. The leads gave up after trying their best and they couldn’t start the smoke test. Finally, it was decided to postpone the cutover process by 3 weeks. In in these three weeks, the Steering Committee instructed Dr.
Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers
Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.
Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS
Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?
Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.
We write plagiarism Free Content
Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.
Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.
