The easy answer to the question is to be prepared. With being prepared that means speaking to the various process groups and working on Work Block Schedule or a gnat chart. With the gnatt chart in place, we can look at the overall timeline of the project. For tasks that do not need to be done immediately or on the critical path we, can use the ‘excess’ time to be used as a buffer. Buffer time should be allocated into a gnatt chart, it’s a decision based on the project manager and others as to how much time to allocate. The other step or factor is risk management. To have contingency plans for a potential failure is crucial. This helps a company be ‘prepared’ as it were and allows for companies to meet tasks.

I agree, trying to make sure you are as prepared as possible with gantt charts etc. will make a project flow smoother. With a project like this weeks simulation where most of the development has been completed already I would try and get as much preliminary literature research done as possible. As soon as details become available from the other company or upper management extensive due diligence should be done to make the time in between tests smaller and make the tests we do run less wasteful. Some resources that are used to run tests that fail could have been avoided with more research. With fast approaching deadlines, any time that can be saved is important.

As a means to save time and money and still hit the product launch, I agree with @cdj24 to get as much research done as possible so that you don't spend as much time and money on experiments that might ultimately fail. For this week's simulation our group had many rounds back and forth with having a plan to use a particular carrier and then switching to another carrier mid-simulation and that experiment failed so we actually ended up going back to the original carrier, but this added to our timeline and in a real-life scenario would have ben costly.

The last couple weeks, we have been studying different methods and documents that help to manage the project. It is very important to keep these docs up to date. It is good to utilize these tools to help better manage and keep track of time like a Gain chart. For my team, we communicated together and set the targets, timing and assigned tasks to each member. Also, we follow up together with our finding of researchers and communicated via phone, email, and forms. The idea here is we spent more time of finding the right solution for the first time rather than doing a lot of experiment. Our goal was to solve the simulation with the least testing with the most efficient and safer way.

One possible way to save time and effort is to approach FactoSet in regards to validity testing. The company that developed the growth factor most likely has an established method to determine its level of activity or if it is functional. Even if their particular method is proprietary and not available to the project team, FactoSet may still be able to provide crucial information that you can use to develop your own validity testing.

Deadlines are exceptionally successful at moving research forward in a balanced and methodical way. Accomplished faculty members build an agenda efficiently by continuously working on all aspects of several projects simultaneously. New employees can become as efficient themselves by having projects begin in a staggered manner, every few months so that multiple projects move forward, some in the planning stages, while others are just getting set up, others are in the analysis phase, and still others are being written up. This cautious pacing and steady advance on a research motivation is the sign of employees who have an effective research plan.

For the given Simulation, the glaring initial problem is the solubility of the carrier in water. while I agree with the previous statements, we need to have a plan of action before we can put them into a Gantt or gain chart. In that case, we need to define the problem that we are facing, the problem we are trying to address and the factors that we are putting into and considering when developing a solution. the increased research will lead to increased factors to consider which will hopefully increase the probability of success during the implementation. depending on what needed to be most prioritized, time, money, or other resources. If time is the most critical factor, then running tests/ideas simultaneously can save time but will cost more money. in the worst case both can fail with double the loss.
With properly defined problems, both the original clinical problem and the problem your potential solution is facing, your team will be able to effectively brainstorm solutions based on their research.
For time management, the others have already mentioned tools.

As a project manager of this project, the first thing that must be done is to layout each possible method. The next step is to do extensive, in-depth research of each method. This is an extremely important step because it can help avoid wasting time doing experiments that will end up failing. This was an issue our group had as well since midway our method ended up failing due to something that could have been caught from the start. We were very close to a solution but did not consider how inconvenient it would be for the sales rep and buyers, so we hard to start from the beginning. I would say you should choose the best possible method and have at least two backup methods incase the first method fails.

I think the best way to meet deadlines in this scenario is to give the planning phase of the project proper consideration and devoting as much time to research as possible. The more research that can be done, the more likely it is that the team is able to eliminate options that ultimately don't make it past testing during the research phase before the idea makes it to testing and valuable time in the schedule is lost.

I believe the best way to meet deadlines for the specific simulation would be to compensate for potential error. The team should take extra time with the planning phase and research to ensure problems like leaking or clumping don't occur. I truly believe that if the team researched the carrier and the CMC they could pick out the certain factors that could cause the growth factor to fail.

As a project manager depending on the complexity of the project should allocate proper time for the research phase to be ready in time. Since it will be a breakthrough if they are able to do it, it would be ideal to spend more time on the research so the desired result is obtained in time. The Project manager should coordinate with the team handling the research before allocating the time for the research in the Gantt chart so we wont miss the deadline.

I learned during my last internship about some of the things that should be put into consideration before deciding on deadlines. For example, inaccurately defined deliverables, omitted deliverable documents, avoiding informal agreements, never make assumptions, everyone needs to pull their own weight, deliverables have dependencies, and always think about additional project deliverables factors.
Inaccurately defined deliverables are one of the biggest risk factors when it comes to project success or failure. Many companies have suffered the consequences of missed objectives and deliverables simply because of a lack of clearly identified or defined intangible and tangible deliverables at the onset. Having a vague understanding of project and client needs or company direction is usually at the root of most unsuccessfully identified deliverables. Project managers should slow things down enough at the beginning stages to be able to accurately gather all pertinent information from key stakeholders before charging ahead.

As a PM for BoneFix working on the Fset1 growth factor product, I would constitute organizational diagrams such as a Gantt chart, a design matrix, and a Pareto chart so that the project can be carried out fluently. A Gantt chart will establish a list of milestones and the amount of allowable time that the project team has to complete the required tasks. A design matrix is an organizational structure that the project team refers to when determining both the attributes of a project and how those attributes relate to one another as they're being handled individually. Finally a Pareto chart is a form of risk analysis that presents all potential complications in a bar graph, prioritizing risk factors on the order of severity.

One of the most prominent challenges for a PM in this simulation is being able to prove that the product retains a shelf-life of 2 years with only about 6 months of testing time. In this case, an accelerated study may be substantial enough where environmental factors such as ambient temperature is slightly increased to account for the lack of prolonged exposure (i.e. 40-45 C over 6 months instead of 37 C over 24 months). Testing the efficacy of this method will also require preclinical studies, which may have to be performed in vitro as the time constraint may limit the possibility of conducting animal studies.

An important consideration of accelerated testing is being able to accurately assume that whatever is performed will match the actual outcome. Can having a limited time constraint be handled by risk management in any way? How can alterations in verification testing be justified as there are not yet any prominent results to dignify the product being tested? What might be more preferable for this project: Having a large budget but little time, or a lot of time but a limited budget?

With a deadline fast approaching, it is important to set a strict deadline for the team to follow. As project manager, I would makes sure to designate roles to different members of the group and schedule weekly meetings. In these meetings, the team members can report their progress and discuss how to minimize the time required for each step without jeopardizing the integrity of their protocol findings. For example, our team will test the desired 2-year shelf life of the Fset/carrier/solvent solution by storing it in an accelerated aging chamber at appropriate temperatures and times(for example 55C for 80 days). This will save us enough time (when compared to doing a live 2-year test at room temperature), to conduct animal studies testing the bone healing efficacy of Fset1. Since bone fracture healing takes about 6 to 8 weeks, we will need to add those 8 weeks to our timeline.