One of the challenges in the Injectable bone growth factor syringes project could be ensuring that all stakeholders stay aligned throughout the development process. The agreement between BoneFix and FactoSet imposes milestone requirements, which means any delays or misalignment could jeopardize the partnership.
A stakeholder management strategy is essential to ensure smooth collaboration. One effective approach is using a RACI matrix (Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, Informed). This tool clarifies roles and responsibilities, preventing confusion and delays. If roles are unclear, key decisions might be delayed, putting the project at risk.
Another important element is stakeholder communication. Regular check-ins, documented progress updates, and clear escalation paths for decision-making help prevent misunderstandings. Should BoneFix assign a dedicated liaison to work with FactoSet? Or should both companies establish a formal joint steering committee? How can the team strike the right balance between control and flexibility to ensure project success?
I think the best answer definitely depends on the overall size of the project. In this case, I feel like a liaison assigned to FactoSet could work since the project is not as complex. This is just one person and their sole purpose is to mediate the information between the two companies. There could be a benefit in response time from the liaison since it is just one person and the project tasks are more than likely less complex. If the project were more complex like a medical device development project that involves biologics and electronic components, maybe a formal joint steering committee would be best since there are more people in a steering committee to cover more material and they can communicate information effectively. However, since there are more people in this committee, it may take longer for the committee to make decisions.
For striking the right balance between control and flexibility, I think what must remain unchanged and what can be altered needs to be clear in the project. For example, the dates of tasks on the critical path are not flexible and cannot be altered by the team. This establishes their boundaries very clearly. On the other hand, in order for the team to be flexible I think they should be allowed to make decisions in the project without constant supervision. If they were delayed because of higher management checking their every decision, it would ruin their flexibility as a team.
