There is a certain extent to when project risk increasing due to time management plays a huge factor. Obviously if a company gives you a task at creating a certain project during a time frame, they expect it done by the end. Then again, it's not always people that understand the time it takes for each step of the process to be completed. This is why a calm discussion between all heads on the project is needed to reach an end goal that is both effective on time but is still finished with low risk of failure.
For this week Mini Sim, there is no way to change the pre-clinical study time because that will blow up the whole project by risking the the pre-clinical study results to be inaccurate, so I totally agree with having the discussion with the project team until we get a new deal for time schedule. I think it almost happens in every project that something forced the manager to adjust the timeline, for the project will be succeed. However, the the disadvantage of delaying some tasks is the impact that will apply on the related tasks, which may loss some money.
Increasing risk in order to decrease the length of a task, and subsequently the project as a whole, is a tactic that should be strictly situational, depending on the type of risk and amount of risk involved. If the reward outweighs the risk that comes with shortening the time frame, this tactic may be the best option for increasing the overall efficiency of the project's timeline and execution phase. However, there will obviously be cases where the risk proves to be too high, and it is not worth it to decrease the time frame in exchange for a certain risk. Having the ability to determine when the reward of taking the risk outweighs the risk itself comes with proper risk management training and previous personal experience.
Unexpected time delays are a factor that is uncontrollable for any group. However, I do think that in the planning stages of a project the amount of time allotted for project development should include inevitable delays and there should be a plan in case there isn't time to work on a project with a normal schedule. Practically, Zoom is a great tool for this because it allows teams to connect from any location at any time rather than having to meet in person. So if a team that commonly had planned in-person meetings using an impromptu zoom call in the case of a delay would a be an efficient way of moving the project forward.
When a project is planned, it is important to define what risks that you expect to encounter, the probability of them to occur, and the impact they will have on the project. This is used to create a risk management plan that lists the actions taken against each risk: avoid, mitigate, or accept. In the case of the miniSim, the decision was to accept the risk that the trials would not discover an issue with the product because of the shortened length. However, it was discovered that this risk would not have a significant impact on FDA approval based on how previous products were tested while the schedule would be greatly impacted by having the trials last much longer. Therefore, accepting the risk in this case was the best choice because of how the cost would be much greater to prevent it.
I believe that it is worth shortening the time frame of a project depending on the risk being taken. When it comes to research, I believe the risk is very high, and the full suggested time needed for the research task should be taken as it would provide valid and accurate results as opposed to research that was rushed and shortened. If the risk being taken is a risk that may prolong the project, due to inaccurate or invalid results or a catch by the FDA for example, shortening the time frame would not be worth it. In the miniSim, it was observed that (depending on the route chosen), the research was shortened by a few weeks with no adverse outcomes. However, that may not always be the case when it comes to research.
A calm and productive discussion is always the best and most professional route in which to come to a mutual understanding in regards to work. When that is not the case, sometimes as a leader or even a non-designated leader you owe it to yourself to do your best to find a common ground to steer the discussion back into a positive work-lead conversation. There are times when an employee may simply not want to work with another employee to find a solution and that is when soft skills come into play. The employee who wants to solve the situation can make an effort to lean the solution towards whatever topic that will appease the disgruntled co-worker. If that doesn’t work and everything has been done that is amicable then the next step would be to hopefully utilize counseling resources. Most organizations provide team-building exercises to invite employees to engage each other to build a neutral working trust. I regard to the experiment with the animals, I do believe that the risks and time management work hand in hand. Yes, absolutely, in my opinion, it is work shortening the time from when the risk increases, that is the human thing to do and it falls in line with Good Laboratory Practices (GLP).
time complications that must be dealt with in order for the project to proceed
A prime example of an unexpected time delay can be seen in the current vaccine role out in terms of the biotechnology sector and how the distribution process when disrupted plays such an important role in the success or the failure of a project. In recent news on the production of vaccines, Johnson and Johnson had contracted out a company in Baltimore, Maryland to produce the vaccine. They recently informed the US Food and Drug Administration a botched up batch of vaccines in excess of 15 million vaccines were discovered at that facility and prevented from being distributed in the open market. The project manager in this case acknowledged that vaccines that were botched never made it to the public but now this increases risk rather than a decrease the risks originally planned for during the planing phase of the project to roll out of vaccines on the part of Johnson and Johnson. I cannot imagine the ramifications of such an event had safeguards not been put into place. Millions of lives could have been lost as a result of this unforeseen circumstances. Risking the project with contaminated vaccines could have had disastrous outcomes hence why it is in many cases more important to extend the timeline rather than shorten it in order to mitigate any risks associated with any unexpected time delays due to errors, in this case, at the manufacturing level.
Unexpected time delays in a project can be due to many factors
- Budget Inaccuracies
- Labor Challenges
- Approvals
- Subcontractor Schedules and Compliance
- Lack of Effective Communication
- Poor Weather
The list can be endless Predictable delays can be factored into the project through a documented risk management plan. When that plan is prepared, certain risks can be identified and evaluated to try and prepare for any probable delays, and potential mitigating action. If the expected delays come to pass, the risk management plan will provide a pre-planned course of action.
In product development, safety is the most important factor. When considering all aspects, safety can impact if a product makes it to market and the longevity of the project. Taking the risk and cost of adding more time to verify safety would be worth it for a company. Putting out an incomplete project could have some dangerous consequences in the future that could cost the company even more. By adding the company time with an extension could be made up in cost once the product is fully developed and put on the market.
There are a lot of important things to take note of when deciding whether or not to shorten the time needed for a certain tasks. In the sim we found that there is an increased risk in the project if you were to shorten the animal trials, but there are also some other things to consider. One big topic is whether or not the project budget can survive the team having to redo part of the project due to failure. Wasting funds in an effort to save time can look irresponsible in the eyes of the stakeholders, and no team wants to be seen as the group that wastes important funds for the project. Also, you need to make sure that the stakeholders are aware of the change. Changing the testing period from 16 weeks to 4 weeks can take away a level of guarantee from what the stakeholder originally had planned for.
Risks are not necessarily harmful, as long as they are properly assessed and discussed within a team. Shortening a project timeline may incur some risk, but discussions should be had to determine if the benefits far outweigh the risks. The issue with taking risks is that they are often not properly assessed, so the risk leads to the detriment of the project. A manager should never shorten a timeline without first laying out the potential risks and discussing them with the team. After this discussion, then decisions can be made on whether it is worth shortening the timeline. I also think it is important to put this question in context. If the risk involves harm to human life, then it is never worth it. If the risk is financial, then it may be worth it but a discussion should be had with the stakeholders.
Murphy's Law states that anything that can go wrong can go wrong. As a result, it is very important to understand that there can be both unexpected and expected time delays. Both the members of the team and the project managers need to understand the risk and how to assess, calculate, and proceed with the.m.
