The company I work at went through a similar situation in which we were performing two separate projects for two different clients, but only had enough supplies to fulfill one project. The materials we work with are highly expensive viral vectors that “reprogram” white blood cells to attack a specified illness that a patient may have (cancer, HIV, hepatitis, etc). Being that this material is very costly, requires a storage temperature of -80 Celsius, and does not have a long shelf life, the company would always take caution as to never accidentally order a surplus of this material. One day this resulted in a dilemma for my company when they had only enough viral vector to satisfy one project (and in turn, one client). Both projects were dependent on the growth of live cells and were therefore too time-dependent to undergo a delay by waiting for more viral vector, so a choice had to be made. Simply put, my company had bit off more than they could chew, and ultimately chose to satisfy the client that had just recently been acquired by the company. This choice was deemed to be the lesser of two evils since the other client who had a more long-term relationship with the company was already concluding their contract with us at the end of the year.

The decision made by my company at the time was done to make a good first impression to this newly acquired client in hopes of having a more long-term partnership. From what I learned, the decision to scrap a project is not always due to a lack of resources, but also by being too prudent as to not spend more than they have to on pricey materials. Other reasons that projects can fall short is due to a company impulsively accepting tasks to keep up with competition, only to come up short upon realizing that the work may result in its costs exceeding the revenue. This would explain why a large company such as Stryker would not consider hiring more personnel to complete certain projects. Furthermore, if Stryker had hired more staff, then what would have happened upon the project’s completion? Would Stryker still keep those personnel around upon completion of this non-lucrative project, or just lay them off? In lecture we learned that project-based organizations are efficient at transferring knowledge from project to project. Can this characteristic reduce the likelihood of failing a project, or are there disadvantages associated with this type of organization that could instead increase competition between projects?