Bjorn Sailboat Company

Running head: PROJECT PLAN FOR WHITBREAD WORLD SAILBOAT RACE

Project Plan for Whitbread World Sailboat Race

Most project durations are flexible to an extent. Bjorn Erickson is faced with the most difficult task of a defined end date and budget. Bjorn must work to look at all the possibilities to cut time while maintaining cost. The process proves to be difficult not only for Bjorn but any project leader. "Project acceleration typically comes at a cost of either spending money for more resources or compromising the scope of the project. If the latter is the case, then it is essential that all relevant stakeholders be consulted so that everyone accepts the changes that have to be made" ( Gray-Larson, 2005, p298).

Bjorn Ericksen Project Strategy Analysis

The Whitbread World Sailboat race is a nine month race that travels around the world. The race has been taking place since the 1970's and since this time many advancement have been made (Volvo Ocean Race, 2007, History). Bjorn Erickson has the grueling task of meeting race standards while maintaining a budget and developing a winning boat. Bjorn has past experience of as a master Helmsman and is recognized as the "best designer of racing sailboats I the world" (Whitbread world sailboat case study). With this experience behind him Bjorn must establish a timeline and budget for these next 45 weeks. Bjorn has brought two well qualified candidates to lead the two projects within the one. Karin Knusten will work to construct and design the vessel, while Trygve Wallvik will work to train the team that is chosen.

Bjorn will use both of these well qualified individuals projections and suggestions to establish a project timeline that will be completed within the allocated time.

Plan to Reduce Project Duration

Bjorn realizes that the time frame will not meet the 45 week marker. If they are to do the project as planned the end date would come close to the 50 week marker. Now as a team Karen, Trygve and Bjorn must eliminate 5 weeks and still stay of budget.

The Normal cost projected would run around 2,990,000 by the end leaving a 210,000 window for change. The crash cost would run at 4,820,000, though eliminating the excess time. The task now is to look at what areas can reduce time and be cost effective. After careful consideration they will design the vessel in the 4 week span for 160,000 instead of 40,000 this will also eliminate 2 weeks. The next option that will be used is to reduce routine sail and maintenance from 15 to 12 which will give the 3 week window and only cost 130,00 instead of normal cost of 40,000. This will end the project at the 45 week marker as well as right on budget. To have the timeline broken down for the project it must be looked at in stages.

Stage one the design will last 4 weeks. Next the hull can be constructed and during construction the masts, sails and accessories ordered. This will take and estimation of 12 weeks and the ballast tanks to be installed in 2. The deck will be the final completion before the crew comes on and that will take 5 weeks. This will bring the marker at 23 weeks when the crew begins training on the new vessel. During the 23 week construction Trygve will have selected the team in 6 weeks while getting housing. When the crew arrives they will train on the old vessel for 13 weeks before moving on the new one. During this training period they will order the equipment, this will also give a two week window where they could utilize other trainings as needed. They will arrive on the vessel in the 23 week. The team will then begin routine sail and maintenance training for 17 weeks as estimated. During this period the final stages will be done on the vessel. It will take approximately 8 weeks to install the mast and accessories. The team will then be able to test the vessel for the 5 weeks like expected. This will allow for the timeframe being right on schedule.

In being able to reduce the project timeline certain areas had to be adjusted. The first were the design stage: It was costly to reduce this period but will prove beneficial in the long run. The added 120,000 in most cases would be charged out to overtime." Despite the potential disadvantages, overtime and working longer hours is the preferred choice for accelerating project completion, especially when the project team is salaried" (Gray-Larson, 2005, p285).By working longer on the design, the design team is not compromising quality, because they are still putting in the same effort in longer hours in a shorter time.

The next area chosen to cut time, was the Routine sail and maintenance. Originally the estimation with training on the new vessel was 25 weeks, but when the projections on the normal time and cost came out they had changed the actual time spent on the new vessel. The fewer weeks on routine sail and maintenance could also lead to overtime of the team. Perhaps they would be able to make longer training days, or eliminate this additional training time. The best solution would be overtime, because reducing the time in training could reduce the quality the members would produce during the race. "Reducing quality is always an option, but it is rarely acceptable or used. If quality is sacrificed, it may be possible to reduce the time of an activity on the critical path" ( Gray-Larson,2005,p287). Despite efforts reducing the timeline will affect the quality in the long run. But in a timeline like this, there is not the option to push the project further.

Project Closure Approach

The