Medisys Analysis

The MediSys case explains the challenges that arise to a project when lack of leadership leads to frictions between team members, which in turn leads to poor communication and people working with different agendas, which ultimately leads to residual risks not being detected and resolved which may lead the project into failure.
Historically, Medisys’ approach to product development was essentially a linear production process. Where R&D would start the development process and then leadership would agree on a new the new idea. Then marketing would develop product descriptions from customer needs and responses to new Medisys concepts. This changed to a parallel project process in which all departments worked simultaneously. This new process was introduced without altering the way team members reported information about obstacles and project process, it was still done to their team leaders.
There are many things which are going well in the IntensCare project. Generally their project has a well functioning entrepreneurial culture. Beamont has managed to create a sense of urgency and speediness in the project with his new parallel development. The project management process is going well at the onset with a solid financial backing and a clear definition of the project. Their teams consists of functional experts their respective fields. This makes execution likely (and fumbling less likely). The project has a strong sponsor in that the company needs this project to succeed and that the CEO is embracing the project, as with the case of the M-CARD and GE Bank, in which the project had a strong project sponsor. However in the case with the Flying Car, they lacked a proper project sponsor, somebody that believed in the project. The result was loads of organisational manoeuvring and low support for other departments. This hasn’t been the issue in this case at all.
The project they are developing is according to their market research, a solid product that will see good...