Managing Multiple Versions Of Software Project: Risks And Recommendations

Questions:

1. What's going on?

2. What are the facts?

3. What are the issues (non-ethical)?

4. Who is affected?

5. What are the ethical issues and their implications?

6. What can be done about it?

7. What are the options?

8. Which option is the best and why?

The scenario in the video shows that the Program Manager of a company summons the Senior Program Developer of the Willis Project to get updates on the progress of coding in the project. The senior developer Jason informs that they are already working on three versions of the product and may be able to finish the coding within a few days and send overseas for testing. The manager seems concerned that working on three different versions of the code is using up extra resources and that it may cause issues regarding testing of the product ("Scenario 1 Overseas Codeshop", 2017).

The major facts that are involved in the scenario is that a company is involved in a project that is provided by its client, The Willis Group. The development team responsible for the development of the product are working on three separate versions of the software. The development of three versions of the software is using up extra funds and resources, which is not negotiated in the original contract with the client. Therefore, it raises the concern that issues related to deficiency of resources may arise due to the development of two extra versions of the software during the completion of the project. Another fact is related to the testing of the product. The development of extra versions of the project may leave insufficient time for proper testing of the product before it is being delivered to the client within scheduled time (Kamei et al., 2013).

The development of extra versions of the project was unnecessary, especially when the project is complex and has a tight deadline. The extra effort and company resource that is spent by the development team to construct the extra versions of the product is using up time and budget that is allotted for completion of one version of the product. This may lead to shortage of budget and resources at a later developmental stage of the software. In such situations, the project may stop due to lack of resources and funds. This will delay the delivery of the project and affect the reputation of the vendor company (Bloch, Blumberg & Laartz, 2012).

Facts involved in the scenario

The decision to develop extra version of the product within the allotted time and resource that is required to complete a single version of the product will affect the developer team, the vendor company as well as the client. The developer team will be responsible for any issues that may arise related to the shortage of budget or resources for completion of the project due to their decision of developing extra versions. They will also be responsible if they fail to deliver a completed product in time. The vendor company will be affected if they run out of budget or resources that are required to complete the original project as they have not informed the client about the decision to develop extra versions of the product and renewed the contract accordingly. The reputation of the company will be at stake if the client receives the product after the scheduled deadline or receives a product that does not meet the requirement of the client. The client will be affected as they have invested on the project and failure of the project will lead to financial loss on the client side (Yaghootkar & Gil, 2012).

The development of two extra versions of the product is using up the resource and time sanctioned for the development of one version of the software. Lack of time can lead to improper or null testing of the software, which can lead to various compatibility issues, runtime errors or bugs that the client may find while executing the software to their system. Lack of resources and budget can lead to the delivery of an incomplete or poorly developed product with poor quality of protection and service that may raise security issues for the client as the software may run the risk of being compromised by cyber attackers and hack sensitive data of the client (Yaghootkar & Gil, 2012).

The best way to avoid such issues is to drop the idea of developing extra versions of the project and focus on one version of the project. This will give the team enough time to complete the development of the software and test it properly before it is delivered to the client. This will enable them to deliver a complete and secure product to the client that will improve the reputation of the company and develop a healthy relationship with the client. In another situation, the manager can call for a meeting with the client where he will explain the client the need for the development of extra versions of the product and its benefits. In case, the client is convinced, the manager can negotiate a new contract with the client in terms of extended delivery date and extra budget. This will also allow the vendor company to deliver a completely tested and secured version of the software within delivery time without running the risk of exhausting allotted budget and resource required to complete the project (Mello, Strandhagen & Alfnes, 2015).

Consequences of developing multiple versions

There are three options available, which will have three different effects on the scenario.

In the first option, the program manager suggests the senior developer Jason to focus and complete only one version of the software and conduct internal test on the product before delivering the product to the client as it is better to test the product for bugs and errors by themselves rather than the client finding it out. This will ensure the delivery of a product without bugs and errors to the client within the allotted time, which in turn will aid in the improvement in reputation of the vendor company ("Scenario I 1 Project manager requests Senior Developer to work on one version only", 2017).

In the second option, the program manager disapproves the action of the senior developer and his team. This is because he thinks that such action is irrational and unnecessary for the scope of the project. He also thinks that involving time in developing the extra versions may lead to an unstable product that may dissatisfy the client and affect their reputation. Therefore, he calls his senior and suggests for complete replacement of the development team as he finds them incompetent for the job. The senior manager complies and arranges for team replacement, which leads to delay in delivery of the project. The delay in delivery violates the terms of contract with the client, which dissatisfies the client and hampers the reputation of the vendor company ("Scenario I 2 Project manager disapproves of the action of Senior Developer", 2017).

In the last option, the program manager encourages the action of the senior developer as the developer assures him that they will be able to deliver the project within the scheduled deadline, well tested and with two extra versions that will impress the client. However, after the delivery is done the client constantly faces system crash and compatibility issues. This affects the reputation of the vendor company gravely and leads to termination of service of both the manager and the senior developer who are held responsible for their actions ("Scenario I 3 Project Manager encourages the action of Senior Developer", 2017).

Considering all the three options provided in the video it is concluded that the first option is best to follow, as it will ensure the delivery of a secure and errorless product within the delivery time without raising any ethical or unethical issues. It will impress the client and improve the reputation of the vendor company ("Scenario I 1 Project manager requests Senior Developer to work on one version only", 2017).

References

Bloch, M., Blumberg, S., & Laartz, J. (2012). Delivering large-scale IT projects on time, on budget, and on value. Harvard Business Review.

Kamei, Y., Shihab, E., Adams, B., Hassan, A. E., Mockus, A., Sinha, A., & Ubayashi, N. (2013). A large-scale empirical study of just-in-time quality assurance. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 39(6), 757-773.

Mello, M. H., Strandhagen, J. O., & Alfnes, E. (2015). The role of coordination in avoiding project delays in an engineer-to-order supply chain. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 26(3), 429-454.

Scenario 1 Overseas Codeshop. (2017). YouTube. Retrieved 9 August 2017, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBfJ07gfHyc

Scenario I 1 Project manager requests Senior Developer to work on one version only. (2017). YouTube. Retrieved 9 August 2017, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_1350394263&feature=iv&src_vid=rBfJ07gfHyc&v=PqJqxXxKgpM

Scenario I 2 Project manager disapproves of the action of Senior Developer. (2017). YouTube. Retrieved 9 August 2017, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_1412212859&feature=iv&src_vid=3HgJXSNb1AU&v=wkQaWNYcT7I

Scenario I 3 Project Manager encourages the action of Senior Developer. (2017). YouTube. Retrieved 9 August 2017, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_2396390895&feature=iv&src_vid=3HgJXSNb1AU&v=1JrTSVk0gSc

Yaghootkar, K., & Gil, N. (2012). The effects of schedule-driven project management in multi-project environments. International Journal of Project Management, 30(1), 127-140.