Question

Read the Case Study below and answer the questions that follow

Microsoft Xbox 360

When Microsoft rushed its video game console, Xbox, to market in November 2005 it had a one-year advantage over Sony and Nintendo. By 2007 they had sold over 11.6 million units at prices between $279 and $479 … depending on the configuration.

Unresolved issues plagued the project from the beginning. When Journalists and reviewers were invited to try the game in 2005, before it became available on store shelves, they encountered problems when connecting it to the internet (N’Gai, 2007). Shortly after the game was introduced to the public, users complained that the console damaged game disks and that these disks could no longer be used (Cliff, 2007). In 2005 Microsoft recalled the power cords concerned that they posed a fire hazard (Wolverton and Takanashi, 2007). Then in December 2006, in an apparent response to these and other issues, Microsoft extended the warranty from 90 days to one year.

But problems persisted. Blogs and forums complained about the “Red Ring of Death” referring to a string of three lights that illuminate on the console when a serious problem is detected. One survey found that the return rate was 33 percent (Cliff, E, 2007)

Then in July 2007, Robbie Bach, president of Microsoft’s Entertainment and Device Division, said that “In the past few months, we have been having to make Xbox 360 console repairs at a rate too high for

our liking” (Associated Press, 2007) (Mintz, 2007). Shortly thereafter, Microsoft announced an extension of the warranty from one to three years at an expected cost of $1 billion. This represented about $100 for every Xbox sold since its introduction in 2005.

Later in the same month Microsoft announced that its top gaming executive, Peter Moore, was leaving the company, but they denied that his departure was related to the Xbox’s engineering problems (Wingfield, 2007)).

Lessons Learned

Perhaps the dominant lesson here is the trap called “conservatism” in which new data is largely ignored to protect the status quo. Here, in the face of a continuous stream of product returns and customer complaints, those who were responsible for the project were unwilling to acknowledge that the problem was serious; that customer satisfaction and loyalty was deteriorating rapidly; that the product needed to be redesigned; and that customer satisfaction needed to be addressed.

The sunk cost trap also played its part. In the sunk cost trap, a course of action is not abandoned because considerable time or money has already been spent on the project, and those in charge are reluctant to abandon the project or take steps to delay the project in any way. For the Xbox, considerable investment in the product had already been made, sales were strong, and since the division had yet to turn a profit, there was pressure to continue at any cost. Returning to earlier stages of design, issuing a recall for the defective units, and replacing them with new units was apparently not a realistic option.

Question 1

1. Identify the problems that Microsoft encountered when it launched its Xbox 360 console.

1.2. “For the Xbox, considerable investment in the product had already been made, sales were strong, and since the division had yet to turn a profit, there was pressure to continue at any cost. Returning to earlier stages of design, issuing a recall for the defective units, and replacing them with new units was apparently not a realistic option.”

It is clear that Microsoft had to deliver the project on schedule; hence they could not recall the defective units. Identify and briefly explain the theory that relates to extract above.

1.3. Successful completion of a project requires finishing the scope of work within budget and a certain time frame whilst managing resource utilization, meeting quality expectations and managing risks. All this must be done while assuring customer satisfaction. Discuss how Microsoft could have managed project constraints to successfully deliver the Xbox 360 project.

Answer 1

Answer:-

1.1) The problems that Microsoft encountered were quite a couple:

Specialized Design Flaws:

The console plainly had building problems that were not overseen well because they needed to race into the dispatch in 2005. This would have squeezed their designers to convey, with a potential trade off on the functionality/quality

Deficient End to End tests:

This is apparent from the way that web based gaming was not working fine. There must be different rounds of tests led before you transport a result of this scale.

Considerable expenses had been contributed as of now, and it got hard to rapidly take a choice to invert it/report a waiver for the clients who had just purchased the console.

1-2) The theory which identifies with the above is conservatism, and furthermore the sunk cost trap. They disregarded new information rolling in from business sectors which recommended that the item was not so much progressing nicely - there were various plan defects, and the arrival rate was as high as 33%. They needed to depict that the new division has worked superbly in conveying its first mass gaming console.

It is a sort of a dilemma situation: You own up, your division may get broke up. You don't take ownership of the mix-ups, and the association endures a gigantic shot as far as incomes. Microsoft had likewise effectively spent a considerable expense in putting resources into the new division, producing the equipment for the Xbox, recruiting for the building groups and the assembling groups, that it required a long time to turn around the awful choices made. These additional inevitably included and negatively affected Microsoft.

1.3) Yes, fruitful completion of an undertaking requires completing the extent of work within spending plan/time. What Microsoft ought to have done is:

Set sensible cutoff times: It is alright to defer the dispatch by a quarter, if that implies transporting out a quality item. Likely most of the way into the task, their groups more likely than not understood that the final result isn't the manner in which they had anticipated that it should be - they ought to have made arrangements for an increasingly practical discharge.

Set buffers:

There appear to be no buffers set for the cutoff times. Regularly, an undertaking includes about 20% buffers, both for time and cost. That ought to have been set.

Risk assessment:

There ought to have been a legitimate risk assessment and effect examination done. Various situations ought to have been played out - accepting return rates/guarantee substitution paces of 5%, 10%, 20%, 30% and so forth, and a possibility/risk mitigation plan ought to have been produced for every one of those situations. This would have helped them better get ready for this situation.

Use immediate feedback:

The first round of feedback rolling in from the market ought to have been used immediately to refine the item and stop further creation. This would have helped them re-discharge an increasingly strong item, rather than buring down $1 billion in substitutions.

Plan for a pilot:

Microsoft could have arranged a pilot - where you sell the item just to a focused gathering, let them use the item for 3 months, similarly as some other purchaser would use - gather the feedback, iron out the blemishes, and afterward mass produce the reconsidered item.

please like the answer............