IMP T1 Exam Case study

"The Tangle at OrbisTech"

The Organization:

OrbisTech Solutions was a mid-sized IT consultancy firm based in Singapore, known for handling complex digital transformation projects in Southeast Asia. With 120 employees spread across five departments—Development, Design, Marketing, Business Analysis, and Project Management—OrbisTech had been steadily growing for the past five years under the leadership of CEO Marcus Yeo.

Their newest client, TitanMart, a growing e-commerce giant, wanted a complete overhaul of its inventory management system. The project was high-stakes and visibility was huge—it was not just a software upgrade, but a strategic move for TitanMart’s planned expansion into Europe.

The Project

The initiative, codenamed "Inventory 360," was budgeted at $2.5 million and was expected to span eight months. It aimed to:

• Integrate TitanMart’s existing ERP with a new AI-based forecasting tool.

• Build a custom dashboard for real-time inventory tracking.

• Implement a mobile interface for warehouse teams.

• Provide analytics and auto-reorder features based on sales trends.

Stakeholders Involved

• TitanMart:

  • Amrita Sinha: TitanMart’s Head of Operations and Project Sponsor.

  • Joshua Lim: IT Liaison, responsible for bridging communication between TitanMart and OrbisTech.

• OrbisTech:

  • Priya Rao: Senior Project Manager at OrbisTech, managing Inventory 360.

  • Calvin Cheng: Lead Developer.

  • Sara Lee: UX Designer.

  • Glen Wong: Business Analyst.

  • Maya Tan: Resource Manager.

The Struggle Begins: Cracks in Scope and Integration

From the outset, the Inventory 360 project seemed well-planned. The initial kickoff meeting was smooth. But as the weeks passed, friction began to emerge—slowly, then all at once.

Issue #1: Scope Ambiguity

After sprint two, the development team flagged that TitanMart had started requesting features outside the agreed-upon scope—like predictive maintenance for warehouse machinery and real-time fleet tracking.

Priya pushed back, but Joshua from TitanMart insisted these features were “implicitly discussed” in earlier meetings. No one could find definitive documentation either way.

Meanwhile, Sara, the UX designer, was frustrated. The dashboard layouts kept changing based on feedback from different TitanMart departments—each of whom claimed they were primary stakeholders.

Issue #2: Integration Confusion

The AI forecasting module was being developed in parallel by TitanMart’s internal AI team. Integration points were unclear, and both teams had made assumptions about data formats, access protocols, and synchronization timing.

Two months in, Calvin discovered that the APIs promised by TitanMart didn’t support real-time calls—something critical for the dashboard’s live tracking feature.

Worse, TitanMart’s AI team had no visibility into OrbisTech’s delivery timelines. There was no unified integration plan, no shared calendar, and multiple tools being used for tracking—Trello by TitanMart, Jira by OrbisTech.

Issue #3: Resource Misalignment

Priya needed another senior developer to handle unexpected integration complexities. But Maya, the Resource Manager, said the bench was full. To make matters worse, a junior dev quit mid-project, and handover was rushed.

Glen, the Business Analyst, was stretched too thin managing requirements, change requests, and user stories. Documentation started slipping. Miscommunications grew.

Leadership Crossroads

Priya was now in a bind. She didn’t want to escalate things too early and damage client trust. But integration problems were compounding, and scope control was slipping through her fingers.

Marcus, the CEO, had asked for a mid-project review. Priya knew she had to present a clear path forward—but even she wasn’t sure where the real problem lay.

She asked herself:

• Was it poor scope definition, or weak stakeholder alignment?

• Was the lack of integration planning an oversight, or a result of fragmented communication channels?

• Should she push for a full rebaseline of the project, or try to course-correct quietly?

Questions for the Reader:

1. Identify the core problems in this project. Are they primarily related to scope management or integration management—or both? Explain.

2. Which stakeholders should have been more involved during the planning phase to avoid these issues?

3. What specific scope management techniques could have helped OrbisTech stay aligned with TitanMart?

4. What would you recommend Priya do next: escalate, renegotiate scope, push for an integration workshop—or something else entirely?

5. If you were leading this project, what tools or frameworks would you implement to improve integration planning?

 The Organization

Noventra Innovations is a Germany-based mid-sized firm specializing in renewable energy solutions, particularly solar grid automation. Known for its precise engineering and German efficiency, Noventra recently entered the North African market, winning a contract from SaharaGrid, a Moroccan utility company.

This was Noventra’s first project outside Europe—a strategic move and a test of their scalability, cost discipline, and international operations.

The Project

Project SolConnect aimed to automate SaharaGrid’s largest solar plant near Ouarzazate. The objective: install a smart energy management system capable of load balancing, real-time performance analytics, and predictive maintenance.

Estimated Timeline: 10 months
Initial Budget: €4.2 million
Contract Type: Fixed Price

Stakeholders

• Noventra:

  • Laura Stein: Project Director

  • Emil Fischer: Lead Estimator and Cost Engineer

  • Nadia Khoury: PMO Analyst

  • Dr. Reza Motamedi: Technical Architect

  • Luca Brandt: On-site Project Manager in Morocco

• SaharaGrid:

  • Youssef El-Mansouri: VP of Infrastructure

  • Layla Bennani: Local Operations Coordinator

  • External Auditors: Appointed by the Moroccan Ministry of Energy

Resources Assigned

• 15 Engineers (rotating teams from HQ)

• 6 Local Technicians (contract-based)

• 2 Remote Data Analysts

• 1 Finance Controller (shared across 3 projects)

• Vendor: PowerTrak Solutions (sensor provider)

The Struggle: Cracks in the Control System

Issue #1: Estimates That Didn't Add Up

Three months into the project, actual spend had already hit €2.3 million—over 54% of the total budget. Alarm bells rang in HQ, but Laura was confident it was a front-loaded project: “It’s the hardware and setup phase—costs will taper.”

Emil, the cost engineer, disagreed. He’d noticed that sensor installation was 30% under target, and software configuration hadn’t even started.

When asked, Luca (on-site PM) admitted delays in customs clearance for critical parts had pushed work back by four weeks—but those delays weren’t showing up clearly in the progress reports.

Issue #2: Progress Misreporting

Progress tracking was based on self-reporting from on-site teams and vendor milestones. Each Friday, Luca would report a percentage of completion per workstream. But these were based on physical presence and rough team estimates—no real Earned Value Management or formal metrics.

By month four, reports showed the project was “47% complete,” yet Nadia’s deep dive into Jira tickets and invoice records suggested actual progress closer to 28%.

To make matters worse, the finance controller hadn’t flagged over-expenditures early, because the cost codes were mismatched—some local labor costs were being billed under “equipment logistics.”

Issue #3: The Vanishing Variance

Emil asked for a burn-down chart or a cost-performance index. None existed. The PMO dashboard only showed planned vs actual costs on a monthly bar chart—pretty, but unhelpful.

Vendor PowerTrak had also submitted a surprise invoice for expedited replacements—double the usual rate—due to faulty batches. No one had accounted for this contingency. SaharaGrid wanted justification, and Laura didn’t have any.

Tensions started rising.

Leadership’s Dilemma

At the mid-term review, the CFO of Noventra, who had just returned from a shareholder briefing, demanded to know:

• “Are we on track to deliver this without eroding margins?”

• “How much of the committed budget is actually value-earning?”

• “What’s the cost to complete?”

No one had a clear answer. Emil had an estimate—but didn’t trust it. Luca had progress data—but it felt overly optimistic. Laura had confidence—but no solid proof.

And the worst part? SaharaGrid had invited journalists to visit the site in six weeks. The spotlight was coming, ready or not.

Questions for the Reader:

1. What were the main failures in cost estimation and progress tracking in Project SolConnect? Who should be held accountable?

2. How could the team have ensured more accurate progress measurement from the field? What frameworks or tools could they have used?

3. Why did early warning signs go unnoticed until the mid-project review? What governance practices were missing?

4. If you were Emil, how would you recalculate the Estimate at Completion (EAC) at this stage, given the unreliable data?

5. What corrective actions would you recommend for Noventra to bring Project SolConnect back on track without losing client trust or financial viability?

The Clockwork Conundrum at Zenith Aero

The Organization

Zenith Aero Systems is a fast-growing aerospace components manufacturer based in Toulouse, France. Known for delivering precision parts to European aviation giants, Zenith recently secured its biggest project yet—a joint venture with HelioDynamics, a drone technology startup from Sweden.

Under the agreement, Zenith would design and build a modular propulsion system for HelioDynamics’ next-generation drone series, codenamed "Project Vortex." The venture was high-stakes, both financially and reputationally—Zenith was stepping into a new market with tight delivery timelines and untested tech.

The Project

Project Vortex had a fixed delivery deadline: a functional prototype ready for demonstration at the International Drone Expo, six months away.

Key deliverables included:

• A lightweight propulsion system with integrated cooling

• Custom firmware for power management

• A modular frame design

• A simulation model to test system durability

Stakeholders

• Zenith Aero:

  • Claire Moreau: Project Manager, leading Vortex.

  • Dr. Julien Marchand: Lead Engineer and propulsion specialist.

  • Lucille Tran: Procurement Head.

  • Martin Keller: HR and Resource Allocation.

• HelioDynamics:

  • Erik Svensson: CTO and innovation lead.

  • Annika Dahl: Technical Program Coordinator.

Resource Landscape

Zenith assigned:

• 4 Mechanical Engineers (2 senior, 2 junior)

• 2 Embedded Systems Developers

• 1 Project Scheduler

• 1 Simulation Specialist (contract-based, remote)

Claire was told additional resources could be requested—but approval might take 2–3 weeks.

The Struggle: Time and Talent on a Tightrope

Issue #1: The Disappearing Days

By Week 5, Claire realized that despite enthusiastic stand-ups and beautiful Gantt charts, the project was off track.

Simulation testing was behind by two weeks because the specialist, hired on a remote contract, was only available 12 hours a week instead of the 20 originally promised. No one had noticed the discrepancy during onboarding.

Dr. Marchand flagged that engine component designs were being rushed to meet unrealistic testing milestones. Every delay in testing cascaded into firmware revisions, then power optimization sprints, all of which had to be rescheduled manually in the outdated MS Project file.

Issue #2: Hidden Overload

Lucille from procurement was repeatedly delayed in sourcing new materials due to unclear delivery windows. Her team’s efforts were being duplicated because updated component lists weren’t shared in time. But the real problem lay deeper.

Martin Keller’s resource dashboard showed all engineers as “50% allocated” across two projects. But in truth, they were spending 80–90% of their time on Vortex, pulling late hours, burning out—and making errors.

Claire had relied on this dashboard to balance workloads. But the tracking tool was outdated; engineers weren’t updating their timesheets regularly. No one realized the hidden overload until a senior engineer made a major design error that cost a two-week rework.

Issue #3: The Scheduling Spiral

The scheduler, Arnaud, was trying to update the project plan manually every Friday using individual email reports. Dependencies were slipping through the cracks. Tasks marked “complete” were often 60–70% done.

In Week 8, HelioDynamics requested a mid-project review. Claire reviewed the project timeline and realized that despite everyone working hard, they were nearly a month behind.

The irony? No one could tell exactly where all the time had gone.

Claire's Dilemma

Claire was under pressure. The CEO expected Vortex to be Zenith’s gateway into drone tech. HelioDynamics had already committed to presenting the prototype at the Drone Expo. But the current schedule was collapsing, and the team was showing signs of fatigue.

Claire knew something had to give—but she wasn't sure where the fix was:

• Was it in the planning tools?

• Or the resource allocation system?

• Was she missing a hidden dependency?

• Or was the project plan simply based on wrong assumptions?

She had one weekend to prepare a recovery plan.

Questions for the Reader:

1. What are the root causes of the schedule delays in Project Vortex? Are they primarily planning-related, execution-related, or both? Explain.

2. What scheduling best practices were missing or weak in this case?

3. How could Claire have better monitored true resource utilization versus what was shown on the dashboard?

4. Was the simulation specialist’s remote availability a hiring mistake or a management oversight? What could have prevented this mismatch?

5. If you were Claire, how would you replan or recover the schedule? Would you renegotiate the deadline, redistribute tasks, or change tools?