Gap Analysis Harrison-Keyes

GAP ANALYSIS: HARRISON-KEYES

Gap Analysis: Harrison-Keyes

Student Name

University of Phoenix

Gap Analysis: Harrison-Keyes

Harrison-Keyes, Inc., in an effort to remain competitive in the global publishing industry, has begun implementing a new publishing strategy. With much debate and dissent, Harrison-Keyes leadership arrived at the decision to pursue a new electronic book publishing initiative that promises to offer larger profit margins and revive its waning performance in the publishing industry. HK is currently facing several challenges with this new strategy as the company replaces CEO, Meg McGill with William Guardo. Guardo greatly differs on his view of e-publishing than the former CEO. He favors traditional publishing, has little high-tech experience, and is not a big fan of e-books, (University of Phoenix, 2007). However, Guardo is open to the idea of e-publishing and has given his leadership team 30 days to address the oversights in planning and implementation or he will consider pulling the plug.

This analysis will show the issues and opportunities currently facing Harrison-Keyes as well as the stakeholder perspectives and ethical dilemmas associated with this strategy. The analysis will also review what the future of Harrison-Keyes might look like if it implements measures to prevent these challenges from happening again. Finally, this analysis will take a look at the gap between the current situation at HK and its future end-state vision.

Situation Analysis

Issue and Opportunity Identification

Several issues have contributed to the state of Harrison-Keyes’ e-book project today. Though problematic and challenging, these issues provide opportunities for HK to regain control of the project and bring it back on target to reaching HK’s anticipated outcomes. There are five issues identified in the scenario that provide challenges for Harrison-Keyes. The first issue to be identified was the lack of a clearly defined project scope which has caused confusion throughout much of the project. The second issue identified was the lack of a clear implementation strategy. The next issue was identified when Asia Digital failed to complete the formatting portion of the project due to an unexpected natural disaster. The need for and absence of a contingency plan then became apparent. A fourth issue that was identified was a lack of alignment among project stakeholders. The final issue identified was the relative lack of plan control. Table 1 briefly outlines these issues and opportunities.

“As fundamental and essential as scope definition appears, it is frequently overlooked by project leaders of well-managed, large corporations,” (Gray & Lawson, 2005, p. 100). Harrison-Keyes’ poorly defined scope currently appears to be a barrier to its potential e-publishing project success. The main purpose of project scope is to clearly define end deliverables and focus project plans, (Gray & Lawson, 2005). “Quite often a schedule focuses on a part of the scope of a project and deliberately ignores the total project scope,” (Basu, 2005, para. 1). HK’s project scope seems to lack how completion of the e-book formatting, prevention of piracy, and start of web sales will be tied together. “Defining the project scope sets the stage for developing a project plan. Project scope is a definition of the end result or mission of your project,” (Gray & Lawson, 2005, p. 100).

When there is a lack of understand and consensus on strategy, an implementation gap exists between strategic planning and project implementation. This usually occurs when top management plans a strategy independent of the functional managers who will be responsible for carrying it out, (Gray & Larson, 2005). Harrison-Keyes does not have a dedicated project team structure in place. Currently, the project group consists of functional specialists who split time between day-to-day operations and the e-publishing iniative. Dedicated project teams should be used for urgent projects in which people need to work from beginning to end, (Gray & Larson, 2005).

Jan Petersen, Head of the Implementation Team, failed to provide a contingency plan for the e-publishing project which left the company vulnerable to risks and left no safety-net of alternatives to fall back on. This oversight became painfully obvious when Asia-Digital Publishing went out of business for the foreseeable future due to massive coastal flooding in India.

The absence of a contingency plan can lead to panic and cause a project manager