Answer

Over the past decade, the use of analytics in project management has motivated the increased use of quantitative values in measuring different performance metrics. Contrary to the yes and no approaches used in the past, stakeholders are finding it more prudent and convincing to use numerical values to ascertain with precision the success or failure of a project. As a result, there have emerged new approaches to measuring the performance of projects. According to Radujković and Mariela, the success of a project can be measured by considering key deliverables such as budget, scope, and timeline (608). Besides, projects can be measured by considering on-time delivery, project impact, financials, return on investments, quality, its ability to solve the intended issues, and resources allocated to the project. As much as these key performance indicators are useful, Deacon proposes a paradigm shift in favor of the endeavor success matrix. The author argues that the endeavor success approach to measuring failure or success of a project is revolutionary since it moves beyond assessing the KPIs. Instead, it factors the whole process of developing the project and its usefulness to the target clients. It is upon this backdrop that this paper applies the endeavor success matrix in evaluating the success or failure of Samsung’s folding phone.

Samsung’s Folding Phone Project

Samsung has been working on a project involving the development of a folding smartphone. The company intended that the phone would disrupt the market and enable the brand to attract a large customer share while also differentiating its value proposition from the highly competitive smartphone industry. As a result, Samsung begun working on prototypes of the Galaxy Fold. The phone was to embed unique features such as the use of infinity flex display that allows the user to fold and unfold the phone to maximize the screen size. The company first unveiled the prototypes during the Samsung’s developer’s conference in 2018 (Samsung, para 1). In addition, the new phone was supported by an advanced android system to facilitate distribution of the newly launched One UI software. Google provided support to Samsung and promised to ensure the android system was optimized for the new phone. The specifications of the product included a 7.3’ exposed display that could easily be unfolded to double the size. Before the launch of the products, critics had already started voicing their concerns on the viability of the phone. Some commentators noted that the screen had a plastic coating and was not as strong and durable as the traditional smartphones. Others noted that the phone was more of a concept that needed much development and could only appeal to the early adopted as opposed to the mass market which Samsung sought to entice. Experts voiced their displeasure with the phone, noting that it was vulnerable to damage and scratching by debris since its display hinges lacked protection.

Whereas some critics looked at the negatives of the phone, others commended Samsung’s project managers and sponsors for their innovativeness in developing a unique and differentiated phone that embedded superior features and supported multiple functionalities. In spite of the praises, the common consensus held that Samsung fold was not worthy the huge price tag which could potentially make it unaffordable to most customers. Regardless, Samsung ignored these concerns and instead, launched the phone in September 2019 (Samsung, para 2). By December 2019, it had sold more than one million units. By 2020, most of the early adopted Galaxy Fold had reported multiple issues with the product. Reviews and feedback from customers showed that the display of the Samsung Galaxy Fold had high rate of failure. Similarly, the product was blamed for structural inconsistencies that made the screen vulnerable to breakage and malfunctioning. Other customers reported that the screen got damaged when they removed the laminate layer covering the screen by mistake. Samsung acknowledged these complaints and gave a statement stating that it was concerned about the failures and that it would conduct a thorough inspection to ascertain the claims and issues reported. The company was forced to postpone further launch of the Galaxy Fold product and cancelled shipments to international markets. Customers equally cancelled their pre-orders fearing that the products might be defective.

Applying Endeavor Success Matrix to Ascertain Success or Failure of Samsung’s Galaxy Fold

The endeavor success matrix is a tool for measuring the success of a project. It considers important performance aspects of the whole project management process and goes further into evaluating the client’s satisfaction with the final results of the project. Unlike other measurement tools that only factor the budget, schedule, and scope, this model considers satisfaction by all the stakeholders (Ivanov et al. 22). For this reason, a project only receives a thumbs up when it satisfies the needs and expectations of all the stakeholders. On the contrary, it receives a thumbs down when it fails to satisfy the expectations of some of the stakeholders. Some of the challenges could include late delivery or completion of the project, being over budgeted, and failing to meet the quality standards. Other variables that could be factored in measuring the success of the project include measuring scope creep, end users reviews, and feedbacks as well as the willingness for the stakeholders to make a repeat purchase.

In particular, the endeavor success matrix measures the success of a project against approved baselines. In the event that a project encounters a situation that was unexpected and a result of acts of nature, or continuous change in the scope of the project, then it would be inaccurate if the project manager uses the original baseline to measure the success of the project (Deacon, para 5). Nonetheless, if the project manager was incompetent, then their actions will affect the final baselines as it will force the project to undergo corrective measures which detract the project from meeting its goals. Some of the advantages of the endeavor success matrix is that it considers the views of the different stakeholders. These views are captured by evaluating the whole project life cycle and the operating life cycle. Abylova and Leila explain that the project life cycle consists four phases, beginning with conceptualization (2). This phase is followed by the development of the products, implementation, and close out. The end product is handed over to the client who uses it over the period known as the operating life cycle. The Association for Project Management (APM) and Project Management Institute (PMI) acknowledge the use of the word endeavor since it captures all the aspects of the project life cycle and the operations life cycle.

In the case of the Samsung Galaxy Fold, the endeavor begin with the conceptualization, development, implementation, and close out of the project. Assuming that the final smartphone meets the needs of the customers in the operations life cycle (output success) and further meets the goals set for the project management team such as quality, cost, and time, then this section of the endeavor is known as output success. This statement affirms that the endeavor success matrix measures the success or failure of a project based on the project’s output and outcome. To ensure that the matrix is effective, the different key performance indicators (KPIs) have to be listed and assigned weights according to a certain success criteria (Deacon, para 7). The resulting percentage representing the output and the outcome is expressed as a percentage, thus helping to accurately measure the success or failure of a project. The weights are allocated in accordance to the following tables.

Table 1: Rating for stakeholders satisfaction, schedule, and budget

Table 2 below also details the rating for scope change, and quality of the project.

Table 3 shows the weighting table for rating success criteria.

Assessing Performance of Samsung Galaxy Fold Project

The project of developing the Samsung Galaxy Fold can be considered as an endeavour. The goals of the project were to produce a high quality, unique, and differentiated folding phone that would help Samsung attract more customers and increase its market share. The project had to be done in one year to avoid technological obsolescence which affect the technology industry. The success criteria for the project included ensuring that the clients or end users are satisfied with the product. Secondly, the price of the product was to reflect the premium and luxurious nature of the product. Thus, the company set the price at $1,999.99 (Samsung). The project outcomes as described in the previous section of this paper includes the product being viewed by the customers as overpriced, thus failing to attract the much anticipated sales volume. The project encountered scope creep since it was a trial version. The prototypes failed to meet the requirements and even, the actual product was still defective. The project was on schedule since it was launched as planned. However, it had serious flaws that compromised its quality. Using the traditional verdict for allocating success or failure, the project would be described as a failure. However, it is important to apply the endeavour success matrix to ascertain the percentage that qualifies the Galaxy Fold as a failure or a success.

Table 4: Success criteria based on output

Table 5: Success criteria based on outcome

Analysis of the Results

These results show that the Samsung Galaxy Fold project merited at the output stage but failed at the operational stage of the life cycle. As evident in the table above, the results for the project management success or output success were 92% meaning that the development of the product ranked high. The high rating is attributed to the scope of 7 out of 10 points implying that there was an estimated 10-14% scope creep. This figure is low given that the development of a new innovation is extremely involving. The low scope creep could potentially explain why the project manager failed to significantly test and improve the product based on market research and test trials by the customers. Regarding the project schedule, the project was rated at 8/10 meaning that it was 3-5% behind schedule. The slight delay was understandable by the key stakeholders within the organization. The customers were also requested to be patient. In fact, the delay raised anticipation for the product among consumers who were willing to fully adopt the new technology embedded in the Galaxy Fold. It is possible that the slight delay in meeting the scheduled production time was aimed at addressing the problems identified in the prototypes. However, the fear of future delays that would disrupt the schedule forced the project manager to hasten the development and production of the smartphone which boosted the output but harmed the outcome success.

The rating for the budget was estimated at 5/10. This is an equivalent of 20-29% over budget. This amounted to mixed satisfaction among the stakeholders since the project was supposed to adhere to a predetermined budget. However, the figure is understandable given that innovation of novel products is capital intensive and involving. The process needs a lot of reworking of previous stages of development which could be costly. In terms of quality, the project scored 7/10 from the internal stakeholder’s perspective. This value indicates that the final product was of high quality, however, it had minor problems. Failure to address these problems contributed towards the low score in the projects outcome, as evident in the customer’s negative reviews of the Galaxy Fold smartphone.

 The outcome of the project scored poorly compared to the output. The clients satisfaction was rated at 46% meaning that the product underperformed compared to expectations. A rating of 3 means that there were serious problems with the final product derived from the project. The rating of 5 out of 10 means that the end users found the product useful yet it failed to meet their expectations. The product is rated 2/10 in terms of quality as it was vulnerable to breakages and scratching. The structure of the product made it vulnerable. The poor quality means that the product is not durable thus the customers failed to attach high value on the product. The rating of 5/10 implies that some customers were impressed by the product features but were dissatisfied with its fragility. Justified by this analysis, the project was a failure because the project manager failed to develop a product that met and exceeded the expectations of the customers.

In this case, the project manager is to blame for failing to conduct adequate research and tests to the product to identify some of the issues cited by the customers. To this end, the application of the endeavour success matrix is seen as a highly efficient tool that contrasts the traditional approach to declaring the success or failure of products.