On the other hand, “division of responsibility” can be a recipe for disaster if one project sub-system has a disproportionate share of the project tasks or project risks. If all the long lead items are in the distal end of the catheter, it surely makes more sense to have several engineers work on distal-end tasks up front, to get all the long lead items on order as quickly as possible.“Division of responsibility” can only work when the workload and riskload is perfectly balanced.  This is rarely true, and high priority project tasks can languish while engineers remain focused on their own lower-priority sub-systems.
- No location available
-
- [note::“Division of responsibility” can only work when the workload and riskload is perfectly balanced - great point. Project and product risk are often NOT proportional to the arbitrary lines of responsibility you draw - it's VERY easy to make a risky assumption like this, especially when working with a small, but highly-specialized team (who's skills may not lend themselves to working on different sub-systems from week-to-week)]

Perhaps the only exception is when there is a key skill required. Only engineers with EE skills can design schematics.
- No location available
-

However, the Critical Action Plan approach is flexible when it comes to task planning.  The team may assign individuals to be responsible for detailed task planning of sub-systems.  For example, the electrical engineer may be assigned to define all the tasks and risks around the electrical subsystem designs.  But when it comes time to ordering the circuit boards and cable assemblies, the best available team member will be assigned
- No location available
-
- [note::Task and risk planning can be distributed disproportionately, but task execution/responsibility shouldn't (the latter should take project and product risks into account)]