Reference no: EM131263496

Project Management Assignment

Short Answer Questions- these are really meant to be short answer questions, you should be able to answer in 10 sentences or less.

1. We have had many discussions about the role that projects play in an organization. According to the lectures/discussion in class (only) - what is the role of a project in an organization?

2. Relationship between Change Management Plan and Project Scope?

3. On September 27th, Guest Lecturer Mark Rabinowitz discussed "Case Studies in Project Management". What were the three questions that he said every project manager should ask?

4. You are reviewing the project documents on a project that you are managing. You notice that there are a couple of items on the WBS that do not correspond to the items in your Scope Statement. From our class discussions, what specifically does this discrepancy tell you? And, briefly what are the steps that you would have to take to correct the discrepancy?

Essay Questions:You must incorporate the course material in your answers!!! Be specific about how the class concepts relate to your answers. If you want, you can use outside resources to answer essay questions 1-3 (with the exception of collaborating with other students) just be sure to include appropriate references to any sources that you use.

Essay Question 1

In 2008 "Department A" of "Honest Financing Corporation" reviewed its existing systems for customer data security risks and found that its outdated customer management computer systemsneeded to be updated; the update would require a major system overhaul/upgrade, essentially the entire customer management system needed to be replaced. A business case was prepared to justify funding for the replacement system while at the same time making a case for the implementation ofadditional improvements aimed at supporting the organization's evolving strategic plans. The total budget requested was $2.3 million.

In an industry not known for honesty, Honest Financing Corp. hadexperienced some financial setbacks as a result of the recent recession and ongoingproblems in the global economy. In view of the company's current shortage of funds the organization's senior managementdid not approve the full $2.3 million for the system replacement and upgrades.In spite of original estimates, Honest Financing Corp's senior management decided that $1.5 million was a more realistic budget for the project, so $1.5 was authorized. "Department A" reviewed the approved $1.5 budget. In spite of the fact that the approved amount was considerably lower than the original estimates, the Department's managerial decision-makers thought that taking responsibility for such an important project, especially in the midst of such turbulent economic conditions,could be a good thing for the department, especially in the short term - "job security" they thought. So, Department A's decision-makers decided that they would find a way to complete the work for the $1.5 million approved by the senior management at the company headquarters and accepted the project with the revised budget.

In view of the shortfall on its original budget request, Department A's management decided to "do more with less" and made the decision not to employ a project manager to oversee the project. It was the opinion of Department A's managerial team that the additional salary for a project manager would be detrimental to completing the project within the reduced budget. Instead it assigned this responsibility to its Finance Manager, who would undertake the work along with his normal duties. The Finance Manager immediately started the process of moving the project forward.

The project was scoped and planned, with specific milestones for implementing the new hardware and software required to replace the Honest Financing Corporation's customer management system. A final completion date of July 31, 2010 was proposed. The original business case had included several loosely definedproject risks which were included in the original project plan. A project steering committee was established, with the Senior VPof Sales and Marketing assigned as the sponsor. The project steering committee also included representation of influential managers from various parts of the company, each with differing interests related to project outcomeswith the potential to positively impact their specificdepartment's success metrics, and individual personal career goals. The project commenced in May 2008.

The decision was made to outsource the software development component of the project. A request for proposals was posted and several vendors pitched their solutions, time-frame, and budget requirements in response. "Perfect Programming Inc." was selected and contracted to supply the software and assist in the implementation. This company recognized the marketing opportunities of this project, as the Honest Financing Corp. was its biggest client in the region. As a result, they offered, free of charge, a number of additional features that were not in the original scope provided Department A. This allowed Perfect Programming Inc. to, in essence, to utilize the project for its own research and development (R&D) site. This would enablePerfect Programming Inc. to establish a "use case", and develop their own software, while simultaneously fulfilling their contractual obligations to Honest Financing Corp. Perfect Programming Inc. thought that by using this project to conduct their R&D they could enhance their ability to sell their software projects to other organizations world-wide, while providing the Honest Financing Corp. with additional functionality and benefits.

Initially, the steering committee met regularly but as frequent implementations of new versions of the software occurred the meetings became less frequent. As a result, Perfect Programming Inc. was left to do more and more of the overall decision-making andday-to-day managementof the ongoing software development and its iterative implementations.Without weekly project meetings Perfect Programming Inc.decided to consultindividually with the members of the steering committing to gather the needed information related to its ongoing software development activities, including any newly requested functionality that would be included as a result of the additional features that had been promised as part of the "beyond-scope" R&D agreement with Honest Financing Corp. Little effort was made to obtain consultation and agreement amongst all of the steering committee members, or the collective managers across the organization. The result was that the original project team (steering committee) stakeholders, which had represented the various parts of the organization,was no longer meeting to collectively discuss the project as it moved forward. The individuals on the steering committee were somewhat relieved by this development because they were already pressed for time and could now turn their attention to their other responsibilities, leaving the project in the capable hands of the vendor (Perfect Programming Inc.).

Eventually, the individual's on the Honest Financing Corp. steering committee were only asked to identify any software problems that they identified within their department, and to make system testers available within their departments for each new version of the software. Unfortunately, while this approach to the project originally appeared to be a good idea, proposed to save money and enable some of the extra features that would not be possible with the decreased budget, the actual effect turned out to be unanticipated overhead for the department and the project began to spiral out of control. To further complicate the ongoing project, one year after the project had been scoped and initiated, both the original Sr. VP of Sales and Marketing and the Finance Manager had left the company and new officers were appointed to oversee the project. The new Sr. VP of Sales and Marketing, and the new Finance Manager, were new to the company and as a result did not have any background knowledge related to the original agreement with the vendor, and specifically the additional features that had been promised by the vendor as a result of the R&D arrangement.

At this time, the new Sr. VP of Sales and Marketinghad been advised by the vendor that an additional $800,000 would be required to complete the project; this amount was in addition to the original $1.5 million dollar budget. The original project deliverables had not been authorized, or signed-off, and the work that had been completed was not adequate to address the required security improvements, or functions to support strategic initiatives that had been identifiedby Honest Financing Corp. when the original project was approved in 2008.

The project was now the responsibility of the new Sr. VP of Sales and Marketing, who was unable to identify an original scope, or at least a clearly defined scope, for the project. The Sr. VP read through the project paperwork and was not able to identify which of the required aspects of the system had been implemented, if the components that had been implemented had met the needs of the stakeholders and had been approved, nor the amount that had already been spent for each system component. Perfect Programming Inc. had informed the new Sr. VP of Sales and Marketing that they had delivered everything that they had agreed to, as identified in the original project scope and charter (not including the additional "out of scope" features that they had promised at the start of the project), and they would not continue the remaining development needed to complete the system without the additional $800,000. This was an issue because the vendor had been working on this project for a year and had gained unique knowledge about the organization and the system; it would be difficult and costly to replace the vendor at what appeared to be late in the overall project lifecycle. The new Sr. VP of Sales and Marketing had to make a number of decisions about the project as it moved forward, which would be difficult because of the inadequate project documentation regarding the original project scope, requirements, deliverables, testing, scope changes (and if the changes had been approved or not), schedule or budget.

The new Sr. VP was increasingly concerned that the original project had become more of a career than a project. Version 16.5 of the customer data management system was currently being tested, and included more additional features. In addition, a number of software problems from earlier versions were still an issue. Perfect Programming Inc. informed the new Sr. VP that each of the deliverables had been authorized and approved and that any additional work related to the outstanding problems with earlier versions of the software, and any additional software development activities, would fall under the $800,000 budget extension. Without the extra funding, Perfect Programming Inc. would not continue work on the project and in its current form the system features that it had developed were not functional and of no use to Honest Financing Corp.

Questions:

1. Report your assessment of the current project status. Your focus for this question is to specifically identify and describe the problems that emerged from NOT appropriately applying project management tools and techniques (in question 2, you will be asked how you can turn the project around by appropriately applying appropriate PM tools and techniques)

a. Use your knowledge of PMBOK and general project management concepts to identify specific project related problems in the scenario provided above.

b. Describe how each of these problems emerged as a result of poor project management practices (make sure that your answer incorporates the SPECIFIC project management tools and techniques that we are learning in class) and how the in appropriate use of project management tools and techniques resulted in the problems you describe in your answer.

c. Your answers should specifically address how each of problems that you identified are the result of NOT applying appropriate project management tools and techniques discussed in class (remember, be specific).

2. After this experience Honest Financing Corp. decided it needed a Project Manager to oversee the ongoing project. The organization has hired YOU as the new Project Manager. In this question you are to describe how you will turn the project around by applying specific project management tools and techniques.

a. Compare your assessment of the current project (in question 1) with sound project management techniques and make specific recommendations related to the steps the new PM can use to get the project back on track (remember to be specific when describing how you will use specific project management tools and techniques to get the project back on track).

b. Proposed a detailed plan for how you will manage the project going forward. Include any new project management related processes that you feel must be implemented to see the project through to a successful end.

c. Recommend improvements to the Honest Financing Corp.'ssenior management for successful project management of future projects.

3. If you had been member of Department A during the original planning meetings and project proposal (with budget) for this project how would you have handled the situation? Specifically, how would you have handled the reduced budget demands and the decision to forego a project manager at the start of the project? What would you have communicated to senior management and how would you have done it?

4. If a very similar project had to be done again, what attributes and/or skill sets would you recommend in selecting a project manager?

Essay Question 2:

Orlando Corporation responded to a government RFP for the R&D phase on a new project. The statement of work specified that the project must be completed within 90 days after the "go-ahead" was obtained, and that the contract would be a fixed cost and fee contract.

The majority of the work would be accomplished by the development lab. According to government regulations, the estimated cost must be based on the average cost of the entire department, which was $19.00 an hour.

Orlando Corporation won the contract for a total package (cost plus fee) of $305, 000. After the first weekly labor report was analyzed, it became clear that the development lab was spending $28.50 per hour. The project manager decided to discuss the problem with the manager of the development lab. Here is how that conversation went...

PM: "Obviously you know why I'm here. At the rate that you're spending money, we'll overrun our budget by 50 percent.

Lab Manager: "That's your problem, not mine. When I estimated the cost to do a job, I submit only the hours necessary based on historical standards. The pricing department converts the hours to dollars based on departmental averages.

PM: "Well, why are we using the most expensive people? Obviously there must be lower-salaried people capable of performing the work."

Lab Manager: "Yes, I do have lower-salaried people, but none who can complete the job within the two months required by the contract. I have to use people high on the learning curve, and they aren't cheap. You should have told the pricing department to increase the average cost for the department."

PM: "I wish I could, but government regulations forbid this. If we were ever audited, or if this proposal were compared to other salary structures in other proposals, we would be in deep trouble. The only legal way to accomplish this would be to set up a new department for those higher-paid employees working on this project. Then the average department salary would be correct. Unfortunately the administrative cost of setting up a temporary department for only two months is prohibitive. For long-duration project, this technique is often employed. Why couldn't you have just increased the number of hours to compensate for the increased dollars required?"

Lab Manager: "I have to submit labor justifications for all hours that I estimate. If I were to get audited, my job would be on the line. Remember, we had to submit labor justifications for all work as part of the proposal. Perhaps next time you might think twice before bidding on a short-duration project. You might try talking to the customer to get their opinion."

PM: "Their response would probably be the same regardless of whether I explained the situation before we submitted the proposal as it would be now, after we have negotiated it. There's a good chance that I have just lost my Christmas bonus because of this!"

Questions:USE the project management tools and techniques from class in your answers. Also, since this is an "argument" of sorts, students tend to lean toward just providing a solution (without specifically integrating the class concepts) remember to specifically and clearly integrate the class concepts when providing your answers.

1. What is the basis of the problem (describe in terms of project management tools and techniques)

2. Is there someone at fault? If so, who and why?

3. How could this situation have been avoided (remember to keep your answer grounded in project management concepts)?

4. How can this situation be corrected (remember to keep your answer grounded in project management concepts)?

5. As a project manager, how would you make sure that this situation doesn't happen in future projects (remember to keep your answer grounded in project management concepts)?

6. From the perspective of effective project management, how would you handle this situation on a longer-duration project, say a one year project, that multiple departments are involved in and that no new departments were established other than possibly the project office?

7. Should a customer be willing to accept monetary responsibility for this type of situation, possibly permitting established standards to be deviated from? If so, then how many months should be considered a short-duration project?

Essay Question:

You are an experienced project manager that has just been hired by a large oil company that recently experienced a major cyberattack. The company controls a quarter of the world's oil production, it is headquartered in Saudi Arabia, with global operations in Europe, the US, and Africa. The attack resulted in the partial or total destruction of 35,000 of the company's computer hard drives. Employees noticed that files were disappearing and computers were beginning to fail on August 12th. The IT staff immediately began to disconnect all of the systems and the data centers to stop the damage. Oil production processes were not impacted by the attack; however, all other aspects of the organization were affected which effectively brought all operations to an immediate stop. Much of the data the company was lost in the attack (i.e., contracts, accounting information, payroll, etc.) and with all computer systems disconnected they had to resort to using "old school" process on paper. Historically, the company had not focused on IT security and certainly never anticipated an attack of this magnitude. Because of this, the company did not have the IT staff with the skills to diagnose the attack. They immediately hired a team of IT security experts to diagnose the source of the attack, fix the situation, and get the company's systems back online. This new team of IT security experts got to work immediately; however, they found that their efforts were not as efficient and effective as they would like. The new manager of the company's new IT Security Department (an IT security expert) identified the need for a project manager to help the team organize their efforts, and they hired you!

When you arrived the systems were still not operational (it would take months to get everything back online). Many of the IT security experts that made up your project team felt that the new processes that you were implementing were an unnecessary inconvenience and were not as cooperative as you needed them to be. You spoke to the new IT Security Department manager about the troubles that you were having with the team. She said that IT Security experts, some of them recruited directly from the hacking community, were not an easy group to manage. She suggested that you put together a clear and concise document that described the project management processes that you would be implementing.

In your document you should include a brief description the need and benefit of the processes, the specific project tools that you will be using (think project templates from your class project) and a brief description of the relationships and impacts of the documents on the project itself. Her thinking was that if you could provide a clear and concise document that provided an outline/rationale of your activities, the team would have a greater understanding of the benefit that project management can provide to the team as they work toward accomplishing their goals.

Questions:

1. Provide a concise but detailed description of the project management processes, tools, relationships and benefits for the team that addresses the issues suggested by the IT Security Department Manager. This document will eventually be given to the members of your project team (remember, some don't see the need for project management or for you to be part of the project going forward) that will convince the team of the value of project management in this context.

A quick side note - This is actually an interesting true story, down to the hiring of a PM to help the team, here is a link to an article about it that may be helpful to you - https://www.darkreading.com/attacks-breaches/inside-the-aftermath-of-the-saudi-aramco-breach/d/d-id/1321676