Discipline of Business Information Systems INFS6071 Project Management in Business Semester 1 Where and how there is evidence of such a methodology
The maximum length of the assignment is 2000 words, the first part is 1600 words, and the second part is 400 words. Requirements are in pdf.
1
BUSINESS SCHOOL
Discipline of Business Information Systems
INFS6071 Project Management in Business Semester 1 2022 Individual assignment 1 Part 1 (24%) and Part 2 (6%) Due date: 11:59 pm 1 May 2022 General instructions There are two parts to the assignment. To undertake the assignment, students should do the following:
• The maximum length of the assignment is 2000 words comprising 1600 words for Part 1 and 400 words for Part 2.
• For further information, please refer to the business school policies: http://sydney.edu.au/business/currentstudents/policy.
• Final report submission: The report should be submitted on Turnitin by due date. Please include your SID on the front page of the submission. The link for the Turnitin submission can be found on Canvas in the Assessment section. You should name the submission file as follows: SID.doc, e.g. 123456.doc. Please note that you SHOULD NOT provide name (first name or family name) in the assignment document. This is required to ensure anonymous marking.
• You can only submit the assignment once! Part 1 (24 marks) Requirements Download and read the case study (pdf file) found at the following link: https://www.anao.gov.au/sites/default/files/Auditor-General_Report_2018-2019_24.pdf Then analyse the findings on the Biometric Identification Services Project from the perspective of the formal project management methodology, PMBOK. Based on your analysis, respond to the following questions:
1. Where and how there is evidence of such a methodology being applied and its contribution. Please provide your answer in the form of a table outlining the relevant PMBOK knowledge areas, evidence of application, and contribution. (6 marks)
2. Where and how such a methodology might have helped avoid or mitigate identified
problems. Please provide your answer in the form of a table outlining the relevant knowledge areas and PMBOK processes that could have been applied. Give concrete examples of what kind of tools and techniques could have been applied. (10 marks)
3. If there were problems that appear to be outside the scope of PMBOK, discuss these problems. Conduct your own research to provide ideas on how these problems could have been mitigated. (8 marks)
2
General Expectations: • Clear, well-structured and written presentation that captures the major aspects of the report
in a succinct manner. • Consider all aspects of PMBOK and apply those that are relevant. You can use PMBOK 5th
or 6th edition. • Conduct your own research to support your arguments and to understand the project context. • Apply a structure to each section of your report to guide the reader and demonstrate you
have applied a comprehensive and systematic approach. • You are required to use third-party references to support your arguments for question 3
above. • Proof-read and sense check your report before submitting it. • Use the Business School Referencing Guide.
A useful starting point for online research is Google Scholar, scholar.google.com. If you are working off-campus you can access Google Scholar from the university library web page and access articles and other resources: http://www.library.usyd.edu.au/databases/ Remember the instructions for scientific writing, particularly referencing! Part 2 (6 marks) Application of analytical techniques in professional project management Critical Path Analysis Delight Ltd. manufactures ticketing machines for railway services. It is planning a project to upgrade the software used in its machines to improve customer experience. The details of the project activities are as follow:
ID Activity Predecessors Duration (weeks)
1 Identify major improvements to the system
– 3
2 Prepare functional requirements 1 6
3 Select project staff 1 3
4 Prepare technical design 2, 3 7
5 Develop software 4 8
6 Test machine performance 5 4
7 Make modifications to the software 6 10
8 Undertake user acceptance testing 7 5
9 Incorporate user feedback 8 6
10 Promote the benefits to users 7 3
11 Roll-out the changes to the machine 9, 10 5
Draw a network diagram using the activity on node (AON) notation representing the project. You may use PowerPoint to draw the diagram and then copy it into your assignment document. What is the critical path and how long is it? You should not use Microsoft Project or any other project management software to determine the critical path. Assume you are the Project Manager for Delight Ltd.’s project. Critically evaluate the difficulties you may face in using the critical path method to manage the project. Please use appropriate references to support your explanation. Presentation requirements for the report
• Prepare network diagram for the project including identification and measurement of critical path – including evidence of having performed a forward and backward pass (i.e. include your workings, for example, in the form of a table).
• Make sure you identify the critical path and its duration in your answer.
,
The Auditor-General Auditor-General Report No.24 2018–19
Performance Audit
The Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission’s Administration of the Biometric Identification Services Project
Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission
Australian National Audit Office
Auditor-General Report No.24 2018–19 The Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission’s Administration of the Biometric Identification Services Project 2
© Commonwealth of Australia 2019
ISSN 1036–7632 (Print) ISSN 2203–0352 (Online) ISBN 978-1-76033-420-8 (Print) ISBN 978-1-76033-421-5 (Online)
Except for the content in this document supplied by third parties, the Australian National Audit Office logo, the Commonwealth Coat of Arms, and any material protected by a trade mark, this document is licensed by the Australian National Audit Office for use under the terms of a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 Australia licence. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/au/.
You are free to copy and communicate the document in its current form for non-commercial purposes, as long as you attribute the document to the Australian National Audit Office and abide by the other licence terms. You may not alter or adapt the work in any way.
Permission to use material for which the copyright is owned by a third party must be sought from the relevant copyright owner. As far as practicable, such material will be clearly labelled.
For terms of use of the Commonwealth Coat of Arms, visit the It’s an Honour website at https://www.pmc.gov.au/government/its-honour.
Requests and inquiries concerning reproduction and rights should be addressed to:
Senior Executive Director Corporate Management Branch Australian National Audit Office 19 National Circuit BARTON ACT 2600
Or via email: [email protected]
Auditor-General Report No.24 2018–19 The Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission’s Administration of the Biometric Identification Services Project
3
Canberra ACT 21 January 2019
Dear Mr President Dear Mr Speaker
In accordance with the authority contained in the Auditor-General Act 1997, I have undertaken an independent performance audit in the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission. The report is titled The Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission’s Administration of the Biometric Identification Services Project. Pursuant to Senate Standing Order 166 relating to the presentation of documents when the Senate is not sitting, I present the report of this audit to the Parliament.
Following its presentation and receipt, the report will be placed on the Australian National Audit Office’s website — http://www.anao.gov.au.
Yours sincerely
Rona Mellor PSM Acting Auditor-General
The Honourable the President of the Senate The Honourable the Speaker of the House of Representatives Parliament House Canberra ACT
Auditor-General Report No.24 2018–19 The Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission’s Administration of the Biometric Identification Services Project 4
AUDITING FOR AUSTRALIA
The Auditor-General is head of the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO). The ANAO assists the Auditor-General to carry out his duties under the Auditor-General Act 1997 to undertake performance audits, financial statement audits and assurance reviews of Commonwealth public sector bodies and to provide independent reports and advice for the Parliament, the Australian Government and the community. The aim is to improve Commonwealth public sector administration and accountability.
For further information contact: Australian National Audit Office GPO Box 707 Canberra ACT 2601 Phone: (02) 6203 7300 Fax: (02) 6203 7777 Email: [email protected]
Auditor-General reports and information about the ANAO are available on our website: http://www.anao.gov.au
Audit team Julian Mallett Natalie Maras Michael White
Auditor-General Report No.24 2018–19
The Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission’s Administration of the Biometric Identification Services Project
5
Contents Summary …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 7
Background …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 7 Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 8 Supporting findings …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 8 Summary of entity response …………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 10 Key messages from this audit for all Australian Government entities …………………………………………….. 10
Audit findings ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 11
1. Background …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 12 Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 12 Audit approach ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 15
2. The BIS procurement process ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 16 The Commonwealth procurement process ………………………………………………………………………………… 16 Was the procurement designed and planned in accordance with the Commonwealth
Procurement Rules and ICT Investment Approval requirements?…………………………………………….. 17 Did the approach to market support a value for money outcome? ………………………………………………… 22 Did the tender assessment process support value for money? …………………………………………………….. 23 Did the approach to negotiating and entering the contract effectively support achievement of
outcomes sought? ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 24 3. Management of the Biometric Identification Services project ……………………………………………………….. 27
Was an effective governance framework established for the Biometric Identification Services project? …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 28
Was contract management effective? ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 33 Was there effective reporting to relevant stakeholders? ………………………………………………………………. 40 Was there a detailed implementation plan including specified outcomes, milestones and
deliverables? …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 45 Was the project’s financial management sound? ………………………………………………………………………… 47 Termination of the Biometric Identification Services project …………………………………………………………. 49
Appendices ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 51
Appendix 1 Entity response ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 52 Appendix 2 Biometrics Identification Services — Lessons Learnt ………………………………………………… 53
Auditor-General Report No.24 2018–19
The Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission’s Administration of the Biometric Identification Services Project
7
Summary Background 1. On 1 July 2016, the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission (ACIC) was created through the merger of the CrimTrac agency (CrimTrac), the Australian Crime Commission (ACC) and the Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC).1 Prior to the merger, CrimTrac had commenced planning and initial administration of the Biometric Identification Services project (the BIS project or BIS).
2. BIS was a $52 million project with two key goals:
• replacement of the existing National Automated Fingerprint Identification System (NAFIS)2; and
• addition of a facial recognition capability to enhance law enforcement’s biometric capabilities.
3. A Biometric Identification Solution Contract was signed on 20 April 2016 between NEC Australia (NEC) and CrimTrac, just prior to ACIC’s creation.
4. The BIS project encountered difficulties at an early stage. Despite intervention by the executive of ACIC and ultimately unsuccessful negotiations between ACIC and NEC, the ACIC CEO announced on 15 June 2018 that the project had been terminated.
5. When it became apparent that BIS would not be completed prior to the expiry in May 2017 of ACIC’s contract with Morpho, the company that operated NAFIS, ACIC extended its contract with Morpho (for a substantially higher price). The NAFIS contract is now due to expire in May 2020. ACIC has yet to decide the future of NAFIS.
Rationale for undertaking the audit • The audit was requested by ACIC’s Acting Chief Operating Officer on behalf of ACIC on 14
February 2018; and • the BIS (and the system it was to replace, NAFIS) are critical enabling systems for
Commonwealth and state law enforcement. A threat to the availability of this capability would be of significant concern to the Australian Government.
Audit objective and criteria 6. The objective of this audit was to assess the effectiveness of ACIC’s administration of the BIS project.
7. The audit criteria were:
1 This report refers to both CrimTrac and ACIC, depending on which agency was in existence at the time. 2 NAFIS was (and remains) a finger and palm print database and matching system operated by CrimTrac since
2001 on behalf of Australian police forces to help solve crime and identify individuals and by border enforcement agencies (formerly the Department of Immigration and Border Protection and now the Department of Home Affairs) to support Australia’s migration program.
Auditor-General Report No.24 2018–19 The Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission’s Administration of the Biometric Identification Services Project 8
• Was the procurement process for the BIS project conducted in accordance with the Commonwealth Procurement Rules?; and
• Has ACIC effectively managed the BIS project to achieve agreed outcomes?
Conclusion 8. While CrimTrac’s management of the BIS procurement process was largely effective, the subsequent administration of the BIS project by CrimTrac and ACIC was deficient in almost every significant respect. The total expenditure on the project was $34 million. None of the project’s milestones or deliverables were met.
9. The procurement was designed and planned consistent with the Commonwealth Procurement Rules and ICT Investment Approval requirements and the tender assessment process supported value for money. However, two critical requirements were overlooked in the requirements gathering phase and the approach to negotiating and entering the contract did not effectively support achievement of outcomes. This was a result of the contract not explaining the milestones and performance requirements in a manner that was readily understood and applied.
10. ACIC did not effectively manage the BIS project with its approach characterised by: poor risk management; not following at any point the mandated process in the contract for assessing progress against milestones and linking their achievement to payments; reporting arrangements not driving action; non adherence to a detailed implementation plan; and inadequate financial management, including being unable to definitively advise how much they had spent on the project.
Supporting findings
The tender process 11. The BIS procurement was largely effective. CrimTrac designed and planned the procurement consistent with the Commonwealth Procurement Rules and ICT Investment Approval requirements. Requirements were developed in conjunction with state and territory police, although two critical requirements were overlooked.
12. CrimTrac’s approach to market supported a value for money outcome. The approach to market had sufficient reach and two valid tenders were received.
13. The tender assessment process supported value for money. It was transparent and consistent with planning documents and the Commonwealth Procurement Rules in that:
• there was appropriate weighting of selection criteria; • internal and external probity advisers oversaw all phases of evaluation; and • the Tender Evaluation Committee report to the delegate was comprehensive. 14. The approach to negotiating and entering the contract did not effectively support achievement of outcomes because the contract did not explain the milestones and performance requirements in a manner that was readily understood and applied.
Summary
Auditor-General Report No.24 2018–19
The Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission’s Administration of the Biometric Identification Services Project
9
Management of the project 15. The governance framework for BIS was not effective.
• Risk registers established for the project were not used effectively. • External reviews in June and November 2017 identified the absence of a robust
governance structure. • ACIC’s Audit Committee was not informed of the status of the project. 16. Contract management was not effective.
• The stipulated contract process by which progress against milestones and deliverables was to be assessed was not followed at any stage and ACIC thus had no way of assuring itself that it got what it paid for.
• ACIC agreed to more than $12 million in additional work. Documentation showed that some of this work may have been unnecessary and other work may have already been covered under the contract.
• ACIC ‘inherited’ the former CrimTrac and ACC Electronic Document and Records Management Systems (EDRMS), leading to duplication and ineffective record keeping. Further, many staff did not use any EDRMS, instead keeping records on their own computers, in uncurated network drives or in email inboxes.
• While a Benefits Management Framework was developed and evidence showed that a benefits realisation and documentation process was intended, it was not implemented.
• An internal audit report had found that ACIC did not have an effective contractor management framework.
17. ACIC established appropriate arrangements for reporting to stakeholders. However these were not fully effective because they did not result in sufficient action being taken and the external stakeholders felt that reporting dropped off over time.
18. The contract provided an implementation plan including Solution Delivery and Solution Design, with more detail for Solution Delivery.
• The agreed schedule was not adhered to and was repeatedly extended before BIS was terminated in June 2018.
• In order to maintain the uninterrupted availability of a national fingerprint capability for law enforcement, ACIC was obliged to renegotiate the existing NAFIS contract at a significantly increased cost.
19. Financial management of the BIS project was poor. ACIC’s corporate finance area had no responsibility for management of the financial aspects of the BIS project; neither did the project team have a dedicated financial or contract manager. ACIC was unable to advise definitively how much they had spent on the project.
20. ACIC made a ‘goodwill’ payment of $2.9 million to NEC which was not linked to the achievement of any contract milestone. ACIC was not able to provide details of how the quantum of this payment was calculated.
Auditor-General Report No.24 2018–19 The Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission’s Administration of the Biometric Identification Services Project 10
Summary of entity response 21. The proposed report was provided to ACIC. A summary of its response is provided below and its full response is at Appendix 1.
The Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission (ACIC) found the Australian National Audit Office's audit of its Biometric Identification Services Project to be thorough and comprehensive. It has revealed significant failures in the management and delivery of the project, and has identified opportunities for the ACIC to refine its practices in order to improve its delivery of information and intelligence services to law enforcement and national security agencies in Australia.
Key messages from this audit for all Australian Government entities 22. The findings from this audit provide a range of learnings for other government departments managing technical bespoke procurement, which contains inherent risks due to its complexity or untested suitability.
Governance and risk management • When managing a project of this nature, it is important that sound governance arrangements
are in place, that have full oversight of progress, risks and mitigation plans, contingency planning and design and delivery challenges.
• An important element of governance is assurance mechanisms at each major decision making milestone — such as agreeing final business requirements for tender, or the technical deliverables in the contract — where the officer signing off tender scope or the contract has sufficient assurance that it contains all necessary business requirements, particularly those that are critical to the effective operation of the system or product. This assurance can come through adequately broad and deep consultation, assurance committees or technical advice.
• Where the project is significant relative to the size of the organisation’s budget or capability, then the project risks should form part of the broader organisational risk management structures and governance arrangements given the impact on the organisation if risks were realised.
Contract management • Contracts must be clear in terms of deliverables, milestones, performance measures and
accountabilities, and the entity should have strong contract management capability in place with clear reporting lines.
• Further, the entity should ensure that it obtains the right technical expertise such that risks, design challenges and contact deliverables are well understood and the negotiation position of the entity is evenly balanced with the successful tenderer.
Records management • Given that personnel can change and machinery of government changes can occur, records
are a critical part of informing future decision making and transparency and accountability for past decision making.
• Sound record management procedures should be in place not just for major projects but for all entity business transactions and decision making.
Auditor-General Report No.24 2018–19
The Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission’s Administration of the Biometric Identification Services Project
11
Audit findings
Auditor-General Report No.24 2018–19 The Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission’s Administration of the Biometric Identification Services Project 12
1. Background Introduction 1.1 The fact that every person’s fingerprints are unique was first recognised in the mid-19th century. Fingerprints and palm impressions are a fundamental law enforcement tool, enabling police to establish identity, collect evidence and solve crimes.
1.2 In the late 1980s, Australia became the first country to establish a National Automated Fingerprint Identification System (NAFIS).3 Individual police agencies4 also committed to a further national common police service known as the National Exchange of Police Information.
1.3 CrimTrac was established through an Inter-Governmental Agreement (IGA) in 2000 to enhance policing through the provision of information services. The Commonwealth Minister for Justice and state and territory Police Ministers, on behalf of their respective governments, signed the IGA on 13 July 2000.
1.4 CrimTrac received one-off government funding of $50 million to develop four national crime fighting systems5, including a ‘new’ NAFIS.6,7 CrimTrac’s ongoing operating costs were met from revenue collected from the provision of checking services such as NAFIS and police record checks and CrimTrac did not receive any budget funding.8
1.5 The Australian Crime Commission (ACC) was established in 2002 to collect intelligence to improve the national ability to respond to crime impacting Australia.9 As with CrimTrac, the ACC worked closely with state and territory law enforcement agencies. Both the CrimTrac and the ACC boards included state and territory police commissioners.
1.6 In October 2013, the government established a National Commission of Audit to ‘review and report on the performance, functions and roles of the Commonwealth Government’. Among the 86 3 NAFIS is a cross-jurisdictional finger and palm print database and matching system. 4 The Australian Federal Police (AFP) and the police forces of New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South
Australia, Western Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory. (Under an agreement between the Commonwealth and the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) Government, the AFP provides policing in the ACT.)
5 The IGA
Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers
Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.
Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?
Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.
We write plagiarism Free Content
Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.
Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.