PJM 6140 Midterm and Final Exam

PJM 6140 Midterm and Final Exam

Supporting Info – Notes from Instructor

To minimize confusion, when working on the project schedule, assume it is November 2, 2015 and you have just been hired as the new project manager on the Health Systems case. For the midterm: Once you have read all the files, I am sure you’d have discovered a number of problems with the case. My recommendation is to take some notes down as you go through the files a second time. Ask yourself: What seems out of place, what is not accurate, what is out of order? Once you are done with the notes, you can group them in order of the different requirements for the assignment. You can expand on each of your notes by synthesizing some of references from the weekly lectures and assigned material. This should help you put together a good audit report that addresses the necessary points. For the final: For assistance, recall each lesson from weeks 4-6. What did we cover in week 4? Any of the factors we discussed that apply to this case? What did we talk about in terms of re-scoping a troubled project? What about the re-estimation? What about the baseline? As you recall each of the lectures and the assigned reading material that you read, you will find that many of these apply to this case. Next, keep in mind that as with many troubled projects, available information is poor and somewhat unclear. The final exam case is designed purposefully with such unclear information. It is up to you, the project manager, to make reasonable assumptions, and to address the requirements of the assignment based on these stated assumptions. As a result, I expect that you will build from your specific recommendations in the midterm, and layout a course of action, based on these recommendations. Do you need to determine the correct date? Yes, there is a discrepancy in the information as to the final date, so you will need to make a determination which is correct and layout a plan that will meet the recommended date. The plan should be logical and based on improvements to the project schedule. For this work, you do not need to create new requirements. Though this would need to be done, this is not a business analysis course, or a system design course. This is a course on recovering troubled projects and your role is that of the recovering project manager. You can reuse the existing requirements, but indicate in your paper if some requirements are missing and how you plan to address such gap.

Same with the requirements traceability matrix, but you will need to indicate the issues that you uncovered with the requirements and how you plan to address these based on the lessons we covered in the course. Should the project be terminated? No. I expect that you will make a recommendation for recovery and explain how you will recover the project. Hope this information helps. If you still have additional questions, please post them in the Q/A forum so that all of your classmates can benefit from any further clarifications.

Project Audit Report

Abstract: The Project was to deliver Customer functionality within four to seven months of inception (October 2000). The project was unable to meet that deadline and an audit was requested. This document presents the findings of that audit.

Author: Todd C. Williams Date: 18-Nov-2000 Revision: 1.3.2 Pages: 8 Status: Released

Table of Contents Table of Tables ii 1 General 1 1.1 Purpose 1 1.2 Scope 1 2 Audit Results 1 2.1 Background 1 2.2 Summary of Findings 3 2.2.1 Lack of Customer 3 2.2.1.1 Customer Representation 3 2.2.1.2 Data Entry Bias 3 2.2.1.3 Drift From A Customer To Data Entry Focus 3 2.2.2 Decisions 3 2.2.2.1 Definition Team Leadership 4 2.2.2.2 Lack of Customer Meant No Decision Maker 4 2.2.2.3 Team Members Going Around Management 4 2.2.3 Lack of Interest 4 2.2.3.1 Business Lack of Involvement 4 2.2.3.2 Dead product 4 2.2.3.3 PMO/Program Focused On Other Issues. 5 2.2.3.4 Hands-off Approach By The Project Manager 5 3 Detail 5 3.1 Lack of Customer 5 3.2 Decisions 7 3.3 Dysfunctional Project Management Structure 7 3.3.1 Stakeholder Involvement 7 3.3.1.1 Data Entry 7 3.3.1.2 Sales/Customer 8 3.3.2 Project Team Structure 8 3.3.3 Project Oversight 8 4 Requirements Prior to Proceeding 9 4.1 Failed Project 9 4.2 Reset Project and Role Definition Project Personnel 9 4.3 Accelerated Schedule Will Be High Risk 9 4.4 Define Decision Authority 10 5 Appendices 10 5.1 Appendix A – Individuals interviewed 10 Table of Tables Table 1 – Objectives Removed from the Audit 3

Reference Documents Document Name Revision Date Project Vision V1.1 July 10, 2000 Steering Team Presentation deck

N/A March 22, 2000

Steering Team Presentation deck

N/A March 31, 2000

1 General 1.1 Purpose The purpose of the document is to present the findings of the project audit. 1.2 Scope This document identifies the major problems with Project Definition, Project Management, stakeholder roles in relation to the project and items to fix prior to continuing the project. It does not address other, potentially significant, risk in running the project nor does it make a recommendation on whether the project should continue or whether it will be successful even with these problems corrected. 2 Audit Results 2.1 Background Corporate PMO requested an audit of the project in order to determine the source of significant schedule slides. At its inception, this project was one of a few select projects identified as being simple enough to proceed through definition, development and delivery in calendar year 2000. These projects were identified in late March 2000 and needed to be implemented prior to Q3 2000 requiring a six-month cycle for the project. In August, the Project Manager informed the PMO and the business that the requirements phase would complete in April 2001 and they were unable to provide an estimate on the delivery date. The Recovery Guidelines for the audit were to:

1. Determine the root cause for the projected slide in the requirement phase. 2. Determine if the people associated with project had the correct skill set. 3. Determine if the team was executing the corporate methodology correctly. 4. Determine if the proposed go-forward plan was viable. 5. Assess the proposed re-scope options to determine if they were sensible. 6. Define success criteria for the project.

In order to expedite the audit and move the project forward, the audit was restricted to:

1. Determine the root cause for the projected slide in the requirements phase. 2. Determine if the people associated with project had the correct skill set. 3. Determine if the proposed go-forward plan was viable. 4. Define requirements to proceed with the project.

Table 1 addresses the removed items. Item Method of addressing Determine if the corporate methodology was being executed correctly.

The corporate methodology was not being followed. The team was redirected to follow a process to fit inside that generic framework.

Assess the proposed re-scope options to determine if they are sensible.

The team was re-directed prior to completion of the audit to an option outside the PCR. A new PCR will be submitted.

Define success criteria for the project. The business must address this rather than the project team. Hence, it was changed to “Define requirements that must be met prior to proceeding with the project.”

Table 1 – Objectives Removed from the Audit 2.2 Summary of Findings 2.2.1 Lack of Customer 2.2.1.1 Customer Representation The Project Vision document clearly defines the Company’s customer as the customer for this project. Data Entry is noted as a secondary benefactor from functionality

provided to the Company’s customer. The business advisory team is composed of Data Entry Subject Matter Experts (SME) and Business Analysts (BA). This changes the focus of the project at the lower level (BA-level) but the project management level remains focused on the Company’s customer. Since the Data Entry centric Business Analysts are in conflict with the project management team, they chose to solicit support from executives in the Data Entry organization. This is allowed to proceed by the Data Entry executive. Any form of scope control is useless due to this lack of command and control. 2.2.1.2 Data Entry Bias The definition team members are mostly from the Data Entry group and are led by two people, a business analyst from Data Entry (the lead) and another from Sales (a part- time analyst). It is unapparent who has the actual authority, but the lead from Data entry does not believe he has the authority. 2.2.1.3 Drift From A Customer To Data Entry Focus Using the Project Vision document (the only known written source of project objectives), the Company’s customer is the customer of the project. This focus has shifted over the life of the project. There are a number of contributing factors to exacerbate this drift in scope. Two are worth noting:

1. Business Analysts (BA) and Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) are all from Data Entry and are unaware of the immediate needs of the Company’s customer. An advisory team composed of the Company’s customer is missing and needs to be formed.

2. Since this project is tactical and there will be no follow-on maintenance, the attitude of many team members is “If the project is unable to built features into the system on this release, they will never be provided.” This attitude created an atmosphere of asking for everything.

The result of this is that the project started with a vision that “What is good for the Company’s customer is good for Data Entry” and changed to “What is good for Data Entry is good for Customer.” Both statements are true, but the latter increases scope. 2.2.2 Decisions The definition team, often referred to as the Business Analysts (BA), is actually a team that consists primarily of Subject Matter Experts (SMEs). The primary difference between these to qualifications is business domain knowledge. An SME has narrower domain knowledge. The lack of experience of the definition team creates a void of experience in negotiating scope and limiting other team member’s requests. No one can prioritize or break a tie within the definition team. Essentially, the people are empowered but have no leadership and, therefore, they cannot make a scope decision. 2.2.2.1 Definition Team Leadership The definition team is missing leadership and the Project Manager appears uninvolved and powerless to change that. Even when people are removed from the project, they continued to exert pressure on the project through direct contact with the team or executives to apply external pressure on the project. 2.2.2.2 Lack of Customer Meant No Decision Maker During audit interviews, one question was always asked consistently—Who is the customer? There are four answers to this question—the Company’s customer, Data Entry, both and unsure. There is no pattern to this answer. Senior management is inconsistent in their response as well as the project team. Without having a defined customer, there is no litmus test for what is in or out of scope. 2.2.2.3 Team Members Going Around Management At least one manager (that is admittedly not the project sponsor) is blind copied on project information and indicates she receives regular updates from the definition team (bypassing the Project Manager) on the direction of the project. This is framed as being given to the manager “to protect her best interest.” This manager passively

provides input that directs the definition team without knowledge of the Project Manager. 2.2.3 Lack of Interest 2.2.3.1 Business Lack of Involvement During the audit process, the Vice Presidents in charge of Sales and Data Entry were interviewed. It is apparent that there is significant lack of involvement of the managers. Neither considered themselves providing the function as the sponsor of the project. Sales (the key representative of the Company’s customer) was uninvolved with the project until late August. None of the Data Entry executives feel they are the sponsor, but are very involved in an indirect manner. 2.2.3.2 Dead product Many team members are under the impression that this product is being built as a stopgap; the term “dead product” is often used. The result is two different negative attributes for the project.

1. The definition team (secondary users of the product) has the attitude that if they are unable to build in everything they want in this release, they will never get built.

2. Some people lost interest since it is a throwaway system—building something that will be quickly thrown away decreases the enthusiasm of the team.

2.2.3.3 PMO/Program Focused On Other Issues The number of projects handled by the PMO/Program created a distraction and it appears that the project and project manager are unmonitored and the project is allowed to follow its own “free path.” The program focus appears to be on the strategic projects. 2.2.3.4 Hands-off Approach by The Project Manager The Project Manager runs the project with a very hands-off approach. He relies solely on the leads (referred to as the core team) to provide his contact with the teams within the project. The team members interpret this as lack of interest. 3 Detail Following are a series of observations that were used in compiling the summary. They are listed to provide a background for the report. The audit discovered numerous problems. Three of these items are considered major contributors to the failure. Short-term tactical nature of the project has little effect on the project. The issues found would be damaging to any project. The problems are amplified by the four to seven month delivery target. 3.1 Lack of Customer Critical to delivering any project is clear identification of the customer and of the definition of the project objective. The group of people that will use the system is the customer. If there are multiple groups with different objectives, priorities must be set to identify the sub-group that should have the focus. The more diverse the customer base, the wider the scope and the higher the risk for the project. A conflict, therefore, exists between meeting the needs of a wider customer base and completing the project in a short timeframe. During the audit, it was clear that there was significant confusion on which group was the project’s customer. Depending on who was asked, the customer was defined as Sales, Data Entry, the company’s customer or a combination. This lack of concise definition broadened the scope of the project and obscured the prioritization. Although the general functional requirements of the Data Entry Group and the company’s customer are similar, the Data Entry group requires handling of a number of special cases. Adding Data Entry to the set of customers:

1. Increased the scope of the project; 2. De-focused the objective of the project;

3. Obfuscated the prioritization of the requirements; 4. Decreased the options for accelerating the project.

3.2 Decisions Decision processes in the project are broken. This appears to come from a wide variety of issues and indicates multiple problems in the organizations. The following were the primary problems:

1. Ultimately, the owner of the system (the group paying for the system) is the group to make decisions on the scope. Neither the customer nor owner is defined. Without either of these, the ability to get a decision on what to build is impossible.

2. The project structure is a team-of-teams. This is supposed to enable each team (definition, development and QA) to make their own decisions; but since there is a lack of definition on the objectives, there is insufficient information for this to work. Nearly all decisions are escalated.

3. Scoping decisions are left open since the vision of the project (based on the Project Vision document) is to meet the needs of customers, but the focus of the definition team was Data Entry. This creates a conflict in the objective of the project.

4. The definition team members are titled Business Analysts (BA) but are actually Subject Matter Experts (SME). They lack an understanding of the general business scope inhibiting their ability to make decisions on what is most important to the Customer.

3.3 Dysfunctional Project Management Structure For the purposes of this document, project management structure is considered:

1. The Project Sponsor; 2. Project management oversight; 3. The project team structure.

All levels of the project management structure had considerable problems that contributed to the failure of the project. 3.3.1 Stakeholder Involvement Although there is a team of people from the business unit involved in the project, there is no direct Project Sponsor involvement. Stakeholder representation from the Sales group was absent until August, and the Data Entry stakeholders feels they had no direct involvement. 3.3.1.1 Data Entry The Data Entry group has plenty of representation since the definition team consists primarily of Data Entry personnel, but is lacking sanctioned input from the Data Entry stakeholder. The interactions with this stakeholder are most politely termed as inappropriate. Information purposely flows from the definition team to the Data Entry executive around the project manager—an action that might be better termed as subversive. This is done, as termed by one of the team members, because “the project manager did is ignorant of the business.” The Data Entry stakeholder encouraged the covert flow of information. 3.3.1.2 Sales/Customer The company’s customer is represented by a single person from the Sales group but she has insufficient input from the Sales group as a whole and no input directly from the company’s customer. The Sales stakeholder started participating in August 2000. 3.3.2 Project Team Structure The structure of the project is a team-of-teams. Although this structure is acceptable, it requires that each team lead is accustomed to the role and focused on being a manager. None of the team leaders have the experience of working in such a structure. At least one lead is notably struggling with the workload; another is lacking respect (hence no authority) since the team does feel the lead is missing business

experience. This structure slows the progress and creates animosity in the team resulting in Business Analysts going around the project management structure and getting decisions overridden. The business unit neither stops this process nor brings it to the attention of the Project Manager. The Project Manager empowers and trusts the individual team leads to guide their teams properly, but has failed to verify the team-of-teams concept is working. He should have verified the progress and attitude of the team. He is hands-off and out of touch with the team. The Project Manager is ultimately responsible for the function of the project team and should have highlighted the problems to management. The Project Manager fails as the safeguard to alert management. 3.3.3 Project Oversight It is the Project Manager’s responsibility to identify and escalate the problems on the project. It is the responsibility of the PMO and Program to provide project oversight to ensure the project is progressing. As with the Project Manager, the Program Management Organization has no involvement with the project and was unable to see the failure coming. To use an airline analogy, the pilot of any airplane is responsible for completing a walk-around of the plane. This is to identify any obvious issues that the maintenance teams might have overlooked. In this process, the pilot sees the state of the aircraft and the state of the team maintaining the aircraft. This concept is used by many managers to get a feel for the progress of their teams and interactions between them. Speaking only for this project, this process was entirely missing from the project management structure. Although the genesis of this behavior is not fully understood, it is likely rooted in the short-term, tactical nature of the project and their focus on more strategic issues. 4 Requirements Prior to Proceeding In order to continue with the project, a variety of issues must be resolved. Define the project customer. The customer must a homogenous group with similar simple needs. Without this, complexity and scope will increase. This group ultimately confirms the value of features to be implemented. Since this is currently lacking from the project, an assumption must be made prior to completing these recommendations. Therefore, the following requirements are based on this assumed objective: The Project is a short-term project that provides value to the Company’s customer in maintaining their data using a web-based payment, client maintenance and billing tool. The project will determine the functionality to be delivered based on achieving beneficial functionality in the shortest time possible. The first delivery should be within six-months of project restart. Follow-on functionality will be delivered in subsequent releases. The measurable goal of the project will be to provide functionality to the Customer that will increase the use of the web-based system. 4.1 Failed Project Because the project has been misguided and there is a significant negative view crippling the project, it will have difficulty proceeding. Lack of interest will be amplified since it is tagged as a failed project. Public condemnation of the project must stop. 4.2 Reset Project and Role Definition Project Personnel The project will need to be reset; the lack of direction, customer and sponsor must be resolved. This must be achieved at the business executive level. A single sponsor must be identified; all requirements, guidance and decision making must be the responsibility of that person. The Project Manager must approve scope as being tactical in nature, focused on the Company’s customer and achievable in a short timeframe. Any actions to circumvent the sponsor or the Project Manager must be stopped. Currently, the project team has failed to align with the business. One of the first tasks

must be alignment and approval of objectives. 4.3 Accelerated Schedule Will Be High Risk The original schedule for delivering functionality in four to seven months was a gross underestimation of the time required to deliver functionality. This appears to continue to be the case. There are at least nine calendar months of work required prior to deployment, significantly over the seven-month goal stated six months ago. Attempting to accelerate the schedule further will increase the risk, which is already high. 4.4 Define Decision Authority Scope must be contained. Based on the assumptions made above, decisions to limit the number of business rule validations or editable fields must be made to limit the work and focus the team on the delivery. These decisions will need to focus on the most important functions to the Customer to increase their usage of the system. Functions beneficial to Data Entry may be de-prioritized in order to maintain schedule. The trade-off will be the responsibility of the Project Manager and the sponsor. 5 Appendices 5.1 Appendix A – Individuals interviewed Name Role QA Team Lead Director IT Project Office Analyst team member Program Manager VP Sales Analyst team member Definition Team Lead QA Team Past Analyst team member Analyst team Program Executive Enterprise Arch Lead-Solutions Project Manager Sr. VP VP Information Technology Development Team Lead VP Data Entry

Work Breakdown Structure Sheet Example The following is a completed Work Breakdown Structure page from a proposal. For more information on its use, refer to Error! Reference source not found.. A template for this may be found on the Back From Red Website (http://Error! Reference source not found.).

1. WBS Number: 3.3 Functional Specifications and ATS Description of Task: Develop Functional Specifications and Acceptance Test Scripts for the systems to be developed and/or purchased to fulfill Customer requirements. The preliminary list of systems be specified are: Automatic Data Collection Metrology Process Test Online Statistical Process Control Material Control System Interface

1. WBS Number: 3.3 Functional Specifications and ATS Recipe Management System Advanced Scheduling/Planning System ERP Interface Tester Server Systems MES Expanded Services Costing System Serial Number Tracking, Components to Higher Level Assembly Internet Interface Document System Customer Order Tracking Document Management System Palm Pilot Interface Shop Floor Document Hypertext System Deliverables: Functional Specification and Acceptance Test Script for each major item listed above. Dependencies: Requirements Definition Complete. Assumptions: Systems for the new fabrication unit are designed and understood. Responsible Customer parties have been assigned and are accessible for reviews of documents. Exit Criteria: Approved Functional Specifications and Acceptance Test Script. Task Owner: Supplier Sample Change Request Form The following is an example of filled out a change request form. For more information on its use, refer to Error! Reference source not found.. A template for this form and a complete Change Management process may be found on the Back From Red website (http:// Error! Reference source not found.). Change Management Request (CMR) Form CR# 44 PROJECT: ___SemiMan MES Implementation_________ INITIATION CR #: 44 Initiated by: Todd Williams Date: 21-Aug-1997 Type:

Design Application Database Documentation Other

Client Req: Yes No

Priority: High Medium Low

Category: Error Enhncmnt Other:

Scope Change:

Yes No

Short Description of Issue:(10 words or less): Additional definition of Alarm Manager input required for proper correlation of information Detailed Description of Issue (Include attachment if necessary):

1. Subsystems are missing a method of generating a predictable Alarm Manager action result. For instance if the Subsystem needs an ACK message, it requires a predefined Alarm_ID to do this.

2. Additional definition of sub-system message mapping to Alarm Table Alarm ID is required to allow translation of the subsystem alarm to an Alarm_ID.

3. Replaceable parameters in messages need to be predictable and defined. A better method is required to provide basic system functionality.

4. Message logging should be based on the more than the Alarm table configuration. Message content should be added to the log to ensure that all relavent data is retained.

INVESTIGATION/RECOMMENDATION Assigned to:

Claude Billings Date assigne d:

8/19/97 Projected completion:

8/19/97

Solution Architect Approval:

Signature:

Findings of Investigation (Include attachment if necessary): 1. Alarm ranges are to be further defined in the architecture document and a

specified range will be reserved for subsystem use. 2. Subsystems must have the capability of mapping the subsystem message to

alarms in the Alarm Manager. 3. Definition of three primary positional parameter values (InputParameter,

OriginalAlarmID, OriginalAlarmText) should be standardized and should have a method that allows for identifying the parameters.

4. All parameters and the associated names should be written to the MESSAGE log files as shown below. Refer to CR #43.

a. Parameter List: {“EquipmentID”, “OriginalAlarmID”, “OriginalAlarmText”,…,“NAMEn”}.

b. Parameter Name List: {“Eqpt1”, “10.25”, “Actuator failure”,…,“VALUEn”}.

IMPACT: Estimated time to complete:

70 hours Date to be completed:

9/30/97

Cost: $5,800 Schedule Impact: None Documents Affected: Alarm Manager Design Specification EI-Host Message Set SemiMan Systems Architecture Comments: Coding will need to be changed in the GUI/RetManager, GUI/EIManager, GUI/MES, GUI/PODS, GUI/Batch, GUI/Lot Reservation, GUI/Carrier management, EI, EIM/RMS and Sorter. The Alarm manager must be modified to reflect the added data. Each sub-system responsible party must compile a list of errors generated and determine the criticality of these messages as relates to the Alarm Manager. This list will need to be reviewed by SemiMan for finalization. The final list will be loaded into a sub-system table to be used for the mapping. SemiMan must maintain the Alarms Table data

PJM 6140– Managing Troubled Projects – Week 3: Individual Assignment – Midterm

Overview and Rationale

In order to demonstrate proficiency with the content in this course we will complete a number of different assignments to validate your learning – and allow you to implement relevant practices a real-world setting.

PJM 6140 Learning Outcomes

This assignment aligns with the following learning outcomes

• Demonstrate an

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.

Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS

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.