ONLY BID IF YOU CAN COMPLETE WITH ACCUARCY AND ON TIME AND HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF PROJECT MANAGMENT The final is posted. It is available under instructor determined assessment. There are 3 cases, you chose two to respond to. The answer is expected as an essay answer around 500-700 words each as a guideline.
final_pm514__1_.doc
Unformatted Attachment Preview
PM 514
Project Management Program
Integration
Final Exam
The final is posted. It is available under instructor determined assessment. There
are 3 cases, you chose two to respond to. The answer is expected as an essay answer
around 500-700 words each as a guideline.
Clear grasp of major issues posed by the question
Valid arguments and appropriate supportive detail
Appropriate analysis, evaluation, and synthesis
Demonstrated ability to employ terms, concepts and
frames of reference from texts and other course
materials
Proper organization and logical flow of responses
20%
20%
20%
20%
TOTAL
Grading Criteria for Essay Questions on Examinations
100%
20%
Exam description:
• 3 Case Studies
o (you are required to respond to your choice of 2 of the 3)
• Cases are equally weighted.
• Your answers to these cases should reflect your knowledge of the
subject matter based on your texts, class lectures and class
discussions. What are your thoughts / interpretations? What did you
learn this term?
Case #1: Risk Management for a Major MIS Program
Company Background:
This large American corporation had been purchased twice within a 3-year period, with all
employees and assets included in the transaction. During the second takeover, many of the IT
staff members took positions with other firms in the area. The parent corporate MIS department
hired a new Chief Information Officer (CIO) to head the MIS organization. He in turn brought in
a new senior manager to assist in overseeing the MIS staff. Simultaneously, the corporate MIS
department hired someone from outside to be the CIO, but he was relegated to the position of
vice president (VP) of MIS at the division level.
Corporate Structure:
The corporate structure consisted of the parent corporation divided into several divisions. A chief
executive officer (CEO) and his staff headed each division. On each staff was a CIO who ran the
MIS department. At the parent level was an MIS department that set the overall strategy for the
divisions. The parent MIS department provided service professionals who were responsible for
help desk support, equipment configurations and installation, maintenance, systems support,
network support, creation of new user accounts, monitoring of software usage, and maintenance
of the MIS inventory. These professionals were assigned to a division full time but were paid and
evaluated by the parent MIS department.
At the division level, the CIO reported to the CEO and separated his organization into two major
departments:
1. The Software Development and Maintenance department was responsible for new
application software development and the maintenance and support of existing software
applications, training, and customer services (mini help desk). The new senior manager
of MIS, brought in by the CIO, headed this organization.
2. The Business Development and Technical Services department consisted of a consulting
organization, technical support and development, and business analysis. The VP of MIS
was brought in by the corporate managers who headed this department.
The CIO and his manager had no experience in this industry, whereas the VP of MIS came from
a similar company and had a vast amount of experience. Soon two distinct factions evolved
within the MIS staff, and the board of directors (BOD) became heavily entrenched in trying to
sort out which faction was pointing them in the right direction (Figure 22-1). The CIO did not
want his authority compromised and continued to ensure the board that all was well and on
schedule.
Figure 22-1: Organizational chart
Project Environment:
Corporate service professionals provided a variety of services to the division. During one period
of growth, while hiring some new contractors, a need arose for additional PCs. The division
argued that the services group should order new higher performing models to improve
productivity in the MIS area. When the new PCs arrived, the application development area
improved, but the greatest influence was how fast the user applications ran on the new hardware.
The users were brought in to see the improvements in response time and readily agreed to
purchase the newer models.
However, when MIS went to the service group to place the order for newer models, they were
told that inventory control practices for maintenance and spare parts prohibited purchase of
newer models until the corporate approval was given.
As new contractors and staff members came on board, they would set up their new accounts by
copying applications from the application database server. The support group would monitor the
number of licenses being used and, if the quota were exceeded, would deny access to the
software. The contractors were expensive to employ and were kept waiting until budgets,
approvals, and purchasing and license agreements were settled. This often took several days to
resolve.
Business & Technical Support Department:
The technical support organization was evaluating operating systems for future MIS applications
in the division. Windows Vista and a new version of Linux were among the candidates.
However, they were primarily interested in the technical aspects and seemed unconcerned with
the ramifications of software availability for these new operating systems. No transition plan
existed to migrate existing applications, nor was there availability of development software on
the new platform.
In the meantime, the consultants and business analysts were interfacing with the user
community, defining new applications to be built by the software development group. They
busily established project schedules and prioritized the development efforts. When the software
development group hesitated and pushed back the schedule because of personnel shortages,
chaos erupted in the user community.
Software Development and Maintenance Department:
This organization was under heavy user pressure. Peak periods were during the day when the
users were constrained to a specific amount of time to process their work. Failure to do so
resulted in extreme customer pressure and missed deadlines. The equipment supporting the
network was so outdated that the users began experiencing severe gridlock in the network. New
applications that were recently installed had to be halted, and the users had to go back to manual
or old methods of performing their work.
More chaos erupted, and everyone was fighting fires. Experiments were made with the router
hubs; the changes decreased performance and made the MIS department look as if they did not
know what they were doing. They reverted back to the old setup and promised to correct the
situation. To complicate matters, members of the MIS staff continued to break ranks, and soon
the contractors outnumbered the permanent staff. The lack of tenured staff members had
everyone fighting fires, rescheduling program and project implementations, and working
overtime. During this period of conflict, the CIO committed to the Board of Directors that a new
program, urgently required by one of the user groups, would be implemented on schedule and
within budget.
Program:
This program was initially set up using the new program management guidelines and predicted
an implementation schedule that would last 6 months. The integrated program schedule was
documented using Microsoft Project, in which fully loaded costs were used to determine
program costs. Figure 22-2 shows the program schedule, and Figure 22-3 outlines the program
costs.
The program schedule was reviewed with the CIO and his staff before presentation to the board.
Cost and schedule were reviewed, and it was determined that the cost savings would net a return
on investment (ROI) of approximately 35%. The program would pay for itself in less than 3
years. The total cost estimate was approximately $275,000. The program team consisted of a
program manager, team leader, consultant, business analyst, systems analyst, contract
programmers, MIS operations, and trainers. Not all members of the team were assigned full-time
responsibilities.
Program Execution:
The program started off well. Gathering data for the functional and technical requirements went
smoothly, and the user group was satisfied. The program team went right to work on the screen
design for the user interface and proceeded to change record structures to accommodate the new
data fields. The analysts and programmers were delighted with the new functionality that they
could provide to the users and eagerly showed everyone in the MIS department their progress.
The user group would have a vast array of options from which to choose, and this would enable
them to provide better service to the customer base. Trainers joined the team and proceeded with
the same vigor as the analysts and programmers. They developed an impressive training package
that showed that they were proud of their accomplishments. During this transition, the CIO was
reporting to the board that all was well and on schedule. The board members representing the
user groups took it for granted that the MIS was keeping their management abreast of the
program content as it progressed. However, they did not realize that the user group had little free
time to spend with their MIS counterparts. The program team thought that this was business as
usual and usually did not consult with the user group on screen layouts or option functionality.
Training was scheduled and started without any member of the user group having seen the new
screen designs or the “supposed” improvements in functionality. When the actual training
sessions began, the users were disappointed with the software. This vast array of options required
them to plod through several screens that were too time consuming. The user group wanted to
speed up the process so that more work could be done in shorter period of time and consequently
gain improvements in customer satisfaction.
Many problems faced the MIS organization. Some had to do with hardware and personnel
resources. Other problems arose out of politics and job security. The program was never
completed, and the software was not installed. The users flatly refused to accept it. The
functionality was not what the users wanted, and a software rewrite would take too long. More
important things were now the focus. The capital influence on ROI was about $375,000. More
importantly, the user community experienced staff increases and constant pressure as the
customer base increased along with the proportional workload.
User confidence in the MIS department had eroded, but a significant backlog of work still had to
be accomplished. Somehow, the MIS management structure remained in place, and they
continued to make promises they could not keep. The management and their staff continued to
spend significant amounts of money on contractors, consultants, and enabling technology that
did not blend into a coherent solution for the end-users.
Your Assignment:

Identify and categorize the risks in this case by their potential impact and likelihood of
occurring.

Develop a plan for managing the risks in this case.

Describe how you would communicate the potential impact of these risks to the Sr.
Leadership team in this case.
Case #2: The Case of the Inexperienced Project Manager
Jerry Cutler was a programmer for a multi-national firm based in London. He was about 35
years old at the time of this episode. Jerry had been with his employer for four years, and
although he had never completed his Project Management Professional certification, he was a
well respected and well paid technical employee.
Jerry became interested in the medical applications of equipment his company produced when a
friend was hospitalized. During that period, Jerry visited the hospital two or three times each
week. What started as short and casual conversations between Jerry and assorted nurses and
doctors eventually turned into serious and exciting explorations about important medical needs
and emerging technology that might meet those needs at a fraction of the cost of current
methods.
Because of these conversations, Jerry told both his boss and the company president that he would
like to meet with them about an important matter. At that meeting, he reported recent events at
the hospital and then presented rough specifications he had developed for a new piece of medical
equipment. The device was essentially a clever modification of one of his company’s existing
products, a product which was not then used for medical purposes.
Jerry’s bosses were impressed. They liked both the concept and Jerry’s enthusiasm. As a result,
about a week later they gave Jerry permission to allocate up to on-half of his time for the next
two months to work with the appropriate people in Engineering, Marketing, and Manufacturing
to develop a prototype of the product and a financial forecast of its economic viability.
Jerry began to work on his project with more enthusiasm than he had felt in years. And at first,
all went exceptionally well. He was able to get a number of other people in the firm interested in
the potential product. Furthermore, the initial market research suggested that a lucrative market
might indeed exist, a market in which there was no comparable product.
After a good start, however, Jerry began running into problems. At first the problems were
small, but nevertheless annoying and time consuming. For example, the Accounting Department
returned his expense report, which asked that a neighborhood high school student be paid fifty
dollars for spending a total of twelve hours helping Jerry do some metalworking in Jerry’s
basement shop. Jerry spent nearly half a day arguing with people in Accounting who maintained
that “Company policy requires that such requests be approved in advance by someone in Sr.
Management in the company.” Eventually Jerry’s boss, who was more than a little annoyed, had
to tell Accounting to pay the expense.
The problems grew more serious starting a month after the project began. One of the managers
within the Engineering Department called Jerry and told him that the engineer who was working
on his project was spending “far too much time” on it. Jerry was told that the engineer had other
priorities and deadlines. Another more junior engineer was assigned to help Jerry, but only for a
maximum of five hours a week. Jerry complained that the loss of continuity, experience, and
hours would really hurt the project. The engineering manager repeated that he was sorry and that
he could do nothing about it.
Jerry complained immediately to his boss, who replied in a somewhat angry tone that Jerry was
also spending too much time on the project. Jerry’s other responsibilities were being neglected,
he said. Jerry left the meeting predictably upset.
The situation worsened the next day. A telephone call informed Jerry that the person in
Manufacturing who was supposed to be estimating product costs for the new product was in New
York dealing with a small crisis in a plant. The caller was not sure when this person would
return, nor how much progress he had made on Jerry’s project. Jerry considered going to his
boss for help, but then decided that was probably not a good plan.
The next and most damaging incident came three days later. Jerry’s boss informed him that
someone in Marketing had redone the market potential analysis based on new data from the
Sales Department. The new forecast projected a market about one-fifth the size of the original
forecast, so they would have to stop investing time in the project.
Jerry was furious. After investing so much time and energy in the project, he was intellectually
convinced of its importance and was emotionally committed to it. Could the company be this
stupid, he wondered? Do I really want to work for a company that cannot see the value in such
ideas?
Later that week, Jerry resigned and went home. His boss called him two or three times the next
day, but Jerry refused to take the calls. It took him a week to get over his rage. It took another
six weeks to get a new job.
Shortly after Jerry started his new job, he received a call from an old friend still working for his
previous employer. Jerry’s friend related a story that was circulating among some of the people
there. The story went like this: An executive in the Sales Department learned of Jerry’s project
about three weeks before the project was terminated. According to the story, he instantly
disliked the idea, basically because selling the equipment would require knowledge of hospitals
and medical purchasing practices that his sales force did not have. So, according to the story, he
got one of his people to fabricate (make up) some false numbers that were very negative about
the market potential of the product Jerry was proposing. He sent those numbers to a marketing
executive, who was also a good friend, along with a note asking, “Why are we wasting research
on this project?”
Your Assignment:

You have been hired by Jerry to review his project and help him learn what he did wrong.

Outline at least 3 major project management principles that Jerry neglected to address in his
project. Use examples from the case to illustrate how neglecting these items caused Jerry’s
project to fail.

Describe for Jerry what he should have done at each major project management phase to
reduce the risk of his project being terminated. Use specific examples to show Jerry how
basic project management practices can be used to ensure his project is well endorsed, clearly
understood and supported throughout the organization, adequately planned and monitored,
and that risks and changes in the project environment are well managed.
Case #3 – Trouble in Paradise, a case study by Dr. Harold Kerzner
As a reward for becoming Acme Corporation’s first PMP, Acme assigned the new PMP, Wiley
Coyote, the leadership role of an important project in which the timing of the deliverables was
critical to the success of the project. A delay in the schedule could cost Acme a loss of at least
$100,000 per month. Wiley Coyote’s first responsibility as project manager was the preparation
of a solicitation package for the selection of an engineering contractor.
Eight companies prepared bids based on the solicitation package. Wiley Coyote decided to
negotiate with the low bidder, who happened to be at a significantly lower final cost than the
other bidders. The contractor’s project manager, Ima Roadrunner, would be handling the
negotiations for the contractor. This was a contractor that Wiley Coyote had never worked with
previously. Wiley Coyote reviewed the critical information in the proposal from the contractor:

All work would be accomplished by engineering

Total burdened labor was 2000 hours @ $120/hour

The duration of the project would be approximately 6 months, and completed in 2003
(labor rates might be different in 2004)

The contractor’s overhead rate applied was 150 % for engineering

All of the assigned workers would be at the same pay grade and would be assigned full
time for the duration of the project

Profit requested was 12.5 %, but subject to negotiations

Ima Roadrunner’s salary would be included in the overhead structure

No materials were required
During negotiations, Ima Roadrunner provided Wiley Coyote with the salary structure for
engineering, shown below in Exhibit 1
Wiley Coyote asked Ima Roadrunner for the timing (i.e. manpower curve) of when the resources
would be assigned. The result, provided by Ima Roadrunner, is shown below, in Exhibit 2, in the
format of an S-Curve that also shows the payment plan from the customer to the contractor.
The solicitation package identified the contract as a fixed price contract with penalties for late
delivery. Ima Roadrunner argued that the penalty clauses were unfair in their current wording
and that a higher pro …
Purchase answer to see full
attachment

Are you having trouble with the above assignment or one similar?

To date, 239 students have ordered this same assignment from us and received 100% original work. We can do the same for you!

We offers 100% original papers that are written from scratch.We also have a team of editors who check each paper for plagiarism before it is sent to you.

Click this “order now” button to see free Cost Breakdown!