Advanced Project Review & Project Plan - Assignment Example

Name : xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Tutor :xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Title : Project Management Institution : xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Date :xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx @ 2013 Advanced Project Review & Project Plan Question 1: Appropriate methodologies and concepts A critical review of the organization in the case study can be done to ensure that there is the best organizational structure, job descriptions, and flow of work, compensation and work processes. The organization should therefore display efficiency, morale and effectiveness in its operations. In the organization the review is critical (Knutson, & Bitz, 1991, pp. 43). Organizational reviews may be done through various methodologies such as informal reviews, internal formal reviews or external formal reviews. In an informal review the department is tasked with the responsibility of assessing their own structure before presenting their recommended structure to the Human Resources generalist so that he can give feedback and help to implement that feedback. In an internal formal review the Human Resources need to be involved a lot. It should take three months and the steps outlined below must be followed. The first step is requesting an organizational review whereby a department, senior officer or division sees the need and requests the COS director for a review. The next step is for designing the review team for the organization. An organizational review team is made of the members of the compensation and organizational services as well as the Human Resources Generalist responsible for the department. In the pre-work stage the organizational review team holds a meeting with the client to deliberate on the scope and the review guiding principles. The review team of the organization makes the timeline, the surveys, the interview questions and the communications. The client reviews then edits and does the approval of materials (Haugan 2006, pp. 30). In launching the review the client has to meet the directly affected staff to talk about the review and provide answers to questions being asked. If need be, the review team can attend. The client has to send formal communication to the identified groups (Kousholt 2007, pp. 56). The organization review team also sends communication to the identified groups such as direct and indirectly affected staff and the faculty. Data collection may be done through interviews with the staff members, reaction surveys, focus group meetings, bench marking, review of important reports and websites, review of job descriptions, interviews with experts of subject matter, shadowing of employees and collecting data on market and internal salaries. The next stage is the development of report findings and recommendations whereby the review team of the organization makes and provides a draft of their report to the customer detailing the various options and models, recommendations for process improvement, management and communication and the training needs of the organization (Knutson, Bitz, 1991, pp. 38). The client and the subset of the organizational review team meet to discuss the report and its recommendations. Finally there is communications and implementation whereby the client determines the recommendations will be implemented in the short term, long term and near term before holding discussions with the senior officer. The review team of the organization and the concerned Human Resource specialists help in implementing and communicating and the report is shared with employee relations, employment, learning and professional development incase there is need for more assistance in the implementation. The concepts of organizational review include environmental analysis, organizational internal analysis, and value of systematic internal assessment and identification of strategic factors (Field, Laurie & Keller 1998, pp. 27). Environmental analysis Through environmental analysis one should monitor the governmental, economic geographic, competitive, legal, market, supplier and socio-cultural setting of the organization to determine the threats and opportunities it has. In an environmental diagnosis there are managerial decisions that strategists make to help them analyze the importance of data such as weaknesses, strengths, threats and opportunities for the organization which it needs to make its own strategy for the formulation, execution and controlling the internal factors within the organization. Environmental analysis is important to the manager and strategic executive in the diagnosis of the strategic competitive force and strategic management components (Kloppenborg, 2011, pp. 40). Organizational internal analysis The internal analysis of the organization makes it possible for a good profile to be made for organization. It has to do with tradeoff, judgments for value system, and a standardized analysis. The organization’s internal analysis should identify the strengths, opportunities, weaknesses and threats that come with the strategy of the organization. The analysis of the organization identifies the best strategy which is based on SWOT analysis. Internal analysis is done through the identification of the main internal factors such as value system, objectives and the mission, nature and structure of management, integrated power relationship, human resources, the image of the organization and brand equity, technological power, physical assets, financial resource factors and marketing resource. These factors should be evaluated (Padgett 2009, pp. 92). For purposes of reviewing the project, the organization may use a new technique called PERT. This technique recognizes that there are three factors that affect the realization of good research and project development objectives such as specifications of technical performance, resources and time. PERT considers time as that variable that represents planned resources applications and specifications for performance. With the common denominator being the time units PERT helps to quantify knowledge about the various uncertainties found in developmental programs that need effort when current knowledge about the subject applies no more. Via a computer the PERT method is used to process data that reflects the main clear accomplishments that are important to attaining end objectives, the relationship between those events and the approximation and range of time required to finish each activity between two consecutive activities (Charvat 2003, pp. 29). These time expectations may include the approximations of most likely time, optimistic time and the pessimistic time for every activity. This technique is a tool for management control that helps provide estimations for attaining objectives in time. It shows danger signals that need management decisions; it reveals and identifies slack and criticalness in the flow plan and sequential activities that should be done to achieve the objectives. It also compares the existing expectations with planned dates of completion and it also computes the likelihood of meeting planned dates. It also simulates the effects of options for every decision before another. Stakeholder Mapping Stakeholder mapping is a process involving debate, research, and discussion that originates in many different perspectives to agree on a major list of stakeholders. Mapping in the Scottish Qualifications authority was supposed to be done through identification, analysis, mapping and the prioritization of stake holders and issue identification (Haugan 2006, pp. 61). Identification In this first step the organization should know that there exists no magic list with names of stakeholders. The final list is determined by the organizational impacts and the present objectives of engagement. Therefore, it should not be static.  Diagram for stakeholder mapping As the environment around the organization changes, the list also changes. This also happens as stakeholders alter their views or make decisions (Vergopia 2008, pp. 114). Analysis Once the organization identifies the stakeholder list, it goes ahead to do an analysis which then shows the relevance and the perspectives being offered helps to understand the relationship between the stakeholders and their issues and to make priorities depending on their usefulness. In analyzing the stakeholders, the organization looks at their contribution or value to reveal if they have information, advice or expertise on the particular issue which could help the company. They also look for legitimacy among the stakeholders and how legitimate their desire for engagement is. The influence of the stakeholder is also checked and which group of people is under that influence. They may be NGOs, other organizations, investors or consumers. Finally they check for necessity of involvement. They need to know if the person to be engaged will make the process illegitimate if he was not part of the engagement. Stakeholders should be prioritized and issues identified. The organization does not engage with all the groups of stakeholders with the same amount of commitment every other time. The organization tries to save money and time by being strategic about the people it is engaging with. Form here they then move to the preparation of engagement goals, format and tactics. The final steps are 3 and 4 which include planning or preparation and engagement. For the organization to prepare for engagement, it makes a deep examination of the stakeholders to know their interests, views and positions (Padgett 2009, pp. 89). Having gotten this understanding, the organization is able to frame and lead the engagement process to anticipate the stakeholder needs. Through planning and engagement the organization gets to know how a line the engagement method to the issue and to the particular stakeholder bearing in mind the formality level, ease, and the risks related to the different methods of engagement.  Project management Vs General Management In the Scottish Qualifications Authority, there is an overlap between general management and project management. The General Manager benefits from the things that the project manager does (Haugan 2006, pp. 117). The project manager only does some few particular things that are limited to projects. In most ways in the organization the distinction is not pronounced. The General Manager uses project management techniques in various situations. For instance in Human Resources where the job is to develop people the manager applies project structures and concepts. The General Manager is responsible for defining clear deliverables, timelines, criteria for acceptance and progress reporting among others. In the same way the project manager employs those skills that are not limited to project management. These skills include influencing and political skills. The overlap between the two is very much evident when it comes to management skills. The most evident distinction may only arise on the side of leadership as some people may argue. However, in the SQA this may not be the case (Hillson, & Simon 2007, pp. 29). There are managers in the project and general roles that have no leadership qualities while others have great leadership. There are managers who lack management skills while others have them. The best managers in the two contexts should have good skills of management and good leadership behavior. The greatest distinction between project and general managers is the size of responsibilities they carry (Vergopia 2008, pp. 78). The project manager makes things happen. The project manager limits scope to a point where he can identify and measure success and therefore enhance the probability of the success of the project. The project manager has no business of wanting to know whether the project is the best use of resources in line with the objectives and strategy of the organization. On the other hand the General Manager determines what things should look like. The distinction is still an issue of degree (Charvat 2003, pp. 91). The project manager may influence the strategic and deliberate project portfolio. The General Manager thinks about the possibility of things being done. In certain situations the project manager may be tasked with the role of defining projects with deliverables that can be properly measured within a specified amount of time. Project life cycle  A diagram showing the life cycle of a project The Scottish Qualifications Authority project passes through a life cycle that begins at the inception of the project or initiation until the project is closed down. However, project implementers must realize that all projects do not make it to completion. The project has the following characteristics in its life cycle (Reid 1999, pp. 66). There is always the future or the opportunity whereby the opportunity is identified but there is not team that is defining the opportunity. The project has already been put on a list of potential projects. At the project definition the sponsor of the project accepts to provide funds for the project. At this time a team has been tasked to define the project and draft the proposal. An accounting code is then created to track the time used in the definition of the project during the effort of defining solutions (Nagarajan 2004, pp. 27). The team to be used must be a limited one and the deliverable coming from this phase is the project proposal. There is no analysis in this phase, design and making of documents apart from what is needed to propose the work. A proposal is then made and presented to the sponsor of the project to be approved. The proposal should have a date of expiry and the dates of the starting of the project. This is only 2 weeks after approval. When resources are identified it is important to realize that the resources may not be used in the project if the project exceeds the set time frame. What follows is that the sponsor of the project approves the proposal to the project. The process of project definition and the setting of the priority for the project have started. When the priority and team are set the plan for the beginning of the project is done (Lock 2007, pp. 67). The project is then in progress when a team starts working on it. There should be reports on the weekly status of the project. An official change control process is used to keep records of the changes made on the project charter which include the scope, timeline and budget. At the level of completeness, the project has already been delivered and no body has remained working on it. The code of the project has also been closed and the final invoice has been sent. The outcome of the project is in its production and the control of the remaining support. The next phase is “cancelled” whereby the project can be stopped briefly, cancelled or rejected (Kloppenborg 2011). This can happen at any stage in the project life cycle. Apart from the above characteristics there are four official stages in the life cycle of the project. Initiation: This is the stage where the project is started up through the documentation of a business case, doing the feasibility study, setting the terms of reference, identifying the office for the project and appointing a team. Project initiation is always the very first stage of any project. The initiation process involves the definition of the purpose of that project, its scope, justifying its initiation and the solutions that must be implemented. At this stage there is always the need to hire a properly skilled project team, and carrying out an end of phase review. Planning: This is the process through which the project roadmap is set. This is achieved through the creation of the plans below. They include the project plan, the resources plan, the financial plan, acceptance plan, the communication and the quality plan (Kousholt 2007, pp. 49). Implementation/execution: Implementation has to do with the building of deliverables and the control of the project delivery process, the quality, scope, issues and risks. Closure: This is the process of closing down the project by letting go of staff, giving out deliverables to the client and finalizing a post execution review. Project plan dossier Scope Statement In the year 2000, the Scottish Qualification Authority the major began the project of developing a fairer system for pupils following the failure of some pupils to receive their examination certificates. The need for a reform in the education system began with the Howle report which made recommendations to that effect (Murch, 2001, pp. 18) The Scottish government took the recommendations of the report positively converted them into the first strategic decision. The second strategic decision was named Higher Still. The new education system was supposed to cover both vocational and academic education for pupils of all ages from age sixteen onwards. The Scottish Qualifications Authority had project deliverables as below. It was supposed to merge the data sets currently available in the SCOTVEB and the SEB. It also had to do the design, development and implementation of an information system for processing the new qualification. Another deliverable was to give training to schools so that they can be able to teach the new qualification. Finally it had to ensure the delivery of the examinations of 1998 and 1999 as normal by the use of legacy systems (Field, Laurie & Keller 1998, pp. 77). The time table that led to the formation of the SQA and goal delivery was as below. In 1994, the Scottish Education Department announced Higher Still. In 1995, the Secretary of State for Scotland announced that there will be a one year delay in the execution to allow for more time to colleges, schools and the program of development. In the same year the Secretary of State also launched a consultation on the organization that could have run Higher Still (Choudhury, 1988, pp. 32). In 1996, the Secretary of State announced that the implementation would delay for another one year. In 1997 April, Scottish Qualifications Authority was formed. It got about 300 members of staff in Glasgow and another 200 members in Dalkeith. The highest priority in this year was to integrate these two groups of staff members. In 1999, Higher Still began courses in schools and colleges. The year 2000, saw the first examinations of Higher Still. In the same year, issues about certificate issuance affected 2.7% of the results and about 17,000 candidates (Haugan 2006, pp. 53). The Scottish Qualifications Authority project was initiated to bring about better standards in the education system so that pupils could have fair services. This came in the wake of the failure of some pupils to get their certificates. The project was necessary in order to implement the outcome of the Howle report which looked into the secondary education system and recommended a fairer education system for Scottish pupils (Field, Laurie & Keller 1998, pp. 13). The major objectives of the project were to bring together all the sets of data available in the SCOTVEC and SEB (Kloppenborg 2011, pp. 89). Another objective was to do the design, development and implementation of the information system to be used in processing the new qualification. The project was also expected to provide training to schools on how it could teach the new qualification to pupils. It was also expected to bring about the delivery of the 1998 and 199 examinations in a normal way by the use of available systems of legacy. The SQA project was supposed to produce certain products. Among these products and services was the “Higher Still”. It also had to do the implementation of a new information system known as the awards Processing System to be used in processing the new qualification. The constraints to the project included the problem with data processing because there were not enough markers (Hillson, Simon 2007, pp. 43). However, whenever the packets were located the forms were obtained from the shelves and taken for processing. The problem could not be identified easily because there was no MIS. However, proper checking was done to retrieve all the missing marks data. Another problem arose in the area of governance. The management board was not served with any information about management and therefore they were forced to depend on the SQA in order top receive information. Because the APS project had delayed, the senior managers themselves also lacked information. Therefore they were unable to inform the board about the hardships they had encountered (Field, Laurie & Keller 1998, pp. 130). Another problem that a rose was that certificates could not be issued at the right time. Therefore the solution was to issue late but accurate certificates instead of those that are on time but inaccurate. Organization structure The Scottish Qualifications Authority was led by a management board which is headed by a chairman. Above this board is the Senior Management Team. The management board represents schools, colleges, employers, training organizations and educational authorities. It was created to bring expertise and experience from other organizations to SQA and therefore contribute to organizational management (Lock 2007, pp. 71). Figure 1: SQA Organizational Chart Both SCOTVEC and SEB were comprised of a total of 11 senior managers in 1990 and 9 in 1996. There was no director with IT knowledge although the SQA had to take part in an IT development. The SQA had a Chief Executive Officer who was appointed in 1997. The finance and services department had a director same to the IT department. The Finance, Planning and General purposes Committee was crafted to take care of the appointments of directors (Vergopia 2008, pp. 43). In 1998 the personnel of the two companies were merged. The Chief Executive Officer appointed all six of the former directors from the SEB and SCOTVEC who had not gone for early retirement. A B C D E Figure 2: A typical organogram or organizational chart The Chief Executive Officer is answerable to the managing director and the Chairman. The board of directors has 2 people but the management board has 8 people in total. Bibliography Charvat, J. 2003. Project Management Methodologies: Selecting Implementing and Supporting Methodologies and Processes for Projects. Cengage Learning. Choudhury, S. R.1988. Project Management. Tata McGraw-Hill Education. Field, M. Laurie S. & Keller 1998. Project Management . Cengage Learning. Haugan, G.T. 2006. Project Management Fundamentals: Key concepts and methodology. Management Concepts. Hillson, D., Simon, P. 2007. Practical Project Risk Management. The Atom Methodology. Kloppenborg, T. 2011. Contemporary Project Management. Cengage Learning. Knutson, J., Bitz, I.1991. Project Management: How to Plan and Manage Successful Projects. Amacom. Kousholt, B. 2007. Project Management. Nyk Teknist Forlag. Lock, D. 2007. Project Management. Gower 2007. Murch, P. 2001. Project Management: Best Practices for Its Professionals. Prentice Hall Professional.  Nagarajan, K. 2004. Project Management. New Age International. Padgett, C.M. 2009. The Project Success Method: A proven Approach for Achieving Superior Project Performance in as early as Little as 5 days. Wiley. Reid, A. 1999. Project Management: Getting it Right. John Wiley & Sons. Vergopia, C. 2008. Project Review Maturity and Project Performance: An Empirical Case Study. ProQuest. Read More