Essays on Project Risk and Management Case Study

Download full paperFile format: .doc, available for editing

The paper " Project Risk and Management" Is a perfect example of a Management Case Study. National Programme for IT was initiated in 2002 in a bid to reform England’ s National Health Service. The goals of the project were to avail and ensure accurate care records, create a more efficient NHS, and transmit accurate information. The lead sponsor, NHS Connecting for Health allocated £ 12.4billion in 2002 for the program over 8 years. The organizational structure is constantly changing and enormous involving parliament, department of health, independent NHS regulators, 152 primary care trusts, NHS trusts, GP practices, and Foundation trusts.

The project stakeholders included; National Audit Office, 1,100 contractors, and staff, 10 strategic health authorities, three local service providers, and the community of London, South, North Midlands, and East England. The project objectives were; To reduce the risk of medication errors by 80%, ensure accurate care records, and aid NHS staff in making informed decisions starting 2010. To rapidly transmit 99.9% accurate information to pharmacies and different parts of NHS starting 2010. To increase efficiency to 95% of NHS and reduce time delays on patients by 50% detail taking beginning in 2010. The project deliverables are; Summary of care records Detailed care records Picture Archiving An E-mail communication system (NHS Mail) Data spine Choose and Book Electronic prescription service N3 Infrastructure Project benefits; Reduced time of waiting for GP referral to hospital treatment to less than 18 weeks Full compliance of the Mental Health Act 2007 Flexibility to organizational changes and easier reconfiguration of information to fit changing organizational boundaries. Duration of the project was 8 years (2002-2010) Planning and Execution Project planning for the NHS involved time, cost, and technical performance.

The overall duration for the program to be complete by 5 years was not met.

Most parts of the program were well advanced or complete but the original timescale for Care Record services was not met. By 2010, some patients had not had electronic care records. Overall, the program is likely to take 4 more years until Lorenzo provider is available and care record systems fully deployed. The project is likely to be complete in 2014-2015 when all the care records systems will have been deployed. The baseline estimated cost of programme was £ 12.4 billion in 2002 but by 2008, the program was incomplete and the budget had overrun by £ 300 million.

This cost was attributed to an 11 percent increase in the value of core contracts due to increasing functionality. Sub-contractor and supplier changes also increased. Spending on core contracts was 44 percent lower than the original profile which reflects a slow care record systems deployment. Overall, the expenditure to date was low compare to the baseline. On technical performance, at the time of audit in March 2008, service availability targets by suppliers had achieved 99.9 percent availability.

Suppliers were subjected to performance deductions for any performance falling below par. Suppliers earned back £ 1.8 million and the department retained £ 5.7 million to be earned back later. Technical problems are experienced in many projects which creates dissatisfaction (Jiang & Gary, 2001). Under change management, the program developed an electronic tool to provide a roadmap on program progress. This tool was installed in response to the collation of state of play and handling large volumes of data while communicating and reporting progress. On risk management, it was important to maintain security of patients’ records and restore their confidence (Crawford, 2007).

Controls and protections like passwords and limited access were put in place and mandated to individual NHS staff. Other risks considered were securing the support of NHS staff and clinicians. Communicating and reporting the state of play more precisely on different program elements remains a challenge.



Adams, M 2004, The PDMA Foundation’s Comparative Performance Assessment Study (CPAS) Results, Comparative Performance Assessment Conference, Product Development Management Association (PDMA).

Andersen, ES Grude, KV & Haug, T 2007, Goal directed project management. London:Kogan Page/Coopers and Lybrand..

Atkinson, R 1999. Project management: cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a phenomenon, it is time to accept other success criteria. International Journal of Project Management, 17(6): 337-342.

Crawford, LW 2007, Developing project management competence of individuals. In Turner's five-functions of project-based management J.R. Turner (Ed.), Gower handbook of project management, pp: 678-694.

Datta, S & Mukerjee, SK 2001, Developing a Risk Management Matrix for Effective Project Planning-An Empirical Study, Project Management Journal, 32:2, pp. 45-57.

Graves, R 2000, Qualitative Risk Assessment, PM Network, 14:10, pp. 6-66.

Pyra, J & Trask, J 2002, Risk Management Post Analysis: Gauging the Success of a Simple Strategy in a Complex Project, Project Management Journal, 33:2,pp. 41-48

Hillson, D 2000, Project Risks, Identifying Causes, Risks and Effects, PM Network, 14:9, pp. 48- 51.

Jiang, JJ & Gary, K 2001, Software Project Risks and Development Focus, Project Management Journal, 32:1, pp. 4-9.

Jiang, JJ, Gary K & Selwyn TE 2002, A Measure of Software Development Risks, Project Management Journal, 33:3, pp. 30-41.

Jugdev, K & Müller, R 2005, A retrospective look at our evolving understanding of project success. Project Management Journal, 36(4): 19-31.

Kerzner, H 2002, Project Management: A Systems Approach to Planning, Scheduling, and Controlling, 8th Ed., John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Meredith, J Mantel R & Samuel J 2010, Project Management: A managerial Approach (7th ed): John Wiley and Sons.

Pinto, JK & Trailer, JT 1998, Leadership skills for project is integral part of the organization success. Newtown Square: PA.

Pinto, JK & Slevin, DP 1988, Project success: Definition and measurement techniques. Management Journal, 19: 67-71.

Project Management Institute, 2000, A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide), Project Management Institute.

Download full paperFile format: .doc, available for editing
Contact Us