Project Risk and Management - Case Study Example

Project Risk and Management Name: Tutor: Course: Date: Question one: Critical Project Review- NHS Project Lifecycle i) Project Initiation National Programme for IT was initiated in 2002 in a bid to reform the 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 programme 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; 1. To reduce the risk of medication errors by 80%, ensure accurate care records and aid NHS staff in making informed decisions starting 2010. 2. To rapidly transmit 99.9% accurate information to pharmacies and different parts of NHS starting 2010. 3. To increase efficiency to 95% of NHS and reduce time delays on patients by 50% detail taking beginning 2010. The project deliverables are; 1. Summary care records 2. Detailed care records 3. Picture Archiving 4. E-mail communication system (NHS Mail) 5. Data spine 6. Choose and Book 7. Electronic prescription service 8. N3 Infrastructure Project benefits; 1. Reduced time of waiting for GP referral to hospital treatment to less than 18 weeks 2. Full compliance of Mental Health Act 2007 3. Flexibility to organizational changes and easier reconfiguration of information to fit changing organizational boundaries. Duration of the project was 8 years (2002-2010) ii) Planning and Execution Project planning for NHS involved time, cost and technical performance. Overall duration for the program to be complete by 5 years was not met. Most parts of the programme 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 programme was incomplete and the budget had overrun by £300 million. This cost was attributed to an 11 percent increase in value of core contracts due to increase 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 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 programme developed an electronic tool to provide a roadmap on program progress. This tool was installed in response to collation of state of play and handling large volume 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 support of NHS staff and clinicians. Communicating and reporting the state of play more precisely on different programme elements remains a challenge. iii) Closure and Evaluation The project has not been closed since most of the deliverables have not been met and some milestones remain incomplete. Question Two: Critical Evaluation of Planning and execution processes Project planning involves creation of detailed project plans that enables the project manager to control and monitor constraints such as time, quality and cost. The various project plans are resource, financial, quality, risk and acceptance. The resources needed are as shown in the table below; Table 1: Project Resources Resource Roles Number required Allied Health Professionals Provide professional understanding of systems and records 152 Nurses Query and provide feedback to the systems 2315 Doctors Query and provide feedback to the systems 815 NHS Managers Provide financial and strategic direction of the project 23 Programme managers and administrators Direct and guide the program planning, implementation and closure 52 IT and Systems administrators Develop, administer and control the IT systems 136 Total 3,493 Communication plans are required to update the various stakeholders on the progress of the NHS programme. Meredith et al. (2010) observes that project communication plan completes the activities that enable stakeholders to get information at the right time. The plan is as shown below; Table 2: Project Communication Plan The communication plans are intended to communicate various levels of project progress included instances of change, risks and managerial decisions that are likely to affect project completion or acceptance. Similarly, execution approves the beginning of implementation phase and assessment of deliverables. Monitoring and control of the project is in elements like cost, time, change, risk, communications and issue management. Building project deliverables to agree with the set terms of references is undertaken by constructing, testing and reviewing the summary care records and detailed care records for acceptance and quality approval. The Work Break Down structure is as shown below; Figure 1: Project Work Breakdown Structure Timesheets tracks and records time spent while a project budget will record rate of consumption and identify project costs. Quality management assesses the technical performance ensures the project deliverable have the necessary control and quality assurance enables the project to meet customer requirements (Kerzner, 2002). The NHS project constraints as at March 2010 are provided in the graph below; Figure 2: NHS project constraints as of March 2010 From the graph above, all the NHS care record systems should have been deployed by the end of 8 years but the delay due to unavailability of a local service provider for North Midlands and East had not been deployed. Baseline costs were equally planned for £12.4 billion by 2010, but the project had exceeded £12.7 billion. Figure 3: NHS resource cost variance Availability which is a metric for technical performance stood at 99.9% which is acceptable. The project was critically behind schedule and had incurred huge cost overruns of more than £687 million according to some estimates. This requires additional funding of £200 million to complete deployment of detailed care records. Question Three: [See separate attached files] Risk Management Plan Risk management process is usually brainstormed and identified in each project phase (Andersen et al. 2007). In the NHS case, the risks were assessed based on response plan and impact that takes advantage of the opportunity or avoids the risk. To systematically reduce the risk, it was important to assign detection values, impact, likelihood and symptoms of the risk. Failure Mode Effects Analysis (FMEA) identifies process areas that impacts customers, how the process will likely fail and process areas with difficult detection. It is used after product definition but before a selection of a specific hardware. NHS risks were not based on risk score alone but detection helped bring about risks that come as a surprise. For example, a software engineer can conjure potential problems that can make the product to fail when scaling up to large databases which is a core internet issue. The RPN value which is a product of detection and risk score assisted in developing a contingency plan. For example, security of patient data was of prime importance and had the highest RPN. Creating passcodes and limiting access reduced the RPN value and mitigated the risk. Nature and complexity of supplier and procurement relationships Complex public procurement projects such as major IT systems transport infrastructure programmes and defence contracts have a range of challenges and considerations. IT systems procurements like the NHS programme for IT demand a different approach to purchases undertaken on daily basis. However, managing and addressing public procurement risk requires use of the right technology, methodology, and resources and the right planning. The procurement of requirements to the project experiences risks such as fraud, and missed commercial opportunities, over-ordering and resources stock, poor quality goods or sub-standard and services, and late delivery of services and goods (Pinto & Slevin, 1988). The risk to all parties’ concerned increases as procurement becomes more complex hence magnifying the level of risk. The programme had fewer suppliers (Local service providers) which required a more bespoke and specialized approach to the complex procurement contract. Risk management is a complex process because it briefs and selects suppliers from a competitive perspective that ensures appropriate qualification and maintenance of dynamic database of potential suppliers (Graves, 2000). Atkinson (1999) argues that delivering value for money on the part of supplier needs complete transparency and accountability which has to be measured and demonstrated. NHS handles a large software project for its medical service providers and procurement is long and large with huge documentation, records and high-pressure timeframes. A new set of challenges begin when there is need to analyze, manage, report, and track information that addresses any concerns, considerations and associated risks (Jugdev & Müller, 2005). It is recommended that for information to be accessible to everyone, project information and relevant policies must be secured in a system based on a next-generation e-Procurement. Control and oversight as well as new competencies is needed to handle complex procurement process since public authorities are presumed to possess technical support, knowledge, and resources to deliver successful contracts and manage complexities. Critical Path analysis on the project versus concurrent planning Considering the nature of NHS connecting for IT programme, the sub-project iSOFT Lorenzo has a critical path which is the longest path it takes to complete the project. Every project schedule is continually manipulated and monitored hence a living entity. For manageability and simplicity, a project is broken into logical and smaller pieces under work breakdown structure. Kerzner (2002) observes that critical path is managed on milestones and discrete phases and not the unwieldy whole. In one way or another project tasks are important but sometimes the most critical task may be positioned in the critical path. For example, in the NHS project the critical path occurs as series of important tasks relying on consequences and connections as a means for management and scheduling in planning timelines and project tasks. Visibility or value does not form the basis of critical path tasks but deemed ‘critical’ based on dependencies that consequently determine the overall project length (Jiang & Gary, 2001). Any delay in one critical path tasks leads to a delay in all since they are connected. For example, delay in N3 IT infrastructure debugging will lead to a delay in trial deployment since they all fall in the critical path. To get the project done on time, critical path provides measures on what needs to be done (Pinto & Trailer, 1998). In project management practice, Critical Path Analysis CPM) provides value in four essential respects; logical sequence of project tasks, estimate of overall project duration, identifies potential ‘fast-track’ possibilities, and identifies potential delays, and track project progress. The underlying assumptions in critical path analysis are that tasks are integrated to form a timeline which can be sequential or concurrent (Crawford, 2007). Concurrent planning allows the tasks to occur simultaneously but sequential tasks are ensures one superior task is completed before another one begins. Tasks that make up the critical path are dependent and sequential. Nature and success of risk management Successful project management is consequence of effective risk management. Project managers observe proper risk management in order to mitigate both unanticipated and known risks on all kinds of projects. Projects miss critical performance targets, fall behind schedule, exceed budget or depict these combination as a result of failure to perform effective risk management. Adams (2004) notes that numerous development projects being monitored and evaluated show that only one-fourth of them all become a market success. Mukerjee and Datta (2001) pointed that early identification of immediate risks is key to successful project completion. Jiang et al. (2002) also confirmed their hypothesis using factor analysis on software development projects that risks adversely impact their project success. Though other factors can influence project success, it is definite that a failure to undertake proper adequate risk management increases failure possibilities. Planning to fail is by failing to plan and this applies to all risks. Hillson (2000) argues that having an effective method is critical in order to be applied, used and understood by project teams for better planning and project risk management. Taking a multidisciplinary approach as projects increase in size and complexity is by giving adequate attention to risk management which epitomes project management. Failure mode effects analysis (FMEA) is a simple risk management tool that improves project success and has been tested to be beneficial in managing project risks (Datta & Mukerjee, 2001). In commercial software projects such as the one used on LRC 1.9, the promise of risk management is in improvement of project outcomes, organizational benefits and safety as well as limiting operational and installation costs. Stakeholder concerns on project management Projects have a degree of social, economic, financial and environmental impacts. Consultation among stakeholders is a series of opportunities and not a single conversation that creates understanding on affect or interest of the project among target users. Project managers will attempt to learn how external parties view the project and its mitigation measures, opportunities, impacts and attendant risks. A valuable source of information is by listening to stakeholder feedback and concerns that can improve project outcomes and design (Pyra & Trask, 2002). The organization is able to control and identify external risks as well as creating a platform for partnerships and basis for future collaboration. For stakeholders, an opportunity to get information is through a company consultation process. This process educates company staff on the local context that the project assumes, provides a platform to ask questions, raise concerns and issues and potentially redirects the project. The need for consultation, purpose and topics are questions that need answers before any stakeholder consultation. Stakeholder Engagement Plan is a vital tool to save time, obtain clear answers on the questions up front, keep expectations in check and help reduce costs (Hillson, 2000). For example, in the NHS programme for IT, there is need to make regular visits to project sites in order to improve the relationship between the organization local government, and the communities, and also reach a broader constituency of stakeholders. Taking feedback from survey participants regarding the program is vital in improving stakeholder understanding of the proposed project. However, the feedback may temper with the expectations on direct benefits of the project and possible development impacts (Project Management Institute, 2000). In the NHS case, the project sought views of doctors and nurses on care records systems which became a sense of the mitigation measures and provided a clear picture of the potential risks and allowed programme managers to receive first-hand experience on patient concerns before further implementation of the project is undertaken. Participating stakeholders from discussions and inputs allows the project to better understand methods for presenting the assessment findings and expectations regarding the content from disclosure hearings and public consultation (Jiang, Gary & Selwyn, 2002). Enhanced reputation and image is gained from such stakeholder consultation efforts. Project Plan Recommendations i) The plan of reducing costs by 25 percent and ensuring milestones for South and London are completed requires learning from the Lorenzo program of North Midlands, and East which is now complete. ii) Deployment verification which takes 45 days in the 6 month deployment period can be made to begin as early as the 4 month to ensure adequate time for reporting. iii) New functionalities should be built into the pending programs for South and London to avoid time lags in Phase 2. These include clinical documents, contract management, Consent TO Treat (CTT), coding, care plans and Health Resource Groups (HRG). iv) Feedback on NHS Mail system and N3 Infrastructure Debugging can begin as ID checks are being undertaken for Cermer Millenium and Servelec RiO systems. v) Disaster recovery tests should be included in the review phase before data migration and infrastructure hardware upgrades begin. vi) Deployment for Cermer Millenium and Servelec RiO systems should consider Lorenzo upgrades in each phase so as to reduce review phase to 4 months. Reference list 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. Appendices Detection values Guidelines Likelihood values Impact Values Read More