Assessment This assignment will be due on December 31st, 2010 no later than 5:00p.m. Assignment details Note: this case study remains the intellectual property of W.T. Wright & R Lewis. All redress available under the law will be sought for anyone using this case for academic or any other purpose without the express permission of the author. Project Management assignment The Cleveland Callback Project 2010 (a fictitious case study for learning purposes) Project overview A series of domestic house fires during April 2010 across the North East of England prompted a joint investigation by Fire Investigation Officers (FIOs) and Fire Prevention Officers (FPOs) working on behalf of Cleveland Fire & Rescue Service. Throughout the investigation enquires centred on the potential cause or causes of the individual fires and whether or not a link could be made between them. The findings of the preliminary investigation were in the words of one officer "both significant and startling" and in could in all cases be linked together to a potential cause. Information that came to light during the investigation revealed that each of the domestic fires had occurred in former council owned properties. These properties had all been upgraded during the early 1990s to make them more appealing to residents wishing to take part in the council?s "right to buy" scheme, which gave council tenants with more that five years occupancy the option of buying their council house outright. 7 The contract for the renovations had been awarded to a company (XXX Ltd.) through a nationwide tendering process. Although the company responsible for the upgrade work was based in Newcastle, the procurement regulations for the management of tenders meant that the company could have undertaken similar or identical work on behalf of councils throughout the UK. Further investigations undertaken by the FIOs and FPOs that during the housing renovation process a number of modifications had been made that could have a bearing on the incidences of fire currently under investigation. The most important of these discoveries was that in each of the fire related incidents one key factor remained the same. The electrical control components of the central heating systems had been replaced during the domestic refurbishment. The new system was designed to include an automatic "cut-out switch" which would activate if the electrical circuitry became overloaded and began to heat up. The most worrying element of the investigation uncovered so far was that in all cases of domestic fire this unit had failed completely. The investigation further revealed that overheating of the circuit board within the central heating system had caused burned out and where flammable material had been present fire had quickly taken hold. Further technical examination revealed that the failure of the unit was not merely coincidence but a design flaw which would ultimately result in the failure of each and every unit. The water heating system was controlled by a separate and unrelated mechanism. The realisation of the potential danger facing many households not only in the North East but across the UK sparked into life a major project that became known as the Cleveland Callback Project. The stated objectives of the project were to: ? Identify all households within the UK that had been upgraded by XXX Ltd. ? Contact all households identified as being upgraded by XXX Ltd. by letter with an explanation of what to look for to identify the control unit. 8 ? Support the operation by the introduction of a temporary Call Centre to handle telephone calls in response to the letter (for 12 call handlers initially, reducing as the volume of calls received declined after the first week or so) ? Organise visits from local FPOs and regional maintenance contractors to visit dwellings to asses fire potential and replace any faulty control units A significant IT solution was deemed to be an essential component as the Callback project was launched. It would support all four objectives listed above. The project was "owned" by the Fire Prevention Authority (FPA): a department within the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. The function of the FPA was to take responsibility for Fire Prevention and manage public awareness of fire related activities. The Head of FPA nominated a "Project Director" who was a member of the FPA team and from the outset spent about 40% of his time (2 days a week) on the project. The final organisation structure is included as Appendix 1. Timescale Although it was recognised that "time was of the essence" senior figures in FPA and the regional Fire Brigades deemed that a 3-4 month period would be sufficient time to prepare, before "going live" with the mailshot, temporary call centre and FPO and maintenance appointments bookings service. Subsequent to this decision, a suitable "go-live" date was identified as Tuesday 31 August 2010 and all parties were made aware of this. Due to the short time-scale envisaged no other formal project planning was considered necessary at this point. Cost A total project budget of ?150,000 was considered appropriate and sufficient by the Finance Director and other senior figures in the FPA. This sum was intended to cover all project costs including all consultant and temporary call handler fees, new hardware for the call centre, application software and Call Centre accommodation costs. The only costs this budget would not cover would be the salaries of any Fire and Rescue personnel seconded full or part-time to the project. They would draw their salaries exactly as usual. 9 At this stage the Finance Director queried the wisdom of managing all the system development aspects in-house - as a bespoke project. Her suggestions of outsourcing the project to a professional software house or exploring the procurement of a package solution was scorned by the FPAs IT Support Manager who assured the directors that the project would be a "piece of cake" ? and that developing software systems was very easy compared to "real work" such as repairing troublesome PCs. Staffing Following the decision to manage the project in-house, the IT Support Manager was tasked to recruit two "IT consultants" to work on the project. He contacted a reputable contract recruitment agency in London who identified three candidates for consideration. Two of the three consultants were subsequently engaged for the project. One of the consultants (Jeremy: ?58 per hour) began work on collecting the data (the 5,000+ names and addresses of households that had undergone upgrade work). The other (Taz: ?55 per hour) began programming a database application to support the work of the Call Centre team. Both were working initially on a standard 40 hour week. The Director of Information Management at the FPA was very keen to retain some control and influence over what was generally regarded as a prestigious project, and insisted that the two consultants continued to report formally to the IT Support Manager (although the IT Manager had no system development experience). Software Analysis and Design At a preliminary session of the project, the Project Director and Fire Prevention Specialist described the broad nature of the system required ? and the consultants, briefed with this information, subsequently went back to their office and immediately began to program a solution. Although a complex system was required, Taz the younger consultant was an experienced Visual Basic programmer, and enjoyed the challenge. Although he had no prior Fire Service or Call Centre experience he seemed confident and capable ? and following the verbal briefing was left alone to get on and make progress. It 10 was understood that verbal progress reports would be given at regular project meetings. In the same office Jeremy was working on the collation of householder details from various local councils and Regional Fire Brigades in a wide variety of formats - both paper and electronic. This information would be loaded as records in a Microsoft Access database. Once structured and populated this database would be used, firstly as the mailshot data source (to generate all the letters required), and, secondly to support the multi-user PC system being used by all the call handlers. Progress Meetings Once the consultants were hired on 4 May 2010 the project was considered live. From this point all the staff involved in the project were supposed to meet on a weekly basis for a progress meeting, but apart from the two consultants most judged this too frequent and typically only about half the team (never the same 50%) ever attended. A suitable office location was rented for the Call Centre itself and the two IT Consultants were based there along with the Call Centre Supervisor (Basil - ?20 ph) and Project Administrator (Sandy - ?12 ph) when hired on 2 August 2010. The rest of the team were based at offices within the main building of the Fire Prevention Authority, five miles away. At a progress meeting in late June attended by the IT Support Manager, the two consultants pointed out that their progress was being constrained by only being able to work 40 hours a week. There was clearly plenty to do and this limit was not helping: the IT Support Manager agreed and raised their maximum weekly hours to 60. From the start of implementation work (and all succeeding tasks) both consultants worked 60 hours per week ? although their colleagues Basil and Sandy only ever worked 40 hours per week. Slippage! At a progress meeting on Friday 6 August (attended by the Director of Information Management, the Fire Prevention Specialist and the newly recruited Call Centre Supervisor) Jeremy and Taz casually announced that they thought it highly unlikely that they could be ready in time for the original ?o-live?date on 31 August. 11 This caused major consternation as other activities ? including a major press conference by the Director of the Fire Prevention Authority ? were being co-ordinated around this date. The reasons given by the consultants were that the database system was proving to be far more complicated than first thought, and that the household data was still being collated and punched in by the Project Administrator. In addition all the cheap PC hardware purchased for the Call Centre by the IT Support Manager was not of a sufficient standard to run the database application under development and new higher quality desktop PCs would have to be acquired. The project team agreed that these factors could not be considered the fault of the consultants and agreed an extension to the go-live date which was now Monday 11 October. At the same meeting a simple financial statement from the Fire Prevention Authority accounting system indicated that the project had already incurred ?142,450 of expenditure. Similar print-outs had been provided by the Finance Department in past months and as usual no one paid it any attention? Aggravation! ?except the Finance Director who was also copied in on the news about the new go-live date. She waited until the formal Fire Prevention Authority meeting (chaired by the Director of the FPA) the following Wednesday and then criticised the overall management of the project as strongly as she dared. Seeing her point, the Director demanded an immediate explanation from the Director of Information. Adept at buck passing the Director of Information Management promptly summoned the IT Support Manager from his office and told him to explain the predicament to the FPA Board of Directors. It was not convincing. The Finance Director, unable to stop herself from quoting his previous "piece of cake" comment, demanded some reassurance that the project would not deteriorate into a complete shambles and have to be written off at huge expense. Little comfort was forthcoming. The Director of the FPA brought their discomfort to a close by authorising separate expenditure for a Project (not IT) Consultant to 12 be hired to audit the project, criticise constructively and advise how to mitigate the risk of further problems. This person would be independent of the team and report to the Finance Director. The Project Audit The Project Consultant began work on 16 August 2010 by meeting the Project Director. After some small talk a copy of the project plan was asked for ? at which point the Project Director became rather vague and referred him to the IT Consultants "who were taking care of that kind of thing? When the same question was asked of the Consultants that afternoon they exchanged furtive looks and after a few seconds Jeremy, the older consultant, pointed to his head ? implying that true professionals did not need to commit such trivia to paper. When asked to elaborate he gave the following information. "We kicked off the project on 4 May 2010 with Requirements Analysis which should have taken no more than 8 working days. This was followed by Detailed Design (5 days) and Interface studies (15 days) - they should have started at the same time and run roughly in parallel. As soon as Detailed Design is complete we could start Data Configuration (30 days). Prototyping cannot start until Detailed Design and Interface Studies are both finished and should take 20 days. Call Centre Reviews would start after Prototyping and should run for 10 days. Implementation follows 8 days after the end of Prototyping and should take 15 days. System Testing (5 days) starts when Implementation and Call Centre Reviews have both finished. Call Centre Training (also of 5 days duration) follows when System Testing and Data Configuration are both complete. Go-Live is a milestone and follows Call Centre Training. By the way it was agreed Bank Holidays would not be worked on Monday 31 May and 30 August 2010 but we would still have time to spare before the launch." When asked about who worked on what tasks the following information was scribbled down and handed over (the letters signify initials): Requirements Analysis (J & T) Detailed Design (T) Interface studies (50% of J & 50% of T) Data Configuration (J & S) Prototyping (T & B) Call Centre Reviews (All 4) System Testing (All 4) Implementation (T) Call Centre Training (J & B & S) When asked about costs and the project budget - genuine bemusement resulted: they had not been consulted at all and knew nothing about the original ?150k budget decision. They only cost the project money ? not controlled it. The questions moved on to current progress and the following information was provided: 13 Requirements Analysis (done) Detailed Design (done) Interface studies (done) Data Configuration (40%) Prototyping (50%) Nothing else started Here is the suggested format for doing the said paper 2010 /2011 PROJECT MANAGEMENT Case Study Guidance Case Study Guidance The Cleveland The Cleveland Callback Project 2010 GENERAL ? Approx. 4000 words total: ? Part A ? 3200 words ? Parts B, C, D, E = 800 words + MS Project information ? Always explain and justify answers!! ? ALWAYS State Assumptions! ? Quote Literature in Harvard referencing style (e.g. Lock, 2007) ? For maximum marks, consider ?what-if? scenarios. ? Save and print different versions of MS project answer for each part. ? Print screen (Gantt chart, budget etc.) and copy into answer document. Suggested Format ? Executive Summary ? Table of Contents ? List of Figures and Tables ? Introduction / Structure of Report ? Part A1 : : ? Part E ? References ? Bibliography ? Appendices Part A: General Overview (60%) ? Audit of Projects / Audit Mechanism / Project Health Checks ? Adequate introduction to set up Audit, using PMBOK, Prince 2 etc. ? Put in appropriate format ? Answer all questions asked!!! And in format asked! ? Project Management Issues ? mention all relevant. Pull out issues from case. ? Project Success Criteria / Factors, Top-down VS bottom- up, Project Monitoring & Control, Leadership, Team dynamics etc.. ? What are some of the factors that cause the project to spiral out of control? ? 3200 words Part B -Project Planning (10%) ? Convert description to dependency table showing list of tasks, predecessors ? Draw Gantt chart ? Print screen (Gantt chart) and copy into answer document or print and attach as appendix. ? Insert Column for total slack / free slack ? Indicate critical tasks / critical path in red (Menu: FORMAT>BAR STYLES>Insert row, Set name critical, set red, Show for tasks : critical) ? Discuss answer (e.g as seen above the finish date is ____). Part C -Progress Management (10%) ? Save different version of Gantt chart ? Update Gantt chart with progress data provided ? Extrapolate (Reschedule from 16 August) (TOOL>TRACKING> UPDATE PROJECT> date) ? Print screen (Gantt chart) and copy into answer document or print out and attach as appendix. ? Tactical Measures ? optimizing situation ? Do ?What-if? scenario for full marks. Part D ? Budget Creation (10%) ? State assumptions!!! ? (Explain how costing for total fixed cost done) ? Use MS project : rates, resources etc. ? Fixed cost: Calc total Cost, Insert Fixed Cost Column, Put total cost in column in summary task. ? View reports>Costs>Budget>Edit>Definition (Show summary task)>Sort (sort by ID) ? Print screen (Budget) and copy into answer document or print out and attach as appendix. ? Use excel to manually calculate to check answer. Part E ? Budget Management (10%) ? State assumptions!!! ? Explain how costing done and show working for answer. ? Use Gantt chart to project cost.,Part B ? Project Planning (10%) Given the verbal information provided by the IT Consultants develop a one-page project plan in Gantt Chart form (as if the project had not commenced). Include as Appendix A. The chart should clearly indicate the critical tasks and the Go-Live date but ignore progress and resources at this point. Part C ? Progress Management (10%) Update your plan with the progress information provided. Using this information, extrapolate forward with effect from 16 August 2010 and assess the chances of the project being able to meet the new go-live date on 11 October. Include an updated Gantt chart as Appendix B. Suggest any tactical options for bring the expected Go-Live date forward. Part D ? Budget creation (10%) Assuming that the project had run perfectly to the schedule outlined by Jeremy with all contract personnel working as defined on the tasks indicated, generate an overall budget for the project. Include the 4 named contract staff, accommodation costs at ?650 per week inclusive, half the Project Director?s staff costs at ?2250 p.c.m., all new PC hardware (total fixed cost: ?54,000) and total miscellaneous fixed costs of ?15,000. Show all calculations and totals via suitable report formats. Part E ? Budget management (10%) Given the fact that the project had incurred costs of ?142,450 by the end of July 2010, project an overall cost for the entire project (assuming that the project now runs as rescheduled in Part C). You should now ignore the micro task by task human resource allocations and instead cost out all five personnel on a time related rather than task basis starting from 2 August 2010. The two consultants will be working on a 60 hour per week basis, the others 40. Assume all project staff will be demobilised on Friday 29 October 2010. Ignore all other costs except weekly accommodation charges and an extra ?28,000 (fixed cost) for high specification PCs. Show all calculations and totals via suitable report formats.
Paper#13957 | Written in 18-Jul-2015Price : $25