[meteor_slideshow slideshow=”arp1″]
All project information is consolidated to date, forming the basis for monitoring and controlling once implementation of the project commences. In this assessment task, you are required to inscribe a well-researched project risk assessment report for MIT (Approx. 1200 words exclusive of references and diagrams) to have a post-project evaluation, identify issues (i.e.: what went wrong) in the project, and finally analyse issues and make recommendations to the future projects.
Description of the assessment:
Consider the following business case study on project risks
Melbourne Institute of Technology (MIT) was established in the mid-nineties. It is one of Australia’s leading private Higher Education Institutions. MIT focuses on issues and challenges confronted by students from diverse backgrounds. MIT is located in the heart of two of the world’s most liveable cities, Melbourne and Sydney, and offers a cultured and sophisticated educational environment in which to learn and grow.
MIT is strongly committed to undergraduate and postgraduate degrees that lead to jobs in the worlds of business, information technology and telecommunication engineering. All have been carefully researched and designed to deliver high quality, effective and relevant education.
MIT prides itself on providing students with small class sizes, access to highly qualified and caring teaching staff and a wide-range of support services allowing students to reach their full potential. MIT has approximately 100 staff members, providing educational support to approximately 1000 students in both Melbourne and Sydney campuses. The institute is very interested in upgrading its network infrastructure. Network manageability is very important; the MIT network carries student’s data in real time from several servers (Data, FTP, SMTP, Print, HTTP, Mail Servers etc.) and workstations in all computer labs and staff rooms. The security and privacy of students’ records is extremely important, all data transferred is highly critical and confidential and must not be lost or accessed by unauthorized persons, including data stored or transmitted electronically. MIT employs firewalls, data encryption and email protection as a means of protecting confidential student information.
MIT has eleven floors at its Melbourne campus and seven floors at the Sydney campus. Due to increased student numbers in general, plans to enlarge MIT are under way. As MIT is currently doing well financially, it wants to selectively deploy cutting-edge technology for better student service and high productivity. MIT management is currently planning for various online courses, where students can accesses required information’s and course materials remotely via emerging technologies. Students are frequently complaining about slow network response times. Management is now concerned about network downtime and slowness affecting student services. There appears to be severe congestion in the network, especially at peak hours. MIT would like to upgrade the LAN/WAN infrastructure to provide sufficient bandwidth between the remote and on campus access. The applications that are currently running include specialized educational software’s running over IP. Also, almost every course needs to have video conferences and access educational videos online, requiring large amounts of bandwidth and greater performance.
Accordingly, MIT executives developed a tender document and then invited proposals from prospective consulting firms for upgrading the existing network. A company called Network Solutions Pty Ltd submitted a quote and was selected with a lowest bid of $150,000, substantially lower than any other submission. Network Solutions then prepared a detailed plan based on existing network architecture of the site provided in the tender. Network Solutions met with the MIT executives to agree as to when the project would start (date), thus access and security to the upgrading network site, a fixed price contract, and other vital documentation to the contract were duly signed.
The project was scoped and planned by Network Solutions, with specific milestones for upgrading MIT network site. Network Solutions had undertaken many similar jobs in the past and based on the knowledge and skills of the project team, they did not think that a formal project management plan would be needed. All they wanted was agreement on the scope of the project and the key deliverable dates. From experience, they wanted to deal with only one person from MIT and it was agreed that the Academic Director of MIT would be responsible for the project.
Network Solutions commenced work on the 12 March 2012 with site preparation including networking equipment. Work progressed smoothly until 20 June 2012, when a fire significantly damaged the newly installed network cables and equipment. The Network Solutions project manager arranged his first meeting with the Academic Director of MIT to explain that he would have to reinstall the network cables and equipment and that this would take an extra 8-10 days. The Academic Director agreed that it was not the fault of Network Solutions and that work would have to be re-done, but as there was no more funding available it was suggested that the project manager make the savings elsewhere from within the project. This was agreed but not documented.
The Network Solutions project manager then reviewed his budget and costs and determined that the only way to re-coup the losses from having to reinstall was to use cheaper network cables and equipment. By the mid November 2012, the project was approximately two weeks ahead of schedule due to more resources being applied to the project. In the meantime Network Solutions was over-budget by about $20,000.
Since the original project was scoped and started, the MIT Academic Director initially dealt with, had secured a new position with another institution setting to leave in the first week of August 2012. The new Academic Director, who started one week later, was asked by the executives of MIT to continue in the role of the predecessor on the project. The Network Solutions project manager, spotting an opportunity, advised the new Academic Director that about $20,000 more was needed for the project to be completed, as was agreed by the previous Academic Director. The new Director was not sure how to deal with this, having no background information on the project. He tried to contact the previous Academic Director but he was on holiday prior to taking up his new position. The new Academic Director then reviewed the budget for the project and finding that a fixed price contract existed with no contingency amounts, and notified the Network Solutions’ project manager accordingly. The Network Solutions’ project manager informed the Academic Director of the problems caused by the fire earlier in the project. Due to the refusal to provide more money, Network Solutions’ project manager had significantly reduced the size of the network upgrading process in an attempt to contain the budget deficit and make savings.
The project concluded with Network Solutions being two weeks ahead of schedule, but $20,000 over budget. The executives of MIT were not happy with the project at its conclusion. Through the Academic Director, MIT indicated that either network upgrading issues were rectified or the contracted amount be reduced. Network Solutions responded that a number of verbal agreements had been reached and they had fulfilled their obligations and indeed had lost money on the contract. The dispute was then referred to the respective legal representatives of each organisation for resolution, but the antagonism between the parties meant that the dispute could well end up in court.
Requirements:
As a professional project manager, you have been requested by both legal representatives to conduct a post-project review. Please bear in mind that you are acting independently, may be asked to give evidence, and must reflect strict impartiality.
1. How would you set about conducting such a review?
2. How would you structure your report, i.e. on what basis?
3. Would you need to seek expert advice and, if so, in what areas?
The following are specific issues you have been asked to include:
4. Would the assignment of a MIT’s project manager have made a difference?
5. If so, in what way, and what specific skills would that manager have required?
If you had not been acting impartially, but on behalf of MIT alone:
6. What advice would you give to executives of MIT?
7. In a similar way, what advice would you give to Network Solutions?
Submission guidelines:
The report should have a consistent, professional, and well-organized appearance. Create the report (Approx. 1000 Words).
1. Your report should include the following:
• A cover page that must identify you (name and number), the teaching staff, and the assignment.
• The report must use 12 point font size and at least 1.5 line spacing with appropriate section headings.
• The report must include executive summary, table of contents, introduction, discussions (with heading/sub-headings to address the given questions), conclusions and recommendations, references and appendices.
• Reference sources must be cited in the text of the report, and listed appropriately at the end in a reference list.
2. The report must be submitted in soft (electronic) copy on Moodle as well as submitted in hard (printed) copy to the level 7 (Melbourne) or Level 3 (Sydney) assignment centre. The pages numbers of the assignment must be clear on each page.
Marking criteria:
Marks are allocated as follows:
Section to be included in the report Description of the section Marks
Executive summary, introduction and logical structure Executive summary, table of contents, introduction and logical flow of information for the case study 5
Identified issues/risks Identify what went wrong in the case study 10
Structure of the report Report structure based on certain project management methods such as risk analysis 10
Expert advice Specialised service such as getting expert advice for financial matters in the case study 5
Project Manager’s roles and responsibilities Project Manager’s roles and responsibilities in terms of given case study 15
Recommendations to MIT Analysis and making recommendations to MIT 5
Recommendations to Network Solutions Analysis and making recommendations to Network Solutions 5
Reference style APA 5
Poor writing Inadequate structure, careless presentation, or the report exceeds the word limit by more or less than 10% -5
Plagiarism Type of plagiarism
– Copy from other student
– Copy from internet source/textbook
– Copy from other sources -60
Total 60
Extensions: Requests for an extension, accompanied by supporting documentation, must be received by the student in writing before 3 working days from the due date else penalties may apply for late submission without an approved extension. Special consideration form is available on level 7 reception.
Penalties: Academic misconduct such as cheatingand plagiarismmay incur penalties ranging from a reduced result to program exclusion.
Marking Rubric for Assignment 1 :Total Marks – 60 (10% of Course Total)
Marker’sName: Mark Achieved:
/60
Excellent Good Unsatisfactory
Clear executive summary, introduction and logical structure./5 All topics are pertinent and covered in depth. Ability to think critically and source material is demonstrated Generally relevant and analysed. This is not relevant to the assignment topic.
Having well focused and understanding key stakeholder roles and responsibilities. Demonstrating Project Management knowledge./5 All elements are present and very well integrated. Components present and mostly well integrated Proposal lacks structure.
Emphasizing the importance of post-project review, identifying the areas of expert advice and critical lesson learned./10 Logic is clear and easy to follow with strong arguments Mostly consistent logical and convincing Argument is confused and disjointed
Use of the subject material (including literature, theories cited & applied to support the ideas). Use of Research, interpretation & the connections to the topic being presented. /10 All elements are present and very well integrated. Components present and mostly well integrated Proposal lacks structure.
Emphasizing areas in which project has been poorly managed and areas where main stakeholders have failed to exercise their responsibilities /5 Excellent use of creditable sources. Accurate referencing. Obvious that outstanding effort made Good effort made but not outstanding Very little attempt to reference. Lazy effort with inaccuracies
Potential risks (costs, show stoppers)/5 All elements are present and very well integrated. Components present and mostly well integrated Proposal lacks structure.
Originality and expected outcomes. Coverage and use of creditable sources. Accurate referencing and effort made. /5 All elements are present and very well integrated. Components present and mostly well integrated Lacks consistency with many errors
Analyse identified issues and make recommendations for future projects. /10 All elements are present and very well integrated. Components present and mostly well integrated Lacks consistency with many errors
Quality of writing Clarity & Conciseness & Overall presentation /5 All elements are present and very well integrated. Components present and mostly well integrated Proposal lacks structure.
Poor writing Inadequate structure, careless presentation, or the report exceeds the word limit by more or less than 10% -5
Plagiarism Type of plagiarism
– Copy from other student
– Copy from internet source/textbook
– Copy from other sources -60
[meteor_slideshow slideshow=”arp2″]
A-Research-Paper.com is committed to deliver a custom paper/essay which is 100% original and deliver it within the deadline. Place your custom order with us and experience the different; You are guaranteed; value for your money and a premium paper which meets your expectations, 24/7 customer support and communication with your writer. Order Now
Use the order calculator below and get started! Contact our live support team for any assistance or inquiry.
[order_calculator]
