Reference no: EM133784645

Project Management

Learning Outcome 1: Describe the Project Management landscape to compare and understand business organisations in broad fields.

Learning Outcome 2: Discuss the fundamentals and basic theory of Project Management and critically evaluate a range of applications for IS.
Learning Outcome 3: Examine and design contemporary Project Management applications and methodologies.

Learning Outcome 4: Investigate and explain the process for execution, verification and validation of Project Management and define specifications including technical, economical and operational feasibility.

Learning Outcome 5: Evaluate Project Management related techniques required to ensure the reliability, availability and integrity of digital business processes and analyse.

Assessment Description: In this project, you will work in groups of 4-5 students. You have to do a critical analysis of the "Keflavik Paper Company" situation in the penultimate page of this guide. You were invited as consultant to provide analysis and solutions for the case.

• Assume that you are responsible for maintaining Keflavik's project portfolio. Name the key criteria that should be used in evaluating all new projects before they are added to the current portfolio.
• If you were the project manager, what expertise would you like from the sponsor, stakeholders, or core team members to create a milestone schedule with acceptance criteria?
• Write pertinent risks. Assess them to determine which you believe are major risks and develop at least one response for each major risk.
• Who are the key stakeholders for this project and what is the interest of each? Which stakeholders have the most power?
• Which recommendation you suggest for higher performance achievement?
• What does this case demonstrate about the effect of poor project
screening methods on a firm's ability to manage its projects effectively?

Process, structure, and content:
The process of the project is the development a critical thinking report for Kimble College organisation. Students are advised to conduct an audition in this organisation. You will analyse the company and make recommendations including the strengths and weaknesses that were revealed.
The structure of the project is a 3000-word report, the contents of which are detailed below. It is the report that requires submitting as the finished piece of work. It is the report that will be marked. Ad hoc work in whatever form will not be marked if submitted.
The wordcount is 3000 words. The wordcount does not include the executive summary, the table of contents, the list of references or any appendices. However, please note that appendices should be used for supplementary information only: they will NOT to considered for marking.
The report content will comprise of the following sections:
Title page: this must contain the title of the report (e.g. 'Project Plan for Acme Airlines'), names and student numbers of each group member, unit name, unit number and date of submission.
Table of contents (TOC): ideally, but not necessarily, constructed using the hyperlink functions in Word. Lists of figures and tables are not required.

Executive summary: an executive summary provides an overview of the ENTIRE report. It is NOT an introduction section. It is NOT a background section. The purpose of an executive summary is to provide an understanding of the Project plan without having to read the complete report. Ideally, half to on page in length (but no longer), the executive summary will contain a summary sentence or two on each section of the report; reporting on process (what the group did - e.g. a SWOT analysis), content (what the group found -e.g. 'there were two major strengths and three major threats identified' ) and outcomes (what the group determined should happen - e.g. 'a new targeting strategy was recommended'). Do not use headings or titles in the executive summary; it should be written in essay narrative format and read seamlessly.

Introduction: the introduction informs the reader of the aims and methods the group will use in the project. It also defines the scope of the project (what is included and what is not). Whilst it may mention the chosen organisation by name, the introduction DOES NOT talk in detail about the chosen organisation or its industry.

Background and project situation: a background and Project situation section informs that reader of the context to the project. Here the organisation and its industry are described. Information about the organisation's past and present project performance is presented along with any notes about major milestones in its Project history. It is easy to `go overboard' with this section and consume much wordcount; one page is all that's needed to set the scene for your Project plan project.

More, in this and other sections, too many students often over-rely on company websites. Most times, these websites present an organisation's promotions (advertising) or opinions masquerading as facts. Because of the convenience and profusion of this type of information, it is too easy for students to ignore the authoritative sources of data that can be reached through AIH library databases: however, the use of AIH library databases is the way to higher marks!

SWOT analysis: Mapped out as strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. The SWOT analysis forms the basis for Project objectives and strategies.

Segmentation, targeting, differentiation and positioning: this section presents and justifies new or improved segmentation, targeting, differentiation and positioning strategies.

Conclusions: through logical reasoning, this section should summarise how the Project objectives and subsequent strategies offer feasible, suitable and acceptable solutions to the Project issues generated by the analysis.

List of references: this should be formatted in Harvard style.

Harvard referencing

Case Report

Keflavik Paper Company

In recent years, Keflavik Paper Company has been having problems with its project management process. Several commercial projects, for example, have come in late and well over budget, and product performance has been inconsistent. A comprehensive analysis of the process has traced many of the problems back to faulty project selection methods.

Keflavik is a medium-sized corporation that manufactures a variety of paper products, including specialty papers and the coated papers used in the photography and printing industries. Despite cyclical downturns due to general economic conditions, the firm's annual sales have grown steadily, though slowly. About five years ago, Keflavik embarked on a project-based approach to new product opportunities. The goal was to improve profitability and generate additional sales volume by developing new commercial products quickly, with better targeting to specific customer needs. The results so far have not been encouraging. The company's project development record is spotty. Some projects have been delivered on time, but others have been late; budgets have been routinely overrun; and product performance has been inconsistent, with some projects yielding good returns and others losing money.

Top management hired a consultant to analyse the firm's processes and determine the most efficient way to fix its project management procedures. The consultant attributed the main problems not to the project management processes themselves, but to the manner in which projects are added to the company's portfolio. The primary mechanism for new project selection focused almost exclusively on discounted cash flow models, such as net present value analysis. Essentially, if a project promised profitable revenue streams, it was approved by top management.

One result of this practice was the development of a "family" of projects that were often almost completely unrelated. No one, it seems, ever asked whether projects that were added to the portfolio fit with other ongoing projects. Keflavik attempted to expand into coated papers, photographic products, shipping and packaging materials, and other lines that strayed far from the firm's original niche. New projects were rarely measured against the firm's strategic mission, and little effort was made to evaluate them according to its technical resources. Some new projects, for example, failed to fit because they required significant organizational learning and new technical expertise and training (all of which was expensive and time-consuming). The result was a portfolio of diverse, mismatched projects that was difficult to manage.

Further, the diverse nature of the new product line and development processes decreased organizational learning and made it impossible for Keflavik's project managers to move easily from one assignment to the next. The hodgepodge of projects also made it difficult for managers to apply lessons learned from one project to the next. Because the skills acquired on one project were largely non-transferable, project teams routinely had to relearn processes whenever they moved to a new project.