Case Study Assignment
Purpose of the assessment:
Scope creep can occur when the scope of a project is not properly documented, defined, or controlled. It is generally considered a negative occurrence, and thus, should be avoided.
In this assessment task, you are required to write a well-researched project scope creep report (Approx. 1000 words exclusive of references and diagrams) for Computer Security Department of the Federal Government. The report is to have a current project status, assess the project with current management practices, and finally analyse issues and make recommendations about the future project management practices.
Description of the assessment:
Consider the following business case study on never ending Project Scope Creep.
In 1999, the Computer Security Department (CSD) of the Federal Government reviewed its Year 2000 Date Turnover Computer Risks and found that its outdated computer systems for managing public clients needed replacing. A business case was prepared for funding the replacement while at the same time implementing some improvements. The total budget requested was $2.3 million.
In view of a shortage of funds around at the time, the government did not approve this amount and only $1.5 million was authorized. However, the CSD accepted this amount after they decided that they could probably do the work for around the $1.5 m.
Accordingly, a project was scoped and planned, with specific milestones for implementing the hardware and, subsequently the software, across 87 sites within its jurisdiction. A final completion date of 30th June 2001 was projected. The original business case had loosely identified some risks to the project that were also included in the project plan. A project steering committee was established, with the department chief (CEO) as the sponsor, and representation by influential managers with differing outcome needs to suit their particular work environment. The project commenced in July 1999.
In view of the shortfall on its original budget request, the committee decided not to employ a project manager. Instead it assigned this responsibility to its Finance Manager, who would undertake the work along with his normal duties.
A Company, called "Good Programs" was contracted to supply the software and assist in the implementation. This company recognized the marketing opportunities of this project, as the CSD was its biggest client in the region. As a result, they offered, free of charge, many more features that were not in the original scope, provided the department allowed them to be, in essence a research and development (R&D) site. This would assist Good Programs to more readily sell their products elsewhere around the world, while providing the CSD with additional functionality and benefits.
Initially, the steering committee met regularly, but as new versions of the resulting software were being implemented regularly, meetings became less frequent and Good Programs were left to do more and more of the day to day management of the new version implementations.
These new versions were developed after consultation with the various individual managers to accommodate requested new features however there was little consultation amongst all of the managers. All the CSD and steering committee had to do was to identify problems with the software and to make the system testers available for new versions. However, the effect was an unanticipated overhead for the department.
Sometime after the original project was scoped and commenced, both the original CEO and Finance Manager had been moved out of the department and new officers had been appointed.
At this time, the new CEO had been advised that about $185,000 more was needed for the project this wad not in his current budget. The original project had not been signed off, indeed, it is evident that it had not been completed. The new CEO of the department was not sure of the original scope of the project, what aspects had been implemented, nor what had been spent for which parts. There did not seem to be any reliable reports available as to the original scope, scope changes, schedule or budget.
The CEO was concerned that the project had become more of a career than a project, with version 16.5 of the client management system then being tested with yet more features. In addition, there were some past software problems that were still outstanding. Nevertheless, Good Systems had promised that problems would be fixed in the next version.
Requirements:
As a senior consultant with PM Right Track (PMRT), a competent project management consulting company, the CEO has called you in for advice. The information is brief, but this is all the information that he and the new finance manager are able to provide. Please bear in mind that you are acting independently, may be asked to give evidence, and must reflect strict impartiality.
1. Report your assessment of the current project status.
2. How would you structure your report, i.e. on what basis?
3. Compare your assessment with sound project management practices.
4. Recommend steps to bring the project to a close.
5. Recommend improvements to the CSD's future project management practices.
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 student number), the teaching staff, and the assignment.
- The report must use 12 point font size and at least 1.5line 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 (IEEE style) 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 onMoodle only. The pages numbers of the assignment must be clear on each page.