Assignment 1: Creating a Methodology Due Week 2 and worth 100 points Read the Chapter 2 Case titled “Creating a Methodology.” Write a one to two (1-2) page paper in which you:
1.Discuss factors about the corporate culture that were at play, and suggest central reasons why the executive staff waited as long as they had to consider the development of an enterprise project management methodology (EPM).
2.Recommend to both the senior executives (i.e., the company) and John Compton (i.e., the president) whether the project management office (PMO) should report to the chief information officer (CIO) or to someone else. Justify the response.
3.Use at least three (3) quality references. Note: Wikipedia and other Websites do not quality as academic resources.
Your assignment must follow these formatting requirements:
• Be typed, double spaced, using Times New Roman font (size 12), with one-inch margins on all sides; citations and references must follow APA or school-specific format. Check with your professor for any additional instructions.
• Include a cover page containing the title of the assignment, the student’s name, the professor’s name, the course title, and the date. The cover page and the reference page are not included in the required assignment page length.
The specific course learning outcomes associated with this assignment are:
• Describe the key concepts, processes, and components of project management.
• Analyze the interrelationships among the principal elements (time, cost, resources) in the performance of project management.
• Evaluate the general systems factors affecting performance throughout the project life cycle.
• Use technology and information resources to research issues in project management.
• Write clearly and concisely about project management using proper writing mechanics.
Here below is the rubric for assignment:
|
Points: 100 |
Assignment 1:Creating a Methodology |
||||
|
Criteria |
Unacceptable Below 60% F |
Meets Minimum Expectations 60-69% D |
Fair 70-79% C |
Proficient 80-89% B |
Exemplary 90-100% A |
|
1. Discuss factors about the corporate culture that were at play, and suggest central reasons why the executive staff waited as long as they had to consider the development of an enterprise project management methodology (EPM). Weight: 45% |
Did not submit or incompletely discussed factors about the corporate culture that were at play, and did not submit or incompletely suggested central reasons why the executive staff waited as long as they had to consider the development of an enterprise project management methodology (EPM). |
Insufficiently discussed factors about the corporate culture that were at play, and insufficiently suggested central reasons why the executive staff waited as long as they had to consider the development of an enterprise project management methodology (EPM). |
Partially discussed factors about the corporate culture that were at play, and partially suggested central reasons why the executive staff waited as long as they had to consider the development of an enterprise project management methodology (EPM). |
Satisfactorily discussed factors about the corporate culture that were at play, and satisfactorily suggested central reasons why the executive staff waited as long as they had to consider the development of an enterprise project management methodology (EPM). |
Thoroughly discussed factors about the corporate culture that were at play, and thoroughly suggested central reasons why the executive staff waited as long as they had to consider the development of an enterprise project management methodology (EPM). |
|
2. Recommend to both the senior executives (i.e., the company) and John Compton (i.e., the president) whether the project management office (PMO) should report to the chief information officer (CIO) or to someone else. Justify the response. Weight: 40% |
Did not submit or incompletely recommended to both the senior executives (i.e., the company) and John Compton (i.e., the president) whether the project management office (PMO) should report to the chief information officer (CIO) or to someone else. Did not submit or incompletely justified the response. |
Insufficiently recommended to both the senior executives (i.e., the company) and John Compton (i.e., the president) whether the project management office (PMO) should report to the chief information officer (CIO) or to someone else. Insufficiently justified the response. |
Partially recommended to both the senior executives (i.e., the company) and John Compton (i.e., the president) whether the project management office (PMO) should report to the chief information officer (CIO) or to someone else. Partially justified the response. |
Satisfactorily recommended to both the senior executives (i.e., the company) and John Compton (i.e., the president) whether the project management office (PMO) should report to the chief information officer (CIO) or to someone else. Satisfactorily justified the response. |
Thoroughly recommended to both the senior executives (i.e., the company) and John Compton (i.e., the president) whether the project management office (PMO) should report to the chief information officer (CIO) or to someone else. Thoroughly justified the response. |
|
3. 3 references Weight: 5% |
No references provided |
Does not meet the required number of references; all references poor quality choices. |
Does not meet the required number of references; some references poor quality choices. |
Meets number of required references; all references high quality choices. |
Exceeds number of required references; all references high quality choices. |
|
4. Clarity, writing mechanics, and formatting requirements Weight: 10% |
More than 8 errors present |
7-8 errors present |
5-6 errors present |
3-4 errors present |
0-2 errors present |
John Compton, The president of the company, expressed his feelings quite bluntly at the executive staff meeting;
We are no longer competitive in the marketplace. Almost all of the Requests for Proposal (RFP) that we want to bid on have a requirement that we must identify in the proposal the project management methodology we will use on the contract should
1. ©2010 by Harold Kerzner. Reproduced by permission. All rights reserved.
CREATING A METHODOLOGY1
Background
Copyright ©2013 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Case Study
109
Critical Issues
we be awarded the contract. We have no project management methodology. We have just a few templates we use based upon the PMBOK® Guide. All of our competitors have methodologies, but not us.
I have been asking for a methodology to be developed for more than a year now, and all I get are excuses. Some of you are obviously afraid that you might lose power and authority once the methodology is up and running. That may be true, but losing some power and authority is obviously better than losing your job. In six months I want to see a methodology in use on all projects or I will handle the situation myself. I simply cannot believe that my executive staff is afraid to develop a project manage- ment methodology.
The executive staff knew this day was inevitable; they had to take the ini-
tiative in the implementation of a project management methodology. Last year, a consultant was brought in to conduct a morning three-hour session on the benefits of project management and the value of an enterprise project management methodology (EPM). As part of the session, the consultant explained that the time needed to develop and implement an EPM system can be shortened if the company has a project management office (PMO) in place to take the lead role. The consultant also explained that whichever executive gets control of the PMO may become more powerful than other executives because he or she now controls all of the project management intellectual property. The executive staff fully understood the implication of this and therefore became reluctant to visibly support project management until they could see how their organization would be affected. In the meantime, project management suffered.
Reluctantly, a PMO was formed reporting to the chief information officer. The PMO was comprised of a handful of experienced project managers that could hopefully take the lead in the development of a methodology. The PMO concluded that there were five steps that had to be done initially. After the five steps were done, the executive committee would receive a final briefing on what had been accomplished. The final briefing would be in addition to the monthly updates and progress reports. The PMO believed that getting executive support and sign-offs in a timely manner would be difficult.
The first step that needed to be done was the establishment of the number of life-cycle phases. Some people interviewed wanted ten to twelve life-cycle phases. That meant that there would be ten to twelve gate review meetings and the project managers would spend a great deal of time preparing paperwork for the gate review meetings rather than managing the project. The decision was then made to have no more than six life-cycle phases.
The second step was to decide whether the methodology should be designed around rigid policies and procedures or go the more informal route of using forms, guidelines, checklists, and templates. The PMO felt that project managers needed some degree of freedom in dealing with clients and therefore the more informal approach would work best. Also, clients were asking to have the methodology designed around the client’s business needs and the more informal approach would provide the flexibility to do this.
The third step was to see what could be salvaged from the existing templates and check- lists. The company had a few templates and checklists but not all of the project managers used them. The decision was made to develop a standardized set of documents in accordance with the information in the PMBOK® Guide. The project managers could then select whatever forms, guidelines, templates, and checklists were appropriate for a particular project and client.
The fourth step would be to develop a means for capturing best practices using the EPM system. Clients were now requiring in their RFP that best practices on a project must be
Copyright ©2013 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
