Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to Final Simulation
Similar to Final Simulation (20)
Final Simulation
- 2. 2 Meet Our Team Sharan Nav Tobias Tom Adam
- 3. 3 Our Mandate Review the project Be positive in our attitude Not looking to blame
- 4. 4 The Project SFU IT Project Review AJ
- 5. 5 Our Approach 02 Created Analysis 04 Just For You 01 Talked with Team Members 03 Spoke with External Vendors AJ
- 6. 6 Our Process Broke Down Issues We refined and consolidated issues into categories We ranked and rated issues by severity Identified key areas for improvement on these issues > Tom
- 7. 7 7 Key Problem Areas Risk Assessment Schedule Cost Resource Volatility and Allocation Project Documentation Collaboration and Interaction Quality Management
- 8. 8 Resource Volatility • 4 Team Members Resigned or Retired • Vendor Turn Over • Lack of Engagement and Commitment
- 9. 9 Resource Allocation • Staff Underutilized • Lack of Stakeholder Buy-in TB
- 10. 10 Project Documentation • Documentation was not updated • No Project Status • Change Orders Not Approved Properly
- 11. 11 Collaboration and Interaction • DAPM in Toronto • Collaboration with DAPM not Adequate • SFU Failed to Provide Feedback
- 12. 12 Additional Integration Necessary Software Didn’t Meet Specifications In the End Multiple Interfaces Contact Updates to DAPM Software No Testing Until the End Quality ManagementNAV
- 13. 13 No Documentation Update at All 03 Risk Cycle DAPM Purchased 01 Tool Change Necessary 02 2 Year Overrun 04
- 14. 14 Schedule No Task AllocationWork Plan Had Old Dates No BaselineNo Resource Loading
- 15. 15 Cost • No Accountability • Changed Not Properly Approved • Many Billable Items Not Authorized • No Work Plan Update = No Budget • SFU Didn’t Claim Discount SH
- 17. 17 Resource Volatility Solution • Implement Incentive based employment • Better Identify Project Risks • Succession Plans • Team Building
- 18. 18 Resource Allocation Recommendation • Assign More Resources • Break Work Down Further • Require Resource Feedback • End-User on Project Steering Committee AJ
- 19. 19 Project Documentation Recommendation • Update Documentation within 48 Hours • Central Repository for Documents
- 20. 20 Collaboration and Interaction Recommendation • Define Roles and Responsibilities • Define Communications Plan • Daily Meetings • Vendors on Site Once Per Month • Prefer Local Vendors TO
- 21. 21 Quality Recommendations End-User Testing Before Completion Engaged Project Sponsor Engaged PM Who Developed Acceptance Criteria Test Fully Hire 3rd Party Tester Assign Dedicated Testing Team NAV
- 22. 22 03Lorem Keep Vendors Accountable Create and Update a Risk Management Plan Stay True to Original Scope Don’t be Afraid to Start Over Risk Management Recommendation
- 23. 23 Schedule Use Online Tools Use Timesheet Approval Create, Enforce and Adjust the Schedule Assign Responsibility Have regular status meetings! TB
- 24. Cost Recommendations 24 Have Legal Review Projects Re-Review Contracts and Suggest Updates to Terms Produce Cost Reports Establish Cost Approval Policy Finance to Review Bills with PM Staff Reject Unauthorized Billing Implement Checklists for Next Time AJ
- 26. 26 Wrap Up Project Ran 2 Years Over Schedule Little Effective Management People Left the Project
- 27. 27 All in a day’s work Questions? Thanks
Editor's Notes
- SHARAN To review the project SFU Enterprise Project Implementation and to identify areas of concern and issue recommendations for improvement We looked positively Not looking to blame
- SHARAN - Large Internal SFU Project from 2006 to 2009 - Goal: Select enterprise system for accounting, admin functions, facilities management - We selected 2 vendors who completed 2 years late, with partial success
- AJ - Our Approach - We talked with team members and reviewed project documentation - We spoke with external vendors - Created a detailed analysis of the project - Identified areas of improvement and made recommendations
- AJ
- Resource Volatility and Allocation Project Documentation Collaboration and Interaction Quality Management Risk Assessment Schedule Cost
- 4 SFU team members resigned or retired Vendors both experienced turnover as well Lack of engagement and commitment
- Staff in maintenance knew DAPMs systems and how to customize them, but they were underutilized in the project. - Key Stakeholder buy in to the project