2. Triple Constraint
Time: We thoughtfully scheduled the tasks for the entire project into a sequence that allowed us to identify a
critical path to completion. We relied on Microsoft Project to plan, manage, and track our schedule. Time was a
significant constraint because, as full-time students, our team members had to carefully manage our calendars to
adhere to the project schedule while also meeting deadlines for our other classes and obligations.
Cost: Our initial cost estimate was $19,782, which we determined by projecting time and labor requirements
against a standard hourly labor cost. For production of our printed deliverable (offset printing), we obtained a quote
from a full-service print vendor, based on an estimated supply of printed pages to meet the distribution
requirements for at least one year. We later reduced our cost estimate significantly to $9,767. We tracked changes
to identify risks for budget overages in our weekly team roundtable meetings.
Scope: The key elements of our project scope were:
Deliverable 1: A 5 minute video containing information necessary to explain BAS-ITAM to AAS students (± 2 minute tolerance)
Deliverable 2: A 1-2 page printed supplement to remind students of what they learned from the video and guide them to take
action if they are interested in learning more or applying for ITAM
Target Audience: Students in nontransferable AAS programs, especially in schools that do not have an ITAM Center on campus
End User Testing (Quality Management): Present the video to a group of our target audience members and conduct a survey to
determine whether it was effective and to gather feedback for the final revision
Financial Aid Content: We wish to include very brief info about CWU’s financial aid, but we wish to constrain the scope of this
element to a single clip within the video and a single item on the printed supplement, because it is a subject at the very edge of
our project’s scope and purpose
We met our scope, cost, and time targets by producing the deliverable by the end of November and conducting a focus
test with a cohort of students in a target AAS program. Based on feedback from the test, we revised the final deliverables
and prepared the project to conclude on time.
3. Stakeholders
Sponsor: Brandi Harrington
ITAM Staff/Administration
AAS Students
AAS Faculty
Project Team (Team 5)
Benefits: The real benefit is inspiring students to seek and explore information that will
guide them in finding life changing opportunities that BAS-ITAM offers. The video makes
potential transfer students aware of the program’s existence, and explains how and why
they should consider it in their future plans. The deliverable package provides ITAM with a
recruiting tool that we expect would be approved by Public Affairs and usable
immediately. AAS Faculty can help us, with minimal effort, to reach virtually every
member of our target audience.
We expect our value proposition to center on the program’s several specializations and
widely-applicable core curriculum, which together make the program suitable for graduates
of many diverse programs of study.
4. Summary of Project Results
We conducted a focus test group at Lake Washington Institute of Technology, with 13 students in the third
quarter of the Computer Security & Network Technology (CSNT) program.
We asked three questions before the video and three questions after to get a feel for the changes of attitudes.
Pre-Video Questions:
1. Were you aware that non-transferrable degree credits are transferrable to a 4-year BAS degree at CWU’s-
ITAM program? (Yes: 7, No: 6)
(ITAM has a lecturer on campus at LWIT, so this group was already aware of ITAM, which most AAS students
would not be)
2. Did you already know of CWU’s ITAM program? (Yes: 7, No: 6)
3. What are your plans after CSNT? Are you planning to further your education? (Yes: 4, No: 9)
Post-Video Questions:
1. Is there any information you would like to see included in the video that you did not see? (Yes: 4, No: 9)
2. What changes would you recommend for this video?
Information is good
Decrease volume of music behind speech
3. Did the specialization information make you want to explore your options?
Yes, specifically Network Management and Web & Database Management
Observations of Participants During Presentation:
Paid Attention? No: 3, Somewhat: 3, Completely: 7 (plus instructor)
5. Original and Actual Schedule
Our timeline, below, shows the milestones in our schedule. We had no milestones slip, and
task completion never slipped enough to cause a trickle-down delay of other tasks. We
carefully planned distributions of work and Project Managers kept in constant contact with
every team member to ensure progress was on schedule and to assist as needed.
6. Critical Path
Planning: Develop a basis for a project deliverable, and standards to communicate as a
team, as well as, how we will address issues as a team.
Pre-Initiating: Gather the information for beginning the deliverable research, and who we
will address to present the deliverable to.
Initiating: Developing the project charter and beginning the work.
Executing: Developing schedules for work deadlines, reaching out to stakeholders and
potential targets to initiate communication.
Monitoring/Controlling: Keeping an eye out on progress, and drafting deliverables.
Closing: Final deliverables, and lessons learned.
This was the most economical solution to completing this project on time and on budget.
These objectives led us to complete the project in an organized manner.
7. WBS/Gantt Chart
The Gantt Chart helped us solidify the project schedule, as well as, giving the team a
working guidebook.
Broke down individual deadlines and tasks to be completed.
Gave us a time basis for beginning new objectives and track ones completed
8. Milestones
Planning- Proposal, communication mgmt. plan, staff mgmt. plan, quality mgmt. plan, risk
mgmt. plan
Pre-Initiating- Business case, cost estimate, stakeholder analysis, team contract, financial
analysis, value proposition
Initiating- Distribution of work form, Project Charter
Executing- Gantt chart, Milestone report, External Stakeholder Communication
Monitoring/Controlling- Progress reports, Draft of deliverables
Closing- Hand off report, lessons learned, final deliverables
These milestones led the team in achieving certain progress at specific times. It also assured
us that we would make the project deadline of 12/6/16 and on budget.
9. Budget
Original Budget Projection: $19,782
We reduced our budget during Lab #2, because we discovered that some things we
anticipated (such as needing to pay participants in a focus test) were not necessary
expenses.
Final Budget: $9,767 (including a 10% reserve)
At one point, we identified a risk of having to redo some of the work for filming (due to a
problem with the audio equipment for two video clips). We were able to use the audio
recorded by the camera’s built-in mic (after extensive audio processing) to blend these
clips without a noticeable change in the audio quality. If we had needed to reshoot the
clip, it would have both delayed the focus test (and possibly final delivery) and could have
wiped out the entire budget reserve.
10. Project Assessment
Scope, Time & Cost Goals: Our project was on track with our scope and did not creep.
Each milestone was completed on time (some were done up to 3 days early).
Our continuous quality assessments determined that work was excellent quality, and we
made adjustments as necessary to ensure each lab submission met or exceeded
expectations.
There were no deadline changes, we tracked our schedule with the original Gantt chart.
By managing the schedule and ensuring that each task met the objectives in our scope,
we managed to stay within budget.
11. Project Assessment (continued)
Satisfaction of Customer/Audience: After careful testing with the focus group, we believe
that the deliverable accomplishes our goals and delivers the right message. We believe
that the information was relevant, both touching on each necessary topic and avoiding
information overload in any one area (and in the whole of the presentation).
We observed our audience while they observed our draft deliverable. Those who were
interested remained interested throughout the video. We accept that BAS-ITAM is only
interesting and relevant to some AAS students, so we don’t believe the students who
were inattentive or indifferent during the presentation indicate that we failed in any way.
12. Project Assessment (continued)
Overall Results: The project came in on time and within the budget. The test group was
pleased with the deliverable. We believe this is a strong indication that ITAM can use our
deliverable package in production and expect a healthy ROI from any students who
ultimately enroll in ITAM as a result of having seen our video.
Our team was careful in determining expertise for certain tasks, as well as being involved
with our stakeholders and target audiences.
We believe that we have created a successful Project, and that our results show this as
well.
Editor's Notes
We identified a need for increased awareness of BAS-ITAM’s unique offering to students currently enrolled in AAS degree programs in the technical and community colleges in Washington State. As the only 4-year public university in the State still offering a BAS, ITAM is uniquely positioned to serve graduates of AAS programs by accepting their “nontransferable” degree, so they may enter CWU as a junior and complete their BAS degree in as few as 8 quarters.
To help spread the word about BAS-ITAM, we have created a short video and a supplemental printed handout that, with approval of CWU’s Public Affairs, can be distributed to faculty in the AAS programs for presentation to their students. This allows ITAM to quickly and inexpensively reach every student in the target audience for BAS recruiting!
We outlined a schedule for our entire project very early in the planning process. We also prepared a detailed budget estimate early and revised it (lowering the total somewhat) after we finished the planning process, to better reflect some realities we discovered as we began execution. We defined and refined our scope to keep us focused on executing and producing deliverables that were appropriate for the audience and that delivered on our objectives.
The Stakeholders for this project were very cooperative and as involved as possible. They offered fair and objective input as needed. To produce the video, we received enthusiastic cooperation from about a dozen stakeholders outside our team. We would like to express our grateful appreciation to all the ITAM faculty in Ellensburg (and Luke in Lakewood) who worked around our schedule for filming.
The video we created followed the storyboard we created for lab number two. As a result students were asking real questions. They practically begged us to come back and present to them again during their 4th quarter, because several said they planned to continue to BAS-ITAM after graduation. As noted on this slide, our focus group was unique in that they have (the only) ITAM faculty on campus (at a non-CWU Center institution), who has already spoken to them about the BAS transfer program. While this was the most accessible group for us to engage for testing, we believe the results would have varied at a different campus.
(We encouraged interested students to get in touch with ITAM directly for more information.)
During each team meeting, we reviewed schedule and milestones to make sure everyone on the team was on track. Our Project Managers kept in close contact with everyone on the team and we shared our work in progress with each other during each lab, so we were mutually accountable among ourselves.
Our project team was attentive to each phase of our deliverables. We carefully watched each step that built upon the previous, making sure that each one was fully developed, completed and approved by all team members. We shared our work in progress with each other, so everyone was aware of all parts of the lab, not just our own assigned tasks.
The items represented by diamonds on the timeline (the blue on white/orange on white items below the timeline) represent the milestones, which comprise the critical path of the project.
The Gantt Chart assisted us by displaying a color coded timeline of phases, tasks and events. The quick view gave a an easy glance at who the resource was, the knowledge area and durations. We used Project extensively to plan and track our progress. Without that tool (or a similar one), we almost certainly would have slipped behind schedule and/or missed deadlines and milestones.
The Milestones were an important part of the project as it represented important benchmarks throughout the lifecycle of the project. We updated our milestones report weekly and tracked progress in Project. When everyone kept an eye on the next milestone, it ensured we were working toward shared goals (not just a single end goal).
There are two things to note here:
We were able to reduce our budget dramatically once we determined that some early projected costs were unnecessary to deliver all objectives in our scope. We submitted a revised budget to the Sponsor with Lab #2.
We managed to use quality control processes to correct a problem that would otherwise have caused the project to go over budget and possibly slip well behind schedule.
By observing both the long term schedule and deadlines for individual tasks, we delivered each milestone on time. The watchful eyes of our Project Managers identified quality and schedule risks early and prevented them from becoming problems. By avoiding problems in each category, we managed to keep each from hurting the others in the triple constraint.
Testing the deliverable was important. These students gave us useful feedback that we used to improve the quality and value of the deliverable in ways we could not have through self-evaluation. The high level of interest and thoughtful questions from the focus group provided reassurance that the final deliverables will meet our project goals!
We could not have felt assured that our deliverable would be successful if we had not conducted a focus test. Even with a relatively small group of test participants, we felt that we gained enough feedback to revise the video to accomplish our goals as best it can.
From the beginning, it was important to all teammates, that each person be as well matched to a task as possible to remain as streamed lined as possible throughout the project lifecycle. In doing this, we were able to achieve as much expertise as possible during each phase of the project. In particular, Brandon had the tools, software, and knowledge to film and produce the video (which required traveling to multiple campuses in several counties over a two-week period).
