(Mt) – Critically evaluate the importance of Project Life Cycle to the

FIND A SOLUTION AT Academic Writers Bay

INTRODUCTION A project is a “temporary endeavor undertaken to produce a unique result, product or service” (Anon, 2017, pg 4). Projects are successfully accomplished by incorporating a set of skills like specialist human knowledge, planning tools like Work Breakdown Structure and a series of management processes like scope, resources, and risk (Westland, 2006). This art is termed as project management by Anon (2017) and is effectively accomplished through different methodologies which are categorized into traditional and modern approaches by Ungureanu & Ungureanu (2014). A traditional approach, known as waterfall project life cycle, incorporates a series of linear steps and works well when the project requirements are sufficiently defined (McBride, 2016). Modern approaches do not follow linear steps (Ungureanu & Ungureanu, 2014). Examples are six sigma which resorts to eliminating wastes to ensure accuracy in implementation of processes and agile which is more flexible in terms of scope and budget as project requirements are mostly undefined. (ibid) This essay will discuss the waterfall project life cycle with four stages that Westland (2006) mentions as initiation, planning, execution, and termination and evaluate their importance to the successful completion of a project. Success hereby will consider the efficiency and effectiveness of a project (Shenhar et al., 2015). An efficient project meets the competing constraints of time, budget and quality (ibid). Whereas an effective project is defined by the success of the project’s product in meeting the desired needs of a customer (ibid). Furthermore, this essay will discuss the automated baggage handling system at Denver International Airport and evaluate factors for its failure regarding the project life cycle activities. 1 MAIN BODY Initiation phase Projects begin as ideas whose desired solutions cannot be accomplished by integrating them in the existing organizational processes like production and sales (Griffin, 2010; Wysocki, 2014). These ideas include unmet demands that require new product development or a need to leverage untapped business opportunities like expanding to new markets (Cooke & Tate, 2010; Wysocki, 2014). Hence, according to Griffin (2010), the primary purpose of this phase is to pitch the feasibility of the idea through a business case to the key decision makers like the management and stakeholders and see whether the project will be approved or not. A business case is a documented analysis that justifies the investment in a project through: Firstly, the business needs to undertake the project and its relevance to the organization strategic initiatives. Secondly, the potential benefits of the project like increased sales, brand recognition and profitability and lastly, the associated costs and risks (Axelos, 2009; Cooke & Tate, 2010). Additionally, this phase aims to ensure that all details of the project are explicitly communicated and acknowledged by the project’s sponsor, senior management and the team (De, 2008; Barrett, 2018). This is achieved by creating a project charter; a high-level document that contains information about the business reason for the project, typical milestones, critical success factors and conditions under which it will be performed, high-level estimate of resources, potential risks, proposed roles and responsibilities, project stakeholders and approval requirements (Barrett, 2018; Cooke & Tate, 2010; Meredith et al., 2015). As discussed by Cadle & Yeates (2008), initiation is an important phase which sets the direction of the project to success or failure. Success or failure depends on whether there is alignment and shared vision with everyone in the team from the onset (Lock, 2013). Alignment is demonstrated through aspects like the project scope, whether it is explicitly stated and understood or not. It is further demonstrated through whether the interests of different stakeholders like senior management, project team members, clients, competitors and activists’ groups like environmentalists are considered or not. (Lock, 2013; Pinto, 2013). This is because misalignment is costly in terms of cost, time, human energy and team or organizational reputation (Anon, 2017). 2 Planning phase According to VanOosten (2008), the planning phase generates a roadmap of activities, resources, and tools through which the project will be executed to meet the objectives identified in the project charter. This roadmap is consolidated into a planning document, known as a project plan (Barrett, 2018). A project plan details the project’s scope in terms of work content, deliverable, activities to be performed and resources to be consumed with the aid of the Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) tool (Pinto, 2013). WBS defines the scope of the project by illustrating the hierarchy of all work units, sub projects, tasks and subtasks and their interdependency to completing the entire project, thus creating a path to track cost, schedule and performance specification of each element in the project (Pinto, 2013; VanOosten, 2008). Additionally, a project plan answers the where, when and how the activities of the project will be performed through project scheduling (Pinto, 2013). This is aided by tools like Program Evaluation and Review Technique (PERT) (Srinavasan, 2004). By visually presenting all tasks required to complete the project, PERT identifies a critical path that prioritizes critical activities which require close monitoring for the project to finish in time over non-critical activities which can be delayed without affecting the completion time of the project (ibid). Planning, as emphasized by Haugan (2011), is the most critical process in the project life cycle because it provides guideline needed to execute a project and maximizes the certainty of a successful outcome. This is because, as a characteristic feature, all projects aim at producing unique outcomes, hence project managers and a team cannot rely on existing plans, as the new project does not fit neatly in the normal ways of working (Cooke & Tate, 2010). As pointed out by Barrett (2018), however, the importance of the planning phase is debatable. With the process being costly and laborious, it does not guarantee a smooth execution phase where unpredicted real-world activities and issues may emerge, creating a variance between the actual and planned work. However, this is exactly what makes planning important. During this phase the team gets thoroughly familiarize with all details of the project, preparing them to handle all unpredicted events that happen during the execution phase (Barrett, 2018; Wysocki, 2014). 3 Execution phase In the words of Pinto (2013), during execution, actual work to create the project’s product or service is carried out by using the project plan created during the planning phase. Execution combines both leadership and management skills to delegate work and coordinate resources to meet the project deliverable (Delpico, 2013). Alongside execution, a series of management processes are undertaken to control the project in line with the constraints of quality performance, time and cost (Greasley, 2008). Scope control ensures the purpose of the project, as outlined in the project charter, and its underlying limitations are adhered to (Cooke & Tate, 2010). To achieve this, tools like “in control checklist” which contains a list of questions that cover both internal and external aspects of the project is used (Melton, 2007). Questions like “Is the business ready for the project?” “What project stages have been completed?” “What is the likelihood of achieving project’s critical success factors?” are asked and the quality of answers determine whether the project is in control or not (ibid). Moreover, project schedule control monitors the progress of the project in line with the project baseline (Cooke & Tate, 2010). In the event where the project, for instance, is lagging behind schedule or pressing changes in market needs require the deliverable earlier than it was anticipated, a crashing technique may be applied (ibid). Crashing is applied to accelerate the project’s completion date (Kelly, 2009). Depending on the level of resource constraints, it may be achieved by fast-tracking the project where the longest critical activities are shortened or by partially overlapping the activities where the successor tasks start a bit earlier before the predecessor tasks are fully completed (Cooke & Tate, 2010). 4 Termination phase Project termination is the last phase of the project life cycle where the project work is concluded, and the final deliverable is transferred to the client (Westland, 2006). According to Havila & Salmi (2008), a project is naturally terminated after successfully meeting the competing constraints of time, budget and quality. However, there may be instances where a project is prematurely terminated due to being completed earlier than planned, or subjected to shortage of funds, legal concerns and a complete change in scope (Lock, 2013 cited by Havila & Salmi, 2008). Additionally, a project may be terminated late due to operational, financial or organizational factors (Sohmen, 2002). Typical activities include finishing project tasks, handing over the deliverable to the client, getting client acceptance, closing contracts with suppliers, closing project’s accounts and conducting project audit (Pinto, 2013). Post-project audit is especially important because: It helps In analyzing the benefits accrued from the project and account for all project properties and expenditures (Meredith et al., 2015). Also, it helps the team members to reflect on what was right and wrong, paving a way for future improvement (Aston, 2016). De (2008) emphasizes on terminating the project in a professional manner – that reflects well on the project team and the organization. This is because the customer’s interest in the project is high during this phase as they are concerned about whether the project’s deliverable will successfully meet their desired needs, putting the organization’s reputation at stake (Sohmen, 2002). Despite the realized importance of this methodology, it is criticized for being bureaucratic, predictive and demanding of heavy documentation, thus limiting the ability to change the plan when real world issues occur along the way (Kerzner, 2015). 5 CASE STUDY Automated Baggage Handling System at Denver International Airport Steering as the prime economic driver for the state of Colorado, Denver International Airport (DIA) generates about $26 million revenue annually and stands as the 6th busiest airport in the United States of America (Denver International Airport, 2018). It was constructed in 1989 to replace the aging Stapleton International Airport, following the need for a greater airport capacity to accommodate about 58.3 million passengers who travel through the airport annually (Goatham, 2008; Denver International Airport, 2018). The critical component of DIA construction was the automated baggage handling system which emerged as an afterthought with the construction of DIA underway (Fan, 2008). It was initiated to cover the long distance of the airport and reduce the aircraft turnaround time to about 30 minutes, hence keeping flights on schedule and increasing airlines’ profits (Schloh, 1996). The system was designed to automatically serve 3 concourses, all airlines, departing and arriving flights (Goatham, 2008). The planning began in 1991, but it was not until 1992 where Denver Project Team directly approached BAE Automated Systems Inc. and requested a bid for the project (Goatham, 2008). The execution began in 1992 with a budget of $175.6 million and a scope of three concourses fully running on the BAE automated handling system to be completed by 1993. It was terminated in February 1995 after missing four deadlines, with the final system serving only one concourse, instead of three (Fan, 2008). This project was not successful due to inefficiency of the construction process and ineffectiveness of the final product. Inefficiency is demonstrated through how the project was not completed in 1993, the total budget overshoot to $5.2 billion and the final deliverable departed from the initial plan with the automated baggage system serving only one concourse instead of three (Fan, 2008). Factors that led to this are: During initiation, the project’s senior leadership team ignored the experts advise about the complexity of the project and a low chance to be completed in one year (Goatham, 2008). This decision contributed to a poor delivery plan given a tight time frame and wide scope. Also, as highlighted by Fan (2008), there was partial involvement of key stakeholders like Continental and United Airlines in decision making. This set the project for failure during 6 execution, where many scope changes were made by the stakeholders and BAE was forced to accept them due to the pressure to meet the stakeholders needs. Changes like addition of ski equipment racks and maintenance tracks required redesign of completed work, causing further delays (ibid). Lastly, poor risk management prevented timely review and reporting to the key stakeholders leading to narrow chances of spotting and mitigating the rising issues. The German external consultant was brought in too late to review the situation in 1994 and advised to slash the project and build a manual trolley system while the project was out of hand. The project was ineffective because the baggage system did not meet the airports’ strategic need of having the world’s most efficient airport. With the system being an afterthought and complex, the team failed to link it with the strategic need (Fan, 2008). This proved the system’s unreliability by failing to serve all three concourses by the time of its opening in 1995 and was completely abandoned in 2005 after proving total failure and high maintenance costs (Harden, 2015). 7 CONCLUSION On the whole, this essay has established each step in the project life cycle is pivotal to the success of the project (Delpico, 2013). When alignment is established in the initiation phase, a robust project plan can be prepared in the planning phase. A robust plan leads to smooth execution of the project to suit the project objectives. Monitoring and control keeps the project on track, in line with the competing constraints of time, scope and budget. The Automated Baggage Handling System at Denver International Airport which followed a waterfall methodology has demonstrated how each step of the project lifecycle set the project to failure. This has been analyzed through how ineffective decision making in the initiation phase led to a poor plan constrained by time and scope and partially involved the key stakeholders. This made the execution phase even more difficult with scope creep that contributed to delay in completion and eventual failure of the project. 10 REFERENCE LIST A GUIDE TO THE PROJECT MANAGEMENT BODY OF KNOWLEDGE ( PMBOK® Guide)—6th ed. (ENGLISH)., 2017. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute. Available from: https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/gcal/reader.action?docID=5180849&query=project+life+c ycle [Accessed 28 Oct. 2018]. ALAM, M. D. & GÜHL, U. F., 2016. Project-Management in Practice A Guideline and Toolbox for Successful Projects. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Available at: https://link-springer-com.gcu.idm.oclc.org/book/10.1007/978-3-662-52944-7 [Accessed 26 Oct. 2018]. ANON., 2017. A guide to the project management body of knowledge : (PMBOK guide). 6th ed. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/gcal/reader.action?docID=5180849&ppg=5 [Accessed 28 Oct. 2018]. ASTON, B., 2016. Project Management Life Cycle: Complete Guide To Project Delivery Process. [online] The Digital Project Manager. Available at: https://thedigitalprojectmanager.com/project-management-life-cycle/ [Accessed 31 Oct. 2018]. AXELOS, A., 2017. Managing Successful Projects with PRINCE2 2017 Edition. London: The Stationery Office Ltd. Available from: https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/gcal/reader.action?docID=4863041&query=Project+Mana gement [Accessed 28 Oct. 2018]. BARRETT, D., 2018. Understanding Project Management: A practical Guide. Toronto, Ontario: Canadian Scholars. Available at: https://books.google.mu/books?isbn=1773380885 [Accessed 28 Oct. 2018]. CADLE, J. AND YEATES, D., 2008. Project management for information systems. 5th ed. Harlow: Pearson Prentice Hall. Available at: https://books.google.mu/books?isbn=0132068583 [Accessed 28 Oct. 2018]. COOKE, H. & TATE, K., 2010. Project management. 2nd ed. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill Professional. Available at: https://www.dawsonera.com/abstract/9780071750424 [Accessed 28 Oct. 2018]. DAVIDSON, J., 2005. Project management. Petaling Jaya: Advantage Quest. Available at: https://books.google.mu/books?isbn=0028639669 [Accessed 28 Oct. 2018]. DE, F., 2008. Project Management Recipes for Success. London: Auerbach Publications. Available from: 11 https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/gcal/reader.action?docID=427037&query=Project+manag ement [Accessed 28 Oct. 2018]. DELPICO, W. J., 2013. Project control : integrating cost and schedule in construction . Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Available at: https://onlinelibrary-wiley-com.gcu.idm.oclc.org/doi/book/10.1002/9781118802717 [Accessed 28 Oct. 2018]. DE NEUFVILLE, R., 1994. The baggage system at Denver: prospects and lessons. Journal of Air Transport Management, 1(4), pp.229-236. Available at: The Baggage System at Denver: Prospects and Lessons – Mit [Accessed 28 Oct. 2018]. DENVER INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, 2018. About DEN. Denver International Airport. [online] Available at: About DEN | Denver International Airport [Accessed 28 Oct. 2018]. DONALDSON, A., 2002. Denver Airport Baggage Handling System – SEBoK. [online] Sebokwiki.org. Available at: https://www.sebokwiki.org/wiki/Denver_Airport_Baggage_Handling_System [Accessed 28 Oct. 2018]. ESKEROD, P & JEPSEN, A. L., 2013. Project stakeholder management. Farnham: Gower. Available at: https://www.dawsonera.com/abstract/9781409404385 [Accessed 28 Oct. 2018]. FAN, J., 2008. Denver Airport Baggage Handling System Case Study – Calleam Consulting Case Study – Denver International Airport Baggage Handling System – An illustration of ineffectual decision making Calleam Consulting Ltd – Why Technology Projects Fail. [online] Academia.edu. Available at: Case Study – Denver International Airport Baggage Handling System …[Accessed 28 Oct. 2018]. GOATHAM, R., 2008. Disaster DNA – Decoding the DNA of failed technology projects. [online] Calleam.com. Available at: Disaster DNA – Decoding the DNA of failed … – Calleam Consulting [Accessed 28 Oct. 2018]. GREASLEY, A., 2008. Operations management. Los Angeles: SAGE. Available at: http://sk.sagepub.com.gcu.idm.oclc.org/books/operations-management [Accessed 28 Oct. 2018]. GRIFFIN, J., 2010. Residential construction management. Ft. Lauderdale, FL: J. Ross Publishing. Available at: https://books.google.mu/books?isbn=1604270225 [Accessed 28 Oct. 2018]. HARDEN, M., 2015. DIA20: The high-tech airport baggage system that failed to launch [Online]. Denver Business Journal. Available at: https://www.bizjournals.com/denver/ [Accessed 31 Oct. 2018]. HAUGAN, G. T., 2011. Project management fundamentals : key concepts and methodology. 2nd ed. Vienna, Va.: Management Concepts. Available at: [Accessed 28 Oct. 2018]. 12 HAVILA, V. & SALMI, A., 2008. Managing project ending. New York: Routledge. Available at: https://books.google.mu/books?isbn=1134098952 [Accessed 28 Oct. 2018]. HILL, G., 2007. The Complete Project Management Office Handbook. 2nd ed. London: CRC Press. Available at: https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/gcal/reader.action?docID=314320&ppg=40 [Accessed 28 Oct. 2018]. JOHNSON, K., 2005. Denver Airport to mangle last bag. [online] Nytimes.com. Available at: Denver airport to mangle last bag – The New York Times [Accessed 28 Oct. 2018]. KELLY, É. V., 2009. Crash with confidence. Paper presented at PMI® Global Congress 2009—North America, Orlando, FL. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute. Available at: https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/performing-crash-analysis-alternative-cost-schedule-6750 [Accessed 28 Oct. 2018]. KERZNER, H., 2015. Project management 2.0 leveraging tools, distributed collaboration, and metrics for project success. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Available at: https://www.vlebooks.com/vleweb/Product/Index/444408?page=0 [Accessed 28 Oct. 2018]. KERZNER, H., 2017. Project management : a systems approach to planning, scheduling, and controlling. 12th ed. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Available at: https://app.knovel.com/web/toc.v/cid:kpPMASAPSC/viewerType:toc//root_slug:project-manage ment-a?kpromoter=marc [Accessed 28 Oct. 2018]. KUSTER, J. et al., 2015. Project Management Handbook. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Available at: https://link-springer-com.gcu.idm.oclc.org/book/10.1007/978-3-662-45373-5 [Accessed 28 Oct. 2018]. LESTER, A., 2007. Project management, planning and control : managing engineering, construction and manufacturing projects to PMI, APM and BSI standards. 5th ed. Amsterdam: Elsevier/Butterworth-Heinemann. Available at: https://app.knovel.com/web/toc.v/cid:kpPMPCE008/viewerType:toc//root_slug:project-manage ment-planning [Accessed 28 Oct. 2018]. LIM, C. & MOHAMED, M., 1999. Criteria of project success: an exploratory re-examination. International Journal of Project Management [online], 17(4), pp.243-248. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0263786398000404#! [Accessed 28 Oct. 2018]. LOCK, D., 2013. Project Management. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing Ltd . Available at: https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/gcal/detail.action?docID=1139931 [Accessed 28 Oct. 2018]. 13 MAYLOR, H., 2010. Project management. 4th ed. Prentice Hall: Financial Times. Available at: https://www.dawsonera.com/abstract/9780273743521 [Accessed 28 Oct. 2018]. MCBRIDE, M., 2016. Project Management Basics. Berkeley, CA: Apress. Available at: https://link-springer-com.gcu.idm.oclc.org/book/10.1007/978-1-4842-2086-3#authorsandaffiliati onsbook [Accessed 28 Oct. 2018]. MELTON, T., 2007. Project Management Toolkit: The basics for project success. 2nd ed. Elsevier Ltd: Burlington, USA. Available at: https://books.google.mu/books?isbn=0750684402 [Accessed 28 Oct. 2018]. MEREDITH, J., MANTEL, S., MANTEL. AND SHAFER, S., 2015. Project Management: A Managerial Approach. 9th ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Available at: https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/gcal/reader.action?docID=5120557 [Accessed 28 Oct. 2018]. MILOSEVIC, D. AND MARTINELLI, R., 2016. Project management toolbox. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Available at: https://app.knovel.com/web/toc.v/cid:kpPMTTTPP1/viewerType:toc//root_slug:project-manage ment-toolbox?kpromoter=marc [Accessed 28 Oct. 2018]. PINKERTON, W., 2003. Project Management. Blacklick, USA: McGraw-Hill Professional Publishing. Available at: https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/gcal/reader.action?docID=4656137&query=Project+mana gement [Accessed 28 Oct. 2018]. PINTO, J. K., 2013. Project management: Achieving competitive advantage. Boston: Pearson. Available at: https://www.dawsonera.com/abstract/9780273767435 [Accessed 28 Oct. 2018]. SCHLOH, M., 1996. The Denver International Airport Automated Baggage Handling System [online]. Available at: Analysis of the Denver International Airport baggage system [Accessed 28 Oct. 2018]. SHENHAR, A., ORHOF, O., & DORI, D., 2015. For want of a nail: how critical components analysis can save your project from failure. Paper presented at PMI® Global Congress 2015—EMEA, London, England. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute. Available at: https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/conceptual-framework-of-cca-9890 [Accessed 31 Oct. 2018]. SHENHAR, A. AND DVIR, D., 2007. Reinventing Project Management: The Diamond Approach to Successful Growth and Innovation. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Available at: https://books.google.mu/books?isbn=1422163474 [Accessed 28 Oct. 2018]. SOHMEN, V., 2002. Project termination: why the delay? Paper presented at PMI® Research Conference 2002: Frontiers of Project Management Research and Applications, Seattle, Washington. 14 Project Management Institute: Newtown Square, PA. Available at https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/project-termination-delay-1931 [Accessed 28 Oct. 2018]. SRINAVASAN, M., 2004. Program evaluation and review technique (pert) and project management. In M. J. Stahl (Ed.), Encyclopedia of health care management (pp. 458-459). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. doi: 10.4135/9781412950602.n652. Available at: https://sk.sagepub.com/reference/healthcaremanagement/n652.xml?fromsearch=true [Accessed 28 Oct. 2018]. TURNER, J., 2007. Gower Handbook of Project Management. 4th ed. Hampshire: Gower Publishing Limited. Available at: https://www.dawsonera.com/abstract/9780566089947 [Accessed 28 Oct. 2018]. UNGUREANU, A. & UNGUREANU A., 2014. Methodologies used in Project Management. Annals of Spiru Haret University Economic Series. [Online] 14 (2), 47–54. Available from: http://anale.spiruharet.ro/index.php/economics/article/view/1425 [Accessed 28 Oct. 2018]. VANOOSTEN, D., 2008. ‘Project management’, in Given, LM (ed.), The sage encyclopedia of qualitative research methods, SAGE Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 689-690, doi: 10.4135/9781412963909.n343. Available at https://sk.sagepub.com/reference/research/n343.xml?fromsearch=true [Accessed 28 Oct. 2018]. WESTLAND, J., 2006. The project management life cycle: A complete Step by Step methodology for initiating, planning, executing, and closing the project. London: Kogan Page. Available from: https://books.google.mu/books?isbn=0749449373 [Accessed 28 Oct. 2018]. WILL, K., 2012. Project management. Delhi: Learning Press. Available at: https://www.dawsonera.com/abstract/9788132319955 [Accessed 28 Oct. 2018]. WILLIAMS, M., 2008. The principles of project management. Collingwood, Vic.: Sitepoint. Available at: https://books.google.mu/books?isbn=0980285860 [Accessed 28 Oct. 2018]. WYSOCKI, R. K., 2014. Effective project management traditional, agile, extreme. 7th ed. Indianapolis, Indiana: Wiley. Available at: https://www.vlebooks.com/vleweb/Product/Index/335584?page=0 [Accessed 01 Nov. 2018]. 15 According to Association of Project Managers (APM), Project Related to definitions. Management is the application of processes, methods, skills, knowledge and experience to achieve specific project objectives (APM BOK, 2020). Various authors have defined project management in different ways. While there are some subtle differences in these definitions, they all have a number of common aspects. For example, APM BOK, 2020, PMI, 2022, Munns & Bjeirmi, 1996, Kerziner, 2017 and Gardiner, 2015) all include in their definitions the aspects of agreed objectives, meeting the time and cost parameters, and use of resources. In addition, PMI, 2022 also mentions the importance of use of specific (project management) knowledge, skills, tools and techniques; and, Kerzner (2017) links the purpose of project management with adding business value. The importance of project management in the modern day organisation cannot be overlooked. According to Kerzner (2017), organisations are now linking project management to firm survival. This is important to note as this is firmly Importance of suggesting that project management is not only important for management project success and to fulfil project parameters, but also necessary for meeting organisational objectives, clearly suggesting that delivering projects successfully adds business value for the stakeholders. Continuing the topic of project management and project success, using specific knowledge, skills, tools, and techniques Successful (PMI, 2022), ensures delivering something of value to people, management and perhaps helps to fulfil project objectives, at the same time success etc. doing so effectively and efficiently. or project Project project To achieve these, Gardiner (xxxx) incorporated breaking down the management of project into various stages of planning, Stages of PM, monitoring and control of all aspects of the project. He/she also highlighted the human aspect of the importance of motivating those involved in the project to maintain quality of deliverables and overall project performance. Project management lifecycle framework is one of the most common frameworks used for project management. According or life cycle framework. to xxx (20xx), PMLC is….. This is clearly of importance, as Samset & Volden (2016) mentioned about a clear linkage between good decision making Importance of PMLC in the earlier stages of a project life cycle and the long term success of the project. PART A What is Project Management? Definition of PM from multiple authors (2-3). Why is PM important? PMLC and Successful completion of projects Introduction (Common to both parts) Defining Project Management (Definition and you can also show the iron Triangle (diagram). PMLC – Define (what is PMLC) and tell about different stages of PMLC Different authors have provided multiple stages of PMLC. According xyz (2010) there are 4 st ages – Initiation, Planning, Implementation Monitoring & Control and finally Handover/ Termination. However, other authors such as Archibald et al 2012 have highlighted that there are 7 stages i.e. imitation…. etc etc In this essay, the 4 stage PMLC has been chosen as it is understood it covers all the main activities that are included in initiation and completing a project based on the 4D model created by Maylor (2010) Define it, Design it, Do it and Deliver it. In Part A, the various stages and its components will be described in detail. The London Olympics case Study was chosen for evaluation in this report. It was found that the London Olympics project was a successful project as it followed the PMLC stages in detail. In addition to this, there were other aspects as well, such as Strategic fit, good communication, stakeholders’ management, risk assessment etc. was all undertaken meticulously. Overall, all these aspects were found to contribute to the success of the project. Part B will discuss the evaluation in detail. PART A The focus of this part will be to describe in detail the 4 main stages of a PMLC i.e. 1. initiation, 2. planning, 3. implementation, monitoring and control and finally, 4. Termination/ Closure or handover. Initiation – define/ describe/ inputs/ outputs Planning – define/ describe/ inputs/ outputs (tools – WBS/ Network Diagrams/ CPM etc), you can show some diagrams. Implementation, Monitoring & Control – define/ describe/ inputs/ outputs Termination, Handover or Closure – define/ describe/ inputs/ outputs Risk Management Benefits of Life cycle approach (Critical Discussion) Project Management Life Cycle; THIS IS ALL MADE UP – THESE REFERENCES ARE NOT REAL AND THIS WAS ONLY TO SHOW HOW CRITICAL DISCUSSION IS WRITTEN. Project management lifecycles has been defined as a multiple stage approach to managing projects (Smith, 2016). Add more definitions from various authors. The benefits of PMLC has been established or promoted by many different authors most notably by Wilson (2017); Smith (2016); Harvey & Nicol (2014) and Duncan (2018). According to Wilson (2017), PMLC has been used for many years by project Mangers in different fields. They further noted that PMLC is a structured approach to project management and as stated by Harvey & Nicol (2014), PMLC as an approach has helped many project managers to transform their projects and bring success to it. For example, of a project (NASA’s Mars project) Smith (2016) has also highlighted the various benefits of using a Lifecycle approach as it helps the PM to manage their teams, resources such as time and cost, of the project most effectively. Duncan (2018) further adds that having stage by stage approach not only breaks down the entire project into more manageable stages, but also helps in monitoring and control of the project implementation and execution. So far, I have written in support of a structured approach to PM using the PMLC and I have used 4 articles to support that viewpoint. Now for critical discussion, I need to find authors who talk against this. While the above mentioned authors have highlighted the benefits of a structured approach to project management such as PMLC, there have been others who have found that a highly structured approach comes with some limitations too. Notable among these are Halcro, (2018) and Fraser & Khan (2019). According to Halcro (2018), while many project managers prefer to use a structured approach to project management as it breaks down the complexity of the managing a project, it doesn’t support management of risk and uncertainties that a project manager has to deal with. This view is further supported by Fraser & Khan (2019), when they mentioned that the external environment plays a crucial role in the management of a project, notably in deciding about its success or failure. Due to these reasons some authors have described a structured approach as not flexible enough in managing projects. Even though there are multiple viewpoints regarding project management, however, there is overwhelming support that a structured approach such as PMLC has more benefits than limitations (Smith, 2016). On the basis of this it can be concluded that a structured approach with some element of flexibility has overall more advantages for a PM than not using a structured approach. In the situation where both arguments are equally strong, there may be another author who has given a solution. For example: On the basis of the above discussion it is not completely clear which approach is better suited for a PM to adapt. However, Trump & Biden (2019) has stated that this selection should be subjective to the project itself and this cannot be simply applied to all projects in all sectors. Part B: Evaluation of London Olympics Project The LOP was initiated by the UK government in the year 2006 when they won the bid from IOC to stage Olympics in London in July 2012. The key specifications of the project are shown below: Start time Expected End time Total Budget allocation Key Stakeholders Key deliverables March 2007 June 2012 8.1bn GBP A, b, C etc Build Olympics stadium, 7 parks, 20km of road, athletes village etc Figure 4, Summary of project, Source: London Olympics Case Study. Evaluation of project based on Life cycle framework: Initiation Planning Implementation, Monitoring & Control Handover Risk assessment Other key factors contributing to success/ Failure Conclusion Summary of learning and brief summary of project evaluation Blanka Tunnel Complex by Glasgow Caledonian University The Bianka Tunnel Complex: A Case Study of Project Management (BENEFIT,2016) Student lD: Project Management Word count: 2 286 Table of Contents Table of Contents ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………………………Z The project ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….Z Initiation ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 2 Planning …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..3 Execution ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..4 Risk management…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 4 Management of stakeholders ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 5 Closing …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 6 Project review…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 6 Conclusion …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 7 References …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………8 1 You could have mentioned the basis aspects of the project in terms of the time and cost budget and the specific objectives. And also its business case. Later of course you would elaborate on these. The purpose of the introduction must be to set the scene of the project report/ essay overall. how about the stakeholders? What were the selection criteria? 1 Was this not evaluated in the initiation phase in terms of ground strength, composition etc. Appears to be a severe failure of the planning process. what about measures for accountability? Any reasons why? While the discussion is good and informative, there needed to be more depth in understanding the role of the stakeholders, aspects of accountability of various phases of project, and monitoring and control. This is a well written section Closing As a result of the scope creep, the end of the project was delayed by four years (Lang,no date). The project was finally closed with rigorous safety checks in September 2015 and a training of the rescue team on the 17th of September 2015. Once these had been successfu lly comp leted, the tunnel was opened for a tr ial operation on the 19th of September 2015 {SATRA, 2019). Followingthe completion of the fina l milestone,the European Commission {2016) also recommends an administrative closing though a project end-review meeting held to discuss the overa ll performance and the lessons learned, which shou ld then be summa rised into a final report. A similar report was also published by the project management company SATRA, but only in reference to the levels of traffic, noise and emissions. There was no mention of the process of managing the project. Project review The tunneldelivered the expected benefits to the customer, reducing the density of traffic in the city centre {HeidelbergCement, no date). A lthough the aim or scope of the project was successfu lly ach ieved, the cost doub led from the initially est imated 20 billion Czech Crowns to approximately 43 billion (CTK,2015). The poor estimation of costs is partially to bla me for this as well as the fact that the or iginal contract did not have a cap set on the maximum possible cost of the project to motivate the sub-contractors to complete the wor k on time (BENEFIT, 2016). There are, however, other factors that were performed to a poor standard, many of which were pub lished in the audit by White & Case (2011). One of these was the poor project pla nning and preparat ion. Desp ite the 11-year planning period between the selection of the proposal in 1996 and the construction implementat ion in 2007, it seems that the project’s planning and management was handledvery poorly, as the timeline and budget were greatly exceeded. The scope creep could have been avoided by thorough risk planning and management in the initia l phases of the project (Osipova, 2007), following Baloi and Price’s {2003) seven-step model of “risk management planning,risk identification, risk assessment, risk analysis, risk response, risk monitoring and risk communication” (2003,p.262). A lthough the planning and production phases are the most vita l for the management of risk,it is impossible to foresee all possible risks ear ly on in the process, for they are likely to change over time. Rahman and Kumaraswamy (2004), therefore, recommend that risk be managed jointly and consistent ly throughout all phases of the project. This was, however, impossible, as the project was split into four contracts -design, construction, technology and supervision -and so the Prague City Hallwas held responsible for the overall risk and cost overruns (BENEFIT, 2016). Instead, Osipova’s {2007) adv ice should have been fo llowed, that in cases of first-time collaboration between different actors “the management of a specific 6 This is a very good critical evaluation and provides meaningful recommendations Good evidence of engagement with literature. Locatelli,G.,Mariani,G.,Sainati,T. and Greco, M.,2017. Corrupt ion in public projects and mega projects: there is an elephant in the room! International Journal of Project M anagement, 35(3), pp. 252-268. Maylor, H.,2010. Project Management, 4th edition. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited. Ochrana F. and Hrncf rova, K.,2015. Does the Lowest Bid Price Evaluation Criter ion Make fo r a More Efficient Public Procurement Selection Criter ion? (Case of the Czech Republic). NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy, 8( 1), pp. 41-59. Osipova, E.,2007. Risk Management in the Different Phases of a Construction Project: a Study of Actors ‘ Involvement [online]. Lulea: Lulea tekniska universitet. [viewed 24 March 2019). Available from: http://www.divaportal.org/smash/get/diva2: 1005212/FULLTEXT01.pdf Rahman, M. and Kumaraswamy, M.,2004. Contracting relationship trends and transitions. Journal of M anagement in Engineering, 20(4), pp. 147-161. Richter, J., 2013. Completion of Prague’s tunnel complex threatened by legal issues [online]. Radio Praha. [viewed 16 March 2019). Available from: https://www.radio.cz/en/sect ion/ marketplace/co mpletio n-of-p ragues-tu nnel-complexthreatened-by-lega 1-issues SATRA, 2019. Historie Projektu [online). BrusnickY, Dejvicky a BubenecskY tunel. [viewed 16 March 2019). Ava ilable from: http://www.tunelblanka.info/projekt/ SATRA, no date. Study of the Urban Ring tunnel sections operation safety [online]. SATRA. [viewed 20 March 2019). Ava ilab le from: http://www.satra.cz/en/study-of-the-urban-ringtunnel-sections-operation-safetyI Stuchlik, J., 2018. The main risk factors leading to cost overrun in delivery of Czech public building projects [online]. Business & IT. [viewed 25 March 2019). Ava ilable from: White & Case,2011. Zpr6va o pr6vn f proverce smluvnf dokumentace k vystavbe tunelu Bianka [online]. Praha.eu. [viewed 25 March 2019). Available from: http://www.praha.eu/public/48/37/al/1142985_ 153973_Tunel_ Blanka_ Red_ Flag_ Report.pdf 9 Blanka Tunnel Complex GRADEMARK REPORT FINAL GRADE GENERAL COMMENTS Section Wise Instructor Comments below _ /100 INTRODUCTION (15%) Provide a general overview of the organisation and the background to the project, including the business case. Generally satisfactory but could be enhanced by expanding on the scope, business case and background to project. PROJECT PLAN (15%) Overview of the main project plan: the timescale, phases and tasks (work breakdown), including ownership/responsibilities; schedule of work; key milestones; resources involved including budget and staff; project constraints and priorities. More details would be helpful in this section. There is limited descriptions of the project itself. What were the key phases of the project? and what was the basis of breakdown? in terms of milestones and costs etc. What about resource availability and usage. These were important points and needed some more in-depth discussion. IMPLEMENTATION (20%) Critical evaluation of the project work carried out including changes to project scope, management of stakeholders and others involved in the supply chain; the effectiveness of monitoring, review and control mechanisms (of project tasks and schedules as well as customers, suppliers, subcontractors, etc). Evaluate how the practice compares to principal project management methodologies, theories and research. I am taking ‘Execution, Management of Stakeholders and Closing’ sections as one here for the sake of marking within this section. Again, more depth needed here. You have mentioned about the landslides etc, you could have linked these to some more information provided in the initiation phase where these aspects could be tested. What about monitoring, evaluation and control. Not much about that. The section about management of stakeholders is good and in-depth. PROJECT RISKS (15%) Identify the risks associated with the project and analyse how they were managed. By comparing theory to practice, evaluate the effectiveness of risk management within this project. There is evidence of linking theory to practice. Again shows importance of accountability to avoid some issues. Need to further evaluate risk management effort in this project. It appears that there was limited to no risk management strategy in place at all. CONCLUSIONS (25%) Critical evaluation of the overall success or failure of the project (NOTE: if project is not yet fully complete, provide an evaluation of work to date); effectiveness of the project plan; overall management of the project; the staff/customers/suppliers/subcontractors involved; management of project scope; risk management; what aspects of the project were successful and why; what aspects of the project failed and why; could problems that emerged have been foreseen; how could problems have been avoided. Provide recommendations on how the project could be improved; what lessons can be learned from the project. These recommendations should be derived from the report findings. Project Review section and conclusions are clubbed for marking purpose. The is a well detailed section and provides good in-depth evaluation of what went wrong and why. What could have been the impact of scope creep and time overruns on a project and its meeting of the strategic objectives. QUALITY OF WRITING (10%) The report should be structured appropriately and written in a formal style, free from any spelling or grammatical errors. Please thoroughly proofread your work before submission. The report must be written in your own words, with the exception of any quotes which must be clearly indicated using double quotation marks. The quality of writing is overall good. The report is well presented and follows a logical structure. You could have stuck to the suggested structure as it makes the marks allocation process easier. Project Management Coursework Final by l! Caledonian University Project Management – The Helix and The Kelpies in Falkirk Student Name: Matriculation Number: Programme Title: Module Title: Project Management Module Code: MMN224935 Word Count: 2,168 Plagiarism Checklist Form Module Title: Project Management Module Code: MMN224935 Student Name (Print): Matriculation No: In accordance with University regulations,please read carefully through the following statements, tick each box and sign the declaration at the bottom on the sheet. Iconfirm that the coursework that Iam submitting is my own original work,and that Ihave: • Read and understood the guidance on plagiarism in the Module Handbook; • Cleary referenced,both withinthe text andon the end reference page, all sources used inthe work; • Used inverted commas and the full reference details (including page numbers) for all text quoted from books,journals,web-based or other sources; • Provided the sources for all data intables and figures that are not my own work; • Not made use of the work of any other student(s) past or present without acknowledgement.This includes any of my own work,that has been previously, or concurrently,submitted for assessment,either at this or any other educational institution, including school; • Not sought or used the services of any professional agencies or other individuals,to produce this work; • In additional, Iunderstand that any false claim in respect of this work will result in disciplinary action in accordance with University regulations. Hence, as required by clause 9.10 of the University Assessment Regulations,I declare that: “This piece of coursework is my own original work and has not been submitted elsewhere in fulfilment of this or any other award.” I Student Signature: Date: 2 Contents Introduction ………………………………………………………………………………………….4 Project Plan………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 5 Implementation …………………………………………………………………………………….. 6 Project Risk Management …………………………………………………………………………….. 8 Conclu sion …………………………………………………………………………………………… 9 References ……………………………………………………………………………………… 10 3 Does this meet the strategic objectives of the Local Council? Good background provided. You could have mentioned the business case here. An introduction is meant to set the scene for the entire report. Incorrect citation This is a good section overall. Even though, as mentioned, there was no end date specified, there may have been interim completion dates of phases when started. Also, some more linking of theory to practice would be useful. Implementation Due to the large scale of the project, the focus in this section wi ll be on The Kelpies. These are very well associated within the Falkirk area and attract people around the world to come and visit them in person. The idea to create a monumental structure in The Helix was always part of the original concept. The name “The Kelpies” was created by Scottish Canals in 2005 as the name relates to the mythological transform ing beasts of strength and reflects the heavy horse of Scottish industry that pu lled ploughs, barges and wagons which helped to shape the Falkirk area (Falkirk Community Trust, 2018). The first step that was taken before The Kelpies were built was to gain the major planning permission by Falki rk Council whi ch would involve The Kelpies, an area for visitor facilities and the extension of roads and pathways (The Helix Trust, 20 10). The idea for the structures never changed from the beginning of the concept to when they were being constructed. Out of the £43 million overal 1 budget, £5 million was dedicated to the manufacturing and the assembling of the structures in their place. The sculptures were designed by a Scottish creator Andy Scott who worked alongside SH Structures, Atkins Global and SKM, the only suppliers of the structures, to develop stainless steel cladding that would form into the horse’s heads (SH Structures, 2019). They would reach an impressive 30 metres high and weigh an incredible 300 tonnes each. It took several years for the steel to be developed meaning a close-knit timeframe had to be followed. The sculptures had to be ready to open to the public by 2013, sticking to deadlines is a huge aspect of project management (Martin and Tate, 2002) and was important in this project due to multiple phases need ing to be bu ilt one after another. Construction of The Kelpies began in June 2013, taking only 90 days to put together the sculptures were complete by October 2013.Summer 2017 was the first maintenance and cleaning of the structures which will take place on yearly schedules. The Kelpies main purpose was to increase the tourism industry in and around the Falkirk area which has been monitored closely since it was first opened. Visitors to The Kelpies have increased by 50.2% from 2009 to 2016 however, numbers have dipped slightly especially in comparison to their projections (The Helix, 2018).The reason for this can be linked to the product life cycle framework. Although normally associated with the world of business, it can be used within the realms of project management to discuss how the end of the project 7 Could have discussed further in detail about the management of Stakeholders, any monitoring and control mechanisms developed and implemented. need references This is a good point. You need to evaluate a project beyond the aspects of scope, time and cost. A further discussion of this aspect would have been beneficial. Any recommendations? References BALAll, S. & MURUGA IYAN, M.S., 2012. WATEERFALLVs V-MODEL Vs AGILE: A COMPARATIVE STUDY ON SDLC. I nternational Journal of I nformation Technology and Business Management. 2(1) [viewed 31 March 2019]. Available from: http://jitbm .com/Volume2NoI/waterfa ll.pelf . BOURNE, L.& WALKER, D.H.T., 2005. Visualising and mapping stakeholder influence. Management Decision. 43(5), pp.649-660. [viewed 31 March 2019]. Available from: 10.1108/00251740510597680. BUTLER, R.W., 2006. The tourism area life cycle. Clevedon : Channel View [viewed 31 March 20 19]. Available from : http ://bvbr.b i bbvb.de:899 l/F?func=service&doc library=BV BO I &local base=BVBO I &doc number=O 146 52900&sequence=OOOOO I&I ine number=OOO I&func code=DB RECORDS&service type= MEDIA . CACCAMESE, A. & BRAGANTIN I, D., 20 13. Beyond the Iron Triangle: Year Zero. PM World Journal. 2(11) [viewed 14 March 2019]. Available from: https://pmwor ldjou rna l.net/wp-content/u ploads/20 13/ 12/pmwj I7-dec2013-caccamesebra gantini-beyond -iron-triangle-year-zero-ipma-SecondEdition.pdf. ERRRSEN, J_R_ & HOPE, A., 2011.Re-im;igining the Iron Tri;ingle:Rmheclcl ing Sustainability into Project Constraints. Ebbesen, Jonas Ba/shoe} and H ope, Alex (2013) Relmagining the Iron Triangle: Embedding Sustainability into Project Constraints. PM World Journal, II (lll). ISSN 2330-4480. [viewed 31 March 2019]. Available from: http://nrl.northumbr ia.ac.uk/l I 31 1/. ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE., 2007. Brief Description of Five Current Restorations; .In : Great Britain and House of Commons eds., British Waterways : Follow-up; Eighth Report of Session 2007-08 United Kingdom :The Stationary Office. FAIRFIELD CONTROL SYSTEMS. 2015. Falkirk Wheel Boat Lift. FALKIRK COMMUNITY TRUST.,2018 History. [viewed 31 March 2019]. Available from: http://www.thehelix.co.uk/things-to-do/the-kelpies/history#XKEml ZFzIU . FALKIRK COUNCIL., 20 17. Falkirk Gateway Zones 1 & 4 Planning Statement. Falkirk : FALKIRK COUNCIL., 20 14 New Year brings £1.45 million visitor centre building for the kelpies. [viewed 31 March 2019]. Available from: http://www.falk irk.gov .uk/news/article.aspx?aid=3374. FALKIRK COUNCIL ., 2013. Tax Incremental Financing (TIF) Initiative. Falkirk: Falkirk Council Development Services. IRONSIDE FARRAR ., 2010. The Helix Central Park PPP Planning Supporting Statement. Ironside Farrar. JO KARLSEN ,J.T., 2002. Project Stakeholder Management. Engineering M anagement Journal. 14(4) [viewed 31 March 20 19]. Available from: https://www.tandfon line.com/doi/abs/ 10.I 080/ 10429247.2002. I 1415 180. KERZNER, H.,2017. Projec t management. Twelfth edition ed.Hoboken; New Jersey:Wiley [viewed 31 March 2019]. Available from: http://www.gbv.de/dms/zbw/87109732X.pdf . MARTIN, P.&TATE, K., 2002. Developing a Schedule; .In : Getting Started in Project Management, John Wiley and Sons, pp. 128-146. MCANGUS, S. 2016. Kelpies creator demands burger stall is removed -or else! The Falkirk Herald. MURRAY, G. 2017. Rough Guide readers name Scotland the ‘most beautiful country in the world’. Independent. OLANDER , S.,2007. Stakeholder impact analysis in construction project management. Construction Management and Economics. 25(3), pp.277-287. [viewed 31 March 2019]. Ava ilable from: 10.1080/01446190600879125. RADUJKOV IC, M. & SJEKAVICA, M., 2017. Project Management Success Factors. Procedia Engineering. 196, pp.607-6 15. [viewed 31 March 2019].Ava ilable from: 10.1016/j.proeng.2017.08.048. SCOTTISH CANALS., 2014. Scottish Canals Corporate Plan 2014-17. SH STR UCTURES.,2019 The Kelpies, Falkirk. [viewed 31 March 2019].Available from: http://www.shstructures.com/pro jects/the-kelpies-falkirk/. STEVEN KLEPPER, 1996. Entry, Exit, Growth, and Innovation over the Product Life Cycle. The American Economic Review. 86(3), pp.562-583. [viewed 31 March 2019]. Available from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/21 18212. THE HELIX., 2018. The Helix Business Plan 2018119. THE HELIX TRUST Proposal of Application Notice, 2010. [Viewed 31 March 2019]. WILLIAMS, R., BERTSCH, B., DALE,B.,WIELE, T.V D.,IWAARDEN, J.V., SMITH, M. & VISSER, R., 2006. Quality and risk management: what are the key issues? .The TQM Magazine. 18(1) [viewed 31 March 2019]. Available from: https://www .emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/ I0.1108/09544780610637703 . II Project Management Coursework Final GRADEMARK REPORT FINAL GRADE GENERAL COMMENTS Section wise Instructor Comments below INTRODUCTION (15%) Provide a general overview of the organisation and the background to the project, including the business case. Generally satisfactory but could be enhanced by expanding on the scope, business case and background to project. PROJECT PLAN (15%) Overview of the main project plan: the timescale, phases and tasks (work breakdown), including ownership/responsibilities; schedule of work; key milestones; resources involved including budget and staff; project constraints and priorities. Key areas of project plan outlined including goals, phases and stages. Constraints and priorities could be highlighted further. IMPLEMENTATION (20%) Critical evaluation of the project work carried out including changes to project scope, management of stakeholders and others involved in the supply chain; the effectiveness of monitoring, review and control mechanisms (of project tasks and schedules as well as customers, suppliers, subcontractors, etc). Evaluate how the practice compares to principal project management methodologies, theories and research. Some evaluation of the project has been carried out. Answer could be enhanced by evaluating how practice compares to project management methodologies and theories.It is unclear what monitoring and review control mechanisms they had in place PROJECT RISKS (15%) Identify the risks associated with the project and analyse how they were managed. By comparing theory to practice, evaluate the effectiveness of risk management within this project. – You have provided a broad outline of a range of internal and external risks to the project. Some effort has been made to evaluate their risk management effort in relation to theory. CONCLUSIONS (25%) Critical evaluation of the overall success or failure of the project (NOTE: if project is not yet fully complete, provide an evaluation of work to date); effectiveness of the project plan; overall management of the project; the staff/customers/suppliers/subcontractors involved; management of project scope; risk management; what aspects of the project were successful and why; what aspects of the project failed and why; could problems that emerged have been foreseen; how could problems have been avoided. Provide recommendations on how the project could be improved; what lessons can be learned from the project. These recommendations should be derived from the report findings. Good points discussed in this section. Structure of this section could be improved to clearly address:critical evaluation; recommendations. QUALITY OF WRITING (10%) The report should be structured appropriately and written in a formal style, free from any spelling or grammatical errors. Please thoroughly proofread your work before submission. The report must be written in your own words, with the exception of any quotes which must be clearly indicated using double quotation marks. Well-presented and well structured. Good style of writing.

Order from Academic Writers Bay
Best Custom Essay Writing Services


Why Choose Us?

  • 100% non-plagiarized Papers
  • 24/7 /365 Service Available
  • Affordable Prices
  • Any Paper, Urgency, and Subject
  • Will complete your papers in 6 hours
  • On-time Delivery
  • Money-back and Privacy guarantees
  • Unlimited Amendments upon request
  • Satisfaction guarantee

How It Works

  • Click on the “Place Your Order” tab at the top menu or “Order Now” icon at the bottom and a new page will appear with an order form to be filled.
  • Fill in your paper’s requirements in the “PAPER DETAILS” section.
  • Fill in your paper’s academic level, deadline, and the required number of pages from the drop-down menus.
  • Click “CREATE ACCOUNT & SIGN IN” to enter your registration details and get an account with us for record-keeping and then, click on “PROCEED TO CHECKOUT” at the bottom of the page.
  • From there, the payment sections will show, follow the guided payment process and your order will be available for our writing team to work on it.

About AcademicWritersBay.com

AcademicWritersBay.com is an easy-to-use and reliable service that is ready to assist you with your papers 24/7/ 365days a year. 99% of our customers are happy with their papers. Our team is efficient and will always tackle your essay needs comprehensively assuring you of excellent results. Feel free to ask them anything concerning your essay demands or Order.

AcademicWritersBay.com is a private company that offers academic support and assistance to students at all levels. Our mission is to provide proficient and high quality academic services to our highly esteemed clients. AcademicWritersBay.com is equipped with competent and proficient writers to tackle all types of your academic needs, and provide you with excellent results. Most of our writers are holders of master’s degrees or PhDs, which is an surety of excellent results to our clients. We provide assistance to students all over the world.
We provide high quality term papers, research papers, essays, proposals, theses and many others. At AcademicWritersBay.com, you can be sure of excellent grades in your assignments and final exams.


error: Content is protected !!