1. Identify project status and all relevant information used to determine project status (2 points)
2. Identify three (3) distinct, feasible, and effective responses to control the schedule with justification (2 points each)
   • Note: Changes/controls on one constraint will impact other constraints (recall lesson "Introduction to Project Management"). Response "feasibility" and "effectiveness" is evaluated based on how comprehensive the justification accounts for likely outcomes - both positive and negative.
3. Recommend one (1) of the identified responses - the recommendation should be the "best" alternative to pursue, demonstrate high intellectual standards in critical thinking, and be supported with justification (2 points)

Case Study

It is now just 6 months until the new student dorm is scheduled to be completed. The team is excited because they can watch the construction of the facility and feel they are moving toward the end of this project.

Every week since construction began, the construction project manager, Sally Winnhawk, has been holding a meeting with her project team. At the meetings she invites representatives of the construction company, the director of university facilities planning and management, the Chief of the university police services department, and other key people as she deems necessary. The meetings are scheduled every Friday at 1:00PM and last not more than one hour. No matter who is or is not there, Sally starts the meetings exactly at 1:00PM. Sally developed the following standing agenda:

1. Review schedule and budget as of today’s date
2. Review schedule and budget for next two weeks
3. Issues impacting schedule or budget
4. Next steps and action items to be completed

Sally e-mails the meeting minutes after each meeting and the action item list generated to each member of the construction project team. Sally also sends the information to Mary White, the university Chancellor, as well as to each member of the project steering committee. Internally, Sally monitors project progress with a number of dashboards and Earned Value Management data (see table 1).

Table 1: Earned Value Management Data (Past 3 Months)

Week	PV	EV	AC
1	12,004,883	13,023,741	14,165,801
2	12,242,655	13,349,751	14,328,021
3	12,303,868	13,421,499	14,503,161
4	12,672,984	13,630,378	14,867,897
5	13,538,143	13,892,707	14,952,853
6	14,590,883	13,947,872	15,064,978
7	15,018,150	14,007,422	15,200,085
8	15,273,246	14,173,481	15,361,859
9	15,563,150	14,291,669	15,493,823
10	16,320,366	14,348,916	15,547,752
11	16,672,469	14,405,457	15,874,255
12	16,986,773	14,845,382	15,913,854

Upon reading the minutes and action items from the week’s meeting, Mary got quite angry. Mary read the minutes every week and would immediately phone Sally to ask why certain decisions still had not been made. This week she wanted to know why the layout of the dorm’s planned state-of-the art digital lab has not be finalized and what the “Coffee House” issue was about. Sally decided that these matters would be better discussed face-to-face. She went to Mary’s office.

Sally proceeded to explain to Mary that the university Director of Technology and Information Resources, Frank Hertz, had not attended the construction project update meeting in weeks. Sally said that Frank informed him that in light of turnover issues, he is short-staffed and often finds himself personally resolving, wrapping-up, or closing-out issues (“tickets”) during the update meeting. Sally told Mary that she was not comfortable making decisions about the digital lab without Frank’s input and that Frank had not returned her calls or answered his e-mails. Mary responded to Sally in a loud and angry voice, “That guy is not short-staffed and is has no business directly handling tickets. Who does he think he is?” Mary instructed Sally to tell Frank to answer questions about the digital lab immediately or the decisions would be made for him.

Sally said she would do so and then changed the subject to the “Coffee House”. Sally explained that the Dean of Students and the Dean of the College of Business had come up with the idea to build a coffee shop in the dorm for students. Students from the top-rated business program would fully manage and operate the shop, which the Deans thought would be a great selling point that could generate revenue. Quoting the Dean of the College of Business, “You have to spend money to make money.” They came to Sally just 2 months ago and asked her to include a coffee shop on the first floor of the facility. Sally explained that she did not have enough information to be able to determine the impact that this would have on the construction schedule or the cost of this addition. Mary listened and then questioned if the members of her team had done any analysis to determine if this was a good idea or not. Sally told Mary that she would get back to her on that one. Mary then made a phone call to the Dean of Students and the Dean of the College of Business.