M14 Writting

Project Control - Keeping on Course Case Study Joe Smith is PM working for a building \& construction company (Ajax Construction). Ajax was awarded a construction project from a local municipality - Laurel Springs - to build a child's recreational facility for its residents. This facility will be located on municipality owned land, which is located on one of the streets in a large residential housing development. The project includes: - 2 small maintenance buildings, the children's recreational area (large wooden structure with swings, climbing areas, etc.), landscaping, lighting and parking facilities. The scope has been set for each item, but the project is set up so that there is a scope change management process available (which gives the project team some flexibility in dealing with unknowns). Joe is the PM and he has a small group of Ajax employees working as the project team (these are administrative only, and not qualified to perform construction). The following are the stakeholders: 1. Joe and the project team 2. Bill B., the owner of Ajax Construction 3. Mary J., a municipality employee assigned to provide oversight and represent the interests of Laurel Springs 4. Sarah S., the solicitor for Laurel Springs (legal counsel paid by the municipality to make sure that local, state and federal regulations are followed) 5. Four separate sub-contractors which have been engaged by Ajax to do the work associated with the project. Vendor A- buildings; Vendor B - recreational area; Vendor C- Outside lighting and landscaping; Vendor D - parking facilities. These vendors are specialized for the services they provide and do not have the skill sets or resources to provide services outside of there expertise. The funding for the project came from a state grant (approved on 9/30/2003), and Sarah S. has told the team that these kinds of grants typically come with a spending constraint - the money must be spent by 9/30/2004. "Spent" in this case means that the work must be completed, and the invoice received by Laurel Springs. Because of this constraint, all parties have agreed that on the date that any work is completed, an on-site inspection will occur and (assuming the work is acceptable) the invoice will be hand delivered. This procedure was set up as a "risk mitigation" strategy against the possibility that invoice processing would be delayed past the spending deadline. Sub-contractors engaged for the project must be approved by the municipality (even if they were already approved for other municipality projects), and the approval process typically takes at least 2 months. The stakeholders also agreed that progress monitoring must occur on a weekly basis. It is Monday, 9/1/2004, and the following has been completed: 2 small maintenance buildings and the recreational area, lighting and landscaping. All that is left to do is build the parking facilities. The project team performs it weekly progress check, and discovers that the parking facility work (which was supposed to start on the previous Tuesday) has not started. A call is placed to the vendor and it is discovered that they are behind schedule on other commitments and cannot start until 10/1/2004. Put yourself in Joe's "shoes" and describe what the PM must do now. Remember that your goal in this case study is to identify the constraints associated with the variance, and describe a practical plan to overcome the constraints and get the project back on course. Review Lecture 21 as a guide to what strategies you would want to pursue. Some guidelines for this case study: - Doing nothing is NOT an option - Do not describe the result of an investigation, or that a full solution for any part of this case study has happened. - Analyze the options, propose potential solutions and describe next steps in the analysis to determine if you can get to those solutions. - There is no Risk Management Plan in place, and there is no "Management Reserve" budget to tap. - You cannot propose lawsuits or threats against the contractor. You cannot force a vendor to do anything. - If I did not explicitly describe a constraint or condition for this case study, you are free to expand the case study if you need this to augment your proposed actions. - Don't assume that "rules are rules" when it comes to local government - everything should be investigated/questioned. - Please propose practical solutions/alternatives. Do not contradict the project constraints already described. - You cannot propose that an already approved vendor can do any other job other than the one that they are hired for. The vendor approval process includes an approval for their specific skill set. Any proposed change to a contract must be analyzed with all parties that are involved in the contract. - Do not waste time explaining that the project team must do variance analysis- the variance is obvious in this case. Do not waste time describing that a meeting or communications with the stakeholders must be convened. Focus on what the project team can do regarding the specific Project Control - Keeping on Course Case Study Joe Smith is PM working for a building \& construction company (Ajax Construction). Ajax was awarded a construction project from a local municipality - Laurel Springs - to build a child's recreational facility for its residents. This facility will be located on municipality owned land, which is located on one of the streets in a large residential housing development. The project includes: - 2 small maintenance buildings, the children's recreational area (large wooden structure with swings, climbing areas, etc.), landscaping, lighting and parking facilities. The scope has been set for each item, but the project is set up so that there is a scope change management process available (which gives the project team some flexibility in dealing with unknowns). Joe is the PM and he has a small group of Ajax employees working as the project team (these are administrative only, and not qualified to perform construction). The following are the stakeholders: 1. Joe and the project team 2. Bill B., the owner of Ajax Construction 3. Mary J., a municipality employee assigned to provide oversight and represent the interests of Laurel Springs 4. Sarah S., the solicitor for Laurel Springs (legal counsel paid by the municipality to make sure that local, state and federal regulations are followed) 5. Four separate sub-contractors which have been engaged by Ajax to do the work associated with the project. Vendor A- buildings; Vendor B - recreational area; Vendor C- Outside lighting and landscaping; Vendor D - parking facilities. These vendors are specialized for the services they provide and do not have the skill sets or resources to provide services outside of there expertise. The funding for the project came from a state grant (approved on 9/30/2003), and Sarah S. has told the team that these kinds of grants typically come with a spending constraint - the money must be spent by 9/30/2004. "Spent" in this case means that the work must be completed, and the invoice received by Laurel Springs. Because of this constraint, all parties have agreed that on the date that any work is completed, an on-site inspection will occur and (assuming the work is acceptable) the invoice will be hand delivered. This procedure was set up as a "risk mitigation" strategy against the possibility that invoice processing would be delayed past the spending deadline. Sub-contractors engaged for the project must be approved by the municipality (even if they were already approved for other municipality projects), and the approval process typically takes at least 2 months. The stakeholders also agreed that progress monitoring must occur on a weekly basis. It is Monday, 9/1/2004, and the following has been completed: 2 small maintenance buildings and the recreational area, lighting and landscaping. All that is left to do is build the parking facilities. The project team performs it weekly progress check, and discovers that the parking facility work (which was supposed to start on the previous Tuesday) has not started. A call is placed to the vendor and it is discovered that they are behind schedule on other commitments and cannot start until 10/1/2004. Put yourself in Joe's "shoes" and describe what the PM must do now. Remember that your goal in this case study is to identify the constraints associated with the variance, and describe a practical plan to overcome the constraints and get the project back on course. Review Lecture 21 as a guide to what strategies you would want to pursue. Some guidelines for this case study: - Doing nothing is NOT an option - Do not describe the result of an investigation, or that a full solution for any part of this case study has happened. - Analyze the options, propose potential solutions and describe next steps in the analysis to determine if you can get to those solutions. - There is no Risk Management Plan in place, and there is no "Management Reserve" budget to tap. - You cannot propose lawsuits or threats against the contractor. You cannot force a vendor to do anything. - If I did not explicitly describe a constraint or condition for this case study, you are free to expand the case study if you need this to augment your proposed actions. - Don't assume that "rules are rules" when it comes to local government - everything should be investigated/questioned. - Please propose practical solutions/alternatives. Do not contradict the project constraints already described. - You cannot propose that an already approved vendor can do any other job other than the one that they are hired for. The vendor approval process includes an approval for their specific skill set. Any proposed change to a contract must be analyzed with all parties that are involved in the contract. - Do not waste time explaining that the project team must do variance analysis- the variance is obvious in this case. Do not waste time describing that a meeting or communications with the stakeholders must be convened. Focus on what the project team can do regarding the specific