Chapter 5: Project Conceptualization and Definition

1. Chapter 5: Project Conceptualization and Definition James R. Burns

2. WT PMI Student Chapter Meeting • WHEN: Tuesday, September 16, 7:00 pm • WHERE: BA rm. 105 • WHAT: Learn about PMP, CAPM certification • Learn about the PMI • Learn about PMBOK

3. Plan for Today • Recitation • Functions/Tasks/Competencies/Skills of… • Project Manager • Project Leader • Team Leader • Team member • Chapter 5—Burns/Chapter 3--Larson

4. You have been assigned the following HW • Burns EX. 1-4, 1-7, 1-10, p. 27 • Larson EX 1-2, 1-4 • Burns EX. 2-5, 2-6, • Larson EX 2-1, 2-4, 2-5 • Burns Ex. 5-6, 5-18, 5-19, 5-20 at the end of Chapter 5, pp. 36-41 • Requirements Scrubbing Spreadsheet • Homework 1 is due Tuesday, September 16

5. Homework: • Due Feb 6 • One week from today • Turn-in Hardcopy in class

6. Functions, Tasks, Expectations of the IT Project Manager • (coach, mentor, leader, negotiator, assessor, informer, motivator, delegator, encourager) • Selects Project leader, team leader, subordinates • Works hardest during the definition and planning stages—first two stages • Assesses progress during execution and reports on that • Negotiates with line managers for required human resources Texas Tech University -- J. R. Burns

7. Expectations of the IT Project Manager • Interfaces with customer, upper management on behalf of team • Negotiates with upper management and customer • Keeps everybody informed Texas Tech University -- J. R. Burns

8. More Expectations of the IT Project Manager • Is a positive leader, motivator, coach • Knows how to use PM software • Knows the technologies employed well • Must re-plan the remainder of the project after the completion of each deliverable, each phase Texas Tech University -- J. R. Burns

9. Skills, Competencies of the PM • Leadership—articulate the vision and hold everyone accountable to it • Delegation Competencies • An ability to develop people • Communication competencies • Interpersonal competencies • Able to handle stress • Problem solving skills • Time management skills • Negotiation skills Texas Tech University -- J. R. Burns

10. Functions, Tasks, Expectations of the IT Project Leader • Large projects will have such a person if there are several teams involved • In charge of all technical aspects of the project • Assists the project manager with project planning and control • particularly, the bottom levels of the WBS • Focused on the toughest technical problems Texas Tech University -- J. R. Burns

11. Functions, Tasks, Expectations of the IT Team Leader • Reports to the IT Project Leader • Oversees day-to-day execution • More technically competent, mature and experienced than team members • Should possess good communications competencies • Should develop a good rapport with each team member Texas Tech University -- J. R. Burns

12. Functions, Tasks, Expectations of the Information Technology Professional Team Member • Energetic, communicative, a good listener • Not a perfectionist • Possesses the requisite technical expertise • Doesn’t make any promises to the customer • Star performance Texas Tech University -- J. R. Burns

13. Recall the Large Project Hierarchy Project Manager Project Leader Team Leader 1 Team Leader 2 Developer 1 Developer 2 Developer 3 Developer 4 Developer 5 Developer 6 Developer 7 Developer 8 Developer N Texas Tech University -- J. R. Burns

14. Recitation, Continued • What is the difference between competencies vs. skills • Name some competencies of PM’s • What are the five stages of the PM lifecycle? • What are the four core knowledge areas • What are the four facilitating knowledge areas

15. Chapter 5 Outline • The First Stage • Using a SOW • Defining Project Boundaries/Scope • Why getting this right is so important • The use of surveys and interviews • Definition of Deliverables and Due Dates • Managing stakeholder expectations

16. Conceptualization and Definition Conceptualization and Definition Construct Statementof Work Define Requirements Determine OrganizationStructure/Culture AssessFeasibility Ensure fit with business strategy and priorities Assess technology consistency Define scope, size and resource requirements Identify dependencies with other projects Assess overall risk Test alignment with strategies Test resource availability Make GO/NO GO Decision Planning and Budgeting Planning and Budgeting

17. The First Stage • Analogous to a missile or rocket • If the launch is “bad,” the project may have to be killed • Just as a rocket that misfires must be detonated

18. Deliverables of this stage • Project stakeholders • Project charter • Project deliverables, what these will be • Requirements document (the main deliverable) • Project team members

19. Project stakeholders • This group must be molded into one in which there is a lot of cohesion • If you can’t get cohesion, then you may have to settle for a plurality or majority rule • If is most important that everyone knows up front what this project is about • Stakeholders who don’t get what they want from the project need to know this up front

20. Cohesion and Consensus • You’ve got to have this prior to execution or you’ll never get it later on

21. Requirements document • What the problem is • What functionality is needed • What outputs • What inputs • What performance • What reliability

22. What kind of meeting is appropriate to begin discussions? • A Joint Requirements Definition Session, also known as a JAD Session • To create a strongly held shared vision of what the project is all about • To hammer out a REQUIREMENTS DOCUMENT

23. JAD and JRD Sessions • They commit top executives to the software planning process • They shorten the requirements-specification phase • They eliminate features of questionable value • They help to get requirements right the first time • They help to get the user interface right the first time • They reduce organizational infighting

24. Project Charter • Template appears in Chapter 5 • Advantage here is that the rules are made explicit from the outset • Helps remind the PM and team what the goals/objectives are • ANNOUNCES THE PROJECT

25. What does the Project Charter announce? • Project • Project manager • Project stakeholders • Project scope • Project deliverables • Project assumptions • Project rules/processes • Project governance

26. Methodology for Facilitation of JRDS • SWOT Analysis/Brainstorming/Brain-writing • Goldratt Thinking Process • Quality Function Deployment • You should have seen this in your ISQS 3344 class. • Slides 18-23 cover it

27. 5 Importance Trade-off matrix 3 Design characteristics 4 2 1 Customer requirements Relationship matrix Competitive assessment 6 Target values House of Quality Figure 3.7

28. Competitive Assessment Customer Requirements 1 2 3 4 5 Presses quickly 9 B A X Removes wrinkles 8 AB X Doesn’t stick to fabric 6 X BA Provides enough steam 8 AB X Doesn’t spot fabric 6 X AB Doesn’t scorch fabric 9 A XB Heats quickly 6 X B A Automatic shut-off 3 ABX Quick cool-down 3 X A B Doesn’t break when dropped 5 AB X Doesn’t burn when touched 5 AB X Not too heavy 8 X A B Irons well Easy and safe to use House of Quality Figure 3.8

29. Energy needed to press Weight of iron Size of soleplate Thickness of soleplate Material used in soleplate Number of holes Size of holes Flow of water from holes Time required to reach 450º F Time to go from 450º to 100º Protective cover for soleplate Automatic shutoff Figure 3.9 Customer Requirements Presses quickly - - + + + - Removes wrinkles + + + + + Doesn’t stick to fabric - + + + + Provides enough steam + + + + Doesn’t spot fabric + - - - Doesn’t scorch fabric + + + - + Heats quickly - - + - Automatic shut-off + Quick cool-down - - + + Doesn’t break when dropped + + + + Doesn’t burn when touched + + + + Not too heavy + - - - + - Irons well Easy and safe to use House of Quality

30. - - Energy needed to press Weight of iron Size of soleplate Thickness of soleplate Material used in soleplate Number of holes Size of holes Flow of water from holes Time required to reach 450º Time to go from 450º to 100º Protective cover for soleplate Automatic shutoff + + + House of Quality Figure 3.10

31. Energy needed to press Weight of iron Size of soleplate Thickness of soleplate Material used in soleplate Number of holes Size of holes Flow of water from holes Time required to reach 450º Time to go from 450º to 100º Protective cover for soleplate Automatic shutoff Units of measure ft-lb lb in. cm ty ea mm oz/s sec sec Y/N Y/N Iron A 3 1.4 8x4 2 SS 27 15 0.5 45 500 N Y Iron B 4 1.2 8x4 1 MG 27 15 0.3 35 350 N Y Our Iron (X) 2 1.7 9x5 4 T 35 15 0.7 50 600 N Y Estimated impact 3 4 4 4 5 4 3 2 5 5 3 0 Estimated cost 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 4 4 5 2 Targets 1.2 8x5 3 SS 30 30 500 Design changes * * * * * * * Objective measures House of Quality Figure 3.11

32. House of Quality Figure 3.12

33. Goldratt Thinking Process—three steps • What to Change • What to Change to • How to Cause the Change

34. What to Change • Let’s talk about the problems with mainframe/glass house architecture • Data were isolated/non integrated • Corporate visibility was impossible • Centralized MIS shop had long lead times • Like 36 months for maintenance work on legacy apps • MIPS on mainframes were expensive and very much in demand • MIPS in PC were dirt cheap and idle most of the time

38. We will build a tree • Called a current reality tree • Begin by identifying the UNDESIRABLE EFFECTS the stakeholders are experiencing • The basic tree relationship: • IF {box a is true}, then {box b}.

39. Sales cannot track customer orders through the manufacturing/distribution process Sales cannot see what is happening in accounts receivable Information visibility across the enterprise is impossible Independent data pools are created that cannot be integrated or accessed Islands of automation are created End users develop their own independent applications that then run on departmental PC’s Centralized MIS shops have lead times of 36 months or longer Centralized mainframes are computing bottlenecks

40. Mainframes were computational bottlenecks Centralized MIS shop backlogs were extending out to 36 months Only the centralized MIS shop could do maintenance and new development work Budgets for MIS shops were stretched to their limits Many new applications were being built Change requests for existing apps were frequent and increasing Each application had to reside entirely on the mainframe Competitive and customer environments are changing rapidly

41. What to change to • An architecture in which the data are totally integrated • An architecture in which most of the processing is not done on mainframes • Decentralization of MIS • What architecture was this???

42. How to cause the change • ERP implementation • Solves the problems identified above

43. Feasibility Assessment Process • Identify Dependencies with other projects • Assess overall risk • Test alignment with/impact on strategies and plans • Test resource availability • Submit Stage one deliverables for a quality gate inspection • MAKE GO/NO GO Decision

44. Making Decisions amongst Projects • _________________________________________________________________ • efficiency 9 • frontier • G • R 8 • A • D 4 5 • E • 3 • 7 • 2 6 • 1 • _________________________________________________________cost__________ • Figure 5.8. Plot for Relating Proposal Cost to Grade

45. Multi-attribute Tree for Grading Projects

46. Solution

47. Linear Programming (optimization)

48. MAX 85*CRM + 95*DWF + 55*SMD + 80*SCM + 50*SCD + 75*CAD + 30*FCS + 35*PFA + 30*PCS + 40*VSM + 85*CPC • s.t. • 1.5*CRM + 1.3*DWF + .5*SMD + .1*SCM + .4*SCD + .8*CAD + .2FCS + .01*PFA + .01*PCS + .01*VSM + 1*CPC <= 6 • CRM – DWF >= 0 • DWF – SMD >= 0 • 2SCM – DWF – SCD >= 0 • FCS – SCM >= 0 • CAD + PFA + MCA + PCS + VSM >= 2 • CPC – SCM >= 0

49. More process steps • Obtain funding • Review alternative approaches • Obtain necessary signatures • Move to next stage

50. A Caveat • If possible, avoid making quick and dirty estimates of duration and cost in this stage • If your superiors insist, make your estimates high and insist that there could be 75% variability in the estimate • Educate your superiors to the effect that you cannot give a definitive estimate until a well-defined product for the project emerges.