Task
Project Report: Scheduling, Pert Analysis, and Crashing
The following assignment is made for analysing the project management tools of scheduling, analysing project using Pert method, and crashing a project according to given scenario. The deployment of the operations had supported the utilization of the activities favouring the implication of the improved operation development.
The Gantt chart of the project is shown below,
Figure 1: Gantt chart of the project
The Gantt chart of the project would be helpful for providing the graphical representation of the project activities, their durations, and the estimated cost expense for the project. The timeline would comprise of the tasks attached to one another in a more systematic approach. The Gantt chart has shown,
The complete project would be completed in 10 weeks of time on 10th March, 2017 (assuming the project starts on 2nd January, 2017). The duration for each of the activities has been estimated on the basis of past reports and operations and the assumed work duration for the project activities are,
|
WBS |
Task Name |
Duration |
|
1.1 |
Project start |
0 days |
|
1.2 |
Technical Specifications determined |
10 days |
|
1.3 |
Design Plan developed |
3 days |
|
2.1 |
Equipment ordering |
2 days |
|
2.2 |
System prototype |
20 days |
|
2.3 |
Configuration |
10 days |
|
2.4 |
Testing |
5 days |
|
2.5 |
Site analysis |
5 days |
|
3.1 |
Site installation |
3 days |
|
3.2 |
Documentation set-up |
10 days |
|
4.1 |
Orientation for client |
2 days |
|
4.2 |
Support to client |
5 days |
|
4.3 |
Post-installation review |
3 days |
|
4.4 |
System acceptance |
0 days |
The critical path of the project has been highlighted using yellow colour in the Gantt chart table and with red bars in the timeline. The critical path of the project is,
Technical Specifications determinedà Design Plan developedà Equipment orderingà System prototype à Site installationà Documentation set-upà Orientation for clientà System acceptance
The total project cost has been reflected on the Gantt chart as the summation of the cost of the resources of the project. The total cost for the project has come out to be £170,160.00. The working duration and standard rates of the project resources have been assumed as,
|
Resource Name |
Work |
Standard Rate |
|
Administrative Assistant |
14 days |
£15.00/hr |
|
Chief Editor |
26 days |
£300.00/day |
|
Project Manager |
26 days |
£300.00/day |
|
Senior Programmer |
35 days |
£250.00/day |
|
Senior Writer |
25 days |
£250.00/day |
|
System Analysts |
46 days |
£100.00/hr |
|
Systems Consultant |
53 days |
£250.00/day |
|
Vice President-Management Information Systems |
16 days |
£500.00/day |
|
Writers |
20 days |
£125.00/hr |
|
Programmers |
37 days |
£100.00/hr |
|
Senior Tester |
23 days |
£250.00/day |
|
Testers |
23 days |
£120.00/hr |
|
Junior Programmers |
5 days |
£60.00/hr |
Since, the project sponsor wants to complete the project by 1st March 2017 the project must start from 22nd December, 2016 or sooner (considering all the activity durations are constant) as shown in the new Gantt chart,
Figure 2: Modified Gantt chart
Network Diagram (AON)
- Pert Analysis for Optimistic, Normal, and Pessimistic Durations
|
WBS ID |
Task Name |
Predecessors |
Normal Duration |
Optimistic Duration |
Pessimistic Duration |
Expected Duration |
Variance |
SD |
|
1.1 |
Project start |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
1.2 |
Technical Specifications determined |
1.1 |
10 |
7 |
15 |
10.33333333 |
1.777778 |
1.333333 |
|
1.3 |
Design Plan developed |
1.2 |
3 |
2 |
5 |
3.166666667 |
0.25 |
0.5 |
|
2.1 |
Equipment ordering |
1.3 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
|
2.2 |
System prototype |
2.1 |
20 |
15 |
30 |
20.83333333 |
6.25 |
2.5 |
|
2.3 |
Configuration |
2.1 |
10 |
8 |
24 |
12 |
7.111111 |
2.666667 |
|
2.4 |
Testing |
2.3 |
5 |
4 |
8 |
5.333333333 |
0.444444 |
0.666667 |
|
2.5 |
Site analysis |
2.1 |
5 |
3 |
5 |
4.666666667 |
0.111111 |
0.333333 |
|
3.1 |
Site installation |
2.2,2.3,2.5 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
|
3.2 |
Documentation set-up |
3.1,2.4 |
10 |
8 |
15 |
10.5 |
1.361111 |
1.166667 |
|
4.1 |
Orientation for client |
3.2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
|
4.2 |
Support to client |
3.1 |
5 |
4 |
6 |
5 |
0.111111 |
0.333333 |
|
4.3 |
Post-installation review |
4.2 |
3 |
2 |
4 |
3 |
0.111111 |
0.333333 |
|
4.4 |
System acceptance |
4.3, 4.1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
50 |
39 |
72 |
51.83333333 |
9.638889 |
3.104656 |
|
WBS ID |
Task Name |
Predecessors |
Normal Duration |
Optimistic Duration |
Pessimistic Duration |
Expected Duration |
Variance |
SD |
|
1.1 |
Project start |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
1.2 |
Technical Specifications determined |
1.1 |
9 |
6 |
14 |
9.333333333 |
1.777777778 |
1.333333333 |
|
1.3 |
Design Plan developed |
1.2 |
3 |
2 |
5 |
3.166666667 |
0.25 |
0.5 |
|
2.1 |
Equipment ordering |
1.3 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
|
2.2 |
System prototype |
2.1 |
18 |
13 |
28 |
18.83333333 |
6.25 |
2.5 |
|
2.3 |
Configuration |
2.1 |
10 |
8 |
24 |
12 |
7.111111111 |
2.666666667 |
|
2.4 |
Testing |
2.3 |
5 |
4 |
8 |
5.333333333 |
0.444444444 |
0.666666667 |
|
2.5 |
Site analysis |
2.1 |
5 |
3 |
5 |
4.666666667 |
0.111111111 |
0.333333333 |
|
3.1 |
Site installation |
2.2,2.3,2.5 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
|
3.2 |
Documentation set-up |
3.1,2.4 |
9 |
7 |
14 |
9.5 |
1.361111111 |
1.166666667 |
|
4.1 |
Orientation for client |
3.2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
|
4.2 |
Support to client |
3.1 |
5 |
4 |
6 |
5 |
0.111111111 |
0.333333333 |
|
4.3 |
Post-installation review |
4.2 |
3 |
2 |
4 |
3 |
0.111111111 |
0.333333333 |
|
4.4 |
System acceptance |
4.3, 4.1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
46 |
35 |
68 |
47.83333333 |
9.638888889 |
3.104656002 |
Z= -0.322096876 (from excel)
P= 0.373689652 (using inverse normal functions)
= 37.37%
iii.
|
WBS ID |
Task Name |
Predecessors |
Normal Duration |
Optimistic Duration |
Pessimistic Duration |
Expected Duration |
Variance |
SD |
|
1.1 |
Project start |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
1.2 |
Technical Specifications determined |
1.1 |
10 |
7 |
15 |
10.333 |
1.778 |
1.333 |
|
1.3 |
Design Plan developed |
1.2 |
3 |
2 |
5 |
3.167 |
0.250 |
0.500 |
|
2.1 |
Equipment ordering |
1.3 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2.000 |
0.000 |
0.000 |
|
2.2 |
System prototype |
2.1 |
20 |
15 |
30 |
20.833 |
6.250 |
2.500 |
|
2.3 |
Configuration |
2.1 |
10 |
8 |
24 |
12.000 |
7.111 |
2.667 |
|
2.4 |
Testing |
2.3 |
5 |
4 |
8 |
5.333 |
0.444 |
0.667 |
|
2.5 |
Site analysis |
2.1 |
5 |
3 |
5 |
4.667 |
0.111 |
0.333 |
|
3.1 |
Site installation |
2.2,2.3,2.5 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3.000 |
0.000 |
0.000 |
|
3.2 |
Documentation set-up |
3.1,2.4 |
10 |
8 |
15 |
10.500 |
1.361 |
1.167 |
|
4.1 |
Orientation for client |
3.2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2.000 |
0.000 |
0.000 |
|
4.2 |
Support to client |
3.1 |
5 |
4 |
6 |
5.000 |
0.111 |
0.333 |
|
4.3 |
Post-installation review |
4.2 |
3 |
2 |
4 |
3.000 |
0.111 |
0.333 |
|
4.4 |
System acceptance |
4.3, 4.1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0.000 |
0.000 |
0.000 |
|
50 |
39 |
72 |
51.833 |
9.639 |
3.105 |
P(=99%)= normsinv(0.99)
=2.33
By formula,
2.33= (x-51.833)/3.105
Hence,
x=2.33*3.105+51.833
= 59.06 days
AOA network diagram,
Cost Comparison
|
WBS |
Task Name |
Duration |
Normal Cost |
Duration |
Crashed Cost |
|
1.1 |
Project start |
0 |
£ – |
0 |
£ – |
|
1.2 |
Technical Specifications determined |
10 |
£ 37,700.00 |
7 |
£ 54,700.00 |
|
1.3 |
Design Plan developed |
3 |
£ 5,700.00 |
3 |
£ 5,700.00 |
|
2.1 |
Equipment ordering |
2 |
£ 240.00 |
2 |
£ 240.00 |
|
2.2 |
System prototype |
20 |
£ 42,000.00 |
15 |
£ 57,800.00 |
|
2.3 |
Configuration |
10 |
£ 22,600.00 |
10 |
£ 22,600.00 |
|
2.4 |
Testing |
5 |
£ 6,050.00 |
5 |
£ 6,050.00 |
|
2.5 |
Site analysis |
5 |
£ 15,200.00 |
5 |
£ 15,200.00 |
|
3.1 |
Site installation |
3 |
£ 7,680.00 |
3 |
£ 7,680.00 |
|
3.2 |
Documentation set-up |
10 |
£ 15,500.00 |
8 |
£ 20,200.00 |
|
4.1 |
Orientation for client |
2 |
£ 4,540.00 |
2 |
£ 4,540.00 |
|
4.2 |
Support to client |
5 |
£ 6,500.00 |
5 |
£ 6,500.00 |
|
4.3 |
Post-installation review |
3 |
£ 6,450.00 |
3 |
£ 6,450.00 |
|
4.4 |
System acceptance |
0 |
£ – |
0 |
£ – |
|
£ 170,160.00 |
£ 207,660.00 |
For normal duration,
Conclusion
It can be concluded from the assignment that the implication of the improved project management principles. The deployment of the operations had supported the utilization of the activities favouring the implication of the improved operation development.
O. Zwikael, “International journal of project management special issue on “project benefit management””, International Journal of Project Management, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 734-735, 2016.
K. Samset and G. Volden, “Front-end definition of projects: Ten paradoxes and some reflections regarding project management and project governance”, International Journal of Project Management, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 297-313, 2016.
J. Kivilä, M. Martinsuo and L. Vuorinen, “Sustainable project management through project control in infrastructure projects”, International Journal of Project Management, vol. 35, no. 6, pp. 1167-1183, 2017.
M. de Araújo, L. Alencar and C. de Miranda Mota, “Project procurement management: A structured literature review”, International Journal of Project Management, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 353-377, 2017.
B. Kerzner, K. Milano, W. MacLean, G. Berall, S. Stuart and I. Chatoor, “A Practical Approach to Classifying and Managing Feeding Difficulties”, PEDIATRICS, vol. 135, no. 2, pp. 344-353, 2015.
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
