Question:
The new duration of the task 2.10 and task 2.11 has become from Tue 6/26/18 to Mon 7/9/18 and from Tue 6/26/18 to Mon 7/9/18 each of the task with duration of 2 weeks.
The overall impact on the project duration is none as all over project durations remained for 200 days only from Mon 2/5/18 to Fri 11/9/18.
It is because the tasks 2.10 and 2.11 are not one of the critical tasks and hence, the change in their duration has not affected the overall project duration.
The duration of one of the critical tasks should be reduced by 10 days as the critical tasks have impact on the overall duration of the project. The task id 2.9 is of 12 weeks of duration and also a critical task. Hence, if its duration would be reduced to 10 weeks, then the overall duration of the project would be decreased to 190 days from 200 days.
- The over-allocated tasks in the previous project file of AQ2.mpp were,
|
WBS |
Task Name |
WBS Predecessors |
Duration |
Start |
Finish |
Predecessors |
|
2.9 |
Software development |
M2 |
10 wks |
Tue 6/26/18 |
Mon 9/3/18 |
2 |
|
2.10 |
User interface |
M2 |
2 wks |
Tue 6/26/18 |
Mon 7/9/18 |
2 |
|
2.11 |
Database development |
M2 |
2 wks |
Tue 6/26/18 |
Mon 7/9/18 |
2 |
|
5.1 |
P1 Component lead-time |
M2 |
4 wks |
Tue 6/26/18 |
Mon 7/23/18 |
2 |
|
5.2 |
P1 PWB manufacture and delivery |
M2 |
4 wks |
Tue 6/26/18 |
Mon 7/23/18 |
2 |
|
5.3 |
P1 mechanical part lead-time |
M2 |
3 wks |
Tue 6/26/18 |
Mon 7/16/18 |
2 |
|
6.1 |
P2 Component lead-time |
1.5 |
4 wks |
Tue 4/17/18 |
Mon 5/14/18 |
12 |
|
6.2 |
P2 PWB manufacture and delivery |
1.5 |
4 wks |
Tue 4/17/18 |
Mon 5/14/18 |
12 |
|
6.4 |
P2 mechanical part lead-time |
3.6 |
3 wks |
Tue 4/24/18 |
Mon 5/14/18 |
42 |
|
7.1 |
documentation plan |
2.8 |
1 wk |
Mon 6/25/18 |
Fri 6/29/18 |
24 |
Table 1: Project Schedule of Over-allocated resources
(Source: Created by the author)
|
WBS |
Task Name |
WBS Predecessors |
Duration |
Start |
Finish |
Predecessors |
|
2.9 |
Software development |
M2 |
10 wks |
Tue 6/26/18 |
Mon 9/3/18 |
2 |
|
2.10 |
User interface |
M2,2.9 |
2 wks |
Tue 9/4/18 |
Mon 9/17/18 |
2,25 |
|
2.11 |
Database development |
M2,2.10 |
2 wks |
Tue 9/18/18 |
Mon 10/1/18 |
2,26 |
|
5.1 |
P1 Component lead-time |
M2 |
4 wks |
Tue 6/26/18 |
Mon 7/23/18 |
2 |
|
5.2 |
P1 PWB manufacture and delivery |
M2,5.1 |
4 wks |
Tue 7/24/18 |
Mon 8/20/18 |
2,53 |
|
5.3 |
P1 mechanical part lead-time |
M2,5.2 |
3 wks |
Tue 8/21/18 |
Mon 9/10/18 |
2,54 |
|
6.1 |
P2 Component lead-time |
1.5,5.3 |
4 wks |
Tue 9/11/18 |
Mon 10/8/18 |
12,55 |
|
6.2 |
P2 PWB manufacture and delivery |
1.5,6.1 |
4 wks |
Tue 10/9/18 |
Mon 11/5/18 |
12,59 |
|
6.4 |
P2 mechanical part lead-time |
3.6 |
3 wks |
Tue 4/24/18 |
Mon 5/14/18 |
42 |
|
7.1 |
documentation plan |
2.8 |
1 wk |
Mon 6/25/18 |
Fri 6/29/18 |
24 |
Table 2: Project Schedule of managed resources allocation
(Source: Created by the author)
- 10 àIn tasks of WBS ID-2.10, a WBS predecessor of 2.9 is added which have changed the task start date from Tue 6/26/18 to Tue 9/4/18 and task finish date from Mon 7/9/18 to Mon 9/17/18.
- 11 àIn tasks of WBS ID-2.11, a WBS predecessor of 2.10 is added which have changed the task start date from Tue 6/26/18 to Tue 9/18/18 and task finish date from Mon 7/9/18 to Mon 10/1/18.
- 2 àIn tasks of WBS ID-5.2, a WBS predecessor of 5.1 is added which have changed the task start date from Tue 6/26/18 to Tue 7/24/18 and task finish date from Mon 7/23/18 to Mon 8/20/18.
- 3 àIn tasks of WBS ID-5.3, a WBS predecessor of 5.2 is added which have changed the task start date from Tue 6/26/18 to Tue 8/21/18 and task finish date from Mon 7/16/18 to Mon 9/10/18.
- 1 àIn tasks of WBS ID-6.1, a WBS predecessor of 5.3 is added which have changed the task start date from Tue 4/17/18 to Tue 9/11/18 and task finish date from Mon 5/14/18 to Mon 10/8/18.
- 2 àIn tasks of WBS ID-6.2, a WBS predecessor of 6.1 is added which have changed the task start date from Tue 4/17/18 to Tue 10/9/18 and task finish date from Mon 5/14/18 to Mon 11/5/18.
- The project was scheduled for 190 days from Mon 2/5/18 to Fri 10/26/18 with an overall budget of $318,840.00. However, due to the modifications in the project predecessors, the project modified to a schedule of 210 days from Mon 2/5/18 to Fri 11/23/18 with a project budget of $318,840.00. The project duration changed from 190 days to 210 days and the end date changed from Fri 10/26/18 to Fri 11/23/18.
As the tasks with WBS IDs of 2.10, 2.11, 5.2, 5.3, 6.1, and 6.2 have acquired predecessors of WBS IDs of 2.9, 2.10, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, and 6.1 respectively, their overall start and end dates have been changed as mentioned above. It has resulted in increasing the overall duration of the project by 20 days as the task of WBS IDs 2.9, 2.10, and 2.11 are critical tasks and their change in duration would cause the impact on the overall project duration.
The project file of managed resources allocation is given below,
|
Synthesys Informatics To: Ms. Horsell (Director of Marketing and Portfolio Management) From: <<name of the student>> (Project Manager) Subject: Conveying the Project Completion date along with justification of time required and the overall cost expense required in the project Date: 3rd December, 2017. Introduction: The memo has been made for providing the expected project duration and the completion of the project of The MDC Project. It would also provide an explanation of the time required for the activities of the project. The memo would also provide some recommendations for managing the project schedule as required. The final section of the memo would provide cost estimation for the labour resources utilized for the project completion. i. The expected completion date of the project (assuming it started on 5th February, 2018) is 23rd November, 2018. The duration of the project is 210 days. ii. The Software development, activities related to electronics, activities related to mechanics, and prototype I and II build up took collectively 170 days resulting in using 210 days for the completion of the project. Since the number of the days are 210 for the completion of the project, the number of days can be reduced by, · Increasing the number of resources used in the project · Decreasing the critical task durations for decreasing the project duration
Close: Please send me your feedback and comments by 6th January, 2018, so that any required changes in the plan can be done before initiation of the project on 5th February, 2018. Kind Regards, <name of the student> Project Manager |
The project can be completed successfully in the estimated time and budget by following the mentioned steps,
- Project Details Finalization
- Clear Expectations are set from the start
- Right team and system are selected
- Milestones are defined properly
- Evaluation of the project and implementation of the Project Management Principles
- Change 1: Addition of one engineer from electronics and one from mechanics into Prototype Build tasks
Overall project duration: Unchanged
End date: Unchanged
Direct labour costs for the project: Increased by $5,920.00 (from $ 318,840.00 to $324,760.00)
Change 2: Late delivery of components of P1 prototype by 5 weeks
Overall project duration: The overall project duration increased by 17 days
End date: The end date changed to Tue 12/18/18 from Fri 11/23/18
Direct labour costs for the project: Unchanged from the amount of $324,760.00
|
Change |
Impact on Project duration (Longer / Shorter / No Impact |
By how much |
Explanation |
|
Adding 1 EE and 1 ME to prototype build 1&2 |
Unchanged in terms of duration |
Unchanged in terms of duration |
Unchanged as no additional resources were added to the project tasks |
|
Change in duration of 5.1 |
Changed Start date from Tue 6/26/18 To Tue 7/31/18 Changed Finish date from Mon 7/23/18 To Mon 8/27/18 |
Start and End date by 20 days |
The overall project duration changed by 17 days |
|
Change in duration of 4.7 |
Changed Start date from Fri 10/26/18 to Tue 11/20/18 Changed Finish date from Thu 11/22/18 to Mon 12/17/18 |
Start and End date by 19 days |
The overall project duration didn’t changed as it was not a critical task |
|
Change |
Impact on Direct Labour Costs (More / Less / No Impact |
By how much |
Explanation |
|
Adding 1 EE and 1 ME to prototype build 1&2 |
Increased from $ 318,840.00 to $324,760.00 |
Increased by $5,920.00 |
The overall budget of the project would be increased by $5,920.00 as resources were added to both the activities |
|
Change in duration of 5.1 |
Unchanged in terms of duration |
Unchanged in terms of duration |
Unchanged as no additional resources were added to the project tasks |
|
Change in duration of 4.7 |
Unchanged in terms of duration |
Unchanged in terms of duration |
Unchanged as no additional resources were added to the project tasks |
The status data for the project is given below,
|
WBS |
Task Name |
% Work Complete |
% Complete |
|
0 |
The MDC Project |
28% |
29% |
|
M1 |
Concept review complete |
100% |
100% |
|
M2 |
Designs Complete and Reviewed |
0% |
0% |
|
B1 |
P1 Prototype-build start |
100% |
100% |
|
B2 |
P2 Prototype-build start |
100% |
100% |
|
M3 |
Final Design review |
0% |
0% |
|
M4 |
Launch review |
0% |
0% |
|
1 |
Electronics |
100% |
100% |
|
2 |
Software |
1% |
1% |
|
3 |
Mechanics |
93% |
93% |
|
4 |
Verification |
17% |
18% |
|
5 |
Prototype 1 build |
8% |
3% |
|
6 |
Prototype 2 build |
44% |
40% |
|
7 |
Documentation |
0% |
0% |
|
8 |
Production of devices for customers/market |
0% |
0% |
|
PW |
Planning Workshop |
100% |
100% |
Project Name: The MDC Project Status Report: #003256
Project Manager: <<name of the student>>
<<name of the student>>
<<name of the student>>
<<name of the student>>
Status as of: 25/05/18 End of Week: 15
Answer:
Earned Value Figures
|
PV |
EV |
AC |
SV |
SPI |
CV |
CPI |
BAC |
EAC |
VAC |
|
105,000.00 |
105,000.00 |
105,000.00 |
0.00 |
1 |
0.00 |
1 |
24,760.00 |
24,760.00 |
0.00 |
Project Description
The project is developed for developing an new method of production of the prototype along with software, hardware, and mechanical component alignments. The project comprises of four parts namely electronics, mechanics, software, and prototype designing.
|
Milestone |
Description |
Week scheduled (baseline) |
Date scheduled (baseline) |
Week & date Reached |
|
M1 |
Concept review |
1 |
2/5/2018 |
1 (start) |
|
M2 |
Designs Complete and Reviewed |
21 |
6/25/18 |
|
|
P1 |
P1 Prototype-build start |
4 |
3/1/18 |
|
|
P2 |
P2 Prototype-build start |
11 |
4/17/18 |
|
|
M3 |
Final Design review |
29 |
7/23/18 |
|
|
M4 |
Launch review |
34 |
8/28/18 |
|
|
B1 |
P1 prototype build |
8 |
3/30/18 |
|
|
B2 |
P2 prototype build |
17 |
5/16/18 |
|
|
B3 |
Production of devices |
27 |
8/7/18 |
Status summary (schedule and budget)
Planned finish date (from Gantt chart): Tue 12/18/18
Current estimated finish date (from tracking Gantt chart): Tue 12/18/18
The planned cost to date: $105,000.00
The actual cost to date: $105,000.00
The earned value to date: $105,000.00
The project is working on schedule as expected and it is estimated that the project would be completed in the estimated time duration.
The schedule variance of the project as on 25th May, 2018 is 0 and hence the no activity changes have been incurred for the MDC project.
The actual cost to date: $105,000.00
The project is working on expected budget as expected and it is estimated that the project would be completed in the allocated time budget.
The cost variance of the project as on 25th May, 2018 is 0 and hence the no excess costs have been incurred for the MDC project.d. Peer Assessment
Peer Assessment Form
Peer Assessment submitted by: <name of the student>
Feedback for Team Member Name: <name of first team member being assessed>
- Was dependable in attending group meetings:
Strongly agree agree neutral disagree strongly disagree
- Came prepared to group meetings (i.e. had made a genuine attempt to complete the tasks in preparation for the meeting)
Strongly agree agree neutral disagree strongly disagree
- Contributed positively to the group discussions
Strongly agree agree neutral disagree strongly disagree
- Willingly accepted assigned tasks
Strongly agree agree neutral disagree strongly disagree
- Helped others with work when needed
Strongly agree agree neutral disagree strongly disagree
- Did work accurately and completely
Strongly agree agree neutral disagree strongly disagree
- Worked well with other group members
Strongly agree agree neutral disagree strongly disagree
- Overall was/is a valuable member of the team
Strongly agree agree neutral disagree strongly disagree
Additional Comments (constructive criticism – can include both positive comments and areas for improvement)
Peer Assessment submitted by: <your name>
Feedback for Team Member Name: <name of first team member being assessed>
Assessment:
- Was dependable in attending group meetings:
Strongly agree agree neutral disagree strongly disagree
- Came prepared to group meetings (i.e. had made a genuine attempt to complete the tasks in preparation for the meeting)
Strongly agree agree neutral disagree strongly disagree
- Contributed positively to the group discussions
Strongly agree agree neutral disagree strongly disagree
- Willingly accepted assigned tasks
Strongly agree agree neutral disagree strongly disagree
- Helped others with work when needed
Strongly agree agree neutral disagree strongly disagree
- Did work accurately and completely
Strongly agree agree neutral disagree strongly disagree
- Worked well with other group members
Strongly agree agree neutral disagree strongly disagree
- Overall was/is a valuable member of the team
Strongly agree agree neutral disagree strongly disagree
Additional Comments (constructive criticism – can include both positive comments and areas for improvement)
Peer Assessment Form
Peer Assessment submitted by: <your name>
Feedback for Team Member Name: <name of first team member being assessed>
Assessment:
- Was dependable in attending group meetings:
Strongly agree agree neutral disagree strongly disagree
- Came prepared to group meetings (i.e. had made a genuine attempt to complete the tasks in preparation for the meeting)
Modification for dealing with Over-allocations
Strongly agree agree neutral disagree strongly disagree
- Contributed positively to the group discussions
Strongly agree agree neutral disagree strongly disagree
- Willingly accepted assigned tasks
Strongly agree agree neutral disagree strongly disagree
- Helped others with work when needed
Strongly agree agree neutral disagree strongly disagree
- Did work accurately and completely
Strongly agree agree neutral disagree strongly disagree
- Worked well with other group members
Strongly agree agree neutral disagree strongly disagree
- Overall was/is a valuable member of the team
Strongly agree agree neutral disagree strongly disagree
Additional Comments (constructive criticism – can include both positive comments and areas for improvement)
References
Fleming, Q. W., & Koppelman, J. M. (2016, December). Earned value project management. Project Management Institute.
Hartzler, B., Jackson, T. R., Jones, B. E., Beadnell, B., & Calsyn, D. A. (2014). Disseminating contingency management: impacts of staff training and implementation at an opiate treatment program. Journal of substance abuse treatment, 46(4), 429-438.
Heckemann, B., Zeller, A., Hahn, S., Dassen, T., Schols, J. M. G. A., & Halfens, R. J. G. (2015). The effect of aggression management training programmes for nursing staff and students working in an acute hospital setting. A narrative review of current literature. Nurse education today, 35(1), 212-219.
Heldman, K. (2015). PMP project management professional exam deluxe study guide: updated for the 2015 Exam. John Wiley & Sons.
House, J., & Dimmock, G. (2015). Research into practice: evaluation of Skills Hub content and implications for library staff development in the creation of video OERs. Enhancing the Learner Experience in Higher Education, 7(1), 29-45.
Jacques, K. L. (2014). Revisiting the impact of a residence hall staff training class on the moral judgment development of college students (Doctoral dissertation, Colorado State University).
Kerzner, H. (2013). Project management: a systems approach to planning, scheduling, and controlling. John Wiley & Sons.
Kerzner, H. (2017). Project management metrics, KPIs, and dashboards: a guide to measuring and monitoring project performance. John Wiley & Sons.
Larson, E. W., & Gray, C. (2013). Project Management: The Managerial Process with MS Project. McGraw-Hill.
Leach, L. P. (2014). Critical chain project management. Artech House.
Locke, J. (2017). STAFF TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT-AN EXPRESSED NEED. Education Libraries, 23(2-3), 7-8.
Mir, F. A., & Pinnington, A. H. (2014). Exploring the value of project management: linking project management performance and project success. International journal of project management, 32(2), 202-217.
Montero, G., Onieva, L., & Palacin, R. (2015). Selection and Implementation of a Set of Key Performance Indicators for Project Management. International Journal of Applied Engineering Research, 10(18), 39473-39484.
Phillips, J. J., & Phillips, P. P. (2016). Handbook of training evaluation and measurement methods. Routledge.
Raymond, M. K., Bawa, A. B., & Dabari, I. J. (2016). Utilization Of Training Fund For Staff Development In Adamawa State Local Government Service Commission. European Journal of Training and Development Studies, 3(4), 1-16.
Rose, K. H. (2013). A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide)—Fifth Edition. Project management journal, 44(3).
Schwalbe, K. (2015). Information technology project management. Cengage Learning.
Snyder, C. (2017). A project manager’s book of forms: A companion to the PMBOK guide. John Wiley & Sons.
Snyder, C. S. (2014). A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge: PMBOK (®) Guide. Project Management Institute.
Stephens, L., & Byker Shanks, C. (2015). K?12 School food service staff training interventions: A review of the literature. Journal of School Health, 85(12), 825-832.
Verzuh, E. (2015). The fast forward MBA in project management. John Wiley & Sons.
Walker, A. (2015). Project management in construction. John Wiley & Sons.
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
