Project management of the I-Borrow - Essay Example

? ANALYSIS OF THE i-BORROW PROJECT: A PROJECT MANAGEMENT PERSPECTIVE   by   Prof of [univ [city], [state] [Month DD], 2011 Executive Summary Over the period from 2008 to 2009, Canterbury Christ Church University embarked on a project designed to meet the particular needs of student body where laptop ownership was uncommon by establishing a lean project to provide loan of student laptops with the new library and student support building. With little or no empirical data on how students were using the learning space at the University, the project team embarked on a journey of research and discovery that would not only establish a model student service, but result in the University receiving the 2009 UCISA Award for Excellence award as well as being nominated for Times Higher Education ICT Innovation of the Year Award. The project exemplifies project management principles throughout its planning and execution stage through thorough analysis of the target needs and available resources. Its continued success owes to excellence in design, which instituted a system of lean overhead and management costs, as well as a user-friendly feedback system that provided information not only on laptop use, but also fills the gap in empirical research data on how students are utilizing the learning space within the university. By filling a niche where previously only bulky systems existed that failed to adequately serve the stakeholders, the i-Borrow project provides an excellent framework for future academic and commercial implementations of internet technology solutions. As such, analysis of this project plays an important role contemporary project management analysis on multiple levels. Contents Page ANALYSIS OF THE i-BORROW PROJECT: A PROJECT MANAGEMENT PERSPECTIVE 1 Executive Summary 2 Contents Page 3 Introduction and Project Management Context 4 Critical Analysis of PM Techniques in the i-Borrow Project 9 Stakeholder Analysis 9 Human Resource Planning 11 Gantt Chart: Time Duration Analysis 12 Client Requirements 13 Critical Path Analysis 15 Recommendations for Future Project Management Practices 17 Personal Reflection 20 Conclusion 23 References 24 Appendices 26 Introduction and Project Management Context In response to a growing and increasingly diversified student body’s need for improved library services, the i-Borrow project was initiated with the goal of establishing a program for the ongoing service that would provide 200 educational laptop computers for use within the newly constructed library and student support center at Canterbury Christ Church University (CCCU). Unlike many projects, which concentrate on producing an end result such as a building or static piece of software, the end result of the i-Borrow project was to produce not only the concrete infrastructure needed to provide the service but also to implement a program for the management of the service that would eventually supersede the project itself. The challenge of contemporary IT project management is that many projects involve much more than just project planning and scheduling, and are primarily concerned with the control of an on-going project during its whole lifetime of use, as commonly found in computer networking projects (Tatnall and Reyes 2005 p.153-155). In the case of i-Borrow, the project involved planning for not just distribution systems, and user interface and use, but also for the infrastructure of the wireless network, network support, and ongoing maintenance necessary to support the system. The projects official mission statement is documented in the project final report as: “iBorrow will allow users of a new Library and Learning Centre to borrow a laptop computer as easily as picking a book from a shelf. It will provide a large-scale demonstration of how thin-client laptops with location-aware technology can enable the University to not only provide no-fuss access to a full range of software and learning resources but also effectively manage the configuration of the facilities within the large flexible learning spaces of its new learning centre. By overlaying location information with additional data it can also provide insights into the way students use electronic and virtual resources at an individual level or within a group context and thus answer the questions that arise when designing new learning spaces” (Poole et al. 2009 p.6). Examining the background of Canterbury Christ Church University was the first step that the project team underwent in the defining the i-borrow project. The team established, and included in their project report, that the university was the largest centre of higher education in Kent, UK for public services, offering a number of professional oriented programs in teaching, nursing, health, social scare, and police services (Poole et al. 2009 p.5). In designing and delivering the project, the project team gave careful consideration to the specific needs of the university, creating a tailored approach that has contributed to the project’s success and recognition, as well as the wide applicability to future academic and commercial technology loan programs. When the project was initially proposed, the university had over 15,000 students. Of these, approximately 56.3% were over age 25 and 44.8% were part time, groups which were well documented for not having high percentages of laptop ownership (Poole et al. 2009 p.5). Because of the student demographic, the project team immediately identified that the laptops’ end users would be important stakeholders in the success of the project, necessitating detailed research into use, security, and sustainability of the program targeted to end users. The project increased its success and applicability to broader market by focusing not just on laptop distribution, but on the larger picture of the library as a learning space. Within this framework, laptop distribution became a method of not just increasing the efficiency of use of space but also a method of applying technology to create empirical reporting on how student were using the space through digital reporting. This extended widely accepted concepts on learning space usage as published by the Joint Information Systems Committee of the UK, applying technology to the optimization of space within the new university library (JELS 2009 p.6-8). According to publications by the university prior to project deployment, the i-Borrow project served as a testing ground for thin-client technology applied to low-cost portable laptops that explored the potential of location-awareness systems to track loaned laptops, identifying that the original project design incorporated the aspect of new technology applied to a traditional need (Graham-Mathesoni 2009 p.2). A variety of stakeholders were impacted by the project due to its nature as ongoing program upon launch. The i-borrow strategy was designed to take into consideration the environment of large academic institution that would need to be accessible in different levels to administrators, academics, architects, students and technology providers throughout the conception, development, and realization of the new technology forward learning space (Graham-Mathesoni 2009 p.2). The project’s success was certainly impacted by the thorough treatment of stakeholders in the design and implementation of the project. The end result of the i-Borrow project was the deployment of two hundred netbooks, low cost laptops with small hard drives, connected to the libraries internal wireless network. The i-Borrow laptops were deployed in cabinets of twenty, where students were free to remove and use the devices and were expected to return the devices to their charger stations upon completion of use. The project team addressed security and theft by marking the laptops in a similar method as books with three areas of magnetic tape that triggers a similar alarm as authorized book removal on exit from the library, two tapes on the exterior of the device and one on the battery itself. Additionally, the university widely publicized fact that the small hard drive would be of limited use as a personal laptop, discouraging ideal theft. During the first six months of deployment, the largely student-managed distribution system of the i-Borrow laptops has resulted in not a single incidence of theft or vandalism, with expected long-term cost of device replacement due to security concerns expected to remain minimal (Poole et al. 2009 p.22). The direct benefits of the i-Borrow program in terms of a change in pedagogic use and contribution to learning outcomes was given equal importance to the long-term and experimental infrastructure element of the project. Immediately after implementation, digital reporting from the devices allowed administrators of the program to demonstrate empirical evidence as to increased use of library computers for study and course related projects. In addition, evidence was gathered to show an increase in instructor-driven library use, such as class periods held in the library or required assignments utilizing library technology (Poole et al. 2009 p.16-17). The i-Borrow project can be considered a success from a project management standpoint because it tackles a complex issue in IT project management, the institution of ongoing technology based programs—programs which are likely to involve not just immediate costs over the duration of the project, but ongoing costs, maintenance, and changes to program infrastructure in order to respond to a changing technological landscape. The project incorporates technology into the learning space, encouraging future project managers to incorporate integration of technology into traditional project management applications. Critical Analysis of PM Techniques in the i-Borrow Project Stakeholder Analysis Stakeholders are individuals or groups of people that are impacted by a project as it is completed of after completion, resulting in a diverse group when considering large capital projects. One of the most obvious successes of the i-borrow project was the identification and prioritization of stakeholder needs in the planning process, a process which can be uniquely challenging for large scale implementations in big business or large academic settings. Because “the nature of the benefit of an ongoing relationship… determine[s] the importance given to a stakeholder,” the i-borrow project’s thorough analysis of stakeholders is exemplary (Maylor 2010 p.95). The project divided use broadly into administrators, academics, architects, students and technology providers stakeholders, making a point of identifying challenges, long-term benefits, and direct benefits to each group (Poole et al. 2009 p.16-17). Unlike many contemporary projects, i-Borrow was designed with technology in mind to make reporting direct stakeholder benefits simple, providing real-time reporting that would continue past the project and into the life of the i-Borrow program itself (Poole et al. 2009 p.7). The i-Borrow project creates a clear value hierarchy of its stakeholders, identifying pedagogic and other direct benefits as well as identifying challenges to each group, an important aspect in the success of noncommercial projects (Fletcher et al. 2003 p.505-506). The final project report is indicative of the inclusion of each of the five stakeholder groups, showing an overall benefit to each group in terms of the key performance benefits offered by the project. As a result of stakeholder analysis, the project generated and maintained a basis to manage strategy, organizational performance and communication with stakeholders during each phase of the project and into the program life. Human Resource Planning While the personal and organization strategies of most projects extend only through the life of the project, it can be noted that the majority of the contributors to the i-Borrow project are faculty and staff with pre-existing roles in the university, many of which are continually impacted by the on-going effects of the implemented i-Borrow program. As a result, many of the human resources considered transient in most projects involve permanent addition to or changes in duties for impact personnel. A primary example would be the library, security, and IT maintenance staff responsible for ongoing operations of the program. For the purpose of the i-borrow project, it has been assumed that the human resource pool remains the same during the duration of the project according to the cover of the project report, a situation unique to the implementation of projects in a setting with a large previously established infrastructure such as a university campus (Poole 2008 p.1-2). It has been suggested that the success of a project’s human resources plan can be measured by the project plans ability to plan, obtain, orient, assign, and release staff over the life of the project (Mishra 2007 p.1,7). In the i-Borrow project, special treatment is given to assign human resources on the technological end, providing adequate staff for maintenance and support of computer and wireless networks. Additionally, the treatment given to security issues and staffing requirements addresses library needs as well as additional demands placed on security by the i-borrow program. Where the project falls short by Mishra’s standards is that is failure to address ongoing needs of the program involving staff release, reassignment, and growth over the lifetime of the project. Additionally, non-essential operations which support the core activity, such as legal issues, have been treated lightly, while heavy emphasis was given to the IT and management issues (Ward and Daniel 2006 p.18-20). Particularly in the case of the system that involves student internet use, the project should certainly have taken time to more fully address terms and legalities associated with such an endeavor. Gantt Chart: Time Duration Analysis The i-borrow project made successful use of the Gantt chart method of time and duration analysis, which is recorded (though the original Gantt chart is not published) in the project final reports and summary. In general a Gantt chart is a tool for analysis of a project developed in the early 1900s for the automobile industry by a project manager named Henry Gantt. Gantt charts set out phases of a large capital project against the total life of the project, allowing for easier specification of time, budget, and other planning allotments as the project progresses (Lock 2007 p.3,10). The i-borrow project certainly would qualify as a unique, large capital project, making use of these charts particularly effective as a tool for ensuring budget and schedule efficiency and compliance. The Gantt chart for the project was developed early in the projects design, and implemented religiously as the project came to completion. The primary deviations from the original estimated times were a result of a shortfall in funding for the wireless network that occurred in early 2009 and a undescribed security issue involving the need of commercial contractors, which was mediated but resulted in deviation of the project timeline by several months (Steadman 2009 p.16). Due to the technical nature of the project, the establishment of an independent IT timeline as a portion of the Gantt planning, as shown in Appendix 1, also was likely to contribute to the success of the project. The project remained within original budget estimates; however, the project benefited from further spending awarded by the host institution to further security and tracking of the i-borrow laptops, ultimately resulting in a total expenditure of ?17,000 from within the project’s overall budget plus an additional ?64,000 provided by the host institution to ensure adequate density of wireless nodes to support tracking features. By the guidelines set forth in Project Management 9th edition establishing a reasonable Gantt chart likely contributed to the successful implementation of this large capital project both in consideration of timeline and budgetary requirements (Lock 2007 p.10). Client Requirements The client is the party for which services are rendered, which in large scale projects such as i-borrow can be less simple to identify than in smaller projects. This is because the client impacted is a group of people involving many different facets of the university campus. In project management it is important to distinguish whether the client of a particular project is external or internal to the organization (Maylor 2010 p.82). In the case of the i-borrow system, the client is defined as the internal users consisting of faculty, administrators, IT professionals, students, and educators. In the case of an internal client, it is important to be certain that the aims of the project are in line with the overall mission of the organization, which the i-borrow project certainly does by analyzing in some depth previous existing research on the use of technology and space in the project design (Maylor 2010 p.82). In addition, the i-borrow project team uses additional information gathered from both quantitative and qualitative sources, as identified in the final report, to gather information on client requirements. Some of the quantitative methods specifically mentioned in the report are paper and online surveys, direct observations, and analysis of university student profiles. Qualitative methods cited in the report include interviews, discussions, and observed scenarios (Poole et al. 2009 p.13). Client requirements were additionally outlined and met by special reports completed by assigned faculty members including the “Client Technical Report” by Geoff Kimmons and “Wireless Technical Report” by Chris French (2009 p.1). Kimmons’ report outlines many aspects related to the end user of the i-borrow notebooks, likely students, and the technical requirements for successfully meeting the needs of the end user (2009 p.1). French’s report more clearly established the timeline and budget for the technological implementation, including the large scale wireless network with nodes of sufficient number and density to provide adequate tracking on each of the i-borrow laptops within the constraints of the learning environment (2009 p.1). In some cases the end user may not be the primary client that instituted or paid for a project (Lock 2007 p.332). The i-borrow project serves as an excellent example of the challenges of meeting client needs when the end user, in this case the student user, is not the primary client who initiated the project. Critical Path Analysis Perhaps one of the most intuitive tools in project management, the critical path analysis uses a logical network to help pinpoint the most efficient path of work in a project. The critical path analysis is a notation that particularly excels at showing “the logical interdependencies between different jobs” over the course of a project, a tool which is especially useful in large capital projects that may involve many different stakeholders over a large period of time (Lock 2007 p.188). Though the original algorithm developed by DuPont, where the technique originated is no longer in use, Critical Path analysis generally applies to any logical series of network diagrams used to describe a project based on visual interrelation of elements, much like a flow chart but with particular emphasis given to the relationship of events in time. Only the IT report makes mention of the used of critical path analysis in the project plan, which may have contributed to the aforementioned requirement of additional time and budget for the completion of the project (French 2009 p.2). The IT process is demonstrated in a chart reminiscent of the critical path methodology in Appendix 2. The primary benefit of the use of critical path diagrams is that the critical path identifies the shortest route to project completion, meaning that when project tasks along the critical path slip, the overall time of the project slips (Hutchings 2009 p.19). Non-critical path tasks are those that may take a longer time, or have some ability to be rescheduled, before effecting the overall deadline and budget of the project. In the case of the i-borrow project, identification of critical task, such as the placement of wireless nodes—a task which is explicitly mentioned as the cause for delay of project completion in the final summary—could likely have been avoided or reduced (Poole et al. 2009 p.15). In addition, large projects are generally recommended to reserve 10-15% of the timeline of completion for management related tasks, a factor which is never mentioned in the breakdown of tasks for the i-borrow project (Phillips 2010 p.492). The lack of clearly identified time to allow for managerial review of project progress is a likely contributor to delay and increases in projected budget. In addition, poor allotment of managerial time may also pose risks to the integrity of the i-borrow program itself once implemented, as the program is of a nature that require constant update of technology and security. The use of critical path diagrams would certainly have improved the timeline and budget adherence of the i-borrow project, and is a technique that should also be considered when designing future projects to improve and update the system. Recommendations for Future Project Management Practices The i-borrow project is successful in applying many of the practices of project management. Particularly in consideration of both the large scale and high technological involvement of the project, the project is an exemplary demonstration of the application of project management techniques to large IT related projects in the academic setting. Because of the unique and restrictive needs of the i-borrow project, addition project management methods not documented in the project reports could have improved the ability of the project to successfully adhere to timelines and budgets without the need for additional university funding, which provided a large sum of the amount needed to ultimately provide the necessary equipment for the wireless network (Poole et al. 2009 p.9). As previously mentioned, the use of critical path diagrams could easily have improved the knowledge of interrelating project tasks. Because the i-borrow project tasks were immensely diverse, ranging from complex IT related tasks to small changes in instructor-run classrooms, the use of critical path diagrams during the implementation of the project would have given a clearer picture of the relationships between different project elements. This, in turn, could have provided assistance to the project team in the course of prioritizing project tasks, reducing or eliminating delays in the course of installation of the wireless network. In addition, the project’s website and final summary suggest that the project was intentioned from the onset to provide a model by which other institution could institute similar programs to the i-borrow system (Poole et al. 2009 p.7). Whether intentional (as possibly this information was considered less useful or more proprietary) or not, very little information was given as to the procurement processes over the course of the project. While identification of IT infrastructure is made clear, the primary cause of delay of project completion is cited as time waiting for additional wireless node installation, with vague reference made to time involved in contracting outside vendors, presumably to assist in the acquisition and installation of wireless network components (Poole et al. 2009 p.9). In developing a truly versatile model by which such an IT infrastructure could be duplicated, as was the project team’s original intent, a detailed purchasing and acquisition budget and timeline, in a form capable of serving as a reference to local IT contractors chosen by the host institution, would be extremely beneficial. Without organization of such information, the cost and planning time for other institutions to implement such as program will likely be prohibitively high and also require the input of additional specialists in the field, a timely and expensive endeavor. Additionally, a strong emphasis is given to the risk of theft of i-borrow laptops. The problem is treated with a combination of methods including a public campaign at the university to discourage theft and educate students on the small commercial value of the small hard drive netbooks. The primary method of dealing with theft and security; however, is simply the choice of an inexpensive netbook as the device for the i-borrow system. Based on the cost estimates provided in the project summary, this makes actual destruction or theft of the i-borrow device one of the least significant risks based on both chance of occurrence as well as cost of potential loss. The project planners do not, however, give adequate attention to potential much larger risks, such as legalities concerning laptop use. Contemporary issues that may apply include access of illegal and controversial materials, a risk which may be mitigated by employing filtering software which contributes a large recurring annual cost to the system that is not budgeted. Also, there is no express mention of methods for handling network dangers such as infection from external programming sources, overload of network nodes, bandwidth over-usage, and other potential risks that may likely increase over the life of the i-borrow program and cause potentially expensive and time consuming issues. In consideration of the fact that the i-borrow system is to be run primarily by existing staff, with no dedicated staff to monitor the performance or deal exclusively with maintenance to the system, this may result in increased downtime. Downtime results in user dissatisfaction, which could run the risk damaging end user, student and faculty, confidence in the system, resulting in disuse and inefficiency of resource allocation. In order to ensure that the program proceeds with minimal issues, a careful study of the risks encountered during the ongoing program as well as within subsequent projects designed to improve or maintain the i-borrow system will be necessary additions. While these risk analysis could certainly have improved the initial i-borrow project, they will certainly be necessary additions, and perhaps even stand-alone projects—such as in the case of the legal issues—that should be instituted to improve the i-borrow system over the course of its life. In summary, the two primary areas of improvement that may be suggested for the improvement of the i-borrow project management plan and similar projects is the careful analysis of risks coupled with a more detailed procurement strategy, of sufficient detail to allow contractors chosen by the host institution to implement the plant with minimal additional planning. These steps are especially critical is the i-borrow project management plan is to be considered as a model for the implementation of IT systems in academic settings. With the addition of these models, as well as the application of critical path methodology to the initial project timeline design, the i-borrow project could easily provide an effective model which could be distributed to universities and large capital academic programs across the globe. Personal Reflection The growth of a project manager is not a single step process. Much like a project, learning is a process in which a combination of interrelated activities—some planned according to a strict schedule and some unexpected—all combine to form a powerful whole, the summation of a large diversity of tasks. In the case of the i-borrow system, the project is limited in its application by the setting, which takes place in a large academic institution. This results in several very unique factors, such as an internal client base made of an increasingly diverse group. It also results in a client base that, unlike most projects, is not static. The number and type of students is subject to change on an annual basis, and many times even more often than that. To add to the complexity of the project, use varies according to the time of year. For instance, in the summer the use of the system may drop dramatically. Likewise, it may rise around the time of final exams. By examining the i-borrow system, my growth as a project manager has been enhanced based on the opportunity to compare small projects with much more static clientele with a large project that impacts many stakeholders, stakeholders which change over the course of the program created by the i-borrow project. The contrast between types of project management styles becomes more clear with each project analysis, and the analysis of the i-borrow system is exemplary of a successful project applied in a large environment. An important lesson that may be taken from the i-borrow system is the coordinated effort put in by many diverse individuals within the same institution. By simply observing the author lists on published reports it is clear that many experts within the institution were consulted, providing a diversity of viewpoints organized as both qualitative and quantitative research. In many projects, allowing the quantitative figures or conversely the qualitative “feel” of the project team to overwhelm logical reasoning is common. The i-borrow project is exemplary of the stat of interdisciplinary cooperation that must be encouraged by the project manager to ensure a successful project. This project is also of particular interest because of the technological implications. The project incorporates technology not as an aspect of the learning environment, but as a critical piece of the learning puzzle, equally as important as books, walls, and light fixtures to the success of the library environment. By taking a technology-forward perspective, the project team is able to apply existing research and meta data to a new application, in this case technological, of the enhanced learning environment. In designing future IT related projects, or participating on project teams assigned such tasks, it is my belief that the experience of analyzing the i-borrow project plan will increase personal awareness of the special needs of technological processes. For instance, the noted failure of the project to adequately assess the number of wireless nodes may serve as an example of the need to more carefully plan acquisitions and consult with contractors who may have additional technical knowledge outside of the realm of what can be attained inside an organization. Also, drawing from the positive aspects of the i-borrow project, the influence that a marketing message can have is clearly demonstrated by the use of informing students on the low value and small hard drive size of the i-borrow laptops in order to discourage theft. Creative solutions, such as this one, demonstrate how client and stakeholder perception may be utilized to inexpensively mitigate some of the most common risks associated with a project. In the future, project managers should think outside of the box and ask themselves is informing a stakeholder, in this case the students, of certain project limitations or specifications might actually contribute towards a change in the stakeholders behavior. This concept may be applied not only to security, but also to simple, commonly occurring problems such as client or stakeholder dissatisfaction or conflict resolution. For instance, in the case of a noisy highway project, could informing those affected by the noise of the benefits they will receive form the new construction actually reduce complaints, vandalism, and other risks associated with the project. The i-borrow project strongly suggests that risk mitigation can be impacted by educating those affected by a project, which is often may prove to be a much less costly alternative that other risk mitigation techniques as well as improving relationships with stakeholders. Conclusion The i-borrow project is a shining example of the power of creative, technology forward thinking to solve project management challenges. The project displays a combination of traditional project management techniques such as Gantt chart use, human resource planning, stakeholder analysis, and client requirement analysis. It could be improved by the additional use of critical path methods, increased risk analysis, and a more detailed and easily replicable procurement analysis. Despite these limitations, the i-borrow project delivers a great value return based on the investment, providing student at Canterbury Christ University in the UK a valuable tool—the availability of laptops for mobile use within the library and student center. In addition, the project has encouraged the use of library services and improved the integration of technology and computer-based learning in the classroom, owing to the increased availability of laptops to a student body that is largely unlikely to have access to such devices on their own. As such, the benefit to the end user, student and faculty, and the pedagogic success of the project are without question. The i-borrow project is beneficial in more ways that its value a simply a successful project. The project establishes a basic framework, of demonstrated validity, by which other educational institutions may design a lean system that involves minimal costs and human resource allotments to establish laptop borrowing services. While certain improvements and standardizations could be made to improve the broad applicability of the plan, the success of the project at Canterbury Christ University provides an example that such a system is feasible with the appropriate project planning and management. References Graham-Mathesoni, Lynne. (2009). "iBorrow Research Report (Pedagogic)." Canterbury Christ University. Retrieved April 25, 2011 http://www.canterbury.ac.uk/projects/iborrow/documents/iBorrow-Pedagogic-Research-Report.pdf Fletcher, A.; Guthrie, J.; Steane, P.; Roos, G.; and Pike, S. (2003). "Mapping stakeholder perceptions for a third sector organization." Journal of Intellectual Capital 4(4): 505 – 527. French, Chris. (2009). " iBorrow Technical Report (Wireless Environment)." Canterbury Christ University. Retrieved April 25, 2011 http://www.canterbury.ac.uk/projects/iborrow/documents/iBorrow-Wireless-Technical-Report.pdf Hutchings, D. (2009) "CIS 430 - Time Management Methods: Network Diagram, Critical Path Analysis, Gantt Chart." Elon University. Retrieved April 25, 2011 http://facstaff.elon.edu/dhutchings/classes/CIS430/lec-13-time-mgmt-methods.pdf JELS. (2009). “A study of effective evaluation models and practices for technology supported physical learning spaces.” Bristol: Joint Information Systems Committee. Retrieved April 25, 2011 http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/projects/learningspaces08.aspx [Accessed: 21 January 2010]. Lock, D. (2007) Project Management 9th edition. London: Gower. Maylor, H. (2010) Project Management 4th edition. London: Financial Times/Prentice Hall. Mishra, Sujit. (2007). Human Resource Management in a Project. PM World Today IX(VII) Retrieved April 25, 2011 http://www.pmforum.org/library/papers/2007/PDFs/Mishra-7-07.pdf Phillips, Joeseph. (2010). IT Project Management: On Track from Start to Finish Third Edition. New York: McGraw Hill Companies. Poole, Phillip. (2008). Project Document Cover Sheet. Joint Information Systems Committee. Poole, Phil; Ellery, Ian; and Wheal, Adrian. (2009). “iBorrow Final Report.” Canterbury Christ University. Retrieved April 25, 2011 http://www.canterbury.ac.uk/projects/iborrow/documents/iBorrow-Final-Project-Report.pdf Steadman, Stephen. (2009). " Easier Than Borrowing a Book (External Evaluation – Final Report)." Canterbury Christ University. Retrieved April 25, 2011 http://www.canterbury.ac.uk/projects/iborrow/documents/iBorrow-External-Evaluation-Report.pdf Tatnall, Aurthur and Reyes, Gina. (2005) “Teaching IT Project Management to Postgraduate Business Students: A Practical Approach.” Journal of Information Technology Education, 4, 153-166. Retrieved April 25, 2011 http://jite.org/documents/Vol4/v4p153-166Tatnall60.pdf Ward, J and Daniel E. (2006) Benefits management: Delivering value from IS & IT investments. Chichester: John Wiley. Wayne, Barry. (2010). Augustine House Official Flicker Photo Site. Canterbury Christ University. Retrieved April 25, 2011 http://www.flickr.com/photos/heywayne Appendices Appendix 1 Wireless Timeline for project completion (French 2009) Appendix 2 The Process Diagram in the above figure summarizes the data flows in the student search service from the user at the point of use. (Poole et al. 2009) Read More