Business Project Management - Holyrood - Case Study Example

BUSINESS PROJECT MANAGEMENT By Part Trip Guide Introduction Study tours are an important part of learning as they expose the learners to practical experiences in the learning fields. In the field, the learners get to practically view as well as touch what their theoretical knowledge has all along been getting to them. MSc students at HUBS plan to take a tour of the UK automobile industry in the UK. The plan is aimed at the students visiting four automobile companies (or relative companies) in the cities of Sunderland, Oxford, Dagenham and Solihull. In Sunderland, the students will visit the Nissan factory; in Oxford, they will be at Plant Oxford; in Dagenham, there is the Ford Company that has been established to manufacture the Ford cars. The companies are all based in England and there will be a comprehensive research at the plants to fill the students with sufficient background information. Goals and Objectives The goal and objectives of the trip is to have the students carry out a collection of learning procedures at the different automobile factories in the country. To understand the different business development strategies at different companies To learn about production procedures at the manufacturing company To understand the vehicle assembly procedures put in place to have a complete vehicle. To understand the types of materials used at the vehicle assembly plant apart from the normal metals used for various functions. To understand key competitive factors driving the economies of the different plants in the UK. The tour was conducted by Mr Galician, the director of education of the MSc students at HUBS. There are four places that they will visit in this case. The places have vehicle assembly plants which will expose them to the mentioned issues in education. They will visit Sunderland, Oxford, Dagenham and Solihull. Participants The participants of the tour are 100 MSC students at HUBS and the trip is very important for a practical application of their knowledge to working situations. Pre-Departure Orientation The students will be taken through a learning procedure that will see them understand the procedural needs to keep at the companies in their day to day operations. This is like a reconnaissance programme that will see the students carry out an orientation programme to practices that would be needed at the company during the trip. It also considers inputting the risks that are involved in making sure that the safety of the students is the prime issue during the entire time at the four companies (Emblemsvåg, 2014, p.89). This phase will also include getting some knowledge on the companies due to be visited. School Year Dissemination Each student in the programme is supposed to carry out a project based on research after a trip and then carry out a community service project. Having done the community service, it was time for the practical trip and subsequent preparation of the report as related at the companies. The project will be presented after the tour and then presented as part of the curriculum requirement at the campus. Eligibility All the students in Msc programme at the college will be required to take part as this is part of the project. Each student will be required to have an approval from the doctor on their eligibility to travel to different places without any health related complications. The students must have completed a community based programme to indicate the presence of a plan by companies in the communities so that matters such as CSR are effectively understood before the trip. The student will also have certified the education secretary that they have settled all the outstanding campus fee balances before the trip. Other Primary Issues Worth Considering a. General Planning and Risks Observation Apart from the general and ethical issues associated with a trip, the plan will consider other important factors of planning such as statements of work(SOW), work breakdown structure(WBS), Organisational Breakdown Structures (OBS), risk analysis and management, resource planning and scheduling. These will be considered in view of their contribution to the implementation of the project. As a group tour, all the participants have the duty of taking part in all the activities that will be assigned. All participants will be judged both individually and collectively based on how they will perform. The accommodation that will be accorded will be single occupancy given that one night will be spent in the field travelling from the first two companies to the other two. Therefore, students will be supposed to have liaised with the organizing board of the trip to make sure that the accommodation issue is effectively arranged prior to the visit. The practice will also involve staying in active position for longer periods of time as well as being exposed to extreme operating conditions at the company that would lead to loss of stamina. Students will therefore be advised to practice the aspect of remaining alert for longer periods of time. The students will be expected to take care of their luggage as much as they can to avoid losses during the learning process. As a matter of taking care, it is important to note that the risks of being injured at a company are more than obvious (Dyke, Gill, & Davies, 2011, p.12). Before the trip, all the students will also be required to take part in the reconnaissance project. An insurance risk plan needs to be employed to make sure that all safety standards are maintained. This contributes to the trip being successfully executed without the fear of severe injuries (Cournoyer, Miller, & Stafford, 2012, p.67). There will be no preferences for special food but the students are expected that they will communicate this issue on time and they can be allowed to make their plans to carry food and related items. The authorities of the companies reserve the right to deny any person entry with any accompaniment not acceptable inside the factory premises. b. Stakeholders Stakeholders are the basis upon which a project is built (Karlsen, 2014). This project takes to account several stakeholders. The primary stakeholders in this case are the 100 students from MSc students at HUBS. The management of the institution (led by the department of engineering) are also part stakeholders as they take part in liaising with the companies’ relevant departments to gain permission. There are four companies under focus. The public relations departments of the companies are also part of the stakeholders as they will take part in receipt of the students. The tutor at the institution is solely responsible for the ‘duty to care’ for students during the trip. c. Statement of Work (SOW) This is a document, formal in nature that has the duty of capturing information in definition of the work activities, the deliverables and the timeline that the activity or project will take (Grim, 2000, p.83). The details of the statement of work are important because they lead the subjects in the project into developing a comprehensive understanding of the step by step purposes of the project. It defines scope and location of the work, period and standards, deliverables and criteria and any miscellaneous issue that may arise due (Feder, 2008, p.67). SOW therefore gives order to a project. d. Work Breakdown Structures This is a deliverable that is hierarchical work decomposition in incremental phases and packages in which division of labour may strongly be applicable (Hunter, 2007, p.21 ). In a project such as the trip to the companies, it is done with the end objective in practice in which the whole project is divided into manageable segments bearing in mind the service, duration and the level of responsibility. Its contribution to the project would be to provide a framework that commonly and overall provides planning and effective project control. It may apply the 100% rule, the mutually exclusive elements rule and the levels of details required in the project (Rad, 1999, p.82). e. Organisational Breakdown Structure (OBS) This is a section that has the task of complementing the WBS and the SOW. It has the primary intention of communicating how the people tasked with delivery of certain aspects of the projects will carry out different structures will be organised and effectively structured (Makarfi Ibrahim, Kaka, & Aouad, 2009, p.59). It communicates hierarchical levels and reports lines in a project. f. Resource Planning and Scheduling This is a very important part of a project and takes to account the people, the knowledge, materials, time and the knowledge required to handle the given project. The primary use of this tool in the project at hand will be to enable the project be successful with application of the scarce resources on disposal (Jung & Woo, 2004). It goes hand in hand with scheduling because when there is time wasted, a resource will also be wasted. Expense Budgeting of the Programme Given the level of the programme, all students will be supposed to take care of their expenses apart from the administrative expenses that will be centrally settled by the school management. In due cause, the following expenses will be expected to be met; Details Cost ($) 1 Lodging 15 per night 2 Meals 20 per day 3 Entrance fee Administrative 4 Travelling Administrative 5 Required books and other stationery materials 20 N/B Students will be supposed to take care of their luggage at any one point in this situation. Some meals are a responsibility of the student and caries no liability to the college of company visited. Transportation to the school before the trip will be done by the students and/or their guardians. It should be noted that costs vary from place to place and the university bears no responsibility of a student failing to acquire some learning materials elsewhere. The risks that the students are most likely to experience are the risk of having to content with the company micro-climate. It will be an experience of class and school out in a company making products. Therefore, sufficient levels of care will be expected given that all the stakeholders expect a sound treatment. Many accidents occur in companies and thy may even involve fatal ones like chopping off of the limbs of the visitors. Therefore, no student will be supposed to operate a machine. Moreover, no student will be supposed to be in possession of any device will be a breach of safety codes and many lead to a student being expelled from the programme until further notice. On the resources, all the students are supposed to carry with the m all the information that will be used in making sure that they have sufficient information (Emblemsvåg, 2014, p.78). In essence, they will be required to make a report about the trip and make valid conclusions as required by any study report project. In conclusion, every student will be supposed to make his findings and present a detailed report about the visit to the four companies in the different four cities. Part 2: The Holyrood Project Introduction The Holyrood project was a complex parliament building complex in Scotland. The project currently houses the Scottish parliament in central Edinburg. As a project, it was started off in 1999 and housed the first session of the Scottish national assembly in September 2004 (Pearman, 2005, p.83). Despite the fact that it was supposed to be completed earlier, it took five years to complete and the costs that were initially estimated at £195 million but ended up costing £431 million (detailed information in Appendix 1). This paper seeks to make an analysis of the Holyrood project in view of its delayed construction. In this regard, it will develop information on the project with specified focus on a collection of features. First, it will develop the aspects of the projects that failed and a subsequent discussion on why it failed. Based on the failure of the project at many stages, the paper will discuss what will have been done in a different way to make it suitable. It will then explore the role of the project manager in view of his contribution to the project. Aspects of the project that failed Problems relating to the project dated back to 1997 when planning was being done. The Members of the Scottish Parliament (MSPs) had collaborated with the Scottish office for housing and the project was estimated to be £10-£40 million in 1997. The estimate to no account of the location of the structure and was also not considered be compatible to any building in existence prior to this. Therefore, the estimation was not in line with the comparative cases and would not hold for such a value. Having advertised for a collection of designs for the building, the design by Mirralles Company was chosen as befitting the expected standards (Blackler & Iqbal, 2006). The estimated cost of this company was £50-£55 million and a cleared site of 16,000 m2 was sufficiently chosen at Leith, Haymarket or at Holyrood but this information did not consist of the costs of acquiring the site and also the VAT. This made it a cost that was based on raw estimation and was not a full cost. Under project management practices, such exclusions from costs may cause large changes in the final cost of the project (Atkinson, 2010, p. 102). In 1999, the minister in charge estimated the cost of the project as £109 million. This took to account the costs of the fees of consultancy, the costs of the site, risks and contingencies, archaeology, the process VAT and the archaeology work to be done at the site. By April the following year, the costs had increased by £86 million. There was also a close-in on the time of completion to May 2003. However, it was found that the completion would not be in order and there would be an increase in the completion time which was announced by Finance Committee of the Scottish Parliament as contributing to increasing costs. In December 2002, it was noted that the project would increase to £295 million due to an increase in the fees of security. At that stage of the construction, it was determined that bomb proof cladding was to be incorporated in the outside of the building to make sure that the security of the building was taken to account. Moreover, there were contingencies that were named “hidden extras” as well as continued delays that would put the building to £300 million. A shift was again inevitable at this stage and an indefinite postponement put to place. In July 2003, a new presiding officer was chosen. He started providing periodic reports on the project and in one of the reports, he stated that the project was experiencing internal construction problems and would cost an amount in excess of £400 million (Politics, 2014, p.71). By February 2004, further problems in the constructions were stated and a further construction drawbacks and an announcement made that the building would be opened in 2005. However, due diligence was applied and the building was effectively opened in October 2004. From the stage by stage problems in the analysis, it can be noted that there was an initial problems that started way before the building started its construction. There were very many facts of information which would not satisfy the centrality required in coherent project development. It is noted that the project got late by 20 months. The project failed because it can be seen at every stage that contracts were awarded to contractors that were chasing a very complex project against a very tight schedule. Trade contractors were therefore responsible for the delay in the design in that the architects and the contractors did not effectively deliver on time the elements of the work that were considered very critical. There was no work that was to start without the critical elements of the design work being delivered (Carroll, 2012, p.67). Secondly, as the targets were being set, it was possible that the project manager notes the inability of the company to meet the targeted timelines based on their past experiences. With the programmes almost certain that they can never be achieved, it was important determining that truth was to be told on the deadlines. Lack of effective communication led to there being confusion and losses as well as extended expenditure. The project manager also did not work to resolve the root of the problems as early as they happened. It is noted that the manger prepared construction programmes that had so many assumptions as well as unachievable commitments. Badiru (2010) determined that project cases give the management much of the construction risk. Therefore, there were extreme levels of slippage which led to the project stalling at many levels. At the close of 2000, there were many cost increases. The ideal reason with reference to the case is that there were many changes in the types of finishing that were to be applied to the project. Therefore, a collection of problems related to slippage, time management and project control were the main causes of the problems that hampered the development and progress of these projects. What was to be done differently and the role of the project manager From the problems that were encountered with the project, a collection of issues were considered as relevant to the cause of action in this case. First, it has to be noted that the bulk of the blame on work not meeting requirements squarely lies with the project manager (Carroll, 2012, p. 331). The project management team therefore failed in a collection of methodical factors. First, he needed to make sure that he delivered the design and the construction process to the relevant authorities much earlier for consideration. This will make sure that there is a balance between quality and time. According to Demeulemeester, Kolisch and Salo (2013), the client and the project management team were supposed to set time and quality limits that were reasonable as per the requirements. Therefore, there was need to improve on the time of delivering the project systems to the relevant authorities. The second point of improvement is that the project manager was supposed to create a centralized control system. In this project, it is noted that there are so many control centers and many are contributing information that is not helpful to the cause of the project. It is worth noting that such a step helps in balancing time, quality and costs because the process of making decisions is centralized and based on mutual agreement. Moreover, leadership and control of the project is clearly developed and mapped (Yang & Chen, 2009, p. 120). The other aspect of the work that should have been done differently is to wait until the cost plan is agreed on before the project starts in the first place. This was the most pressing problem given that the costs kept changing from time to time from the initial to more than £400 million. Initially, there was a statement of the plan being agreed on in autumn 2000 but it was again found out that it was just an indicator of the costs as opposed to the ideal costs required in their full accuracy. On this issue, the normal budgetary control procedures should have been used. Imboden (2008) determined that these allow a balanced consideration for affordability and effective decision making. Therefore, there is a general situation of the project management not preparing issues on time and this leads to the project running at an approximation as opposed to accuracy. The work of the project manager as related to the case in hand is related many issues and they are well included in all the work that was carried out. First, it can be noted that the project manager was involved in the time estimation. All the errors emanating from scheduling and rescheduling were the mistake of the project manager. When such errors occur, it becomes quite possible that there was little planning or an error occurred during the planning process. Secondly, he was involved in the planning of activities as well as sequencing. In planning, the project manager understands that he has to unify all the departments so that the project is done in a cohesive manner (Lianying, Jing, & Xinxing, 2012, p. 339). Quality control and risk taking and analysis are an important factor to determine the trends in the case. In conclusion, it is determined that the case had several faults and problems as well as there being an inconsistent flow of the activities in the tasks that were carried out. This case has been developed on the concept that the Holyrood Project was a process that was not carried out as effectively as would have been required. The paper also delved on establishing the aspects of the project that failed and it has been greatly found that planning was the main factor in the project failure. In the same case, many things would have been done differently in the project and they were effectively established. A summary role of the project manager was also enumerated in the research and was found that the manger is the overall leader of the entire project. References Atkinson, R. 2010. Project management: cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a phenomenon, its time to accept other success criteria. International Journal of Project Management, 17(6), 337-347. Badiru, A. B. 2010. STEP Project Management: Guide for Science, Technology, and Engineering Projects. New York: CRC Press. Blackler, T., & Iqbal, M. 2006. Pre-feasibility study of wind power generation in holyrood, NewFoundLand. Renewable Energy, 31(4), 87. Carroll, J. 2012. Effective Project Management in Easy Steps. London: n Easy Steps. Cournoyer, M. E., Miller, J. J., & Stafford, D. C. 2012. Safety Observations. Professional Safety, 57(10), 132. Demeulemeester, E., Kolisch, R., & Salo, A. 2013. Project management and scheduling. Flexible Services and Manufacturing Journal, 25(1), 112. Dyke, G., Gill, S., & Davies, R. 2011. Dream project: Applications of earth observations to disaster risk management. Acta Astronautica,, 68(1), 21. Emblemsvåg, J. 2014. Lean Project Planning: Using Lean Principles In Project Planning. International Journal of Construction Project Management, 6(2), 143. Feder, H. M. 2008. CMS Releases QIO 9th Statement of Work. ournal of Care Compliance, 10(2), 32. Gido, J., & Clements, ‎. 2011. Successful Project Management. New Jersey: Cengage Learning. Grim, S. A. 2000. PRO sixth statement of work combines quality improvement and coding reviews. Reimbursement Advisor, 15(6), 89. Hunter, K. A. 2007. Leveraging the Relationship Between the Federal IT Projects Contract Work Breakdown Structure (CWBS) and the Contracts Statement of Work. AACE International Transactions, 32(11), 213. Imboden, N. 2008. A Management Approach to Project Appraisal and Evaluation. Washington: OECD Publishing. Jung, Y., & Woo, S. 2004. Flexible Work Breakdown Structure for Integrated Cost and Schedule Control. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 130(5), 412. Karlsen, J. T. 2014. Project Stakeholder Management. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 14(4), 32. Lianying, Z., Jing, H., & Xinxing, Z. 2012. The Project Management Maturity Model and Application Based on PRINCE2. Procedia Engineering, 29, 121. Makarfi Ibrahim, Y., Kaka, A., & Aouad, G. 2009. Framework for a generic work breakdown structure for building projects. Construction Innovation, 9(4), 59. Pearman, R. 2005. Sir Robert steps up Holyrood challenge. Contract Journal, 427(6513), 109. Politics, P. 2014. The dimensionality of the Scottish political space: Results from an experiment on the 2011 Holyrood elections. Wheatley, Jonathan; Carman, Christopher; Mendez, Fernando, 20(6), 71. Rad, P. F. 1999. Deliverable-oriented work breakdown structure. AACE International Transactions, 9(4), 98. Yang, T., & Chen, C.-W. 2009. An incentive pay system for project management based on responsibility. Expert Systems With Applications, 36(10), 112. Read More