Prince 2 in Engineering Project in the UK - Assignment Example

Name : Tutor : Title : Project Management Institution : Date : @ 2013 Table of Contents Part 1 – Prince 2………………………………………………………………………. 3 Beginning the project………………………………………………………….. 3 Project Initiation………………………………………………………………… 4 Directing the project……………………………………………………………. 4 Stage control……………………………………………………………………. 4 Managing the boundaries of the stages………………………………………… 5 Managing the delivery of the product………………………………………….. 5 Project Closure………………………………………………………………….. 5 Techniques………………………………………………………………………. 5 Part 2- Prince 2 compared with PMBOK…………………………………………… 6 Part 3- Analysis of the Emirates Stadium Project…………………………………… 7 Project Overview………………………………………………………………… 7 Project Management Analysis…………………………………………………… 8 Bibliography…………………………………………………………………………… 11 Part 1 – Prince 2 Prince 2 stands for Projects in Controlled Environments version 2. It is basically a methodology for management of projects. This methodology was created by an agency of the government of the United Kingdom the UK government uses it a lot for management of its projects. This methodology involves project management, organization and control. Prince 2 can also be applicable in training and authorization of methodology practitioners who need to do accredited qualification in order to get certification (Hm & Böhm 2010, pp. 17). Prince 2 as a method of project management is driven by the process. Prince 2 is founded on 7 principles which include ongoing business justification, learning from experience, defined roles and responsibilities, management in stages, managing by exception, focusing on the product and tailored for the environment of the project. It also has 7 processes and 7 business themes forming its basis. These themes are business case, progress, change, quality, organization, risk, plans and quality (Bentley, Stationery Office 2005, pp. 31). Beginning the project At the time when the project starts the project team has to be selected and the brief of the project which explains in an outline form that which the project will attain and the business rationale for that is made. To add to this the general approach that will be used is settled upon and the planning of the next stage is done (Hm & Böhm, 2010, pp. 21). When this is over the board of the project will have to give permission for the next stage in which the project has to be initiated. The major activities include the appointment of the executive and the manager of the project, the design and the appointment of the team to manage the project, preparation of the project brief, laying out the approach to the project and the plan and initiation of the stage to follow (Jones 2007, pp. 51). Project Initiation This stage is founded on the very first process and the project brief is expanded to become the business case. The steps used to make the project a quality one is deliberated upon with the general approach of project controls. Creating of project files is done just as it would be in the overall plan of the project. The creation of the plan for the next stage in the project is also made. The information obtained is submitted to the project board so that they can grant permission for the project (Hm & Böhm, 2010, pp. 31). The main activities at this stage should include the planning of quality, project planning, reviewing the risks and business case, establishing the project controls, making the files for the project and compiling the Project Initiation Document. Directing the Project The main activities for this process are the authorization of initiation, project authorization, stage or exception plan authorization, provision of ad hoc direction and the confirmation of the closure of the project. In this process there is direction on how the board of the project which has the role of the project sponsor must take control of the entire project. As earlier indicated the board of the project has the mandate of authorizing the initiation stage and can therefore authorize the project. Project direction also determines how the board authorizes the stage plan. Included here is any other stage plan that can take the place of the current stage plan because of unpredictable problems. Included here are; the manner in which the project board can provide a temporary direction to the project and the manner in which the project has to be terminated (Hm & Böhm, 2010, pp. 26). Stage Control According to Prince 2 methodology, the project must be divided into stages and the sub processes determine how each of the stages will be done. Most importantly, it involves the manner of authorization of work packages and how they are received. It also details the formula for monitoring progress and the way in which the progress information will be relayed to the board. There is also suggested the method in which the issues of the project are captured and assessed and the procedure for taking corrective action. It also outlines the method of presenting certain issues in the project to the board (Bentley, Stationery Office 2005, pp. 16). Managing the boundaries of the stages The process of stage controlling determines what transpires in a given stage, managing stage boundaries determines what must happen at the end of the stage. Generally the subsequent stage has to be organized and the general plan of the project, risk register as well as the business case altered as required (Jones 2007, pp. 56). The process also outlines the action to be taken if a stage exceeds its levels of tolerance. Finally, the process determines the procedure for reporting the completion of the stage. Managing the delivery of the product The process of managing the delivery of the product plays the role of determining the connection between the team managers and the project managers by putting official requirements on the acceptance, execution and delivery of project work. This process has the objectives of ensuring that the work on the products assigned to a team has been permitted and accepted (Bentley, Stationery Office 2005, pp. 17). It also ensures that the team managers, members and suppliers know the expected effort, produce ands time scale. Delivery of planned products should be as expected and with tolerance. Project closure This shows the activities to be done as the project closes. Important steps are formal decommissioning of the project whereby resources are released for other uses, identification of follow on actions and the formal evaluation of the project. Techniques Prince 2 mainly describes product based planning, the change control technique and the quality review technique. The quality review technique helps to meet the set quality criteria for the products. This happens in the quality review meeting. The meeting does not look for solutions to the problems identified (Jones 2007, pp. 58). Part 2- Prince 2 compared with PMBOK PRINCE 2 is a very different in approach when compared to PMBOK. However the two are aimed at improving the success rate of project performance. Many people have accepted PMBOK and in North America it is the most popular approach for project management (Harrison & Lock 2004, pp. 89). The PMP population in Asia Pacific is approximately 35,000. China has 10,000 people. PMI began its operations in China in 2000 while PRINCE 2 started its Accredited Training Organization in 2007. PRINCE2 is based in the UK although its membership is evenly spread out in the world with more then 70% of its members being out of the UK. Inside China the growth rate of PRINCE 2 is 100% every year and it is estimated that in 5 years it will have reached 50,000certification. PRINCE 2 is the recommended standard all over the UK because it is a must for every government project. It can also be felt strongly in Australia and Europe and its reach is growing constantly just as PMBOK (Harrison & Lock 2004, pp. 77). On the technical merits of these two approaches, it is clear that PMBOK is a guide or framework while PRINCE 2 is only a methodology. PMBOK is a combination of various best practices and recommendations. PMBOK being a guide it shows the way of doing things and it has the techniques and tools for this. On the other hand, PRINCE 2 is a methodology that has a plain process, templates and even steps. When one uses PRINCE 2, he will always be sure of which step is going to come next. On its side, PMBOK provides one with the skills and training on which to base project management. It has a lot of its focus on the skill sets development and a project manager’s situation handling. More sets of skills for the project manager are found in PMBOK such as team and human resource management and procurement (Gido & Clemens 2008, pp. 55). PRINCE 2 lays a lot of its emphasis on the governance of the project. Beforehand, it defines the beginning of the requirements for quality, criteria for acceptance and understandable roles for the board prior to commencement of the project. The process is entirely scalable for various project sizes so that one is never wearied by the process and documentation. Of these two approaches, PRINCE 2 comes out as the better one. The reason behind this choice is that PRINCE 2 is easy to use because it outlines the steps to be followed and emphasizes on project governance which is the most important aspect in running a project. It also applies to different project sizes and therefore reduces the burden of documentation for the project manager. On the other hand PMBOK emphasizes on equipping a manager with skills which the project manager may already be having. It therefore becomes less important whenever it is compared to PRINCE 2 (Gido & Clemens 2008, pp. 45). Part 3- Analysis of the Emirates Stadium Project i) Project overview The Emirates Stadium is found in Holloway within the London Borough of Islington. Arsenal Football Club has this stadium as its home ground. Plans to build the new stadium were made following the concern that the capacity of the club’s Highbury stadium ha d dropped from 73,000 in 1935 to only 38,000 in 1999 (Gido & Clemens 2008, pp. 45). This capacity was proving to be too small for the purposes of the club. In 2004, Robert McAlpine authorized the design and contracted a company to build a stadium with a capacity of 60,000. The project was to have a regeneration scheme with houses, a plant for recycling wastes, health care facilities for the community, a nursery, a museum as well as the improvement of public transport. This scheme was expected to create approximately 1800 jobs, more than 2000 new homes, and channel about £400 million into that area (Gido & Clemens 2008, pp. 90). ii) Project Management analysis Generally, this project was successful but it did not lack its challenges and failures. It has been praised by observers as the main stadium project to be done in the UK ever. The contract had two new bridges crossing railway lines, a station for the transfer of wastes, a building to house the headquarters and the Ashburton residential development which is 12 stories high. It was very successful in that its completion was a head of the planned schedule and all its costs fell within the allocated budget (Basu 2013, pp. 32). According to Gido & Clemens (2008, pp. 90) major failures for the project included design and quality, management of stake holders, the cost of the project, time, document control and location and communication. The project did not fully involve stakeholders in its planning stages and this was a failure. Again, the stakeholders did not receive elaborate communication on the aims and objectives laid down for the project. The management board would have adopted a group management approach to this so that all stakeholders would have a chance (Loosemore 2003, pp. 98). The design and quality of the stadium, was not to the expected standards bearing in mind the costs. Yes the stadium is one of the best but it was expected to surpass this. At the moment it is number 3 in London and the fourth largest in the UK. Why is it not the best of all yet it is the most recent? To ensure that the quality and design are up to date, the management team could have embraced collaborative planning, referring to documents of past projects and selecting contractors on the basis of past experience and adopting a design that details the requirements of the client (Loosemore 2003, pp. 102). The costs of the project was found to have been in the confines of the budget, however analysts have some that this costs would as well as been lower than what was spent. The control of the costs of the project was not perfect. The costs of the project would have been lower if the management team would have gone for collaborative planning. The team would also have ensured that there is proper communication between the contractor and the designers to make sure that each of these does their job in an appropriate manner. At the same time they would have ensured that site meetings and stake holder meetings are held on regular basis (Loosemore 2003, pp. 42). On the issue of time, although the project was completed within the set schedule it was observed that a lot of time was lost. In fact the planned schedule had already been allocated a lot of time from the onset. The issue of time arises because the management team failed to use the ‘design and build’ contract management strategy. The team also needed to ensure that the contractor and the design team work in collaborations from the beginning to the end of the project. Communication and document control was also an issue in the course of the project (Webber & Webber 2008, pp. 15). Communication is very important in all the stages of a project from initiation to closure. All those involved and stake holders need constant communication on the progress. The project management team performed badly on this. It did not allow for efficient flow of information to ensure that there is control of the design because the procedure would have been ‘design and build.’ Project execution faces a major challenge of project monitoring and control. These two must include the tracking of the progress of the project and acting where necessary (Rogers & Duffy 2012, pp. 104). Failure to monitor a project means it may go beyond its planned time or the expenditure of the budget. This was a weakness in the execution of the Emirates stadium project. Tools like earned value techniques help in auditing the progress of the work and this can be done through proper document control and meetings of the project team. Issues such as the location of the site in the Emirates Stadium project should be tackled by management. Some critics have stated that the location of the stadium was not appropriate. Collaborative planning was the best approach to be used in the management of this project because it had the potential to offset all the challenges and failures identified in this discussion (Webber & Webber 2008, pp. 15). The lessons to be learnt from the implementation of this project all revolve around the procedure used in the management of the project. The management of any project should seek to involve all the stakeholders and those involved in the implementation such as designers and contractors. This should happen all through the life of the project to ensure that every concern is considered and deliberated upon to avoid wastage of time and resources. It will also ensure that the intended quality of the project is achieved (Thompson & Perry 1992, 76). Bibliography Basu, R. 2013.  Managing Quality in Projects. Gower Publishing Ltd. Bentley, C., Stationery Office 2005. Practical PRINCE 2. TSO Shop. Gido, J. & Clemens, J.P. 2008. Successful Project Management. Cengage Learning. Harrison, F.L. & Lock, D. 2004. Advanced Project Management: A structured Approach. Gower Publishing Ltd. Hm, A. B. & Böhm, A. 2010. Application for PRINCE 2 and the Impact on Project Management. GRIN Verlag. Jones, R. 2007. Project Management Survival: A practical Guide to Leading and Managing. Kogan Page. Loosemore, M. 2003. Essentials of Construction Project Management. New South Publishing. Rogers, M. & Duffy, A. 2012. Engineering Project Appraisal. John Wiley & Sons. Thompson, P.A & Perry, J.G. 1992. Engineering Construction Risks: A guide to Project Analysis. Thomas Telford. Webber, L.E., & Webber, F. 2008. Is Project Management Essentials 2009. Aspen Publishers Online. Read More