Project Management - Getin Datacentre Project - Essay Example

 Project Management Academic Report Section 1 Project implementation profiles scores and analysis The project implementation profile scores of the GETIN Datacentre project shows that seven out of the ten critical factors are strong and have been handled well. One factor qualifies as the marginal critical factor while two others come across as the weak critical factors. Project mission and Top Management Project mission is one of the strong critical factors that have average percentile ranking of above 60 percent. This factor has the highest ranking of 92.75 percent with both EMEA Project Manager and EMEA Engineers reporting 100 percent. Only head office engineers report the lowest score with 77 percent. Enthusiasm about chances for success of this project is disagreed upon weakly (3). Support from top management another strong critical factor scoring an average percentile of 64.5 percent. Both the EMEA general manager and EMEA project manager indicated a 66 percent score, the head office engineers recorded an 83 percent score and EMEA engineers came in with the lowest score of 43 percent. It is moderately disagreed (2) that the management will support project personnel in a crisis (Pinto 1990, 173). Technical tasks and Client acceptance The third strong factor in EMEA project is the technical tasks that, on average, had a percentile score of 82.25%. EMEA project manager had the highest individual percentile score in regards to technical tasks, 94% while head office engineers scored 89% on their ranking for technical tasks. The EMEA general manager was third, scoring a 77%, while EMEA engineers were last with a 69% score. There was, however, no disagreement on technical support. The average percentile score of 60.5% qualifies client acceptance as the other strong critical factor in the set of ten. EMEA project manager had the highest percentile score of 97% with respect to client acceptance and the head office engineers followed with a 63% score. EMEA engineers scored 51% on client acceptance while EMEA general manager scored the least with a 31%. It is weakly disagreed (3) that there is adequate presentation of the project has been developed for clients (Pinto 1990, 173). Monitoring and feedback, and communication The average percentile score for monitoring and feedback as the other strong critical factor is 63.5%. EMEA project manager had the highest individual percentile score in monitoring and feedback, scoring 89%. EMEA general manager was second with an individual percentile score of 77% and EMEA engineers who scored 51% followed. The lowest scorer in monitoring and feedback were the head office engineers with a 37%. It is moderately disagreed (2) that the actual progress is regularly compared with the project schedule. Communication emerged as a strong critical factor in the GETIN Datacentre project with an average percentile score of 60.75%. Leading with an individual percentile score of 83% in communication was the EMEA project manager. Both EMEA general manager and head office engineers scored 63% in communication. EMEA engineers recorded the lowest percentile score in communication with a 34%. It is weakly disagreed (3) that all members receive explanations of changes and reasons for revising the budget or schedule (Pinto 1990, 174). Trouble-shooting According to the ‘project implementation profile scores’, trouble-shooting is the last strong critical factor with an average percentile score of 65%. Individual percentile scores shows that EMEA project manager was leading with a score of 77%. EMEA general manager was second in trouble-shooting with a score of 71%. The head office engineers followed with a 63% score and EMEA engineers were last with a score of 49%. Clearly, these factors were handled well and since they were not exhibiting any problems, the project manager has to focus on other factors. There is a weak disagreement (3) as to the claim that all project problems receive immediate action (Pinto 1990, 174). Personnel Personnel came out as the marginal factor for the GETIN Datacentre Project because it has an average score of 50.5%. The EMEA project manager reported the highest individual percentile score at 71%. Head office engineers were second with a score of 51% and EMEA general manager, who scored 49%, followed. EMEA engineers came in last with the lowest percentile score of 31%. The score of personnel, as the marginal factor, suggests possible difficulties in the future. A strong disagreement (1) exists against the claim that the project team receives adequate technical and managerial training (Pinto 1990, 174). Project schedule/plan and client consultation Project schedule/plan and client consultation are the two weak factors in the GETIN Datacentre project. Project schedule/plan got an average percentile score of 48.5%. EMEA general manager recorded 74%, which was the highest individual percentile score out of the four positions considered. EMEA project manager was second with a 51% and head office engineers, with a percentile score of 43%, followed this. EMEA engineers were last in project schedule/plan recording a percentile score of 26%. Client consultation also got 48.5% average percentile score. There was a wide disparity in the individual percentile score with the leading being EMEA project manager recording 80% followed by head office engineers with a 54%. EMEA engineers scored 34% while EMEA general manager came in last with 26%. It is moderately disagreed (2) that there are contingency plans in case the project goes off schedule or budget (Pinto 1990, 175). Project performance Overall, EMEA engineers were the only stakeholder group that recorded the lowest project performance across all the ten project factors getting a percentile score of 57%. EMEA project manager got the highest Project Performance Percentile Score of 100% when rated across all the ten critical project factors, while the head office engineers and EMEA general manager recorded Project Performance Percentile Scores of 94% and 73% respectively. Section 2: Issues and their relationship with the GETIN Datacentre project Project mission The project implementation profile scores shows that GETIN Datacentre project mission was articulated with clarity right at the outset of the project. It is clear that the goals of the project are well in agreement with those of the organization. A 92.75% shows that there is confidence that the GETIN Datacentre project will benefit the parent organization and one can have ease identifying the impacts of the project’s success on the organization. Overall, the high score of project mission shows high chances of success (Pinto 1990, 175). Top management A 64.5% average percentile score for the top management of the GETIN Datacentre project shows that there is fair support of the project by the management. It can be inferred that the responsiveness of the top management to calls for additional resources by the project implementation team is above average. The top management’s initiative to share responsibility with the project team in order to ensure the success of the project is average. The project team is neutral on the degree of the authority that the upper management gives it in regards to the project. The confidence of the project team is high that the top management will support it in a crisis (Pinto 1990, 175). Project schedule/plan In regards to the project schedule/plan, it is clear that the GETIN Datacentre project team does not on the activities that contain slack time or the resources that can be used in other areas of the project in times of emergency. The low score of the project schedule/plan in relation to other factors shows that the plan for the completion of the project is either not known or is being ignored. The budget for the project is not being followed and key personnel needs are not specified clearly. Clearly, there is a need for contingency plans to help get the project back in track once off schedule or off budget (Pinto 1990, 175). Client consultation Low average percentile score of client consultation (48.5%) shows that the input of the clients for the GETIN Datacentre project was not sought at the project development stage. The score also suggest that clients do not have an up-to-date knowledge of the progress of the project. It is likely that the eventual clients of the GETIN Datacentre project do not understand the value of the project. The clients of this project might not have knowledge of the limitations of the project. It is possible that clients do not know whether their input was assimilated into the project or not (Pinto 1990, 173). Personnel GETIN Datacentre project team personnel have an average understanding of their role on the team. A 50.5% average percentile score shows that the labor available to complete the project is not enough. There is a significant lack of understanding on the part of the personnel on the way their performance will be evaluated. Job descriptions for the project team personnel are not well understood. The technical and managerial training available for project team members is average (Pinto 1990, 173). Technical tasks An average percentile score of 82.25% for technical tasks shows that there is good management for specific GETIN Datacentre project tasks. The score points to a suggestion that the technical people including project engineers that are employed for the project are capable. It is evident that the technology being used in project tasks is efficient and appropriate. Importantly, GETIN Datacentre project implementers understand what entails the project (Pinto 1990, 174). Client acceptance The documentation kept on GETIN Datacentre project progress is of slightly above-average help to the project clients. Potential clients for the project have fairly been contacted on the usefulness of the project. The presentation developed for the project is adequate for the clients. Clients have fair knowledge of the persons they can contact with their issues, problems or questions. The preparation done to determine how to present the project to the clients as appealing is fair (Pinto 1990, 173). Monitoring and feedback All aspects of the GETIN Datacentre project are monitored adequately. The frequency with which meetings to check the project progress and improve the feedback to the project team are held is sufficient. Despite the fair score of 63.5%, it is less likely that the actual progress of the project is compared with the project schedule. This is because, as mentioned elsewhere in this report, project schedule/plan scored lowly. The outcomes of project reviews are regularly shared with project personnel who have power over the project budget and schedule. There is fair solicitation of input from the project team when need arises to revise the project budget or schedule (Pinto 1990, 174). Communication The project personnel receive publications of the results of the GETIN Datacentre project planning meetings. The acceptance or rejection of inputs is communicated to the originators of these inputs. There is fair communication of the changes and reasons for revising budget or schedule to the project team. Different stakeholders including project team and upper management are told the reasons for the change of existing policies and procedures. The groups affected by the project have fair knowledge on how to notify project team about problems (Pinto 1990, 174). Trouble-shooting The average percentile score of 65% on troubleshooting shows that GETIN Datacentre project leader provides timely information on the available assistance when problem arises. There are brainstorming sessions that help detect likely sources of problems. Project team members have knowledge of where to go to get assistance with project difficulties. There is evident confidence that emergent problems can be tackled completely by immediate action (Pinto 1990, 175). Section 3: Plan and application of leadership skills that maximize self-assessed strengths Project vision The project has underscored that conflict of interest and miscommunication can hinder the achievement of the project vision. Deliberative personal leadership strength calls for the plan to improve the project vision to start with establishing good communication channels. This would help different stakeholders express their interest and discuss points of agreement and disagreements with the interests of others. Such an avenue would ensure that as the project continues points of consensus and those of disagreement will be complementary. Channels will include meetings and focused groups. The second step in improving the project vision will be making it flexible. Flexibility will help the vision circumvent adverse emergent scenarios such as running short of space to store equipment or shrinking of IT funds. Rigidity will deny the project vision the chance to benefit from variations that can be helpful even if they were not conceived in the beginning. For example, the suggestion to limit virtual servers to the number stated when physical servers were moved to the virtual datacenter was a good idea that would help avoid unnecessary spending of time and space and the project vision has to be able to adopt such a suggestion (Rath & Conchie 2009, 14). The futuristic personal leadership strength guides that the third step in improving project vision be motivating the project team. The difficulties of thinking of how to fix the problem of virtual servers and other problems might be wearing out project team and there is a need to remind the team the need to endure the present difficulties awaiting better days ahead. I will use the information on how first we made the first 20 servers and the possibility of making more in the near future and hitting our target by the set time. This should serve to energize and challenge them to do their best their diverse capacities and probably speed up the pace at which the project going. Lastly, my responsibility personal leadership strength persuades that there is a need to foster better project ownership by the project team and clients. This will require a fresh articulation of the usefulness of the project to all stakeholders (Dalcher 2014, 23). Conflict negotiation and power My intellection is roused when considering how to improve conflict negotiation and power because it affects the GETIN Datacentre Project. The first step towards this end is to engage with European parliamentarians. It was discovered that a lot of funds went to waste in terms of infrastructure investing in sites dedicated to providing support and providing power and cooling to servers and network equipment while the data centre was not being utilized fully. Sharing ideas with parliamentarians will help in lobbying for nationwide legislation and action that will promote the use of the centre. The resultant legislation might also help direct some of these resources that are going to waste to funding some of project tasks (Lewis 2002, 72). The spontaneity of ideas that come with the persona leadership strength would help in the second step of improving conflict negotiation and power. In order to use the impact of this strength, I will suggest the starting of brainstorming meetings. Brainstorming will provide a chance for every project team member to contribute meaningfully and creatively to solving conflicts especially in decision-making. Instead of the top management making decisions and passing them down to subordinate project team members, it is better off to use brainstorming meetings to invite the contributions of each member. Such decisions will be more welcome to all and will most likely be executed more thoroughly (Strider 2002, 45). The third step that will help improve conflict negotiation and power is using intellection in initiating and mediating negotiation. Power-based bargaining is particularly important to the project some project implementers feel that the top management is not giving them enough power and influence over the task entrusted to them. Additionally, rights-based bargaining is also pertinent in settling disputes between the individuals in different ranks of project implementation. The project implementation profiles indicated that some clients do not know that usefulness of the project and this can bring a conflict of interest and negotiation will be instrumental in adjudicating these disputes (Burke & Barron 2007, 107). Collaboration and communication Whereas the communication factor of this project scores high project implementation profiles, there is a need to ensure that the weak areas of communication are improved. My ideational predisposition in me moves that the first time in enhancing collaboration and communication is ensuring that feedback is giving to people who contributed the ideas. This would help in demonstrating that their ideas matter to the project decision-making process. Additionally, caution shall be taken to ensure that this feedback is communicated in a carrying way in order to discourage project members from sharing their ideas. Besides feedback, a second step in improving collaboration and communication is keeping proper documentation for anything that relates to the project. This includes any expenses, revenue, or progress so as to help in accountability. This documentation will serve as a quick reference to the clients of the project and to project implementers (Hancock 2010, 83). Secondly, there is a need for there to be defined ways of communicating amongst stakeholders such as telephone and email. This can make it convenient for any individual affected by the project because they can choose the medium that suits them best. Additionally, having alternatives will help circumvent the challenges of accessibility in terms of both the distance of workstation from head office and of the medium. A website should be created to help post and disseminate important information to all stakeholders. This information should include change of policies and procedures, and the reasons for such change. An advantage with this move is that it is less costly to maintain and can reach many people (Lewis 2002, 72). Finally, collaboration and communication can be improved if, as a third step, all project team members who do not know how to use some of the equipment are taught. This would help project team members to work at par. Leaving such people behind will make the project lag and firing them is not a viable option. Reference List Burke, R., and Barron, S., (2007) Project Management Leadership. Chichester, West Sussex: Burke Publishing. Pp. 107 – 117. Dalcher, D., (ed) (2014). Advances in Project Management: Narrated Journeys in Uncharted Territories. Farnham, Surrey, England ; Burlington, VT: Gower. Pp. 23 – 27. Hancock, D., (2010) Tame, Messy and Wicked Risk Leadership. Farnham, Surrey, England ; Burlington, VT: Gower. Pp. 83 – 90. Lewis, J. P (2002) Project Leadership. New York, NY: McGraw Hill. Pp. 72 – 80. Pinto, J.K., (1990) Project Implementation Profile: A tool to aid project tracking and control, International Journal of Project Management, 8(3): pp. 173-182. Rath, T., and Conchie, B., (2009) Strengths-based Leadership: A Landmark Study of Great Leaders, Teams, and the Reasons Why We Follow. New York, NY: Gallup Press. P. 14. Strider, W., (2002) Powerful Project Leadership. New York, NY: Kogan Page. Pp. 45 – 51. Read More