Execution And Closure: Case Study
Project Planning Execution and Closure
Phase 4 Individual Project (Vendor Procurement Strategy)
Memorandum
To: IRTC Executive Leadership Team
Date: 2/3/14
From: Project Manager (Billing System Conversion)
Subject: Customer Service Add-on to the current Billing System Implementation
Background: Our primary vendor (Vendor X) for the billing system conversion upgrade has recently communicated to the project team that they have a separate customer service add-on that they would like to offer to integrate into the current project plan. This customer service module is priced at $25,000 and is estimated to add an additional four weeks of integration time to the total conversion project plan. The project is currently tracking on schedule …show more content…
and on budget and our PERT calculations do not indicate any future challenges that may impact our project schedule, scope or budget. We must conduct additional analysis to determine the pros and cons of modifying the project plan to include the integration of the customer service add-on module to our current billing system project plan.
Considerations for Accepting or Denying the Vendor Proposal: There are many important factors that must be considered before we can either accept or deny our request from Vendor X to conterminously integrate the customer service module add-on with the current implementation of the IRTC billing system. One of the most critical of all factors that must be evaluated and considered is how this add-on module impacts the integration of the billing system. The last thing that any project management team wants to do is to create a distraction or interference for another project/plan. Our primary objective is to ensure that the billing system project is integrated successfully. If we inject deliverables and budgetary constraints that were not part of the original project plan then this injection of constraints and energy must provide an added value to the current project plan that is material and which can be demonstrated in a manner that is proof of concept ready. In the same vein, if we inject any negatives, distractions, noise or dilutive constraints on the current project we must be extremely clear in the objective reasons why such a strategy would exist, be implemented and how the “bigger picture” impact would be rational for the executive leadership team to consider.
As most of our decisions begin with how our choice to approve or deny Vendor X’s request to initiate an additional system will impact the current project plan there are many other factors that must be considered that are specific to the function of the team, team members participation and our clarity in purpose as it relates to corporate objectives and goals. Our most important asset and in some cases our greatest liability is the power of our human capital. Our staff and their success should be one of IRTC’s most important factors in making a determination as to accepting or denying the vendor’s suggestion.
We most definitely, do not want to create any confusion with our current project staff that derails our efforts. Our project has been operating smoothly and within our triple constraint expectations; on time, in scope and on budget. We must also consider whether adding an additional module to be integrated will create a distraction for our project staff or actually add value, synergy and efficiency to the project as a whole. This must be analyzed, evaluated and understood as it pertains to a commingled project life cycle versus integrating the add-on module as a separate and distinct project plan. If our staff considers or even feels an inkling that an additional module could jeopardize our current project plan then we must consider that the contamination resulting from such a decision is detrimental enough to not move forward with a conterminous implementation. Our staff’s well being should come first. Effective teams are happy, in agreement and their sentiments and professional opinions are always considered.
We must also evaluate and determine the vendor’s ability to manage a conterminous effort without degrading the primary project or the secondary project plan either. Part of this analysis would include a complete and detailed presentation of the project integration strategy to the executive leadership team, the project management office and select billing system project team members as deemed appropriate. We must also have a sound understanding of the capabilities and bench strength of the vendor in question. There are many questions which must be answered as exemplified below:
Do they have the resources capable to effectively manage and integrate an increased level of effort?
Will this increase in level of effort be addressed through the utilization of current resources?
Or will this level of effort be managed by additional or new staff members?
What are the repercussions of both situations?
How does the use of resources impact budget constraints and parameters?
What is the tactical plan or mitigation plan for resolving any challenges or slippage in the primary conversion project and how the secondary or add-on module will be managed as a result?
And other questions as to the tactical application of managing a secondary project event.
Stakeholders to be Involved and Factors to Consider: In a situation where a secondary integration plan or event is being injected into a current project it is extremely important to construct and enact a strategy that involves inclusion of all of the stakeholders and participants of the original or primary plan as well as all of the identified/new stakeholders related to the secondary plan. It is very important to create a strategy that includes stakeholders from both projects (billing conversion and customer service add-on). However, not all stakeholders are needed for the purposes of decision making. What must be accomplished with each stakeholder though is an effective communication plan and sharing of information as is appropriate and necessary with each specific relationship and
situation.
With regard to making a decision as to the Go/No-Go decision with Vendor X to implement and integrate the customer service add-on module, the primary stakeholders such as the project leads, project manager, executive leadership team, project sponsorship group and the IRTC business unit directors should be considered primary decision evaluators and decision makers. The business leaders must have an understanding of how the Go/No-Go will impact (positive and negative) their day-to-day operations as well as the primary billing project in general. The executive leadership team must have a clear and definitive understand of the risk(s) associated with a dual integration as well as any quantifiable or qualitative benefits for supporting a Go decision.
Some of the decisions to accept or deny the vendor proposal are focused on the budget and fiscal impact to the primary project as well as the impact it has on the overall corporate budget. As this project was not part of the billing system conversion upgrade we must clearly articulate and define the benefits of the capital investment and the costs associated with the additional outlay of expenses and human capital. We must also provide some clarity for the various stakeholders in the area of how the additional 4-weeks of implementation and integration impact IRTC wholistically.
For instance, we should have an understanding of whether there are other activities, deliverables or corporate commitments that exist during the 4-week extension period. The stakeholders need to have a clear understanding of the cost of the add-on implementation and where those expenses will come from or be paid by. This analysis should include some worse-case scenario planning if the project extends past the approximated or project 4-week time frame. We should all have a clear understanding of what those estimated costs and values are beforehand and in order to understand the importance of a successful integration.
Lastly, I believe the most important stakeholder is the end-customers and all employees of IRTC. We must provide logical information and reasoning for the basis of our decision to either Go/No-Go. Our employees must understand how this decision fits into the total corporate puzzle and how they can support the decision which will help us succeed as a total corporate unit. Our customers and employees are key to our success. We must leverage their skills, talents and abilities whether they are directly related to the primary project and working on the conversion project or not. The reality is that everyone at IRTC makes this project tick and every person has the ability to make us succeed or fail.
Thank you for your support and commitment to IRTC and the billing system upgrade conversion!
Lead Project Manager
References
Kerzner, H. (2013). Project Management─ a systems approach to planning, scheduling, and controlling. (11th ed., p.13). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons. Retrieved November 19,
2013.
Project Management Institute. (2013). A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge
(5th ed., p. 76). Newtown Square, PA: Author. Retrieved November 19, 2013.
Phase 4 Individual Project (Vendor Procurement Strategy)
Memorandum
To: IRTC Executive Leadership Team
Date: 2/3/14
From: Project Manager (Billing System Conversion)
Subject: Customer Service Add-on to the current Billing System Implementation
Background: Our primary vendor (Vendor X) for the billing system conversion upgrade has recently communicated to the project team that they have a separate customer service add-on that they would like to offer to integrate into the current project plan. This customer service module is priced at $25,000 and is estimated to add an additional four weeks of integration time to the total conversion project plan. The project is currently tracking on schedule …show more content…
and on budget and our PERT calculations do not indicate any future challenges that may impact our project schedule, scope or budget. We must conduct additional analysis to determine the pros and cons of modifying the project plan to include the integration of the customer service add-on module to our current billing system project plan.
Considerations for Accepting or Denying the Vendor Proposal: There are many important factors that must be considered before we can either accept or deny our request from Vendor X to conterminously integrate the customer service module add-on with the current implementation of the IRTC billing system. One of the most critical of all factors that must be evaluated and considered is how this add-on module impacts the integration of the billing system. The last thing that any project management team wants to do is to create a distraction or interference for another project/plan. Our primary objective is to ensure that the billing system project is integrated successfully. If we inject deliverables and budgetary constraints that were not part of the original project plan then this injection of constraints and energy must provide an added value to the current project plan that is material and which can be demonstrated in a manner that is proof of concept ready. In the same vein, if we inject any negatives, distractions, noise or dilutive constraints on the current project we must be extremely clear in the objective reasons why such a strategy would exist, be implemented and how the “bigger picture” impact would be rational for the executive leadership team to consider.
As most of our decisions begin with how our choice to approve or deny Vendor X’s request to initiate an additional system will impact the current project plan there are many other factors that must be considered that are specific to the function of the team, team members participation and our clarity in purpose as it relates to corporate objectives and goals. Our most important asset and in some cases our greatest liability is the power of our human capital. Our staff and their success should be one of IRTC’s most important factors in making a determination as to accepting or denying the vendor’s suggestion.
We most definitely, do not want to create any confusion with our current project staff that derails our efforts. Our project has been operating smoothly and within our triple constraint expectations; on time, in scope and on budget. We must also consider whether adding an additional module to be integrated will create a distraction for our project staff or actually add value, synergy and efficiency to the project as a whole. This must be analyzed, evaluated and understood as it pertains to a commingled project life cycle versus integrating the add-on module as a separate and distinct project plan. If our staff considers or even feels an inkling that an additional module could jeopardize our current project plan then we must consider that the contamination resulting from such a decision is detrimental enough to not move forward with a conterminous implementation. Our staff’s well being should come first. Effective teams are happy, in agreement and their sentiments and professional opinions are always considered.
We must also evaluate and determine the vendor’s ability to manage a conterminous effort without degrading the primary project or the secondary project plan either. Part of this analysis would include a complete and detailed presentation of the project integration strategy to the executive leadership team, the project management office and select billing system project team members as deemed appropriate. We must also have a sound understanding of the capabilities and bench strength of the vendor in question. There are many questions which must be answered as exemplified below:
Do they have the resources capable to effectively manage and integrate an increased level of effort?
Will this increase in level of effort be addressed through the utilization of current resources?
Or will this level of effort be managed by additional or new staff members?
What are the repercussions of both situations?
How does the use of resources impact budget constraints and parameters?
What is the tactical plan or mitigation plan for resolving any challenges or slippage in the primary conversion project and how the secondary or add-on module will be managed as a result?
And other questions as to the tactical application of managing a secondary project event.
Stakeholders to be Involved and Factors to Consider: In a situation where a secondary integration plan or event is being injected into a current project it is extremely important to construct and enact a strategy that involves inclusion of all of the stakeholders and participants of the original or primary plan as well as all of the identified/new stakeholders related to the secondary plan. It is very important to create a strategy that includes stakeholders from both projects (billing conversion and customer service add-on). However, not all stakeholders are needed for the purposes of decision making. What must be accomplished with each stakeholder though is an effective communication plan and sharing of information as is appropriate and necessary with each specific relationship and
situation.
With regard to making a decision as to the Go/No-Go decision with Vendor X to implement and integrate the customer service add-on module, the primary stakeholders such as the project leads, project manager, executive leadership team, project sponsorship group and the IRTC business unit directors should be considered primary decision evaluators and decision makers. The business leaders must have an understanding of how the Go/No-Go will impact (positive and negative) their day-to-day operations as well as the primary billing project in general. The executive leadership team must have a clear and definitive understand of the risk(s) associated with a dual integration as well as any quantifiable or qualitative benefits for supporting a Go decision.
Some of the decisions to accept or deny the vendor proposal are focused on the budget and fiscal impact to the primary project as well as the impact it has on the overall corporate budget. As this project was not part of the billing system conversion upgrade we must clearly articulate and define the benefits of the capital investment and the costs associated with the additional outlay of expenses and human capital. We must also provide some clarity for the various stakeholders in the area of how the additional 4-weeks of implementation and integration impact IRTC wholistically.
For instance, we should have an understanding of whether there are other activities, deliverables or corporate commitments that exist during the 4-week extension period. The stakeholders need to have a clear understanding of the cost of the add-on implementation and where those expenses will come from or be paid by. This analysis should include some worse-case scenario planning if the project extends past the approximated or project 4-week time frame. We should all have a clear understanding of what those estimated costs and values are beforehand and in order to understand the importance of a successful integration.
Lastly, I believe the most important stakeholder is the end-customers and all employees of IRTC. We must provide logical information and reasoning for the basis of our decision to either Go/No-Go. Our employees must understand how this decision fits into the total corporate puzzle and how they can support the decision which will help us succeed as a total corporate unit. Our customers and employees are key to our success. We must leverage their skills, talents and abilities whether they are directly related to the primary project and working on the conversion project or not. The reality is that everyone at IRTC makes this project tick and every person has the ability to make us succeed or fail.
Thank you for your support and commitment to IRTC and the billing system upgrade conversion!
Lead Project Manager
References
Kerzner, H. (2013). Project Management─ a systems approach to planning, scheduling, and controlling. (11th ed., p.13). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons. Retrieved November 19,
2013.
Project Management Institute. (2013). A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge
(5th ed., p. 76). Newtown Square, PA: Author. Retrieved November 19, 2013.