CASE STUDY SIMULATES A MICROSOFT PROJECT MANAGEMENT SCENARIO

Overview

 

This case study simulates a project management scenario where the student takes on the role of project manager. Students are required to use Microsoft project management software as part of this assessment task.

 

This is a group assignment with a maximum of three members per group. However, note that all members are also expected to attempt all parts of the assignment individually as assessment item sub-deliverables 1- 5. Members of the group are required to submit their own individual attempt for each of the sub-deliverables in Moodle before the group meets to consolidate answers to produce the "group solution". There are separate submission areas and due dates for the individual submissions . On time submission of the 5 sub-deliverables is worth a total of 5 marks, but these submissions may also be used to assess individual contributions and may impact on a student’s final mark.

 

Groups must meet at least once a week to produce the “group solution” for the work scheduled for completion in that week. This solution should then be added to the developing final group solution.

 

It is also important to meet early in week 10 to produce the updated schedule to be used to complete the Part C questions and status report. Each group is responsible for providing their own status data. This means that the group members must collaborate on this and ensure that all members are working with the same GD_PartC.mpp file when completing the Part C questions. This is explained further in part C.

 

There is one final group solution to be submitted at the end of the assignment. It is worth 35 marks and is to be submitted by only one member of the group. The names and student ids of all members of the group must appear clearly on the coversheet of the final assessment submission.

 

Peer assessment and your individual submissions will also be used to assess group member contributions. If any member of a team is not contributing satisfactorily to the group then he/she may have marks adjusted and/or be asked to leave the group and be required to complete the assignment as an individual.

 

If you are having difficulties within your group you must alert your tutor/lecturer as early as possible.

 

To assist students in their assessment solution development the following information is provided:

 

• A product development case description.
• Specific assessment questions that must be answered.
• Information regarding the submission of the assessment.
• Marking criteria.

 

Where necessary, students are expected to find relevant information in the academic literature to justify their answers. Students may have to make assumptions and argue the pros and cons for any recommendations that they make. Any assumptions made must be clearly documented in the answers.

• Background

 

Great Devices is a medium sized company that develops and manufactures medical devices. You are an employee of Great Devices and work as project manager in the product development department. The people involved in this case study are:

 

• You (Mr. Kennedy), the project manager.

 

• Thurlings, the Director of Product Development.

 

• Douglas, the Director of Marketing and Portfolio Management.

 

• Yang, the Human Resource Manager.

 

• Functional line managers in the research and development department (Mr. Software, Mr. Mechanics, Mr. Electronics, Mr. Production and Mr. Validation).

 

• Engineers and members of your project team.

 

You have been leading a small team of experienced engineers conducting a technical feasibility study to investigate if it is possible to modify one of the company’s standard products to create a product variant to satisfy the needs of veterinarians. You are planning to hold an M1 Milestone Concept Review on Friday the 20th May 2016. (For the purposes of this assignment assume that this is next week.) Assume that the start date of the project will therefore be Monday 23rdMay 2016 and that this is the date for the M1 milestone. The project management milestone concept review checklist is provided as Appendix 1. The concept review is one of the milestones in the company’s product development process.

 

The need for the new product has been identified by the marketing department lead by Ms. Douglas, Director of Marketing and Portfolio Management. Ms. Douglas provided your small project team with a product brief, outlining the special end user, sales and service requirements to supplement the requirements already established for the standard product. She also developed the business case for the product.

 

Your team has come up with a unique novel product concept that you believe should be protected by a patent. The concept satisfies the need perfectly. The feasibility work carried out with a user focus group showed that the user requirements were sound and that the technical complexity of the development was medium to low.

 

2.2 Milestones

 

The milestones your team will use are:

 

1. M1 Concept review (At this point the system architecture and feasibility study will be complete. A go/no-go decision for detailed design will be made at this milestone, i.e. at the end of the concept review meeting).

1. M2 Design review complete (At this point the overall design will be complete. A go/no-go decision for procurement will be made at this milestone).

 

1. P1 prototype 1 builds to start (After an internal project review confirming that the product prototype is able to be manufactured with the quality level expected.).

1. P2 prototype 2 builds to start (After an internal project review confirming that the product prototype is able to be manufactured with the quality level expected).

1. M3 Final Product review complete (At this point the product quality is verified based on the product validation testing carried out on the last prototype. A go/no-go decision for production ramp-up is made. If a “go decision is made” 2000 devices should then be produced ready for market.)

1. M4 Launch review completes (A go/no-go decision depending if all business areas are ready for market launch and 2000 devices are in stock. M4 milestone is the end of the project).

 

2.3 Initial Data

 

The system architecture of the product has been used as the basis for the project organisation and the work breakdown structure. As the project manager you have accepted the tasks of creating the compiled project schedule and allocating resources.

 

You have obtained the following information:

 

1. A work break down structure (WBS), resource estimates and some dependencies summarised in Table 1 below.
2. Production provided information about the prototype builds. His input is summarized in the Activity-In-the-Box (AIB) network diagrams in Figure 1.

 

Note that the following resource abbreviations are used:

 

• Electronic Engineer (EE)

 

• Software Engineer (SE)

 

• Mechanical Engineer (ME)

 

• Test Engineer (TE)

 

• Production Engineer (PE)

 

• Technical writer (TW)

 

• Printed Wire Board (circuit board) (PWB)

 

• Electromagnetic Compliance (EMC)

 

Table 1- Work Breakdown Structure

 

Activity		Description	Predecessor(s)	Resource and	To be
				duration Estimates	completed
				(in person-weeks)	before the
					review
					prior to
					milestone
1.	Electronics
	1.1 PWB outline modifications	Modifications required in	M1	1 person-week of
		existing product for new		EE.
		product
	1.2 Component selection	Selection of electronic	1.1	2 person-weeks of	M2
		components. Should be		EE.
		started together with 1.3.
	1.3 P1 circuit design and PWB	Creation of circuit diagram	1.1	2 person-weeks of	M2
	layout	and PWB layout. Breadboard		EE.
		solution created. Should be
		started together with 1.2.
	1.4 P1 electronics verification	Electronic verification tests	1.3, P1 build	2 person-week of
	tests	with the use of the P1	complete (5.5)	EE.
		prototypes.
	1.5 P2 circuit design	Electronic improvements to	1.4	1 person-week of	P2
	improvements	circuit diagram, component		EE.
		selection and layout.
	1.6 P2 electronics verification	Electronic verification tests	1.5, P2 build	2 person-weeks of	M3
	tests	with the use of the P2	complete (6.5)	one EE.
		prototypes.
	1.7 Thermal verification tests	Verification that electronic	1.5 , P2 build	1 person-week of
		heat generation and heat	complete (6.5)	EE.
		transmission through covers
		is acceptable.
	1.8 EMC verification tests	Verification of compliance	1.7	1 person-week of	M3
		with electromagnetic		EE.
		compliance regulations.
2.	Software

 

 

Page | 5

 

2.1 Software specification	Specification of the software	M1	3 person-week of
	functionality based on user		SE.
	requirements.
2.2 Software and database	Design software and database	2.1	3 person-weeks of	M2
design			SE
2.3 User interface development	Software additions due to	M2,2.2	1 person-week of
	modified menus and		SE.
	functional keys.
2.4 Database development	Software additions to the	M2, 2.2	1 person-week of
	device database.		SE.
2.5 Development of device to	Software additions to the	M2, 2.2	1 person-week of
PC interface	communication protocol		SE.
	between the device and the
	PC.
2.6 Development of PC software	Software	2.4,2.2	2 person-weeks of
	additions/modifications to the		SE.
	PC software functionality to
	support the new device
	functionality.
2.7 R1 release creation	Creation of the R1 (release 1)	2.3, 2.4,	3 person-days of
	software for testing	2.5,2.6	one SE.
2.8 R1 release tests	Testing of the R1 release and	2.7	1 person-week of
	identification of errors.		SE.
2.9  R1 error correction and	Creation of the R1 software	2.8	1 person-week of	P1
user interface	release to be used with the P1		SE.
improvements	prototype.
2.10 R1 testing with prototype	Testing of the R1 software	Prototype 1	1 person-week of
1	with the first prototype	build	SE
		complete
		(5.5), 2.9
2.11 Documentation	Development of user and	2.10	4 person-weeks of
	technical documentation		TW
	manuals
2.12 R2 modifications	Modifications to the software	2.10	1 person-week of
	after testing with prototype 1		SE
2.13 R2 release creation	Creation of the R2 software	2.12	2 person-days of	P2
	release to be used with the P2		SE.
	prototype.
2.14 R2 release tests with	Testing of the R2 release with	2.13,	1 person-week of
prototype 2	prototype 2 and identification	Prototype	SE.
	of errors.	build 2
		complete (6.5)
2.15 R2 error corrections	Correction of errors	2.14	1 person-week of
			SE.
2.16 R2 interoperability tests	Testing of interoperability	2.15	1 person-week of
	with 3rd party accessory		SE.
	devices.
2.17 R2 interoperability error	R2 interoperability error	2.16	1 person-week of
correction	correction		SE.
2.18 Finalise documentation	Finalise documentation	2.16, 2.11	1 person-week of
	including interoperability		TW
	information
2.19 R3 release creation	Creation of the R3 software	2.17	2 person-days of
	release.		one SE.
2.20 R3 tests and corrections	Testing (and correcting) of	2.19	1 person-week of
	the R3 release		SE.
2.21 R4 sales release creation	Creation of the R4 software	2.18,2.20	3 person-days of	M3
	sales release		SE.
Mechanics
3.1 Industrial design	Design of the industrial	M1	3 person-weeks of	M2
	design for the device.		ME/industrial
			designer.
3.2 PWB outline modifications	Modifications of the PWB to	3.1	1 person-week of
	fit the industrial design, new		ME.
	components and usability
	requirements.

 

 

Page | 6

 

3.3	P1 mechanical CAD design	CAD design of mechanical	3.2	3 person-weeks of
		plastic parts and metal parts		ME.
		for the device.
3.4	Tolerance stack analysis	Analysis of the mechanical	3.3	1 person-week of		M2
		tolerance stacks compared to		ME.
		part tooling and moulding
		capabilities.
3.5	P1 mechanical part analysis	Physical analysis of moulded	P1 build	1 person-week of
		plastic parts and sheet metal	complete (5.5)	ME.
		parts.
3.6	P2 mechanical part	Modification of moulding and	3.5	2 person-weeks of		P2
	modifications	sheet metal tools used for P2		ME.
		parts.
3.7	Mechanical tool approval	Evaluation of P2 mechanical	P2 build	3 person-weeks of		M3
		parts and approval of	complete (6.5)	ME.
		moulding and sheet metal
		tools used in part
		manufacture.
Verification
4.1	Test plan creation	Creation of a plan	M1	1 person-week of		M2
		documenting what is to be		TE.
		tested.
4.2	Component tests	Test of key component	After delivery	1 person-week of
		reliability to various standard	of components	TE
		tests like drop and humidity.	(for P1 – i.e.
			5.1) , 4.1
4.3	Module tests	Test of module functionality	P1 build	1 person-week of
		after assembly.	complete	TE.
			(5.5), 4.2
4.4	System integration tests	Test of integration of	4.3	2 person-weeks of		P2
		modules.		TE.
4.5	Product validation tests	Test of “final/prototype 2”	4.4, P2 build	2 person-weeks of
		product against reliability to	complete(6.5)	TE
		various standard tests like
		drop and humidity and end
		user requirements.
4.6	Technical Construction File	Creation of documentation	4.5	1 person-week of
	compilation	for regulatory approvals.		TE.
4.7	Type approval and regulatory	Approvals from regulatory	4.6	4 weeks by the		M3
	approval tests	authorities.		regulatory
				authorities (not one
				of the project team
				resources). This is	a
				“Fixed duration”
				specified by the
				regulatory
				authorities..

 

Notes:

 

1. One “person-week” is a “unit of work” representing the work done by one person in one week. It means that the task will normally take one person one week to complete. Note that you can assume that a week refers to a normal working week of 5 days (Mon-Fri) with people working 8 hours per day. This is the default in Microsoft Project. Unless otherwise stated you can also assume a linear relationship, i.e. 3 person-weeks will take one person 3 weeks or 3 people one week. Note that this is not necessarily the case in practice. Refer to the discussion of the “mythical man-month” in your text book (Brooks’ law, chapter 9). In addition, some tasks will be a fixed duration (e.g. delivery times).

 

3. For the purposes of this assignment (to reduce variability in solutions and complications for the markers) build your Part A1 schedule by assuming that you allocate one resource (i.e. one person with the required skills) to each task. In that case, if the task required 3 person-weeks of an EE you would assign one EE to the task and give it a duration of 3 weeks. Assume that before each milestone is reached, an internal review has been completed and a go/no-go decision has been made. Allow one day for each review to make the “go/no-go” decision after all the “milestone review” predecessors are complete. All the “milestone review predecessors” must be complete before the 1 day for the “go/no-go” review decision.

 

4. The last column in the table titled “ To be completed before the review prior to milestone” indicates where a task is a predecessor of the one day “milestone go/no-go review”. For example, task 1.2 is one of the predecessors that must be completed before the M2 review. The “M2 review” should take one day and is the predecessor of the M2 milestone (when the milestone is reached it means a decision has been made) . For the purposes of this assignment, you are not required to add resources to these “review” tasks. You can assume the reviews and go/no-go decisions are carried out by management.

 

5. For the purposes of this assignment, add a “Milestone Reviews” summary task after the last task (which should be “Production of 2000 devices”). The “Milestone Review” should be out-dented at the same level as the Electronics summary task. The “Milestone Reviews” summary task is to be followed by the indented list of “one day milestone reviews” for M2 to M4. The start date of the project followed the M1 concept review.

 

6. Add a “Milestones” summary task after the reviews. The Milestones summary task should be out-dented at the same level as the Electronics summary task. This summary task should have the milestones M1, M2, P1, P2, M3 and M4 indented underneath it. Note that the milestones should be the last items on the “task list” for your schedule.

 

Figure 1 - Activity in Box Network Diagrams for Production

 

 

		P1 component lead-time
								P1 prototype build
						P1
M2	5.1		Suppliers		4w		5.5	Production	3d
								Engineer

 

 

P1 PWB manufacture and delivery

 

5.2	Supplier	3w
P1 mechanical part lead-time
5.3	Supplier	2w

 

P1 assembly and production test preparation

 

 

 

 

Hint: Remember that the

 

R1 software is also required for the P1 prototype build go/no-go review (see previous table)

 

 

5.4	Production	3w
	Engineer

 

 

 

 

 

P2 component lead-time

P2 prototype build

P2

1.4

6.1

Suppliers

4w

6.5

Production

3d

Engineer

P2 PWB manufacture and

delivery

6.2

Supplier

3w

Hint: Remember that the

R2 software is also

P2 mechanical part lead-time

required for the P2

&l Price: £315 Get Fresh Answer 100% Plagiarism Free & Custom Written - Tailored to Your Instructions Get a free Turnitin report along with your completed work Order Now