PROJECT MANAGEMENT 642

Michael David Pasquale Assignment Submission 2

PROJECT CHARTER
Sponsor:

City of Wanneroo
Provision of a Mobile Working Solution; for Community

Project Title:

Safety and Emergency Management, Rangers and

Health Service Officers

Prepared By:

Date:

Michael David Pasquale

Problem/Opportunity Statement:

The

Mobile

Working

1 March 2013

Solution

(MWS)

is

to

provide a mobile functionality to all users of the solution while operational or

as required. This solution has a hardware component, and software component
which is installed into a mobile suite in vehicles to enable administration tasks,
roaming availability of City resources and increased efficiencies.
The opportunity of this project was to ensure that the business units were
equipped with the correct tools and means to address a changing business
world, with an ever-increasing reliance on mobile data solutions. This MWS
creates

reliable

and

dedicated

tool

to

enable

shift

workers

administration time at the home-base, while maximising labour

dedicated

stakeholders

(Residents,

Fire

and

Emergency

to

reduce

costs

to the

Services

(FESA) local businesses and State Government Departments).

Association

Key Deliverables:
1. Scope prepared in conjunction with Information and Communication
Technology staff which accurately addresses requirements outlined by
Project Sponsor.
2. Process Mapping of all business units that will incorporate the MWS
into their operations, to ensure that all relevant aspects are documented
3. Restricted Tender Process to follow from a previous Expression of
Interest which provided a suitable list of vendors whom are able and
willing to tender against the Scope.
4.
Key Requirements
1. Scope requires sign off from Directors and Coordinators of Contracts
and Purchasing prior to adoption from Project Committee
2. MWS Solution requirements include:

Mobile Tablets or solution to provide for mobile working and access

Software suite mounted in-vehicle to by compliant with Australian

Design Standards 2009.

Provision of a Service Level Agreement between the provider and

the City for support and maintenance

Licence options/flexibility to allow for additional units to be procured

at a later date

3. Project Costs are required to be within the allocated budget, or they

will be rejected at project adoption by Chief Executive Officer
4. Solution must be delivered by December 2013
5. Solution must be able to intergrate with existing City Financial and
mapping software
6. Solution must be able to directly interface with City operating Systems.
Exclusions

Training of use of the System

Provision of a MWS for other directorates

BENEFIT

KPIs

All users of the solution are able to

The ongoing rollout and delivery of

conduct business as usual from

the MWS

outside their workstations

Greater efficiency through the use of

Low-nil requirement for software

a working system

support and or troubleshooting

Ability to utilise photo and video

Review of images and video collected

capabilities to record evidence

against scope prior to project

conclusion

Ability to print and issue infringements

Recorded issues with printing,

on the spot, in conjunction with live

management infringements and

data tracking.

accessing existing data while roaming

Strategic Alignment
The City of Wanneroo ensures that the project work that it undertakes is both
aligned to the allocated budgets set forth by its Executive Leadership
Management, and the Strategic and Corporate Business Plans 2006-2021.
Projects will always be run with the intention of providing safer communities,
better efficiencies and a greater return on investments to ensure that the City
remains economically and sustainable.
Approximate Cost
$ 240,000 of maximum budget allocated for project. Project costs will vary
depending on final MWS chosen to address requirements. Estimated that the
average solution cost will be $190,000-240,000 from Expression of Interest
information.
Approximate Timeframe
1st June 2013 December 2013 anticipated and will depend on final
proposals given to City via vendor proponents.

Key Risks

Limited Project Staff for project

No capitalisation of staff costs results in mid-year budget review

variances

Lack of ability for solution to deliver against scope

Higher than anticipated costs for MWS could return from Restricted
Tender

Initiation Project by the City, additional reporting information could hinder

progress

APPROVAL
Authority:

Yes

No

______________________________

Date:____________

Sponsor

B.
REQUIREMENTS TRACEABILITY MATRIX
Product Requirement

Deliverable component

Mobile and working solution for the

Handheld

selected business units

the

or

portable

loaded

system

with

software

and

complimenting hardware
Support
for

and

any

on-going

issues

maintenance Service Level Agreement/s to ensure

arising

with

product

the that a mutual understanding between

the City and the vendor in relation
to support

Be

able

capabilities

to
to

provide
issue

on

printing Hardware
the

infringements when required

To

be

harmonise

able
with

to

spot within

the

that

supports

software

capabilities

component

to

print and issue infringements

interface

and Dedicated

frameworks

existing

City data-push

and

live

to

cater

updates

to

which

architecture to provide a seamless are specific to the designed system.

integration

PROJECT

Provision of a Mobile Working Solution; for Community Safety

TITLE

and Emergency Management, Rangers and Health Service

Officers

WBS #
1.0

WBS ELEMENTS
Scope prepared in conjunction with Information and
Communication Technology staff which accurately addresses
requirements outlined by Project Sponsor.

1.1

Project Sponsor agrees to the scope provided; allows for

allocation of resources determined at project management
steering committee.

1.2

Resources are pooled and managed by project coordinator who

allocates plans and tasks aspects of project as pre-determined
by project scope document.

2.0

Restricted Tender is opened to proponents for a period of 14

days as per Tendering Regulations of the Local Government
Act 1995

2.1

Restricted Tender is closed and assessments are reviewed

against each other and the most successful proponent is
included in the recommendation report for sign-off by Chief
Executive Officer

2.2

Report is written by all members of the assessment panel and

is approved

2.21

If report is rejected by CEO, then amendments are made

either by changes or inclusion of information, or the selection
of a secondary proponent

2.3

Contract negotiations commence with the recommended tenderer

via the assessment process

2.4

Specifications are agreed upon if required and proposals are

accepted by relevant departments. Delivery dates are also set
in a roll-out manner (depending on proposal). SLA is also
agreed upon

3.0

Testing of software and hardware at checkpoint #1

3.1

Testing of software and hardware at checkpoint #2 inclusion

of changes from checkpoint #1

3.2

Final Checkpoint of software and hardware development and

inclusion of changes from checkpoint 2

3.4

Presentation of final software to all users and business units

for comment

Installation of components into vehicles

4.0

Wet run test of components with staff and dedicated induction

4.1

and training staff

4.12

Adjustments and any changes to hardware installation or

software are made

4.2

Commencement of service period

A. Describe

possible

SCOPE CHANGE requested

by

the

sponsor.

Fully

evaluate the requested change. Produce and explain the revised sections of
WBS, assuming that the change is accepted (10 marks)

Situation: The Project Sponsor has requested that there is a provision made
for the solution to come from two separate parties. The Software will be
provided by a separate proponent to the proponent providing the hardware to
reduce the risk of the project going overtime.

The following changes will take place to the WBS:

PROJECT

Provision of a Mobile Working Solution; for Community Safety

TITLE

and Emergency Management, Rangers and Health Service

Officers

WBS #
1.0

WBS ELEMENTS
Scope prepared in conjunction with Information and
Communication Technology staff which accurately
addresses requirements outlined by Project Sponsor.

1.1

Project Sponsor agrees to the Changed scope; allows for

allocation of additional resources determined at project
management steering committee.

1.2

Resources are pooled and managed by project coordinator who

allocates plans and tasks aspects of project as pre-determined
by project scope document.

2.0

Restricted Tender is opened to proponents for a period of 14

days as per Tendering Regulations of the Local Government
Act 1995.

2.1

Restricted Tender is closed and assessments are reviewed

against each other and the most successful proponents are
included in the recommendation report for sign-off by Chief
Executive Officer. One proponent will provide software, one will

provide hardware.

2.2

Report is written by all members of the assessment panel and

is approved, with two proponents providing separate components

at a revised and earlier date.

2.21

If report is rejected by CEO, then amendments are made

either by changes or inclusion of information, or the selection
of a different proponent

2.3

Contract negotiations commence with the recommended

tenderers via the assessment process, and separate meetings
are held to ensure that software and hardware compatibility are
ensured

2.4

Specifications are agreed upon if required and proposals are

accepted by relevant departments. Delivery dates are also set
in a roll-out manner (depending on proposal). SLA is also
agreed upon.

3.0

Testing of software at checkpoint #1

3.1

Testing of hardware at checkpoint #1

3.1.2

Testing of software and hardware at checkpoint #2 inclusion

of changes from checkpoint #1

3.1.3

Meeting with representatives of each vendor to ensure that

compatibility is retained after proposed changes from first
checkpoint

3.2

Testing of software at checkpoint #2

3.2.1

Testing of hardware at checkpoint #2

3.2.2

Meeting with representatives of each vendor to ensure that

compatibility is retained after proposed changes from second
checkpoint

3.3

Final Testing of software at checkpoint #3

3.3.1

Final Testing of hardware at checkpoint #3

3.3.2

Integration of software and hardware into Mobile Working

System and wet run testing with all users for feedback

3.4

Presentation of final software to all users and business units

for comment and system review

4.0
4.1

4.2

Installation of components into vehicles

Review of system after 5 business days with both vendors
present to provide feedback and adjustments if necessary
Commencement of service period

The changes that have been made to the WBS are indicative of the change
of scope. The change made to the scope has de-centralised the procurement
from one vendor to two, meaning that there is increased resources available
for the project, however increased risk and management required.
The increase in management is firstly visible in the additional 8 WBS steps.
Furthermore, although not listed in the WBS, additional staff would be required
to handle the additional administration to support a second vendor. The City
doesnt have dedicated teams which manage contracts and service deliveries,
therefore it relies solely on additional capacity through the reallocation of
business as usual tasking. When the project was first conceived, this was
based on the management of one vendor, not two.
The following method is used to evaluate the change request:

Analyse the effects of the change impacts on cost, scheduling resources

and other

Plan the Impact what will be the end result on the project plan

Control the change how do you/team plan to control the method of

inducing the change

Review is this required, feasible and able to be done

The effects of this change of scope mean an additional level of resources

are required for both administration and work (time) purposes. A finite level of
both work and overtime was allocated originally, therefore this change will
require further funding which has not been approved via the steering
committee. A review is unable to be conducted of the budget as the review
period is not until December.
Several tasks will be scheduled sooner than originally planned, resulting in
increased slack, or an earlier finish date. However due to the delicate nature
of running two providers simultaneously , a large amount of slack will have
to be used in the roll-out phase of the project, and in this case the slack
saved, will not be enough to cover what is required.
The costs of this change of scope will only be known via the proposals
received. Speculation states that if we receive competitive tenderers in their
own fields, the total cost will be lower due to economies of scale and their
ability to specialise. There will be an increase in variable costs through more
staff and resources for the project.

The impact of this change is great in foresight, however looking at the

impacts from a cost-benefit analysis yields that for the effort required, the
payoff is far less. In larger organisations with dedicated and more experienced
staff this may be feasible. However another large deterrent is the fact that
this is also the first outcomes-based Tender the City is running. Therefore the
appetite for risk is minimal.
The change would be controlled by a revised scope being submitted to the
project steering committee. A smaller magnitude of change would only require
consensus from the team, however due to the total cost of a single proposal
being less than $250,000, this enables the CEO to use his delegated
authority to individually accept proposals (additional paperwork). An assistant
would be assigned to the lead project manager to ensure that he is able to
efficiently run his team.
Working on the assumption that the scope is accepted by project
management committee, means that additional costs would be incurred as part
of this project, longer timeframes would be required to ensure that the project
delivery is not late and additional consultation from the vendors to ensure a
compatible product is produced.
The changes required to employ this scope change are illustrated above, with
a brief review on each change provided below.

*insert links to each stage of WBS.

Question 1:
Deliverables are:

The Competitive Intelligence System (CIS)

Instruction manuals

Coding (as a product)

Mini Projects

Reports of costs and structures

Technical support/interactive tutorials (for the CIS)

Benefits are:

Greater improvements in the management of tactics and strategies

Providing a benchmark for the industry for other projects to be

compared/modelled on

Allows for an early identification or realisation of strengths and or

weaknesses

Provides a basis for being able to control and manipulate deadlines

and costs/funding

Project provides a feeling of ownership from within the organisation

o

KPI requirement The reduction of paper consumption within a

three week period of the project commencing. This is a
measurable KPI in which the project can be put to the test
through the control/manipulation of costs ( measured above)

Strategic Alignment

The project enables the company to remain competitive with the private
sector reduces costs and increases competition and customer
satisfaction allows for best business practice

Aligns current best business practice model to be adapted off proven

private sector methodologies/techniques

The use of specialist staff enabled employment and increased interworkplace stakeholder relationships (creating niche business unit)

By introducing new technology, allows for the adaptation into a

changing market and increases efficiencies for company- introduces
change to allow presence in the changing market.

2.

Describe one specific project planning problem encountered in this project,

and how it may have been avoided or better managed.

The project had clearly been under planned

A deficiency of clear direction and ownership is present in this case. Due to
assumptions being made about the project, specifically about what best
practice was and how there was proven technology that could be imported
with little work.
Assumptions are problematic to manage if not planned correctly, particularly if
the project team have made deliberate features of the problem to include
planning and implementation stages to occur simultaneously. Moreover, the
team had no clear direction about best practice, and were interpreting it

differently, simultaneously. building blocks were unable to be put together

without consensus on a structure. This evident that this lead to unrealistic
task achievement, demands for highly detailed instructions were not met; due
to no clear direction and the eventual drift to turf battles and eventually a
lack of motivation, internal and external.
Failing to adequately plan and make provisions for dynamic scenarios in your
project is critical to ensure delivery and a manageable project. Ensuring that
there is the correct level of feedback vis--vis potential CIS clients both
internal and external allows a rich pool of information which can provide a
feedback loop to what best practice actually is.
The conclusion aspect of the literature states that the approach should include
more resources and time tothe planning phase. It continues by stating that
this leads to a sequential approach to goal definition and implementation.
These two areas are key, and have been proven by a reflection by the
systems team.

1.

Describe one specific example of good project planning in the project.

This project has merit in how in planned the teams structure. It provided a
pre-determined

organisational

structure,

with

clearly

defined

communication

channels and meetings, to ensure that if/when the project faced a crisis or
serious issue, communication would ensure it may be avoided.
In this case, the communication planning involved meeting every other week
to provide an assessment of the current progress of the project, and a report
to the project coordinator. By having established and defined communication
channels, information that may not be fed-back to other branches of the team
may result in failures of tasks. A great descriptor of this is the feedback
loop system, whereby information that is passed back down the loop has an
effect on the starting point to react, a cause and effect cycle.
The team were able to avert disaster due to this communication. The project
coordinator was informed via one of these meetings that without serious
change to the direction or planned outcome of this project, the likelihood that
this project would fail was high. Best practice commonly includes that projects
include reporting and communication guidelines, which was done in the above
situation.

Additionally, research has shown that project coordinators that possess

exceptional leadership qualities out perform their counterparts due to their
communication skills and ability to induce communication within their teams. A
rule of thumb in project management states that 80% of your time should be
in leadership (communication is a large aspect) and 20% should be on
transactional activities. This shows how effective their good planning was by
example in the literature, and from other situations in project management.