W ESTMINSTER I NTERNATIONAL U NIVERSITY IN T ASHKENT

Take Home Final EXAM

Semester 1
January 2021

MODULE CODE: 6PJMN004C

MODULE TITLE: Project Management
DATE SET: 06.01.2021
SUBMISSION DATE: 06.01.2021
TIME ALLOWED FOR EXAM: from(06/01)(10:00) to (07/01) 10:00

INSTRUCTIONS TO CANDIDATES:
Please note that this is a take home exam, you will have to submit your
answer to the Intranet page of the module. Use Take Home Answer
Booklet for your answers.
There is no late submission on this assessment, failure to submit on
time will cause zero [0] for the assessment component.
There are three sections and five questions. All questions are
mandatory. Answer all questions.
Indicate clearly question number in your response.
In case calculation is required show all your workings.
Section A – 30 marks

Establishing Web Project Management at a Media Company

This case study relates the experiences of a global media company (which we'll refer to as
"BigGlobalMedia, Inc.") as it struggled to build a coordinated Web sites network of from a diverse
media empire consisting of magazines, newspapers, cable TV programs, and other properties.
The Early Days: Everyone Has a Silo
BigGlobalMedia, Inc. embarked on its Internet strategy with a collection of independently branded
sites devoted to the numerous print magazines that were owned by the conglomerate. Each media
group had its own independent Web team, with its own producers, editors, assistant producers,
Web developers, and designers. The IT department had its own group of application developers
and systems administrators, responsible for maintaining the corporate site, intranet, and desktop
support. All told, there were six isolated pockets of Web developers across the company.
This arrangement provided each department with a great deal of creative control over its Web site.
However, this ad hoc system lacked uniform quality standards and a coherent development
process. There was a great deal of duplication of effort, poor knowledge sharing in terms of
features, and chaotic competition between the different channels for scarce development
resources.
From a technical perspective, it was a disaster. Three of the media groups had very little technical
expertise or supervision and were poorly positioned to solicit or receive assistance from the other
groups. There was little project documentation. Designs and requirements changed late in the
implementation phase, "spaghetti" and duplicate code proliferated, maintenance was increasingly
time consuming as the Web sites grew, and site performance was a problem. Furthermore, people
felt isolated. The entire development staffs of two departments resigned because they did not see
any growth opportunities within the limited scope of their departments.
Consolidation: Joining the Pool
The graphic designers who were scattered across the various departments felt isolated as well.
When a new creative director was hired, he gradually began to pull the designers together into a
centralized Design department. This transition had gone well and helped to ensure high-quality
design standards across the company. The creative director's easygoing personal style allowed him
to pull designers away from the channels and into a central department without alienating anyone.
Design's success helped mobilize a similar movement to create a centralized Production
department that would join its counterparts in corporate IT as part of a new Technology group led
by a CIO. Figure below illustrates these changes to the organizational chart.
Each of the six affected departments had concerns about centralization.
Would they get as many resources as they had before? Not necessarily, since resources would be
allocated according to companywide priorities. Man-week assignments were made to departments
depending on the relative priority of their projects. This ensured that talented developers would be
assigned to challenging, high-priority projects and furthermore incentivized project sponsors to
come up with creative, revenue-generating ideas and advocate them aggressively at prioritization
meetings. Departments could get more or fewer resources, and this would change over time
depending on the importance of the projects that they were generating. There would be more
flexibility and more coverage.
What about the close working relationships that project sponsors had with their development
team? Although there would still be close collaboration between the business owners and
developers, the new Technology team needed project sponsors to be more organized and not
waste development time. Also, there was no guarantee that a particular developer would always
be dedicated to a particular site, so new relationships would have to be forged.
Would Production be responsive to emergencies and high-priority issues specifically related to
projects that were sponsored by Marketing? The Production team worked out processes to handle
this and set up contacts and e-mail aliases to facilitate communication. However, work on urgent
issues would fall into place along with the rest of the company's priorities. Revenue potential,
brand, and other strategic ROI factors went into the calculation of priorities.
How did the Web developers feel about moving? Most of the Web developers welcomed the move
to a central Production department. A few developers initially had concerns about being less
involved with the business side, where they had enjoyed significant creative input in product
development. The advanced developers in the original IT group were concerned as their ranks
were flooded by ex-"Webmasters," whose expertise was focused on front-end technologies like
HTML and JavaScript. The relationship between the original IT staff and the channel Web
developers was poor, due to the history of a separate organizational structure and the general lack
of technical supervision outside of corporate IT. The IT developers for their part had grown
accustomed to being insulated from interaction with project sponsors and were reluctant to face
daily interruptions and scope changes. Bringing the Web developers into the fold was a step in the
right direction, but it took years for members of the new Production department to gain the
respect of some veteran IT developers.
Introducing Project Management, Take 1
Getting management buy-in for the Production consolidation was a cakewalk compared to the
introduction of project management. At the time, there were two project managers in the
company. Frances, in corporate IT, wrote specs and managed deliverables and timelines for large
enterprisewide initiatives such as Y2K. Carmine, in the Production department, kept track of
project assignments, status, submission dates, and due dates. These two divergent project
management functions did not provide a very good model to point to when making the case to
senior management.
Management's first attempt was to hire a tech-savvy project manager, Deana, to manage the
Production department. They reasoned that one person should be able to do both technical and
project management. Deana focused on working with the editorial content producers to introduce
the idea of written specifications, timelines, and process. Unfortunately, most of the Editorial
management team was new to the Web. Coming from a print magazine background, most senior
editors were used to "handing off" a concept to Production and were unfamiliar with the day-to-
day collaboration and feature specifications required by Web projects. While Deana evangelized
project management to senior editors and wrote specifications, one of her reporting managers,
Sam, worked with the developers and interviewed job candidates. Contrary to management's
expectations, one person could not do it all. After three months of hard work that yielded little
progress, Deana resigned.
Introducing Project Management, Take 2
Deana's departure made people take notice. Why hadn't she been able to get any traction? What
had been the source of her frustrations? Deana had taken a topdown approach with Editorial and
focused on the more bureaucratic aspects of project management rather than the benefits. She
had also been an outsider who did not understand the process and the dynamics that she was
trying to change and who could not draw on existing relationships to implement this change. The
deck had been stacked against her, and it was a significant blow to the company when she left.
Sam took over management of Production. He resolved to achieve the same goals that Deana had,
but through different means. He identified a junior developer, Tanya, to make the transition into
project management. Tanya had shown an interest in project management when working with
Tech on a project earlier in the year. Frances mentored Tanya as she put together specs, timelines,
and flowcharts. She had done pretty well and was interested in doing more.
Questions and Concerns: What's Project Management, Anyway?
As Sam prepared to move Tanya into this role, he had to address concerns from the developers.
"Tanya's technical skills are not as advanced as ours. How can she manage our projects if she
doesn't understand the technology as well as we do?" Tanya didn't have all of the answers; but she
did understand the technology well enough to know when she needed input from the senior
developers. In some cases, tech leads were assigned to work with her and the developer to ensure
that effort estimates were realistic and that all technical considerations were identified.
"Does this mean that we report to Tanya, the new project manager?" Developers still reported
directly to Sam. Tanya's primary responsibility was ensuring her projects' success, not managing
staff. This presented some unique challenges to Tanya. As the "manager without authority," she
would have to motivate her team and convince them of the importance of her projects.
"How does Tanya's role differ from Sam's?" Sam and Tanya worked closely together and supported
each other. Sam provided the force of authority that Tanya needed to ensure the cooperation of
her team. Sam focused on managing the Production team and setting standards for technical
implementation. Tanya's focus spanned all phases of the project, from concept to launch.
"With Tanya writing specs, does that mean that we will have no input into the concept or
storyboards? What about Design's input?" Developers were not required to get involved during the
concept phase; but they were invited to contribute ideas and be actively involved if they were
interested. Project kickoff meetings included the developer and the designer, providing the perfect
forum for developers to present creative input before the specs were finalized.
On the Job
Sam and Tanya started working through the project lifecycle, developing processes and standard
milestones. They created a project checklist for developers to follow. Sarah, the creative director,
put together a one-sheet outline of project implementation phases and jazzed it up with a little
caricature at each phase. It was comprehensive, yet simple and fun enough for the Editorial staff to
pin it up on their bulletin boards for reference. Tanya had the toughest job: convincing the Editorial
staff to follow the new process.
Her experience at BigGlobalMedia Inc. was a tremendous asset to her as she faced this challenge
head-on. She had been a developer long enough to understand the technical issues that the
developers faced. Also, she had a lot of experience working with tech-phobic Editorial staff. She
knew how to speak their language and how to express complex technical concepts in ways that
were nonthreatening and accessible. She had a reputation as someone who was easy to work with.
She began by working with the Editorial staff, not the senior management. Once they realized that
she was helping them define what they wanted and could walk them through technical issues and
translate technical jargon, they were sold. In return for her assistance, they had to agree to follow
the process, help meet timelines, and provide intelligent sign-off for designs and specifications. It
seemed like a pretty good deal all around. Soon Tanya had more work than she could handle.
Two Steps Forward, One Step Back
So much change in such a short period of time caused some stress in the new Production
department. Some developers did not like the increased supervision by Sam and Tanya. Suddenly
there was a development process, which was great; but there were also milestones, status
updates, and code reviews. Sam could see how well the developers coded, and Tanya could tell
which ones were on schedule. Developers who were used to the old days of the "Wild West" had a
lot of adjusting to do.
There were similar problems with editors from the various media groups. The biggest obstacle was
getting, and keeping, sign-off on specifications. Some business owners had grown accustomed to
having their own development staff at their beck and call. They seemed to be addicted to those
last-minute, time consuming tweaks that should have been worked out during the design phase.
Some tried to avoid project management by sending numerous requests directly to the
maintenance team. Other business owners were not sure what level of detail was needed in a
specification, and this required some education and hand holding.
A match was struck amid this explosive situation with the entry of project manager number two,
Raul. Raul was a recent junior developer hire from a leading equipment manufacturer and a huge
fan of process. It seemed to Sam that Raul was a good candidate for project management. He was
not working out too well as a developer, and, besides, Tanya needed some help. Raul loved
process, but he could not work effectively to put process in place. He was often overheard wildy
gesticulating, waving his arms in the air with a raised voice, "This is not a spec!" and "This is
impossible!" He was very adept at shooting down misguided efforts but had a hard time facilitating
better solutions. He did not have Tanya's patience, teaching abilities, or people skills. Everyone
involved found the situation frustrating, and Raul submitted his resignation within a few weeks.
In the meantime, some developers decided that they'd had enough. A handful of resignations
trickled in. Editorial turnover was high as well. This was during the height of the Internet bubble,
and there were plenty of opportunities elsewhere. While it was hard to lose valued employees, the
loss made it easier for the company to adapt to the change in process. Those who were unwilling
or unable to adapt left. The newly hired employees did not question the new process that had
been established.
Success
Tanya hired two more project managers, and the projects started to roll in. As everyone got into
the swing, it became obvious that we were working better and faster. Senior management noticed
and decided that the new Project Management group should report directly to the CIO. Production
was just one phase of a project, so why should the project managers report to Production? It was
official: Project Management was a success!
The consolidated Production team made huge strides. No longer working in isolation, they
mentored and brainstormed with each other to implement solid solutions. As the new process
made their efforts more efficient, they were able to focus on building things well, not just quickly.
Over time, they reworked and reduced the code base, vastly improved the content publishing UIs,
addressed the performance and maintenance issues, and created a shared knowledge base.
As projects began moving smoothly through the pipeline, a few business owners were effectively
acting as their own project managers. This resulted in an increased level of efficiency, and it
became an important objective for everyone to "internalize" the process. Once everyone learned
the methodology, there would be no need for project managers— right? Wrong. Even the business
owners with the required skills had fatal flaws. Some could not refrain from making changes that
they thought of at the last minute and just had to have. Others just did not have the time to track
all of the details. Then of course there were others who just didn't have the skill set or interest in
project management. After all, that's not what they were hired for.

Question 1
When executing the project soft skills of project manager play decisive role. Evaluate the
performance of the project manager(s) from the case and suggest what could have been done
differently and why.
15 Marks

Question 2
Any team in its development goes through several stages. Identify each of these stages. Explain
what characteristics of each stage can be witnessed from the case. Determine the team
development stage at the end of the case.
15 Marks
Section B (35 Marks)
Question 3
You are provided with some information on the project baseline budget for 5 reporting periods for
Establishing Web Project Management at BigGlobalMedia Inc. Calculation of SPI, CPI, and EAC will
be a helpful for all stakeholders to determine how the project has been evolving
Using project information below, complete the following:

 Project Status report for each provided reporting period (4)

 Calculate SPI, CPI and EAC for each reporting period
 Evaluate the status of the project after each reporting period
 Make forecast using all appropriate formulas.
 Draw the graph

Project Baseline Budget

Project Budget Cost Reporting Reporting Reporting Reporting Reporting

Deliverables $(000s) distribution Period 1 Period 2 Period 3 Period 4 Period 5

Deliverable 1 10000 mixed 1000 3000 1600 1400 3000

Deliverable 2 6000 mixed 1200 2000 1600 1200
Deliverable 3 6000 mixed 1200 800 2400 1600
Deliverable 4 4400 equally 2200 2200
Deliverable 5 2400 equally 800 800 800
Deliverable 6 2000 equally 1000 1000
Deliverable 7 1800 end 1800

Reporting Period 1 Completion EV AC PV CV SV

Deliverable 1 15% 2000
Deliverable 3 20% 1600
Cumulative Total 3600

SPI= ? CPI= ? EAC =?

Reporting Period 2 Completion EV AC PV CV SV

Deliverable 1 40% 6000
Deliverable 2 20% 1000
Deliverable 3 40% 2500
Cumulative Total 9500
SPI= ? CPI= ? EAC = ?
Reporting Period 3 Completion EV AC PV CV SV
Deliverable 1 70% 8000
Deliverable 2 50% 2800
Deliverable 3 70% 4000
Deliverable 5 40% 1200
Deliverable 6 50% 1200
Cumulative Total 17200

SPI= ? CPI= ? EAC = ?

Reporting Period 4 Completion EV AC PV CV SV

Deliverable 1 80% 9000
Deliverable 2 70% 4000
Deliverable 3 100% 5800
Deliverable 4 50% 2000
Deliverable 5 70% 2200
Deliverable 6 90% 2000
Cumulative Total 25000

SPI= ? CPI= ? EAC = ?

Overall conclusion:

Formula Explanation
SV =

CV =

SPI =

CPI =

EAC =

Graph.
Section C (35 Marks)

Buxton Hall
Chad Cromwell, head of university housing, gazed up at the tower at Buxton Hall and smiled as he
walked toward the landmark building.
Buxton Hall was built in 1927 as a residential complex for over 350 students at Pacifica State
University. At the time Buxton was the tallest building on campus, and its tower had a panoramic
view of the athletic fields and coastal range. Buxton quickly became a focal point at Pacifica State.
Students perched on the tower dominated the campus during the annual spring water fight with
their huge slingshots and catapults. The first intranet on the Pacific coast was created at Buxton
that linked students’ computers and allowed them to share printers.
Around the 1970s, some student artists began the tradition of painting their room doors. Whether
a Rolling Stones logo or Bugs Bunny on a skateboard, these colorful doors were an artistic legacy
that caught the attention of students and faculty.
Buxton Hall served as a residence hall for the university for many years, but time was not kind to
the stately building. Leaks destroyed plaster in the interior.
Wiring and plumbing became outdated and so dangerous that the building was deemed unsafe.
Buxton Hall’s doors were closed to students and windows boarded up at the end of the 1996 spring
quarter. For 10 years Buxton sat silent and over time became a symbol of the general decline of
Pacifica State. Now thanks to state bonds and generous contributions, Buxton Hall was about to be
reopened after a $20 million renovation.
18 Months Ago
Chad and key representatives from university facilities were engaged in the second of a two-day
partnering workshop. Also in attendance were managers from Crawford Construction, the chief
contractor for the Buxton renovation project, as well as several key subcontractors and architects
from the firm of Legacy West. During the first day a consultant ran them through a series of team-
building and communication exercises that accentuated the importance of open communication,
principle negotiation, and win/win thinking. Today’s session began with the “project from hell”
exercise, with each group describing the worst project they had ever worked on. Chad was
surprised that the people from Crawford and Legacy West descriptions were very similar to his
own. For example, each group talked about how frustrating it was when changes were made
without proper consultation or costs were hidden until it was too late to do anything about them.
This was followed by a discussion of the best project they had ever worked on. The consultant then
asked the groups which of the two they wanted the Buxton project to be. A genuine sense of
common purpose emerged, and everyone became actively engaged in spelling out in specific terms
how they wanted to work together. The session concluded with all of the participants signing a
partnering charter followed by a picnic and a friendly softball game.
12 Months Ago
Chad was on his way, with Nick Bolas, to meet Dat Nguyen, the Crawford Project Manager, on the
third floor at Buxton tower. Dat had contacted him to discuss a problem with the tile work in one
of the communal bathrooms. Dat’s people had completed the work, but Nick, who was a Pacifica
facilities manager, refused to sign off on it claiming that it was not up to spec. After a 24-hour
impasse, the Crawford foreman exercised the escalation clause in partnering agreement and
passed the issue up to management’s level to be resolved. Dat and Chad inspected the work. While
both agreed that the job could have been prettier, it did meet specification and Chad told Nick to
sign off on it.
Chad met Dat again later in the day at the weekly Buxton status report meeting. The meeting
kicked off with a brief review of what had been accomplished during the past week. Discussion
centered on the removal of elm trees. Alternative strategies for dealing with the city inspector,
who had a reputation of being a stickler for details, were considered. The project was two weeks
behind schedule, which is an important issue since it was imperative that the building be ready for
students to move in at the 2008 fall term. The project was also on a very tight budget, and the
management reserve had to be carefully administered.
Renovation of existing buildings was always a bit of a gamble, since you never knew what you
would find once you began tearing down walls. Fortunately, only small amounts of asbestos were
found, but rot was much more severe than anticipated.
The meeting included a partnering assessment. The results of a Web survey filled out by all the
principals were distributed. The results revealed a dip in the ratings between the Crawford
foremen and university officials regarding timely collaboration and effective problem solving. One
of Chad’s people said that the primary source of frustration was Crawford foremen failing to
respond to e-mail and telephone messages. Dat asked for the names of his people and said he
would talk to each of them. The Crawford foremen complained that the university officials were
being too nit-picky. “We don’t have the time or money to do A1 work on everything,” argued a
foreman. Chad told Dat and his people that he would talk to facilities guys and ask them to focus
on what is really important.
6 Months Ago
The project status report meeting started on time. Crawford had been able to make up for lost
time, and it now looked like the building would open on time. Chad was glad to see that the
partnering assessment had been positive and steady over the past month. The big issue was the
surge in costs consuming all but $50,000 of management reserve. With six months to go everyone
knew that this would not cover all the change orders needed to have the building ready. After all,
there was already $24,000 worth of change orders pending.
Chad looked across the table and saw nothing but grim faces. Then one of the Crawford foremen
proposed postponing treating all of the exterior walls. “Instead of cleaning and preserving the
entire brick building, let’s only do the front entrance and the North and South walls that the public
sees. We can just refurbish the interior court walls as well as the West side. This would be
adequate for at least eight years, in which time money should be available to complete the job.”
At first Chad didn’t like this idea, but eventually he realized that this was the only way they could
have the building ready for the students. Friendly arguments broke out over which exterior
segments needed the full treatment and which ones didn’t. The whole team ended up touring the
outside of the building identifying what kind of work needed to be done. In the end, only 70
percent of exterior brick walls were reconditioned according to plan with a savings of over
$250,000. While this boost to the reserve would still make things tight everyone felt that they now
had a fighting chance to complete the project on time.
Today
As Chad mingled with a glass of champagne, no one talked about the walls that still needed to be
refurbished—tonight was a night to celebrate. All of the major participants and their spouses were
at the party, and the university was hosting a five-course meal at the top of the tower. During the
toasts, jokes were exchanged and stories told about the ghosts in the west wing and the discovery
of a dead skunk in the south basement. Everyone talked about how proud they felt about bringing
back to life the grand old building. More than one person mentioned that new building. The
president of the university concluded the festivities by thanking everyone for their hard work and
proclaiming that Buxton would become a bright, shining icon for Pacifica State.

Question 4
Project Stakeholders play vital role in the success of any project. Conduct stakeholder analysis for
the Buxton Hall project discussed in the case using power-influence matrix. The map should be
drawn. Work out and propose communication strategy and highlight which stakeholders had
decisive role in evaluating the success of the project.
15 Marks

Question 5
It is not specified which project management approach the project Buxton Hall followed. Based on
the information from the case, determine and discuss if:

 the project was considered successful, provide arguments.

 there are any implications of Agile PM or PRINCE2 methodology? If yes, provide details.
20 Marks

THE END