QUESTION 1

The Case of the Never Ending Scope Creep

In 1999, the STATE Department of the Federal Government reviewed its Year 2000 Date Turnover Computer Risks and found that its outdated computer systems for managing public clients needed replacing. A business case was prepared for funding the replacement while at the same time implementing some improvements. The total budget requested was $2.3 million.

In view of a shortage of funds around at the time, government did not approve this amount. Only $1.5 million was authorized. However, the STATE Department accepted this amount after they decided that they could maybe do the work for around the $1.5 m.

Accordingly, a project was scoped and planned, with specific milestones for implementing the hardware and, subsequently the software, across 87 sites within its jurisdiction. A final completion date of 30th June 2001 was projected. The original business case had loosely identified some risks to the project that were also included in the project plan. A project steering committee was established, with the department chief (CEO) as the sponsor, and representation by influential managers with differing outcome needs to suit their particular work environment. The project commenced in July 1999.

In view of the shortfall on its original budget request, the committee decided not to employ a project manager. Instead it assigned this responsibility to its Finance Manager, who would undertake the work along with his normal duties.

A Company, called "Good Programs" was contracted to supply the software and assist in the implementation. This company recognized the marketing opportunities of this project, as the STATE Department was its biggest client in the region. As a result, they offered, free of charge, many more features that were not in the original scope, provided the department allowed them to be, in essence a research and development (R&D) site. This would assist Good Programs to more readily sell their products elsewhere around the world, while providing the STATE Department with additional functionality and benefits.

Initially, the steering committee met regularly, but as new versions of the resulting software were being implemented regularly, meetings became less frequent and Good Programs were left to do more and more of the day to day management of the new version implementations.

These new versions were developed after consultation with the various individual managers to accommodate requested new features with little consultation amongst all of the managers. All the STATE Department and steering committee had to do was to identify problems with the software and to make the system testers available for new versions. However, the effect was an unanticipated overhead for the department.

Sometime after the original project was scoped and commenced, both the original CEO and finance manager had been moved out of the department and new officers have been appointed.

At this time, the new CEO has been advised that about $185,000 more is needed for the project, which is not in his current budget. The original project has not been signed off; indeed, it is evident that it has not been completed. The new CEO of the department was not sure of the original scope of the project, what aspects have been implemented, nor what has been spent for which parts. There do not seem to be any reliable reports available as to original scope, scope changes, schedule or budget.

The CEO became concerned that the project has become more of a career than a project, with version 16.5 of the client management system now being tested with yet more features. In addition, there are some past software problems that are still outstanding. Nevertheless, Good Systems have promised that problems will be fixed in the next version.

Question & Scenario

Perhaps the most challenging task that can be handed a project manager/team leader from a customer/sponsor is to request change to the final product while it is still be developed.

The sponsor through the project manager calls for the development of a web site. Halfway through, the stakeholders request massive changes to the site in terms of appearance, utility, and performance. This can destroy some projects and overall project performance.

1. Discuss the various ways project change can be managed.

Please sight your sources of information. You are not to copy and paste from your sources. Provide your own thoughts based off your sources.

QUESTION 2

Earned Value Exercise

The most common method for determining project progress and, ultimately, project success(performance) is called Earned Value. The attached PowerPointpresentation explains this quite well using an example to help you understand it.

Complete the exercise attached. It asks you to determine the earned value of a few projects at certain points in their progress.

A popular method most students/candidates adopt is to first draw a diagram of where the project was planned to be at this particular point in time. That will help you determine what was planned so that you can then check for variance against what actually happened.

QUESTION 3

Short Paper

Network Management Paper: In this paper, you will research and report on network management tools. Compare and contrast, at least 2 tools. Which is the best tool? Can one tool be used for managing entire network? Why or why not? Support your information and make sure all information sources are appropriately cited.

The paper must use APA 6th ed., 7th printing formatting and contain a title page, 2 pages of content, and a minimum of three peer-reviewed references

Your assignment will be graded based on the rubric, which can be viewed when clicking on the assignment submission link above.
Assignment Resource(s):

Watch Video

Top Tools and Techniques for Improving Network Management

Duration: (49:31)

Learn how to identify the causes of slow network performance and how solutions like Windows Intue and System Center VMM can help improve performance.

QUESTION 4

SHORT PAPER:1 PAGE

After watching the video, Network Design - CompTIA Security+ SY0-301: 1.3, discuss at least two network design concepts you learned from or found interesting in the video.

Watch Video

Network Access Control - CompTIA Security+ SY0-301: 1.3

User: n/a - Added: 7/20/11