Report in Project Management (Case Study Sample)

Instructions:

Evaluate how projects are understood, defined, planned, and controlled. Relate this to an organization of your choice and make recommendations for improvements and implementation. Undertake appropriate project management analysis, propose relevant recommendations to improve the effectiveness, the efficiency of these steps of a project task, identify and discuss appropriate techniques, and explain how these will ensure the successful delivery of a project. Layout of report: This is a report, with the following structure Title page This should normally include the title, your name and the name of the tutor to whom it is being submitted, date of submission, your course/department, and if applicable, the name of the person and/or organisation who has commissioned the report. Avoid "fancy" fonts and effects and do not include any clipart. Contents page A clear, well-formatted list of all the sections and sub-sections of the report. Do not forget to put the page numbers! If applicable, there should be a separate list of tables, figures, illustrations and/or appendices after the main index. Make sure that the headings in this list correspond exactly with those in your main body. It is best to do your list of contents right at the end. Introduction This should show that you have fully understood the task/brief and that you are going to cover everything required. Indicate the basic structure of the report. You should include just a little background/context and indicate the reasons for writing the report. This where you set the scene, introduce what you are going to be covering. Main Analysis This is the substance of your report, with headings and sub-headings used to clearly indicate the different sections (unlike an essay). A "situation>problem>solution>evaluation" approach may be appropriate. It is not sufficient to simply describe a situation. We will be looking for analysis and for a critical approach, application of project management theory, when appropriate, charts, diagrams, tables and appropriate Harvard referencing style can be used to reinforce your arguments, although sometimes it may be better to include these as an appendix. Do not include opinions, conclusions, or recommendations in this section. Conclusion Your conclusion should draw out the implications of your findings, with deductions based on the facts described in your main body. Do not include any new material here. Recommendation/ New implementation These should follow on logically from your conclusion and be specific, measurable, and achievable. They should propose how the situation/problem could be improved by suggesting action to be taken or new implementation plan. A statement of cost should be included if you are recommending changes that have financial implications. Recommendations can be numbered if you wish. Bibliography/Reference list This is a list giving the full details of all the sources (min 10) to which you have referred within your text. The recommended style is the Harvard method. (see attachement as i lost point with previous report). Appendices An appendix (plural=appendices) is detailed documentation of points you outline in your findings, for example, technical data, questionnaires, letters sent, tables, sketches, charts, leaflets etc. It is supplementary information which you consider to be too long or complicated or not quite relevant enough to include in your main body, but which still should be of interest to your reader. Each appendix should be referred to in your text. You should not include something as an appendix if it is not discussed in the main body. source..

Content:

Report in Project Management 1100 words (excluding diagrams) Contents TOC \o "1-3" \h \z \u 1.Introduction PAGEREF _Toc155370669 \h 32.Main Analysis PAGEREF _Toc155370670 \h 32.1 Project understanding and definition PAGEREF _Toc155370671 \h 32.2Planning Process and Future of the Project PAGEREF _Toc155370672 \h 42.2.1 Costs/sustainability PAGEREF _Toc155370673 \h 42.2.2 Procurement/Resources PAGEREF _Toc155370674 \h 42.3 Project Control PAGEREF _Toc155370675 \h 43.Conclusion PAGEREF _Toc155370676 \h 54.Recommendation/ New implementation PAGEREF _Toc155370677 \h 5References PAGEREF _Toc155370678 \h 6Appendices PAGEREF _Toc155370679 \h 8Appendix 1 PAGEREF _Toc155370680 \h 8Appendix 2 PAGEREF _Toc155370681 \h 9Appendix 3 PAGEREF _Toc155370682 \h 10 1 Introduction The identified project for the report is the Graden Bridge Project, an unsuccessful project that entailed the construction of a pedestrian walkway over River Thames in London (Edwards, 2019). The project was to be delivered to the Transport for London (TfL) in conjunction with Arup Group and several designers (Moore, 2017). Figure 1 is a pictorial illustration of the proposed project. The project had a proposed funding of more than £200 million and would link the Waterloo Bridge and the Blackfriars Bridge over the Thames (Moore, 2017). However, failure to fully understand, define, plan, and control various deliverables meant that it was never actualised and led to a loss of public funds since surveying work had already started (Edwards, 2019). This report analyses the project using a situation, problem, solution, and evaluation approach where aspects of funding, planning, procurement, and eventual failure of the project are examined. This helps to understand the crucial role of understanding, defining, planning, and controlling projects to guarantee their eventual success. Figure 1: Proposed design of the Garden Bridge Project (Wainwright, 2017). 2 Main Analysis 2.1 Project understanding and definition As per Slack & Brandon-Jones, (2013, p.504), to define the project, a clear business case needs to be made, including its objectives and scope. The Garden project did not satisfy this. At the start of 2017, a report highlighted several failings, including a weak business case at the initiation phase; the purpose of the bridge was vague and clouded (London.gov.uk, 2017). Furthermore, Slack & Brandon-Jones, (2013, p.501), highlighted that to understand the project, the needs of the stakeholders have to be taken into account for success. However, there was little involvement from the Waterloo Community Development Group, a crucial stakeholder in the Garden Bridge Project. As a result, the group, along with other local opposition groups, vehemently objected the project in court leading to its collapse (Moore, 2017). Aspects that affected the community had not been fully accounted for, such as maintenance of the bridge and its impact on views of various important heritage sites in Central London (Moore, 2017). 1 Planning Process and Future of the Project 2.2.1 Costs/sustainability In addition, the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan raised concerns about the project’s operational and maintenance costs, which had not been factored in during the planning process. When maintenance costs are not integrated in project planning, unwarranted risks may occur (Hajrahimi, 2013, p.63). The project’s sustainability and future also raised doubts. According to Marcela (2023, p.4896), project viability is crucial in assessing whether a project is worth pursuing. The absence of a clear plan of its viability in the future and value it would deliver for London placed huge doubts on its future even before commencement of project activities. 2.2.2 Procurement/Resources The procurement process for the Garden Bridge Project came under sharp scrutiny from leaders in the construction industry before commencement of the project (Hurst, 2015). TfL made an admission that the process that selected Thomas Heatherwick and Arup to design the garden bridge was sketchy, and selection of the designers did not adhere to procurement guidelines as shown in Appendix 1. At the planning phase, project managers have a responsibility to build a functional team from the internal and external talent pool by finding and selecting the most appropriate resources/talent (Slack & Brandon-Jones. (2013, p.505), which was not the case when Thomas Heatherwick and Arup were selected to design the bridge. According to Slack & Brandon-Jones. (2013, p.32), repeat problems in project procurement have far-reaching long-term impacts on a project and can lead to loss of money, project delays, and negative reputation. The resultant situation in London was loss of public funds and loss of trust in the TfL. 2.3 Project Control The project received initial planning approval from Lambeth Councils and Westminster in 2014 (Moore, 2017). Appendix 2 provides key details about the proposed project including design, materials, length, and number of pedestrians that would use it (Megson, 2016). However, at the start of 2016, the projected cost of the project was £185 million despite an initial budget of £53 million as shown in Appendix 3. It was claimed that the project would be financed from various private sources: £60 million from public funds, and £30 million from the TfL. However, there were significant funding challenges in securing private donations for the project (Wainwright, 2017). These funding challenges in conjunction with future uncertainties meant that the project cost was bound to be overrun. According to Slack & Brandon-Jones, (2019, p.46), when project costs are overrun, risks of project delays, lower ROI, and increased costs are observed. These factors combined increased project risks and put the project in an uncertain future. To control the project, the project manager should constantly be monitoring the project and know how to intervene to bring the project back on track, which could have quickly spotted and identified solutions to the funding issues and uncertainties noted above (Slack & Brandon-Jones, 2019, p.510) 3 Conclusion The Graden Bridge Project provides tremendous lessons for project managers who intend to deliver projects for their clients. Appropriate planning must be in place and cost estimation must be in line with various project deliverables. When planning for a project, all stakeholders must be involved since the fulfilment or non-fulfilment of project activities is dependent on the role of each stakeholder. Involving these stakeholders also provides significant support and goodwill that was lacking in the Garden Bridge Project. 4 Recommendation/ New implementation Several recommendations could have been implemented by the TfL to prevent the collapse of the Garden Bridge Project in London. The first is actively involving all stakeholders in the project planning phase. There was a lot of opposition to the project from the Waterloo Community Development Group and local opposition groups. According to Reyck (2018, p.22), engaging stakeholders is crucial in strategic project planning. It ensures that all stakeholders are aware of the implications the project would have and their role towards the project once its completed. The second recommendation would be appropriate project budgeting and funding. According to Andersen (2019, p.1128), poor project budgets lead to cost overruns, which can lead to delays and expose the project to unwarranted risks. At the start, the Garden Bridge Project budget forecasts indicated that approxi...

Get the Whole Paper!

Not exactly what you need?

Do you need a custom essay? Order right now:

Order

Report in Project Management (Case Study Sample)

Other Topics: