Project Management Evaluation and Analysis

This assignment delves into the crucial aspects of project management, particularly focusing on evaluating project success. It explores different perspectives on defining project success, moving beyond traditional measures of time, cost, and scope. The analysis includes examining risk management techniques, the importance of project retrospectives for learning and improvement, and the significance of quality and scope control throughout the project lifecycle.

Name of the University
Student’s Name
Assessment item 3
September 27
2017
Project Charter

Project Charter
Name of Project: Ticketing System - RALS
Name of Team: RALS Team
Project Description: RALS organizes a show for farmers and other lifestyle customers
every year during November for few days. The tickets are being sold at the ticket
counter and the revenue which is generated by the selling of tickets is directly donated
to the charitable trust ICV which works for the betterment of Indigenous people. Due to
the huge rush of customers especially in day one, the counter system gets overloaded,
and the crowd keeps on increasing and people used to topple the fence to enter the
boundary. So to avoid such issue in future RALS / Globex Corporation has
conceptualized to develop a computer-based automatic ticketing system which will be
web-based so that the customers can pre-book their tickets and the rush at the ticket
counter and gate can be minimised. For developing the new system, Globex handed over
the project to Virtucon.
Team Members: Name of students, e-mail Ids, phone numbers
Part One
Measurable Organizational Value (MOV)
Area of Impact (Maylor, 2001):
Rank Areas Description
1 Operational PC based ticketing framework will help the volunteers in their
operations of keeping up the security at doors due to less scramble
for ticket counter and the ticketing should likewise be possible
effectively without much weight of the group.
2 Strategy To avoid the entry of visitors from the back door or in between the
fences are required to be stopped, which can be achieved very well
by introducing this PC based system.
3 Financial This new system will allow the volunteers to function more
efficiently rather than simply controlling the crowd and hence the
visitors cannot enter through any other route other than the main
gate by taking the proper ticket, so there can be more generation

of revenue.
4 Customer The framework will give the office to clients to book their ticket
from home itself utilizing the page which they can access through
portable, portable workstation, tablets and so on. Also, they will
likewise get rebates for early reserving, so clients will be cheerful.
5 Social The newly developed will keep control on crowd volume and will
definitely avoid having any social issue too.
Two major Values:
Do more By utilizing the new framework more tickets can be sold even before the
begin of the show, and it is for certain that more guests might book the
tickets now, and by this procedure, RALS will create more income, so
more gifts can be added to ICV.
Faster The project will arrange to ticket quickly by utilizing the PC based
passage framework
Measurable metrics:
1 Donations that RALS can make to ICV consistently year after year
2 Increase in revenue generation for the first year after the project completion
3 The project needs to be finished latest by August 2018, so that the advertisement,
online ticket selling, and booking can happen until November.
Part Two
Scope, Scope Management Plan & Resources
Scope Definition: The scope is to create and convey the PC based ticketing framework
executed for leading the RALS show. Visitors can get to the framework online to book
tickets ahead of time so they don't have to remain in a long line & the purpose of getting
the tickets pre-booked to estimate the success rate of the show can be measured well in
advance.

Scope Management Plan (Wich, 2009):
Identify requirement: all the necessary requirements for the project need to be
finalized and approved to avoid any further increase in scope and need to be
routed through change management system.
Define the scope: all the limits that are within the scope and out of scope are
required to be finalized. The out of scope is providing after sales support. Other
than this every work like developing the system, installing it, implementing it
and so on is within the scope of the project
Make WBS (Wrike, 2017): according to the overall scope of work, the Work
Breakdown Structure is developed. The WBS is as below:

Scope verification (Jordan, 2012): the scope defined and developed are required
to be verified at every stage of the project.
Scope Control: all the scope of work must be executed by the degree standard
created and concluded. All changes need to be used change management system.
In which any progressions which can affect the degree, time, cost and quality
must be gone through the change control method.
Resources:
The resources are:

People: Project Manager, Technical Engineer (Software specialist),
Administration Officer, Designer – Database, Designer – System, Installing
Team
Technology: Network System, PC, Phone, Wi-Fi system, Printer for
printing ticket for testing period
Facilities: centralized air-conditioned office for sitting capacity of at least
ten people with a conference meeting hall
Presented in MS project:
Part Three
Milestone List, Activities, Resource assignment & Cost estimation using MS project
Software
Milestone List with dates:
Resources assigned to each activity:

The Cost associated to with resource:
Resource Name Work Cost
Project Manager 424 hrs $84,800.00
Technical Engineer 240 hrs $42,000.00
Administration Officer 40 hrs $4,000.00
Designer – Database 480 hrs $57,600.00
Designer – System 440 hrs $63,800.00
Installing Team 344 hrs $25,800.00
Overall direct labour cost 1968 hrs $278,000.00
High-Level cost estimation:

Part Four
Risk Analysis & Plan
Risk Identification (Winters, 2009):
Risk 1: in case the stakeholder identification during initiation stage is not done
correctly; it can cause a significant issue if we miss some high influential stakeholders.
Risk 2: an incorrect gathering of information in planning stage can put the extreme
effect on the extent of the task and need excessively of revise.
Risk 3: stakeholder’s management is not done properly, and then it can also have a
negative effect on the project. Since the high-quality partner may get irritated.
Risk 4: there can be abnormal increase of scope and cost of the project
Risk 5: incomplete or improper submission of final documentation can increase the
project duration and the cost of the project too
Risk Analysis (Likelihood = 1 to 9, Impact = 1 to 9, product of both = likelihood x impact)
(Dcosta & Gundlach, 2011):
Risk 1: Likelihood = 4, Impact = 9, product of both = 36
Risk 2: Likelihood = 5, Impact = 8, product of both = 40
Risk 3: Likelihood = 6, Impact = 7, product of both = 42
Risk 4: Likelihood = 6, Impact = 5, product of both = 30
Risk 5: Likelihood = 5, Impact = 4, product of both = 20

Risk Response Planning:
Ris
k
No.
Rank Owner Response
1 3 Project
Manager
Every one of the partners should be distinguished
appropriately and recheck the rundown after each
adjustment
2 2 Project
Manager
Any and all requirements need to be first finalized and
approved by RALS representative/sponsor.
3 1 Designer Once the partner recognizable proof is done appropriately
with quality examination, they should be fulfilled as needs
be
4 4 Project
Manager
Degree check procedure like master survey should be led
in each stage
5 5 Project
Manager
All the final outcome documents of the procurement need
to be submitted for all the intermediate stages after the
completion of each and not to wait till the final completion
of the project.
Part Five
Quality Management Plan
Team’s philosophy: The group must put their effort to keep up the required quality
standards of the item and constantly meet the recognized and archived stakeholder’s
desires. All risks should be checked cautiously to stay away from any time and cost
overrun. All the distinguished expectations must be conveyed inside time with sufficient
quality benchmarks. All the team members need to concentrate on the quality to avoid
any kind of rework.
Quality assurance (Jamil, 2013):
Verification Validation
Extension limits should be checked prior
and then afterward every stage
Quality guidelines are being met
Cost of every action ought to not overshoot
the individual spending plan to control the
general cost of item
Each phase after finishing should be
approved against the benchmark criteria
On time Delivery of the expectations
should be guaranteed
Before shutting the essential item
necessity should be approved against set
criteria or MOV
Every one of the desires of partners is
being met

Part Six
Project Closure & Evaluation
Checklist for Closure of Project:
Need to check the quality of the highlights of ticketing framework is meeting the
prerequisite according to standard
All the documentation has been finished and submitted after endorsement
Acquirement finish off is finished
Asset deactivation design created and imparted to the group
Lessons learned recorded and imparted to Globex/RALS agents
Evaluation:
Has the income era expanded by 30% in the first year, 10% in the second and
third year of RALS appeared after the task usage (Appendix-1)?
Has the amount of donation increased after the implementation of the project?
Considered in (Appendix-1)
Is the task finished inside October (Appendix-1)?
Have the lessons learned are reported appropriately (Appendix-3)?
Appendix of Research Study for Project Evaluation:
Appendix-1:
Anglesey County Council . (2012). End of Project Evaluation & Project Closure. EU
Project Management Guidelines, 1-14.
The author has said properly that the assessment procedure of a project at the last
phase of the task life cycle is not only an observing of the achievement, but rather it
gives inside and out data in regards to the project criteria or result that how far the
goals of the project has been met or how viable are the results like the CPI and SPI. The
author has likewise properly specified that the assessment of a project dependably
gives a profound examination of the realities of disappointment or achievement. The

author mentioned one point which I liked the most is the continuous evaluation of
project in between the phases to enable any modification in between the project is
required.
Appendix-2:
Wit, A. d. (1988). Measurement of project success. International Journal of Project
Management, 164-170.
The author has differentiated his dialogue itself by specifying that a decent project
management does not require that the item must be of good quality. It may be valid up
to the certain degree. However, I might likewise want to investigate more on the point
before remarking. Since in my view the great work likewise creates great outcomes, so a
decent project management should not just give great aftereffects of time, cost, degree,
and quality, it naturally enhances the item quality as well. While the author is
expressing that these measures after the project finish are only a fantasy and that's it.
Appendix-3:
Nelson, R. R. (2005). Project Retrospectives: Evaluating Project Success, Failure and
Everything In Between. MIS Quarterly Executive, 361-372.
The author started the article with the negative issue of not having enough evaluation
study especially the IT projects and billions of dollars getting lost due to improper
execution of IT projects. The author has touched an extremely touchy piece of the
project management that is to gain from history, either great or awful, because if we fail
we can learn and if pass then gains for the project. In both the circumstance we will pick
up from our own/individual's past encounters. So we have to record the lessons learned
precisely to help in future tasks. For which we likewise need to invest much energy to
meet with every single key partner after the project conclusion to take note of their
input and any sorts of learning they have gone over amid the general task life cycle so
that the Project supervisor can collect all in a single report for simple access in future.
References:
Dcosta, A., & Gundlach, M. (2011). Qualitative and Quantitative Risk Analysis. Retrieved
September 16, 2017, from brighthubpm.com:
http://www.brighthubpm.com/risk-management/33403-qualitative-and-
quantitative-risk-analysis/
Jamil, I. (2013). Project quality management - PMI PMBOK Knowledge Area . Retrieved
August 27, 2017, from www.slideshare.net:

https://www.slideshare.net/immmrann/project-quality-management-pmi-
pmbok-knowledge-area
Jordan, A. (2012, October). Retrieved from Scope Verification: The Forgotten Process:
https://www.projectmanagement.com/articles/275424/Scope-Verification--
The-Forgotten-Process
Maylor, H. (2001). Beyond the Gantt chart:: Project management moving on. European
Management Journal, 19(1), 92-100.
Wich, D. (2009, June 11). Project Scope Management. Retrieved September 2, 2017, from
http://www.umsl.edu:
http://www.umsl.edu/~sauterv/analysis/6840_f09_papers/Wich/scopemanage
ment.html
Winters, L. (2009). Deadliest catch: risk identification in the vast Bering Sea. PMI®
Global Congress 2009. North America, Orlando.
Wrike. (2017). What is Work Breakdown Structure in Project Management? Retrieved
September 24, 2017, from https://www.wrike.com/project-management-
guide/faq/what-is-work-breakdown-structure-in-project-management/