Product Management - Case Study Example

Product Management Name: Tutor: Course: Date: Question One: Project Management Methodologies 1. Adaptive Project Framework Adaptive project scope is variable while cost and time are constants. To obtain maximum business value, its project scope is adjusted during the project execution. The method is ideal when project goals are known but not the process (Kliem et al. 1997). A complete plan is generated with few changes expected with this framework. However, it is highly flexible making the client to constantly shift requirements as they know that the framework supports changes. Stakeholder and client expectations are always high such that they can substantially alter the features of the project back and forth (Willson et al. 2013). There is negligible control of the project by the project manager since the requirements are vague. This method is commonly used in Software/Web projects and least on construction or large projects owing to its iterative and flexibility approach. 2. Agile Software Development Project requiring extreme agility demands that agile software development methodology be used. The method is characterized by real-time communication, less restrictive project control, dynamic team culture, agile requirements and sprints (short-termed delivery cycles). The advantages are close collaboration and active user involvement in the entire development cycle by emphasizing on people and interactions (Chavrat, 2003). Frequent delivered of working software is in weeks instead of months. Face-to-face communication and place daily cooperation are good for developers and business people while continuous attention and regular adaptation meets design and technical excellence (Haugan, 2011). However, there is difficulty in assessing needed at the beginning causing the project to go off track. It offers little room for knowledge among young developers since it gives little attention to design and documentation. This method is applied whenever new changes require implementation at lower costs owing to high frequency of new increments (Kliem et al. 1997). 3. Systems Development Life Cycle (SDLC) System Development Life Cycle (SDLC) considers the lifecycle of the product through many intermediate processes reviewed frequently to establish if conforming to standards meeting or meeting user needs (Westland, 2007). The business obtains what is needed through rework and reviews of phases. The merits of this method are maximum management control through formal review and system documentation to guide business requirements (Haugan, 2011). On the contrary, SDLC blocks end users from seeing a solution to a problem until the completion of the system. Loss of translation is imminent as developers take absolute control as well as it is time-consuming and expensive. SDLC conceptual model applicable in software development projects and for the best outcome, it can combine at least two project management methodologies. Question Two: Key elements of Agile project development Projects and IT development teams are better managed through agile development methodology. Derived from the agile manifesto, agile project development optimizes on interactions and individuals over tools and processes while the working software is preferred to detailed documentation (Kliem et al. 1997). Contract negotiation has more emphasis to customer collaboration over while change over is better than following a plan. Some of the key elements of agile project development are; 1. Active user involvement 2. Empowered teams in decision making 3. Fixed timescale in evolving requirements 4. Captured requirements at visual, lightweight and high level 5. Small incremental releases are developed and iterated 6. Frequent product delivery is the main focus 7. Each feature completed before next step begins. 8. 80/20 rule is applied. 9. Throughout the project lifecycle testing (early and often) is integrated Cooperative and collaborative approaches among stakeholders are essential. Various methodologies collectively dubbed agile are consistent with the above principles and promote the values of the agile manifesto (Kliem et al. 1997). Question Three: Project Management Application a) Quality function deployment (QFD) Quality Function Deployment (QFD) is a set of tools integrated to record engineering characteristics and user requirements satisfying requirements and potential trade-offs between the engineering characteristics (Akao, 1990). i) Assumptions a) The device will guarantee medical staff operational simplicity and patient comfort b) The Direct Current (DC) component will be absorbed by veins and blood tissues allowing use of AC (Alternating current) component only. c) Microcontrollers will have the power to retain volatile memory d) The device will only measure temperature, oxygen level, and blood pressure, and pulse rate ii) House of Quality Figure 1: QFD House of Quality for Physiological Measuring Device b) Project Plan using SCRUM Methodology Sprint 1: Day 1 Scrum Product Backlog items are presented by a team member- Suzanne during the maiden Sprint Planning meeting. The items are; product liability (1), technology upgrades (2), user needs fulfillment (3), competitors (4) and technical performance (5). Open questions are clarified for each item. Team evaluates their capacity, know-how and additional resources (Weiner, 2012). Members committed to complete discussion or stories of 1, 2 and 4 at the end of this sprint while 3 and 5 were postponed as the technical performance was yet to be performed. Sprint 1: Day 2 At the end of the second day meeting, Scrum Master of the team, Bob, asks the team to define details on the implementation of the committed items 1, 2 and 4. Sprint Task board were prepared and the resulting tasks are written on the cards after which every Scrum Team member selected a task to complete. Sprint 1: Day 3 Daily Scrum Meeting starts in the morning when the whole team had gathered. Each member gives a short statement on current achievements and provides updates on the estimate of the remaining hours on the Sprint Task board cards. They then gave account of the days plans while exploiting potential impediments likely to hinder them in their work. A member notes that the license to software tools and antiviral updates were expired. Bob asks other team members if the problem affects them too and promises to handle the problem. Everyone goes back to after the 20 minute meeting. The Sprint Burndown is updated by Bob immediately after the meeting, then orders licenses and calls the software tool vendor before forwarding to those in need. Sprint 2: Day 1 Scrum Master-Bob in the first day of the second Sprint invites all the team members for the Sprint Review Meeting. The team has just prepared a remote pulse rate monitor with the existing software implementation. Scrum Product Owner-Jack Williamson checks if execution and documentation meets his expectations as he sits in front of the machine. He concludes at the end of the Review Session that items 1, 3 and 5 were completed as required. Item 2 still requires rework while 4 requires further discussion to explore the effects of competitors in the EU. Sprint 2: Day 2 The second meeting of the second sprint was done in the afternoon the team. They discuss successes of the sprint and improvements needed. Regarding the overall system architecture feedback, the feeling of the team is that they had scanty knowledge, and needed refreshers, and detailed process literature. For more detailed introduction on infrastructure and technology upgrades, Williamson invites the system architect. Sprint 3: Day 1 The Scrum Product Owner, Mr. Jack Williamson based on his recent customer meetings adds new items to the Scrum Product Backlog. In addition, he mentions that some components for the reworking item 2. He then commits and discusses the items during the Sprint Planning Meeting for Sprint 2. The third Sprint begins with direction of Bob, the Scrum Master. c) Safety and Environmental Regulations for Medical Devices in the UK Medical devices as stipulated by the Medical Devices Regulations 2002 of the UK should carry the CE marking of manufacturer conformity. The directive affects custom-made devices, clinical investigations devices and performance evaluation IVD devices. A medical device for therapeutic or diagnostic purposes may be excluded from the Machinery Directive 2006/42/EC scope but must still satisfy the safety and environmental requirements (House of Commons, 2012). The essential requirements benefit users and patients by ensuring that the devices do not compromise the user or patient health and safety. Therefore any risks linked to the device are compatible with protection patient and health, and any side effects when weighed against the intended device performance must be acceptable (Willson et al. 2012). Products that are CE marked are harmonized across Europe and the assessment route dictates that graduations on the device are made based on risk classification (Weiner, 2012). R I S K I D Process Step [The process input or step that is under investigation] Potential Failure Mode [Defines ways in which critical Inputs can go wrong] Potential Failure Effects [Describes the impact on critical output variables-customer requirements] S E V E R I T Y Potential Causes [What contributes the critical Input to go wrong] L I K E L I H O O D Current Controls [Existing procedures and controls to prevent the failure mode or cause D E T E C T I O N Actions Recommended [Actions to reduce the cause, improve situation or occurrence S E V E R I T Y L I K E L I H O O D D E T E C T I O N RPN 1 Design and Development phase Deficient design Customer will reject the product as its cuts below the stand quality requirements 5 Erroneous listing of customer requirements 5 Product design set by senior management 4 Appropriate application of design controls 5 5 4 100 2 Optimistic schedules and slippage Limited plan in terms of scope and detail Time and cost overruns 5 Lack of experience and unexpected design element problems 6 Correction of errors in the software material 8 Compressing schedule and diverting staff 5 6 8 240 3 Design Input Incorrect assumptions Conflicting user needs 4 Poor translation of medical terms to engineering terms 6 Consultation meetings between system developers and users 5 Resolve user conflicts through surveys 4 6 5 180 4 Design Output Wrong part dimensions and characteristics Non-production design input requirements 4 Lack of common assembly drawings 8 Review procedure in planning, execution and review 6 Adhere to specific design documentation 4 8 6 192 5 Design Review Biased selection of reviewers Sabotage to the system 8 Conflict of interest among planners 7 Emphasis on qualification and expertise 7 Independence and adequate assessment of reviewers 8 7 7 392 6 Design verification and validation Manufacturing process errors Poor accuracy and process errors 8 Erroneous assumption of verification to be production testing 9 Sensitivity tests conducted regularly 8 Fault tree analysis be conducted 8 9 8 576 d) Fair Mode Effects and Criticality Analysis (FMECA) FMECA assesses project risks based on failure, effects, and causes and controls (Hillson, 2000) as shown in the table below; Reference list Akao, Y 1990, QFD: Integrating Customer Requirements into Product Design, Productivity Press, Cambridge, MA. Chavrat, J 2003, Project Management Methodologies: Selecting, Implementing, and Supporting Methodologies and Processes for Projects, John Wiley & Sons. Haugan, GT 2011, Project Management Fundamentals: Key Concepts and Methodology, Second Edition, Management Concepts Inc. Hillson, D 2000, Project Risks, Identifying Causes, Risks and Effects, PM Network, 14:9, pp. 48- 51. House of Commons, 2012, Regulation of Medical Implants in the EU and UK: Fifth Report of Session 2012-13, [Vol. 1]: Report, Together with Formal Minutes, Oral and Written Evidence, The Stationery Office. Kliem, RL, Ludin IS, Robertson, KL 1997, Project Management Methodology: A Practical Guide for the Next Millennium, CRC Press. Weiner, JP 2012, Doctor-patient communication in the e-health era, Journal of Health Policy Research, 20 (12): 56-74. Westland, J 2007, The Project Management Life Cycle: A Complete Step-by-step Methodology for Initiating, Planning, Executing & Closing a Project Successfully, Kogan Page Publishers. Willson, K Ison K & Tabakov, S 2013, Medical Equipment Management, CRC Press. Read More