Model for the Up-Gradation of the E-Mail System - Essay Example

Report to CIO Regarding Selection of Model for the Proposed Up-gradation of the e-mail system Ad directed by you, a report is presented for comparingdifferent project management models and selecting an ideal one for the proposed project of upgrading the e-mail system in our organization. The model favored by you is the 'Project Management Body of Knowledge' (PMBOK) model developed by the Project Management Institute (PMI) from which you have a Project Management Professional Certification. (Project management models in the late eighties). The model proposes correctly that that there is a relationship between the general management, project management and technical management. But there are a few shortcomings of the model which are given here. The model does nat assign managerial qualities to the project management team. You would agree that a large project management team definitely requires managerial capabilities. The model again fails to address soft skills which again is a necessity for any management function. There are other project management bodies like the PMI, each with their own body of knowledge. Currently there is no shared version of bodies of knowledge among them and there could exist conflicts among these models. "The intent in making these points is not to argue that one BoK is "better" than another - hopefully the different models will slowly converge - but that as it stands the PMI model is unnecessarily, and even dangerously, delimiting the scope of the discipline." (Morris, P.12). These are three major shortcomings attributed to the PMBOK model. As you may be aware, the model was introduced in 1987 and due to its inadequacy, again modified in 1988 under the guidance of Professor Alan Stretton. Even this model has not been found to be satisfactory be the Project Management Institute. Newer and more efficient models have been developed in the last decade and two of them are discussed here. The Orthogonal Model: This model was developed by Kevin Forsberg, Hal Mooz, and Howard Cotterman in the late 1990's. This model was developed in consultation with hundreds of project managers and consultants. The advantage of this project is that concepts of management are also integrated into the model, something which was lacking in the PMBOK model. A graphical representation of the model is given here. (Project management models in the new century). It can be seen that almost all aspects that go into a project is represented here. It also shows that executive support is essential by showing this aspect as the platform on which the whole project is resting. The model is shown as a wheel with and axle. Four essential elements are incorporated into the model. "These four elements are: a common vocabulary, teamwork, the sequential project life cycle, and management elements." (Project management models in the new century). The wheel has the following elements namely, Project Requirements, Organizing Options, Project Team, Project Planning, Opportunity and Risk, Project Control, Project Visibility, Project Status, and Corrective Action. Leadership is given an important role and is shown as the rim of the wheel. In other words, it is the leadership rim that holds the project together. The concept here is that, as the wheel rotates, it moves forward on the axle. The axle contains the following elements namely, User, Concept, System, Plan, Sourcing, Implementation, Deployment, Operations, and Deactivation. This is the actual process by which a project will move forward. So as the project wheel turns (begins) it moves along the process until it is completed (deactivation). Three more essential elements are shown in the axle namely Technical, Business, and Budget aspects of the project. Another important feature of this model is that the axle and the wheel rest on two pillars teamwork and common vocabulary. As mentioned earlier the whole structure rests on the platform of executive support. Almost all respects of a project is shown here in simple and lucid manner. Most importantly this model addresses the shortcomings of PMBOK model by incorporating the elements of management and leadership. Global Performance Based Standards for Project Management: This would be the ideal model for us not only for the current project but for future projects also. This statement will be clear once the explanation of the standard in done. As the name suggests, this is a global standard which can be used by any organization whether it is in the private sector or public sector. This model was developed by a consortium of international experts on project management called Global Alliance for Project Performance Standards (GAPPS) headed by Lynn Crawford, Director of Program, Project Management, University of Technology, Sydney. The final model was released in Lille in France after a three day meeting of 21 experts from all areas of project management. The methodology followed was to first examine accepted project management models from different parts of the world and to find common topics in them and then produce a model that would be acceptable for any project irrespective of the geographical location. The study identified forty such topics and became the basis for the development of their final model. The purpose was to develop a model that would be useful to project managers for "most projects most of the time." (Aitken & Crawford, 2007, P.4). The next step was to evaluate what role the project manager has in the planning, implementation and completion of a project. For this purpose the group used a chart based on complexity of tasks and called the 'Crawford-Ishikura Factor Table for Evaluating Roles (CIFTER).' Seven factors were shown by which the complexity of a project can be assessed. The CIFTER table is reproduced below. Project management complexity Factor Descriptor and points 1. Stability of the overall project context Very high (1) High (2) Moderate (3) Low (4) Number of distinct disciplines, methods, or approaches involved in performing the project Low (1) Moderate (2) High (3) Very high (4) Magnitude of legal, social, or environmental implications from performing the project Low (1) Moderate (2) High (3) Very high (4) Overall expected financial impact (positive or negative) on the project's stakeholders Low (1) Moderate (2) High (3) Very high (4) Strategic importance of the project to the organization or organizations involved Very low (1) Low (2) Moderate (3) High (4) Stakeholder cohesion regarding the characteristics of the product of the project High (1) Moderate (2) Low (3) Very low (4) Number and variety of interfaces between the project and other organizational entities Very low (1) Low (2) Moderate (3) High (4) (Aitken & Crawford, 2007, P.6). The developers of the model also categorized projects based on complexity into three namely, below global level 1, global level 1 (G1) and global level 2 (G2). A graphical representation of the model as a 'mind map' is also reproduced here. (Project manager role units). It is clear that this model has taken factors from accepted models of project management from around the world. It also includes aspects like leadership, teamwork and management which was not there in the PMBOK model. Moreover projects can be classified according to their complexity which is an advantage in our case. The up-gradation of our e-mail system is not a very complex project and requirements can be assessed using the CIFTER scale given above. It is suggested that the Global Performance Based Standards be used in the completion of our project. Reference Project management models in the late eighties, Max's: Modeling project management. Retrieved July 21, 2008, from http://www.maxwideman.com/papers/pm-models/late80s.htm Morris, Peter W G. Dr. (2000). Researching the unanswered questions of project management, INDECO management solutions. P.12. Retrieved July 21, 2008, from http://www.indeco.co.uk/filestore/ResearchingtheUnansweredQuestionsofProjectManagement.pdf Project management models in the new century, Max's: Modeling project management. Retrieved July 21, 2008, from http://www.maxwideman.com/papers/pm-models/newcentury.htm Aitken, Alicia., & Crawford, Lynn. Dr. (2007). IRNOP VIII: A study of project categorization based on project management complexity: GAPPS - Project manager standards, P.4. Retrieved July 21, 2008, from http://centrim.mis.brighton.ac.uk/events/irnop-2007/papers-1/Aitken-Crawford.pdf Aitken, Alicia., & Crawford, Lynn. Dr. (2007). IRNOP VIII: A study of project categorization based on project management complexity: GAPPS - Project manager standards, P.6. Retrieved July 21, 2008, from http://centrim.mis.brighton.ac.uk/events/irnop-2007/papers-1/Aitken-Crawford.pdf Project manager role units, Retrieved July 21, 2008, from http://www.maxwideman.com/papers/pm-models/Figure14.pdf Read More