Real Life Project Analysis

8/14/2019 Real Life Project Analysis

1/36

Table of Contents

ABBREVIATIONS 41: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 51.1 COMPANY AND INDUSTRY DESCRIPTION 51.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 51.3 CASE STUDY FINDINGS 51.4 CRITICAL EVALUATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 61.5 CONCLUSION 72: DATA SOURCES, REFERENCES, METHOD OF ANALYSIS 82.1 PEOPLE 82.2 INFORMATION AND REFERENCES 82.3 METHOD OF WORK 93: PROJECT DESCRIPTION BACKGROUND AND HISTORY 93.1 BACKGROUND 93.2 OBJECTIVE 113.3 DETAILED DESCRIPTION 123.4 MAJOR MILESTONES 134: PRODUCT AND PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS 13

4.1 PROJECT SCOPE 134.2 PROJECT SIZE AND DURATION 154.3 TECHNOLOGY ADOPTION LIFE CYCLE (TALC) 154.4 LEVITTS WHOLE PRODUCT 174.4.2 WHOLE PRODUCT - FEATURES 184.6 SHENHAR UCP CLASSIFICATION 204.7 WHEELWRIGHT AND CLARK (W&C) 245. PROJECT SUCCESS MEASURES AND BUSINESS PERSPECTIVE 285.1 BUSINESS PERSPECTIVE 285.2 OVERALL SUCCESS 295.3 EXPLICIT OR IMPLICIT OBJECTIVES 305.4 SUCCESS DIMENSION OBJECTIVES AND RESULTS 305.5 UNEXPECTED RESULTS 316. PROJECT STRATEGY AND COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE 316.1 COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE 316.2 VALUE TO THE COMPANY 326.3 PRODUCT DEFINITION PROCESS 336.4 STRATEGY ALIGNMENT 346.5 STRATEGY AND COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE/VALUE 356.6 PROJECT VISION 366.7 CLAIM STATEMENT USING CROSSING THE CHASM STYLE 366.8 CLAIM STATEMENT USING REVISED PROJECT STRATEGY STYLE 376.9 STRATEGIC FOCUS 377. PROJECT SPIRIT AND LEADERSHIP 397.1 ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE 40

7.2 PROJECT SPIRIT 407.3 POLICY 417.4 LEADERSHIP 417.5 PROJECT TEAM EMPOWERMENT 448. ORGANIZATION 448.1 PROJECT ORGANIZATION 448.2 PROJECT STRUCTURE 458.3 TEAM SELECTION 468.4 WORK ASSIGNMENTS 478.5 TOP MANAGEMENT INVOLVEMENT 488.6 PROFESSIONAL ADVICE AND REVIEWS 488.7 ORGANIZATIONAL PROBLEMS 488.8 TRAINING 499. PROCESSES 509.1 PROJECT PHASES 509.2 PMBOK PROCESSES 51


2/36

9.3 WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE (WBS) 529.4 RESOURCES ESTIMATIONS 529.5 SYSTEMS ENGINEERING 539.6 REDUCING MARKET UNCERTAINTY 549.7 REDUCING REQUIREMENTS UNCERTAINTY 549.8 RISK MANAGEMENT 559.9 REDUCING TECHNICAL UNCERTAINTY 559.10 SYSTEM INTEGRATION AND TEST 569.11 PROJECT MONITORING AND CONTROLLING 569.12 COMMUNICATION MANAGEMENT 569.13 CUSTOMER READINESS 579.14 VENDOR MANAGEMENT 5710. TOOLS 5810.1 COMMON PROJECT MANAGEMENT APPLICATIONS 5810.2 SPECIFICALLY DEVELOPED TOOLS FOR THE PROJECT 5810.3 DOCUMENTS 5811. ADAPTATION TO SPECIFIC PROJECT TYPE 5912. LEARNING 6012.1 PRE-PROJECT LEARNING 60

12.2 ON-GOING LEARNING 6112.3 POST PROJECT LEARNING AND LESSONS LEARNED 6113. SUCCESS FACTORS 6113.1 PROJECT MISSION 6213.2 TOP-MANAGEMENT SUPPORT 6213.3 PROJECT SCHEDULE/PLAN 6313.4 CLIENT CONSULTATION 6313.5 PERSONNEL 6313.6 TECHNICAL TASKS 6413.7 CLIENT ACCEPTANCE 6413.8 MONITORING AND FEEDBACK 6413.9 COMMUNICATION 6513.10 TROUBLE-SHOOTING 6514. MAJOR PROBLEMS AND CHANGES 6514.1 MAJOR PROBLEMS 6514.2 CHANGES 6615. CRITICAL EVALUATION 6716. RECOMMENDATIONS 7017. CASE STUDY ANALYSIS LESSONS LEARNED 72APPENDICES 1ORGANIZATION CHART 1INTERVIEW NOTES WITH PROJECT PARTICIPANTS 1

ABBREVIATIONSDescription List Your ALIASES Below Abbreviation UsedCompany 1 Vancouver Banking Group VBGCompany 2 New Amsterdam Securities NASProject Name New Amsterdam Securities Technology Integration NASTIProduct Name PowerTrade PTDeliverable Disaster Recovery Facility DRLocation 1 Uptown, Manhattan (VBG US) UTLocation 2 Wall Street, Manhattan (NAS) WSProject Manager 1 Project Manager (VBG US) PMProject Manager 2 Project Manager (VBG US) PM2Project Coordinator Project Coordinator PROJ.CRDSystem Administrator System Administrator (formerly NAS) SALeader of System Administrators group Leader of System Administrators group (formerly NAS) LSA


3/36

1: Executive SummaryStart the case study with an Executive Summary that can be used for organizational learning.Make this section compelling enough such that an executive will want to read your case study.

1.1 Company and Industry DescriptionGive a brief history of the company and the industry.

Vancouver Banking Group (VBG) is a growing global financial services company headquartered in Vancouver, Canada. VBG had a significant presence in New York and

decided to bolster its capital markets portfolio with a purchase of Wall Streetbroker-dealer called New Amsterdam Securities (NAS).

1.2 Project DescriptionGive a brief description of the project.

VBG had experience with prior acquisitions and knew it would realize significantcost savings by reducing technology spending, if it merges NAS IT infrastructur

e with its own. NAS Technology Integration (NASTI) project was created to convert NAS desktops, servers, telephones, network and PowerTrade (PT) trading environment back-end to VBG standards and merge them with VBG systems and support structures. A disaster recovery environment would also be created for NAS systems,which previously did not exist.

1.3 Case Study FindingsSummarize the main points in your case study.

The NASTI integration project was successful because it was planned, executed, monitored, controlled and completed well. The project was an early majority. According to Levitts whole project framework it was a generic product. Customertype was internal according to the TALC. This project was typical to the organization and only involved incremental change and addition to the family, making it a derivative project according to the W&C framework. The Shenhar UCP classification places NASTI into medium uncertainty due to previous experience with similar projects, and an array complexity because it entailed upgrading multiple systems, all of which had multiple subcomponents. Pace was regular because some other projects took priority. Careful planning and successful completion were more important than finishing a project in a short time. Corporate, business, andoperations strategies were clearly stated and aligned. The project has achieved

competitive advantage. The projects strategy was to achieve cost advantage.This was done by leveraging operational efficiencies, incorporating strict corporate standards, and realizing cost-savings. The NASTI project aimed to succeedin two dimensions: impact on business and building for the future. The competitive advantage was pursued relentlessly and strategically.1.4 Critical Evaluations and RecommendationsDescribe your top three recommendations in prioritized order, why they are important and how they can be implemented.

NASTI was completed successfully but not flawlessly. VBG should concentrate on the following three areas to improve future projects.1. Capacity planning. NASTI ran into delays when it became apparent that existing UT data center couldnt support an addition of 110 new servers. Capacity planning is a required discipline that VBG needs to follow meticulously and routinely. Better project planning is also needed to avoid such pitfalls in the future.2. Lessons Learned. Lessons learned were not documented this is a majoroversight. This documentation should be created for every project, updated throughout the projects life and made searchable and available and to the entire organization. Lessons learned help avoid repeating old mistakes and accelerate fu


4/36

ture success by mapping out prior paths to it.3. PM presence on site. VBG is a global organization that leveraged its Canadian project management talent for NASTI. While this didnt seem problematicat first, a careful analysis of the project shows that having the PM on site would have prevented some mistakes, increased PMs availability to the team and created efficiencies. Having a PM on site of the project is highly beneficial.1.5 ConclusionWhat conclusions can be drawn from this case study?

NASTI was completed successfully. It owes its success to the following factors.The project was well planned out. It had strong support of the sponsor and th

e upper management. Project goals were well defined and understood by all the project participants. There was good communication between the project management team and the project participants. The latter were highly skilled professionals, knowledgeable in their field and highly committed to teamwork, knowledge sharing and project success. The project was well executed.

2: Data Sources, References, Method of AnalysisThis is a critical section. It should be short, but clear. Describe your sourc

es of information people and documents, how these sources were used, and yourmethod of analysis.

2.1 PeopleIdentify the interviewees. Include a list of the people who provided information about the project it is not necessary to include their names, instead, include their position or role in the project, how long they involved, how long werethe interviews. You must talk to the Project Sponsor and Project Manager. Youshould also interview some Project Team Members, Customers, Functional Managers,

and Vendors. Use these titles throughout the case study. Do not use real namesor fictitious names for people. Identify people by their title. Insert additional lines if there was more than one person that held the same title on the project. Number the title holders Project Manager 1 versus Project Manager 2. The more

interviews you include, the better. You should document the dates and durationsof your interviews. You must include copies of your handwritten interview notesin the Appendix.

TITLE YEARS ININDUSTRY YEARS INCOMPANY MONTHS ONPROJECT INTERVIEW DATES (MM/DD)(DURATION - MINUTES)PROJECT SPONSOR MM/DD(NN)PROJECT MANAGER 14 8 39 02/23: 35MIN, 03/25: EMAIL 04/10: 75MINSYSTEM ADMINISTRATOR 10 2 21 02/20: 25MIN, 03/25: EMAIL 04/01: 90MINLEADER OF SYSTEM ADMINISTRATORS 22 11 39 02/20: 35MIN, 02/27: EMAIL 03/20: 15MINPROJ. CRD 10 3.5 36 03/19 E-MAILFUNCTIONAL MANAGERVENDOROTHER (DESCRIBE)

2.2 Information and ReferencesInclude a table of project documents, meeting minutes, e-mails, guidelines, articles, books and other references that you were allowed to review or that you will reference in the case study. Do not include copies of these documents in thiscase study. Indicate Kept Up-to-Date by Yes or No, by whether there were revisions. Assess Usability as Yes or No, if the document was readable, clear and detailed. Assess Value with Yes or No, by asking the interviewees if they found the document valuable. If you did not see a specific document and y


5/36

ou felt it should have been made available to you indicate MISSING in the Kept Up-to-Date column.

DOCUMENT TITLE DATE ISSUED LENGTH KEPT UP-TO-DATE? ASSESS USABILITYASSESS VALUEMOVE PLAN STRATEGY N/A 12 YES YES YESSTATUS REPORTS DIFFERRENT DATES 1-5 YES YES YESMIGRATION TASKS AND SCHEDULE DIFFERRENT DATES 8-20 YES YESYESCONSOLIDATED ACTION ITEMS DIFFERRENT DATES 4-13 YES YESYESINTEGRATION PLAN 06/2006 26 YES YES YESMEETING NOTES DIFFERRENT DATES 1-5 YES YES SOMEWHATINFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 08/2006 35 YES YES YESISSUES LOG 01/2007 8 YES YES YES

2.3 Method of WorkDescribe the kind and type of data you collected. How was this data collected?Describe your method of analysis. Mention the theoretical background for your a

nalysis, the frameworks that were useful for your work, and their references. Especially include those that were not part of the syllabus of this course.

The data that I collected was administrative documentation prepared and providedto me by the PROJ.CRD. These documents tracked planning and scheduling of move

s and migrations. The data listed in the consolidated action items recorded allthe changes that were done on the project and it also described how the executi

on process worked. Status reports and meeting notes provided project status, and facilitated monitoring and controlling the project. The theoretical background for my analysis and the frameworks that were useful for this case study came from Dr. Polis dissertation and other articles that were provided throughout the

semester. All other information was extracted from the documents that were collected for my case study and through class discussions.3: Project Description Background and History

3.1 BackgroundDescribe the environment and the background of the project. Why was it done? What was the motivation? How was it initiated? Who came up with the idea? What

happened before the project was initiated? How did the idea evolve? Who pushed it? How did it turn into a formal project? How long did it take to turn it into formal project?

In November 2005 Vancouver Banking Group made financial news headlines when it announced its acquisition of New Amsterdam Securities, a Wall Street broker-dealer known for its electronic trading platform PowerTrade. This purchase allowed

VBG to expand its US presence and create a more complete and compelling capitalmarkets product portfolio.

It was determined from the start that all technology operations of NAS should bemerged and folded into the existing infrastructure of the larger VBG. This wou

ld include the migration of the PT back-end and supporting infrastructure, as well as desktops, servers, networks and telecommunications equipment. This wouldresult in many operational efficiencies and financial benefits. Firstly NAS would move into the Uptown (UT) office building used by VBG. This would allow forsignificant savings in network and market data feed costs. Standardization on common technology and procedures would result in fewer technicians needed to support the environment. Future technology expenditures on upgrades, licenses and new products would cover a unified larger organization and would result in vendor

discounts. In addition to all of these benefits, financial companies are boundby a myriad of regulations from several federal and state agencies, as well as

industry associations. Maintaining one technology platform removes a lot of complexity from compliance with all the laws and regulations.


6/36

VBG was a big and long established firm; it had significant experience with previous mergers and acquisitions. Benefits discussed above were already realized in previous deals and didnt require a long feasibility study in this case. Once

the acquisition of NAS was completed in January 2006, Capital Markets divisions management contacted the project management team and created the project withthe above stated goals. The project was officially sponsored by the Managing Director (MD) of the Equities division.

3.2 ObjectiveWhat was the objective of the project result (product, process, service, improvement, etc.)? What does the customer or user need? How will the project resultbe used and serve this need? What are the expected advantages from the project?

The objective of this project was to migrate phones, desktops, servers and networks to VBG standards, consolidate NAS Wall Street (WS) data center at UT and facilitate the setup of a DR site. The project was completed strategically; the move strategy was in place and consisted of four main objectives to achieve finalgoals: Migrate end-user equipment and move the WS data center to UT

Setup a DR facility as part of the move Minimize affect on clients Minimize risk to clients and to the reputation of VBG

The objective of the project result was to move technology operations and support to the parent companys location. It was extremely important that this move happen as transparently as possible to minimize any down time or disruptions to the users and customers of NAS and PT. As discussed in 3.1 this would result insignificant cost savings in the IT budget. Migration to VBG standards would also prevent a creation of the patchwork of technologies that are difficult to support, upgrade and keep in compliance.Due to federal regulations and the need for the resiliency of the business, it was also imperative to create a functional DR site. This site would house redundant systems, connections and office space and had to support full operations ofPT in case of any problems at the UT facility, such as a terrorist attack, power

or network outages, flood, fire or any other natural or man-caused disaster.

3.3 Detailed DescriptionInclude a detailed description of the projects enfolding history, process, andtimeline. Describe main events, milestones, decisions, difficulties, and crises, and the way they were handled. Include interesting and relevant quotes as expressed by interviewees.

Ever since the purchase negotiations it was clear to the top management of bothfirms that the purchase of NAS would involve tight integration with VBG on all levels and departments, including and especially IT. When the purchase was completed there was full buy-in from the management for the NASTI project.During the project execution phase it became evident that a lot of existing infrastructure at UT would need to be expanded before it can support the added requirements of PT. New desktops and phones would need to be purchased for all NAS employees as their original equipment didnt meet VBG standards. Network routers

and switches needed to be purchased and new fiber and copper wiring needs to belaid to handle all the extra traffic. The most challenging part of the expansi

on involved the UT data center. The existing one was not capable of handling about 110 new servers needed, not to mention future organic growth. Per SA: Expanding the data center was very challenging. Building out the extra space required construction work and permission from the building. More power, cooling andUPS (Uninterruptible Power Supply) capacity had to be installed. New server racks had to be purchased and installed. All of this was expensive and time consuming and had a potential of causing significant delays to the project. A separate project was created to handle the data center expansion.


7/36

3.4 Major MilestonesInclude no more than 10 of the major project milestones. List them from the earliest to the last.

MILESTONE DATE (MM/DD)1 PHASE 1 PARTIAL DESKTOP INTEGRATION

SECURITY, LEGAL AND COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTSFIREWALLED NETWORK ACCESSVBG LOGINS AND CITRIX ACCESS 1/9/06 7/14/06

2 PHASE 2 DESKTOP & PHONE MIGRATION 2/6/06 9/26/073 PHASE 3 PT MOVE

NETWORKMARKET DATAFACILITIESSERVERSDISASTER RECOVERY PLANNING, IMPLEMENTATION & TESTINGCLIENT & USER PT MIGRATION 1/9/06 12/12/08

4 PHASE 4 NAS DATA CENTER DECOMMISSIONING & CLEANUP 1/5/09 1/30/09

4: Product and Project CharacteristicsCharacterize the project according to different classification schema.

4.1 Project ScopeWhich functions of the organization were involved on this project? Which functions were included in the core team? Which functions were included in the extended

team? Which functions were called upon infrequently? Which functions did not participate in this project? Should any of those functions have been represented on this project? Why were they excluded? Were any outside organizations or consultants used? What was the extent of their role versus the role of internal staff?

Did all of the functions and consultants participate in the project from the beginning? If not, why not?

13 IT business units worked on NASTI project. Projects successful completion depended on the following teams: information security, helpdesk, storage area network, network, sever, telecommunications, desktop, service quality management, PT development, data center, business requirements, business continuity planningand project management. Three project managers, information security team, server team, business continuity planning team, PT developers, and data center teamcomprised the core team. Storage area network team, business requirements team,

and desktop team made up the extended team. Functions of facilities, helpdeskanalysts, service quality management team, business requirements team and telecommunications team were called upon infrequently. All the business units from NAS were incorporated into VBG, but their involvement was not necessary in the integration project. As stated by the system admin all relevant areas of IT wereinvolved.Two consultants were hired temporarily for the maturing phase of the project. Project coordinator consultant was hired to assist with planning and coordinating

administrative activities of the project. System administrator consultant washired to write scripts for desktop migration, but was removed from his duties shortly, due to the quality of work that he produced. Some of his scripts were used, but most of the desktop migration process wound up being manual.

4.2 Project Size and Duration

TOTAL BUDGET IN US$ ~4MMDURATION IN MONTHS ~39NUMBER OF PEOPLE INVOLVEDAT THE PEAK? 44ON AVERAGE? 30


8/36

NUMBER OF ORGANIZATIONS AND SUBCONTRACTORS INVOLVEDDOMESTIC? 13GLOBAL? 0

4.3 Technology Adoption Life Cycle (TALC)

4.3.1 TALC Customer TypeApply Rogers Technology Adoption Life Cycle. Was the customer an Internal or External customer? Identify and describe the customers Customer Type: Innovator,Early Adopter, Early Majority, Late Majority or Laggard. Was the project for the government, industrial, or consumer market? Was there a formal customer who contracted for the project? Was the project internally funded? What were the sources of funding?

The customer was internal. Customer type was early majority. One of the main reasons VBG was attracted to the NAS is because of their trading software

(PT) that was well established and well supported. Prior to NAS purchase VBG didnt have their own trading platform and had to do their trading through othercompanies. That was costly and the company wanted to have its own solution to c

ut costs and facilitate better customization. PT was a solution they were looking for. PT had almost all the features VBG wanted and it was easy to use. Thisproject was industrial. Project was internally funded by the equity division.Internal budget was the source of funding.

4.3.2 TALC User Deployment StrategyDescribe the user deployment strategy. Were there several clients or users? List

the users in the sequence that they were deployed to. Identify the Customer Type of each of the users. Was the Deployment Strategy consistent with Rogers Technology Adoption Life Cycle diffusion of innovation theory? For example, was thefirst user deployed to an Innovator, was the second user an Early Adopter, etc.Was a user deployed to out of sequence? Why? Did this cause any problems for the

project? Could that user just as easily have been deployed to in the proper TALC sequence?

The Deployment Strategy of PT application to VBG users and end-user equipment (PCs and telephones) to NAS employees was consistent with Rogers Technology Adoption Life Cycle diffusion of innovation. The bulk of NASTI project including datacenter, server, network and telecomm back-end migration wasnt consistent withTALC. It was almost completely transparent to the users and therefore didnt need to follow TALC.PT Deployment Strategy followed TALC, see chart below:USER TALC TYPE FEATURES INCLUDEDINNOVATOR PT DEVELOPERSEARLY ADOPTER SYSTEM ADMINISTRATORSEARLY MAJORITY FUNCTIONAL MANAGERS/TESTERSLATE MAJORITY END-USERS

4.3.3 TALC User FeaturesDid different user types get different versions? Were different features included that appealed to the different user types? Provide at least two features for each User Type. Determine what the features would or will be for each User Typeregardless of current project stage.

Everyone got the same version of PT software and equipment. PT was a very mature and comprehensive product. While some changes were made to the product, suchas changing names, logos and adding Canadian exchange feeds and trading, they were outside the scope of this project. These changes or feature updates were handled early on as part of the SDLC or Systems Development Live Cycle. NASTI wasonly concerned with infrastructure integration, not application development.


9/36

USER TALC TYPE FEATURES INCLUDEDINNOVATOR NAS PT WAS RENAMED INTO VBG PT AND ITS ICONS & LOGO WERE

CHANGEDEARLY ADOPTER CANADIAN ECHANGE FEEDS WERE ADDED EXPORTING AND PLUGIN OPTIONS WERE UPDATED FOR APPLICATIONS LIKE MS EXCEL

TO PROPERLY SUPPORT THESE FEEDSEARLY MAJORITY TRADING ON CANADIAN EXCHANGES WAS ADDEDLATE MAJORITY NO SPECIAL FEATURES ADDED

4.3.4 Identification of TALC RisksDid this discussion of TALC elicit discussion of potential risk identified by the project participants? Was that risk identified at the time of the project? Ifnot, why not? What was done to mitigate these risks?Justify and include Stakeholder quotes to support your TALC Risk discussion.

As stated earlier, the bulk of the NASTI project didnt follow TALC as it didntneed to. There were no TALC risks.

4.4 Levitts Whole Product4.4.1 Whole Product - Product ScopeUse Levitts Whole Product Model. What kind of work was done? What was included? What was not included? Was it a development of a new product? Did it involve building just a prototype? Or building the production facility and process for the product? Did the results/deliverables of the project require changes to the product, the process, or both? How many items were produced on this project?

Describe the product/service, documentation, training, equipment, or other deliverables.

According to Levitts Whole Product Model the integration systems projects, suchas NASTI are called generic product for the reasons below:

Bring Together Components or SystemsMake Them Cooperate ProperlyAchieve Desired FunctionalityPhased Implementation

o Phase 1 dealt with Day 1 compliance/legal IT requirementso Phase 2 addressed the desktop integrationo Phase 3 dealt with moving the servers/data centre to VBGChanges to PT and the integration of PT software was not included in this project. All the VBG standards and existing technologies were retained; no new products or processes were introduced. The integration project produced a single standard environment in one location. Combined environment removed overlaps and associated expenses and offered systems that are easier to support, upgrade and keep legally compliant. There were not any changes to the processes or to the product. NASTI integration was successful due to careful planning and execution. The project deliverables included successful integration of NAS technology infrastructure into VBGs technology infrastructure. Per PPOJ. CRD: The project produced savings in the areas of salaries/headcount, facilities, market data, data center, telephone and computer equipment. Employees from NAS were integrated into

VBG employee directory and new location maps of where employees are located were designed. Lessons learned were not produced officially, but should have been.4.4.2 Whole Product - FeaturesWhat features were included in each of the Whole Product packages?Provide at least two features for each Whole Product category.Determine what the features would or will be for a category regardless of current project stage.

LEVITTS WHOLE PRODUCT FEATURES INCLUDED


10/36

GENERIC PRODUCT MIGRATION OF NAS DATA CENTER TO VBG UT UNIFIED IT ENVIRONMENT UNDER VBG STANDARDSEXPECTED PRODUCT MINIMUM DISRUPTIONS TO CLIENTS & USERS MINIMUM RISK TO CLIENTS AND TO THE REPUTATION OF VBGAUGMENTED PRODUCT EASIER TO SUPPORT, UPGRADE AND KEEP LEGALLY COMPLIANT COST SAVINGS FROM NETWORK AND MARKET DATA FEED CONSOLIDATION SETUP A DR FACILITY AS PART OF THE MOVEPOTENTIAL PRODUCT COST SAVINGS FROM REDUCED IT PERSONNEL COST SAVINGS FROM VENDORS ON LICENCES, FUTURE UPGRADES & NEW PURCHAES

4.5.1 Project Deliverable Life CycleDid the project deliverables go through each of the four distinct project types,

one project at a time or did the project deliverables go through multiple project types in a bundled project execution? Did this help or hinder the development

of the project deliverables? Did this help or hinder the customer acceptance ofthe project deliverables? Did this help or hinder the user acceptance of the pr

oject deliverables?

Per Dr. Polis dissertation Add-ons, new packaging, materials, cost-reduction or manufacturing efficiencies can result from this (derivative) type project. NASTI is a derivative project that involved an addition to (VBG IT) product family. The project deliverables did not go through the four distinct project types,

one life cycle at a time. The project deliverables did not go through multipleproject types in a bundled project execution. This didnt hinder the developme

nt of the project deliverables or their acceptance by the users or customers because NASTI was an internal project and involved only incremental change.4.5.2 Project Deliverable Life Cycle - FeaturesWhat features were included in each of the project types?Provide at least two features for each Project Life Cycle stage.Determine what the features would or will be for a stage regardless of current project stage.Were multiple project types attempted in this project?If yes, indicate which ones by placing an X in the first column.

PROJECT LIFE CYCLE FEATURES INCLUDEDR&D PROJECT BREAKTHROUGH PROJECT PLATFORM PROJECT DATA CENER MIGRATION

DRDERIVATIVE PROJECT TELECOM

DESKTOP SERVER NETWORK

4.6 Shenhar UCP ClassificationYou MUST justify and include Stakeholder quotes to support your classifications.

4.6.1 Technological UncertaintyRelative to your company classify the Technological Uncertainty of this projectas Low Tech Medium-Tech High-Tech Super High-TechJustify and include Stakeholder quotes to support your Uncertainty classification.


11/36

NASTI was a medium-tech project. VBG had experience with purchasing smaller firms and integrating them into its operations. On the other hand, NAS was a high-tech financial company and their PT system was technology-heavy and its integration would involve a certain degree of complexity and risk.The interview with LSA: There was no doubt that NAS systems work or that they meet basic regulatory standards. What was not clear, was which parts of PT and its infrastructure would have to be changed to comply with VBG standards or whatvariances would have to be granted or new standards introduced. Whatever changes would come, all systems would have to work well and be interoperable.4.6.2 Complexity or System ScopeRelative to your company classify the Complexity of this project as Assembly or Component System ArrayJustify and include Stakeholder quotes to support your Complexity classification.

NASTI involved array complexity. It entailed upgrading of multiple systems suchas telephony, networking and server operations. Each of these systems has had

multiple subcomponents: software, hardware, networking, licensing, facilities, etcFrom follow up e-mail from LSA: Integrating each of these systems had its own complexity, take our servers for example: VBG standardizes on IBM servers, all of

NAS servers were from HP. To reduce complexity of support and upgrades, VBG wanted all servers to be replaced with IBM models. For Phase I of the project 40-something IBM servers were purchased and configured for PT. At that point, it was expected that HP servers that were freed up could be sold back, so that moreIBM servers could be purchased. It turned out that we were offered very littlemoney for our existing HP servers and that this trade-in would not be cost effective. It was decided to keep our newer and more powerful HP servers for the second phase of the migration and simply to upgrade their memory and to configure them for VBG operating system standards. Other systems had their own complexities and problems.4.6.3 PaceRelative to your company classify the Pace of this project as Regular Fast Competitive Time-Critical Blitz-CriticalJustify and include Stakeholder quotes to support your Pace classification.

The pace for NASTI was regular. VBG expected NAS to be integrated with its ownIT infrastructure as soon as possible, but some other projects were more important. Per LSA: As the project was getting started, VBGs US operations were growing and were involved in multiple other projects. Some of the other projects took priority and at times resources were not available because they were involved

on other projects. Integrating NAS did not go exactly according to plan or schedule.4.6.4 Identification of UCP RisksDid this discussion of UCP elicit discussion of potential risk identified by the

project participants? Was that risk identified at the time of the project? If not, why not? What was done to mitigate these risks?Justify and include Stakeholder quotes to support your UCP Risk discussion.

Risk breakdown structure was developed and potential risks were identified priorto the PT system move. VBG had vast experience with integration projects of th

is nature. They knew the complexity of the move and what needs to be done to move such a massive system as a data center. VBG also wanted to get PT integrated

and running promptly. Their biggest concern was delay of the project. To mitigate the risk of delay they planned to have enough experienced staff at both loc


12/36

ations, production and back up equipment, ensured that all paperwork is completed, their lease does not expire before the move. VBG was also concerned with the

equipment move. They knew that if equipment is damaged or lost in transit, they will need time to restore applications and data onto spare servers in UT. They did equipment moves on Friday nights to mitigate the risk of such occurrence.From the phone interview with PROJ.CRD on Complexity, Pace and Uncertainty:Complexity:Before PT servers could be moved to UT there were many prerequisites. The network had to be setup in UT. Data center and its racks, power, cooling and UPS had

to be expanded. Any delays in these tasks would result in project delays, andin fact they did.Pace:There was a risk of delays. PT was a production system in a constant state of change due to the following reasons:1. Addition/deletion of firms and clients, and changes in client trading patterns2. New features, functions, and capabilities were continuously being addedto the system3. External requirements (especially those affecting market data bandwidths

and format) required the system to be enhanced and/or reconfigured as required.In general, these requirements took precedence over other move plans. Items 1 and 3 were largely beyond PMs control and had to be accommodated as necessary.Likewise the rollout of new features and functions was mostly not delayed to accommodate move plans; rather move plans had to be adjusted to accommodate various

business requirements.The only way to mitigate risk associated with delay was to plan for continuation

of existing WS operations as they were, until completion of migration was definitely in sight. No contracts or leases were terminated prior to the end of themove.Technological uncertainty:There was also a risk of damage to the equipment during the physical move. Once

the servers were removed from WS data center they were shipped by currier to UT. They were bubble wrapped to protect against bumps. However this was not fool

proof as a bad road accident could possibly destroy the servers and/or data onthem during the transit. To mitigate that risk all moves were done on Friday evenings. If the servers were destroyed during the move SAs would have had all weekend to build spare servers in UT and restore data to them from daily backups.

4.7 Wheelwright and Clark (W&C)

4.7.1 Product ChangeRelative to your company classify the product change required on this project as: Derivatives or Enhancements to Existing Product Addition to Product Family Next Generation Product New Core ProductJustify and include Stakeholder quotes to support your Product Change classification.

As I found out when I interviewed the LSA, VBG was already involved in equities trading and it used the trading systems of outside vendors and partners.

Hence PT was going to become either a replacement or a complimentary trading platform for several departments within the Equities division. This places NASTI

project into an addition to product family category.

4.7.2 Process ChangeRelative to your company classify the process change required on this project as Incremental Process Change Single Department Process Change


13/36

Next Generation Process New Core ProcessJustify and include Stakeholder quotes to support your Process Change classification.

As previously mentioned VBG was experienced with migration and integration projects such as NASTI. While every project of this nature has its own specifics and intricacies the overall processes of the move and integration are verysimilar. Therefore this project involved incremental process change. 4.7.3 Project TypeHighlight your classifications for 4.6.1 Product Change and 4.6.2 Process Change

on the Wheelwright and Clark framework, on the following page.

Which Project Type do they map into? Derivative (incremental change in an existing product/service) Platform (new generation of an existing product/service) Breakthrough (new to the company product/service)Justify and include Stakeholder quotes to support your Project Type mapping.

NASTI product and process changes make it a derivative project. The product (PT) was to become a cost-reduced version of the systems that were already in use in VBG. Some new features and functions unique to PT were going to get introduced to VBG and branding was going to change from NAS PT and their logos to VBG PTand their logos. Other systems were going to follow existing VBG standards.The process also involved incremental changes. Most of the work was done by existing employees of both firms and only a couple of consultants had to be hired for this project.

4.7.4 White Space ProjectIf the Project Type fell into one of the White Space Project Types on the Wheelwright and Clark framework, which Project Type would you suggest that the project

be moved to? Which dimension, Product Change or Process Change would need to be modified? What affect would that have had on the project, customers, development, scope, etc.

This project fits neatly a definition of derivative type and is not a white space project.

4.7.5 Identification of W&C RisksDid this discussion of W&C elicit discussion of potential risk identified by the

project participants? Was that risk identified at the time of the project? If not, why not? What was done to mitigate these risks?Justify and include Stakeholder quotes to support your W&C Risk discussion.

There were a few features and functions available in existing VBG trading systems that were not available in PT. There was a risk that a lack of these functions would make PT unacceptable to the user base. Business studies were conductedto mitigate this risk by identifying features that were missing or could use improvement and adding them to the future PT releases.From the phone interview with PROJ.CRD:PT was a dynamic, growing product and making changes to it was standard practice. We performed business analyses on our existing systems and compared currentfunctions and future requirements with PT capabilities. One of the problem areas we identified was that VBG, a Canadian financial company did trading on the Canadian exchanges and the PT did not have hat capability. This became a priority feature request for PT and was implemented in one of the major update releases

several months later.Some process improvements involved risk as well. New technology from VMware was


14/36

used to consolidate and migrate some servers. While this technology was maturein the marketplace, it was relatively new to both technology teams and carried

higher than usual risks. These risks were mitigated by creating a new VMware specific backup process and leaving migrated servers at WS data center on standbylonger in case of any problems.From the interview with SA:

VMware ESX allowed us to migrate infrastructure servers quickly without rebuilding them from scratch. However it did have a couple of glitches and we lost aprint server one evening during a basic patch-and-reboot cycle. It was a good thing we had the old print server still racked and ready at WS. We powered it on

immediately and suffered no loss of service.4.7.6 Wheelwright and Clark Framework Project Type Map

Wheelwright and ClarkFramework

More

Product ChangeLowNew Core

Product Next GenerationProduct Addition ToProduct Family Derivatives andEnhancements.

More New CoreProcess BreakthroughProjectNew CoreProductNew CoreProcess White SpaceProjectNext GenerationProductNew CoreProcess White SpaceProjectAddition ToProduct FamilyNew CoreProcess White SpaceProjectDerivatives andEnhancementsNew CoreProcess

Process

Change NextGenerationProcess White SpaceProjectNew Core


15/36

ProductNext GenerationProcess PlatformProjectNext GenerationProductNext GenerationProcess PlatformProjectAddition ToProduct Family Next GenerationProcess PlatformProjectDerivatives andEnhancementsNext GenerationProcess

SingleDepartment

Upgrade White SpaceProjectNew CoreProductSingleDepartmentUpgrade PlatformProjectNext GenerationProductSingleDepartmentUpgrade DerivativeProjectAddition ToProduct Family SingleDepartmentUpgrade DerivativeProjectDerivatives andEnhancementsSingleDepartmentUpgrade

Less

V IncrementalChange White SpaceProjectNew CoreProductIncrementalChange PlatformProjectNext GenerationProductIncrementalChange DerivativeProject


16/36

Addition ToProduct Family IncrementalChange DerivativeProjectDerivatives andEnhancementsIncrementalChange

5. Project Success Measures and Business Perspective

5.1 Business PerspectiveHow was project success assessed? What was the business perspective of the product? Was there a business plan? Who developed it?The project success was based more than on triple constraints, it was based on efficiency, impact on business and most importantly it was based on building forthe future. Per PM: The business perspective of the integration project will be known in a year or two. Project was recently completed, of course we and ourtop management want to see immediate results, but everyone understands that reve

nues, ROI can be measured after a year or two after the project completion. Wewere already able to reduce facilities costs and realize market data savings. We also created a DR system and as well as completed data centre & PC integration. VBG head of North America technology operations, representative of the headof the Equities division and the PT architect have developed the business plan.

5.2 Overall SuccessWhat was the overall perception of different stakeholders about the projects success? Did they view the project as an unqualified success, unqualified failure,

or as a mixture of success and failure? Justify their perceptions with quotes.

From the interviews that Ive conducted with LSA, PM, PROJ.CRD and SA it is evident that the stakeholders were pleased with the project results.LSA:I believe that the project was a success. NASTI did pay off in the short-term and I am sure it will pay off in the long term. The new trading application

that VBG acquired from NAS has great potential and will meet long-term goals such as revenue, ROI, etc.PM:Project success should not only be measured by savings or profits it generated, but also by the talent that VBG has acquired. Project architect and his team provided great support during the migration and met Project Sponsors every demand, even if it was a last minute change.PROJ.CRD:I believe that project was successful based on the speech from a Project Sponsor and the generous bonus the team has received every year during the project and after the project completion.SA:This project has met all the goals. Not all the goals were completed within

the scheduled timeline or on budget, but that was not the priority. Building for the future was the priority. Merging NAS into VBG and positioning the combined company for future success was essential.5.3 Explicit or Implicit ObjectivesWere the Success Dimension objectives explicitly or implicitly determined up-front (i.e., were the expectations set in advance)? Was there a discrepancy about the Success Dimensions between the interviewees? What were they? Describe problems this caused during project execution.

Success Dimensions were determined up-front. The main goals were to prepare forthe future and minimize the impact on the business. From the quotes in Section5.2 it seems that everyone was on the same page. Success dimension objectives

were a part of the business plan and were presented to the team members.5.4 Success Dimension Objectives and ResultsObjectives: What were the target objectives for each of the selected Success Dimensions?


17/36

Results: In retrospect, how did the project do on each of the Success Dimensions?

Success Dimension Objectives ResultsSuccess Dimension #1 EfficiencySchedule Goals 12/2007 1/30/2009Budget Goals $3.7MM ~$4.4MMOtherSuccess Dimension #2 Impact on the CustomerMeeting Requirements N/A N/ASatisfying Customer N/A N/ADelivering Expected Quality N/A N/AOtherSuccess Dimension #3 Impact On The BusinessMeeting Business Goals NAS Technology Integration Completed SuccessfullyExpected Revenue N/A N/AProfitability/ROI/ROE


18/36


19/36

Project strategy was a part of the project plan. Corporate, business, and operations strategies were in alignment and were clearly expressed and defined to management and team members. There was no marketing strategy. The strategies were

communicated from top-bottom. VBG head of North America technology operations,representative of the head of the Equities division and the PT architect have c

ommunicated the project mission and the project strategy to the functional managers through the business plan. Once the lead project manager was selected for the project, the project strategy was clearly defined and communicated to all the

stakeholders. The project strategy was not part of a separate formal document;it was a part of the project plan. PROJ.CRD stated: I did not want to leave a

ny of the team members in the dark. I believe that everyone in the team neededto know that the project had to be completed strategically and what steps had to

be undertaken to successfully integrate NAS into VBG. Project strategy was aligned explicitly.6.5 Strategy and Competitive Advantage/ValueWas the Project Manager involved in strategy setting and strategic planning which lead to the project launch? Who did the strategic analysis, and who was involved? Was the customer part of the process? Was the competitive advantage/value

clearly defined? Was it clearly articulated and written down? Was it well communicated to management and the Project Team? Was the Project Team aware of thecompetitive advantage/value, understood it, and accepted it?

The Project managers were directly involved in the strategic planning. VBG headof North America technology operations, representative of the head of the equit

ies division and the PT architect were involved in strategy setting. Strategicanalysis was done by the three project managers who participated in this project. Functional managers and the customer (sponsor) head of the Equities division were involved in the strategic analysis and were able to do modifications to strategic analysis. The competitive advantage was a part of strategy. Project strategy specified what the competitive advantage was and how it would be achieved. Per PROJ.CRD: Everyone who was involved in NASTI was given access to the projects SharePoint site and encouraged to read the project plan, which includedwell-defined project objectives, project mission, and project strategy. Each team member, functional manager and project manager knew and understood what needs

to be done to achieve overall success and competitive advantage.

6.6 Project VisionWas there a project vision a statement that expressed an emotional appeal of the project and its advantage? What was it? Was such a vision clearly articulated, by whom, when, and how? Did the vision change during the project? When and

why? In retrospect, if there was no stated project vision or you disagree withthe published vision, how would you articulate such a vision (i.e., include you

r Claim Statement here)?

Formal project vision was never articulated.My vision statement would have read:Information Technology group is a key partner in achieving VBGs vision of becoming the worlds premier financial institution. As VBG grows its business we will leverage our size and resources to keep IT costs down, operations streamlinedand systems consistent with standards throughout the enterprise.

6.7 Claim Statement Using Crossing the Chasm Style

For VBG Equities managementWho are dissatisfied with high IT costs and weary of needlessly dealing

with multiple complex systemsWe offer a single standard environmentThat removes overlaps and associated expenses, and offers systems that a

re easy to support, upgrade and keep legally compliant


20/36

Unlike a current non-standard environment at NASVBG technology infrastructure is proven, scalable and ready for growth a

nd accommodation of NAS

6.8 Claim Statement Using Revised Project Strategy Style

For VBG Equities managementWho are dissatisfied with high IT costs and weary of needlessly dealing

with multiple complex systemsWe offer a single standard environment in one locationThat removes overlaps and associated expenses, and offers systems that a

re easy to support, upgrade and keep legally compliantUnlike a current non-standard environment at NASVBG technology infrastructure is proven, scalable and after a data cente

r expansion will be ready for growth and accommodation of NAS

6.9 Strategic FocusThis is a CRITICAL section of Project Strategy. What was the strategic focus of

the project: Cost Advantage, Customer Focus, Product Advantage, or Time Advanta

ge? Describe in detail the Strategic Focus. Were there Strategic Foci? Describe them in detail. If you could choose only one Strategic Focus, what should ithave been? Was the Strategic Focus clearly associated with the competitive advantage or the value? How was it articulated, by whom, and when? Were there specific guidelines for behavior and decisions that would support the strategic focus? What where they? Was there a clear project policy that supports the strategic focus? What was it? How was the policy communicated and explained to Project

Team members? Did the Project Manager and Project Team members manage the project with the strategic focus in mind explicitly or implicitly? What actions did the Project Manager take to guarantee strategic project success? What actions did others take to guarantee the strategic focus? How would you characterizethe behavior that was needed to properly support the strategic focus? Was thisbehavior present?

NASTIs strategic focus was on cost advantage. Cost advantage was obtained by achieving operational efficiencies and realizing significant savings. VBG wanted

to integrate NAS IT functions with its own while incorporating strict corporatestandards and conventions. One uniform platform helped to reduce network and m

arket data feed costs, as well as the number of support personnel. Additionallyall future upgrades: new hardware, software and licenses will cover one expande

d organization and will result in vendor discounts. The project was recently completed and is expected to pay for itself within three years and yield additional savings of more than $1 MM per year after that. Strategic focus was associated with the competitive advantage and was articulated by the project sponsor. All the project guidelines and policies were communicated to the team members by their respective functional managers and the project managers. There was no clearly defined document for behavior and decisions that would support strategic focus. Project plan described what needs to be achieved at the project completion.

Project managers guided the team members through all the phases of the project. Team meetings, meeting minutes, status reports, work breakdown structure, statement of work and teleconferencing were used as communication tools by projectteam members.Strategic focus was managed explicitly. All PMs worked well together, they were

good team players, communicators and motivators and had experience with this type of projects. They kept communications channels open with all team members, solicited feedback, provided a lot of help and guidance and kept meticulous documentation that was shared with the entire team. Top management and functional managers had strong commitment to this project and their teams responded and worked hard to make this project a success, contributing long hours and on many occasions working on weekends doing server moves, workstation migrations, etc VBG and NAS employees were professionals and quickly learned to work well together.


21/36

Of course not everything went smoothly. Per PROJ.CRD: Once in a while some team members did butt heads or did not complete their tasks on time due to over commitment to other projects or other reasons. There were also times when we had to negotiate and beg some functional managers for resources. However a look at the big picture will show that everyone who worked on this project, managers, employees and consultants put in a good effort and effectively carried out this project to successful completion.As detailed above, the project management team was very dedicated and used every

tool at their disposal to successfully support the projects strategic focus.7. Project Spirit and Leadership

7.1 Organizational CultureWhat is the organizational culture within the home organization in which the project was executed? Is it a strong culture? Does top management emphasize culture? Does it act frequently to strengthen the organizational culture? and how?

NASTIs organizational structure was based on trust, teamwork and effective communication. Interests of stakeholders and clients took the priority. Top management has maintained an unautocratic approach. They were available when problems

came up. Project manager and functional managers were able to resolve all theconflicts when they arose in the team. Everyone on the team has developed strong and unified culture. PM, together with functional managers advised the entire

team on their first meeting that the team structure needs to be strong, that everyone has to strive for success of the project, and work together to achieve excellent results. Top management emphasized the importance of cooperative culture. Team members understood that their hard work is appreciated and will be rewarded. Team members received year-end bonuses, comp days for weekend work and praise and recognition from top management.

7.2 Project SpiritDid the project develop a separate culture a project spirit? What was it? How did it develop? Was it influenced by product vision? Did the project name play any role? How was the name chosen, and by whom? What was the attitude in the project? What actions did the Project Manager take to create and enhance project spirit? What actions did the Project Team take to enhance project spirit?How was top management involved? Were there project-specific newsletters, logos, slogans, coffee cups, tee shirts, picnics, pizza parties, etc.? What was theproject slogan? Include an image of the logo on the cover.

NASTI project did not develop a separate project spirit. It followed a familiarpattern for VBG. The project team had a common purpose and things were usuallydone in the spirit of cooperation. The project name did not have any significa

nce (NASTI is just an alias for this paper). It was chosen by the lead projectmanager, with the goal of accurately describing the purpose of the project NAS

Technology Integration. There were no project memorabilia, parties or slogans.Nonetheless the project had a get it done atmosphere and was a success. The

Project Manager used his expertise and leadership qualities to lead the project. The project team used a collaborative approach and relied on technical skills

to make this project a success. Top management showed commitment and support in directing NASTI.

7.3 PolicyWas there a specific policy that supported the strategy and spirit? What was it? Was it clearly articulated, by whom and when? What was the risk taking attitude and policy? Did it fit?

There was no specific policy supporting the strategy and spirit. The PM did a good job of articulating the project strategy and the IT professionals at both VBG and NAS understood the goals of the project, the need for its success, and their tasks and responsibilities to achieve that success. Because NASTI was a stan


22/36

dard project for VBG, team members did not have to take risks or do something that was not done before.

7.4 LeadershipHow was the Project Sponsor selected? How was the Project Manager selected? Who picked them? What was the criterion for selection? How much industry experience did they each have? How much experience did they have with this company? What management levels were they: executive, middle, first-level management or non-management. Was this the Project Managers first project? How much support did the Project Sponsor give? What were the leadership styles of the Project Manager and the Project Sponsor? What type of leadership actions did each take?

The Project Sponsor has selected the project because it was VBGs policy to fully integrate purchased companies and to leverage economies of scale. Keeping NAS

IT as a separated entity was not a cost efficient option. The Project Managerwas selected by the Project Sponsor. The Project Sponsor used to work with theProject Manager on previous projects. PM has also worked on integration projects in the past. Project Manager was well respected by the top management for his

ability to lead projects. In a LinkedIn recommendation his colleague wrote tha

t he has a knack for getting projects done quickly and without excuses. He

s very efficient and a valuable asset to any team. The criterion for selecting PMwas his previous experience with projects of the same nature, industry experien

ce, his ability to lead, communicate and delegate the tasks and his no-nonsenseapproach.

The project sponsor started with VBG right after his college graduationand has been with the firm for over 25 years. He has handled many roles throughout his tenure. The project sponsor was a Managing Director of the Equities division. The project sponsor has provided guidance throughout the project to thefunctional managers and project manager and made sure that functional managers provide sufficient resources for the project.The PM has been working in the industry for 14 years. He has started as a PM with VBG 8 years ago. PM was promoted to a Senior Project manager after his 3 year tenure with VBG. He was promoted to the Program Manager position after NASTIcompletion.The PMs charismatic leadership was manifested in his diplomatic behavior, he was able to make all team members feel important, promoted his vision, was determined to achieve his goals and was able to resolve problems effectively with teammembers once they arose. The PM was able to lead all the team members and two junior PMs and succeed in the project due to his charisma, organizational skillsand diplomacy. The PM took the following leadership actions: he took responsibility for his actions and actions of his team members, he was technical and had a

great tolerance of ambiguity.The Project Sponsor has provided transactional leadership. He was a senior executive with a busy schedule and he was usually represented by his chief of staff.

The sponsor and his representative were involved in major decisions, like those concerning timelines and budget, but they were not micromanaging and were notinvolved in day-to-day project activities. The project sponsor used active management by exception style - actively monitoring output and enforcing rules to avoid mistakes. The leadership actions that the Project Sponsor took were recognizing great work, communicating the needs of the project well, and being boldand decisive.

7.5 Project Team EmpowermentDescribe how the Project Team and the team members were empowered to make decisions and implement them? How did this contribute to team and project spirit?Input and suggestions from everyone on the team were always welcome. When different parts of the project were being planned or implemented the PM team held meetings and conference calls with the team(s) responsible for that part of the project, such as desktop, telecom, network and others. Some of these meetings included the entire team(s) and everyone was given an opportunity to speak up if the


23/36

y had any concerns or suggestions. Other meetings included only the functionalmanagers involved in a particular migration. As can be expected, these managers

were frequent recipients of their team members feedback and they included it in the discussions.NAS server team had intimate knowledge of the PT system design and their inputwas frequently sought during all phases of the server migration and integration. Interview with an LSAThis open atmosphere helped develop team spirit and made everyone feel as though

they are an important contributor to the projects success.8. Organization

8.1 Project OrganizationHow are projects typically organized in the company (functional, matrix, pure project, or other)? Was this project organized in the typical way? If not, explain why, and what is the difference (provide an Organizational Chart in the Appendix). The organizational structure was functional. All projects in VBG follow this structure. Functional managers report to senior managers and they in turn are hel

d accountable for the team members performance on the project.8.2 Project StructureWhat was the specific project structure used on this project (functional, matrix, pure project, or other)? Was this structure unique in the organization? Wasthere a Project Management Office? What was the relationship with subcontractors? Were there formal contracts with external and internal subcontractors? Howdid the project organization function? Was there a core team and a larger team?

How many people were involved in each? What functional organizations were involved? Was the team stable throughout the project or did it change? Describe.

The project structure was functional. This structure was typical in theVBG. VBG does not have a Project Management Office. NASTI project had only a

few consultants at different stages of the project. System Administrator and PROJ.CRD were hired temporarily for the maturing phase of the project. PROJ.CRD was hired to assist with project planning and coordination on site, and System Administrator was hired to write scripts for desktop migration, but was removed due to poor quality of his work. Per SA: we had a good working relationship with

subcontractors. PROJ.CRD did a great job and became a right hand for the PM who frequently worked from the off-site location. The temporary System Administrator was unfortunately a bad hiring decision. The automation scripts he was writing didnt work consistently and due to that the desktop migration process wound

up being manual. All the contracts with subcontractors were formal.The Project organization was functional and all the team members reported to their respective line managers. Three project managers, information security team,

server team, business continuity planning team, PT developers, and data centerteam comprised the core team. Storage area network team, business requirementsteam, and desktop team made up the extended team. Per SA: There were about 75-100 people involved in this project at different times. I would say 35-40 people were on the core team and the rest were on the extended team. The functionalteams involved in the project were the following: information security, helpdesk, storage area network, network, sever, telecommunications, desktop, service quality management, PT development, data center, business requirements, business continuity planning and project management. The team was mostly stable throughout

the project. NASTI project was running for four years and several team membersleft the company and were replaced by existing or new employees. It was functi

onal managers responsibility to allocate resources and arrange replacements forthe NASTI project. Some team members were replaced because they were pulled in

to other projects. Some VBG or NAS employees joined NASTI in the middle or evenend of the project as their expertise was needed or when they finished other

projects they have worked on. It was desirable to replace an existing team memb


24/36

er with an experienced employee due to the sizable learning curve.8.3 Team SelectionHow was the team assembled and team members picked? Who picked them? What wasthe criterion for selection? Was there external hiring for the project? How long did it take to get the team up-to-speed? Was there a team building process?

Was it formal or informal?

The functional managers have selected the team. The PM also had some input in selecting the team due to his experience with integration projects and the respect he had of the sponsor and of the functional managers. The criterion for selection was team members subject-matter expertise. External hiring was minimal and included only a temporary system administrator and a project coordinator. Ittook the team about 2-3 months to get up-to-speed. Most team members worked simultaneously on NASTI and other projects. Some worked together before, and manyon VBG team had prior integration project experience. The informal team building process such as empowerment, cooperation, communication and trust were engrained in this project. This worked, as the team strived for success and completedthe project well. Per SA: Project sponsor set this project up for success by promising everyone on the team that they will be rewarded when project is complet

ed successfully. Frequent team meetings, recognition and encouragement worked well and contributed to project success.

8.4 Work AssignmentsHow were tasks and responsibilities allocated? and by whom? Were people involved in setting their own assignments? Did they accept their assignments?

Per SA: The tasks and responsibilities were allocated by the functional managers, as well as PM and team members. During team meetings everyone reported their

status, what milestones were reached, what remained to be done and how long each task would take to complete. Team members were encouraged to volunteer and take ownership of tasks. Most did, others were assigned their tasks and acceptedthem.

8.5 Top Management InvolvementHow was top management involved in the project? Was there a Project Sponsor from top management? Was there a formal management committee that approved the project launch and major milestones? Was top management involved on a constant basis or only at major events such as phases or gates?

Top management had minimal involvement in the project. They approved the project launch, resources, budget, time line and major milestones. The Project Sponsor was a senior executive with a busy schedule and he was usually represented byhis chief of staff. There was no formal management committee that approved theproject launch and major milestones.

8.6 Professional Advice and ReviewsWas there an individual or a team of experts who escorted the project and provided advice throughout? or on an occasional basis? Was it technical, managerial,

or both? What was the cost?

Functional managers and project manager had prior experience leading integrationprojects. They frequently offered guidance and encouraged team members to ask

questions. Internal project team expertise was leveraged and there was no addedcost.

8.7 Organizational ProblemsWas the Project Manager changed? Why? Was the sponsor changed? Why? Was topmanagement aware of organizational problems? Did they work with people to makethe organization more effective? What were the organizational difficulties? How were they handled? Were organizational changes made during the project? Whyand by whom? Were they clearly communicated? How and by whom? Did the project


25/36

suffer from turnover? Why and how much? Was there any organizational churn?What was done to stop it?

The same project manager and sponsor were in charge for the entirety of the project. There were no major organizational issues that had to get escalated to the

top management. The top management was not involved in making the project organization more effective. They only provided support if more resources were needed or when budget had to be revised. Some of the organizational difficulties included: some team members were not getting along and some team members had to be

replaced because they could not commit to the workload due to involvement on other projects. Replacements were needed when team members left the firm and more

resources were needed at certain stages of the project. Most of the difficulties and organizational changes were handled by the functional managers, the PM or

both. Organizational churn was minimal, mirroring the entire IT organization of VBG. Competitive pay, collegial atmosphere and effective communications weremajor factors in this. PM and functional managers were encouraging and understanding and were able to resolve members issues without escalating them to the top management. Replacements or schedule changes were clearly officiated during meetings and by e-mail, changes were also made in WBS.

8.8 TrainingWhat kind of training was given to the Project Manager and Project Team? When was it given? Who did the training? Was the training given by internal or external personnel? In what areas, and how long did it last? What was the cost? Did it help the project?

No formal training given to the PM or project team specifically for this project. New employees joining the project were familiarized with it by their peers and were encouraged to ask their line managers or PM for help. The training was informal and bore no measurable cost. Per SA: I started with VBG half a year after the project started. I was encouraged and motivated by my peers, management

and PM. Employees who demonstrated strong commitment and quality work were recognized, rewarded and promoted.9. Processes

9.1 Project PhasesWhat were the major project phases (such as, concept, design, development, implementation, production, etc.), milestones, reviews, and decision points? Was this process typical to the organization or unique to the project? If the processwas unique, why? Were phases determined in advance or did they emerge? Did phase definition change during the project? Was there a clear definition of the decisions needed at each phase? Were stage gates (review gate) used? What documentation was needed? Who was involved in the decision making? How were these changes handled?

Per PM: Planning, requirements and execution processes are the most important processes on any project. Processes for NASTI project were not different. NASTI integration project was typical for VBG organization. Per PM: Getting the right specifications and requirements from the major stakeholders and project sponsor, right from the project inception is very important for successful planning.

Careful planning, execution and making sure that every team member understandswhat is needed were the recipe for success for NASTI. Key project activities w

ere planned in advance and were clearly documented for everyone to see. They included: telecom build-out, desktop integration, server migration, Data Center consolidation, DR build-out and set up. Stage gates were not used, project status reports were used and updated weekly. Top management was only involved in critical decision making; all other decisions were made by the functional managers,

PT architect and PM. Changes were handled through the standard change management process. Decisions were made by the functional managers, PM and PT architect

with input from the other team members when appropriate.


26/36

9.2 PMBOK ProcessesHow did the project handle the traditional processes of planning, monitoring, budgeting?

Per PM: NASTI used non-traditional project management processes because documenting each and every step would be time consuming and expensive. However, project did go through the five PMBOK processes: initiating, planning, executing, monitoring and closing. Budgeting process was included in all five stages. Initiating process included clear and brief documentation of project objectives, project deliverables and approximate budget was set. Project Charter and scope statement were developed. During the planning process, business plan, project schedule and activity duration were identified, statement of work, WBS and RBS were developed, cost estimation and cost baseline, key milestones and project deliverables became more defined and developed; project team was recruited. Execution process involved producing deliverables, QA testing, change requests and implementation of corrective actions, resource leveling, performance assessment, and budget assessment. Monitoring process involved checking how well the project is performing against the project plan. During this phase all the approved and rejected requests were documented, all the deliverables were assessed and documented.

Change management meetings were in full swing. Cost/budget control, quality control and all the risks were monitored, new ones were defined and evaluated. Scope verification and scope control were also done during this phase. Closing process involved finalizing all the administrative closure procedures, project integration was assessed.

9.3 Work Breakdown Structure (WBS)Was there a formal WBS? If not, why not and how was the project work effort managed? How was it done? Who was involved? How many activities and levels were in

the WBS? Was the WBS used as a base for scheduling, budgeting, and planning?Was the WBS changed during the project? By whom and why?Formal WBS was designed by the PM to manage the work. WBS was edited frequently

with project updates and changes. WBS was saved to a server and only PM, PM2 and PROJ.CRD were authorized to make changes to it. Per PM: There were hundredsif not a thousand of activities and twice as many levels in the WBS. WBS was used for planning, executing and monitoring.9.4 Resources EstimationsHow did the project determine time and budget estimates for each task? Was it a

top-down or bottom-up process, or both? How were disputes resolved (e.g., between the Project Manager and Functional Managers)? How was the Critical Path treated? Did the project use the Critical Chain instead? How and by whom? Did the Project Manager reserve contingency time and budget (project buffers)? How large were the buffers? Were they helpful? Did senior management accept the useof buffers?

Time and budget estimates were determined by the functional managers and the PM.For the PM, functional managers and many team members, NASTI was not their fir

st integration project, which tremendously helped them in setting the time lineand budget. Budget approval process went through the project sponsor. Time estimates were set by the PM with approval of the project sponsor. Per SA: Time was not a major constraint. Many team members were involved in other projects that took priority. NAS had a lease for WS office from which they could not get out of and had a hard time finding anyone to sublease the floors to. Due to some

technical issues and reasons above, the project was completed two years later than originally planned, but it was still considered a success. Per PM: The critical path was a part of WBS and summarized the various interrelated action items and owners in order to highlight the urgency of tasks and to assist implementers in scheduling their work load. A separate issues list has been created andwas used in conjunction with this document. Contingency buffer for time and budget were used. PM was hoping to complete this project within 1.3 years and project buffer was set to 2 years, project was completed almost 2 years later than i


27/36


28/36

9.9 Reducing Technical UncertaintyHow many Design-Build-Test (DBT) cycles were used? Were these in the initial project plan? How was design conducted? Were design-to-cost, design-to-manufacturability, design-to-serviceability, etc. employed? How many design reviews were

there? When were design reviews conducted? How were they conducted? Who participated? Who approved designs? What documents were used for design reviews? When was the design frozen? Who made the decision to freeze the design? When and

how?

This project did not involve creating a new product. VBG had existing systems designs that NAS had to migrate to.

9.10 System Integration and TestHow was system integration performed? By whom? Was there an integration plan?

Was there enough time in the project plan for integration? How was testing conducted? Was there a test plan? Was there enough time in the project plan for testing?

System integration was performed by both sides (VBG and former NAS) of all teams

: desktop, server, networking, helpdesk and telecom. All NAS teams were integrated into organizational structure of VBG. Testing was conducted in the lab environment. After successful migrations were piloted on a small number of systemsor users migrations were expanded to larger and larger groups until the migration process has reached full speed.

9.11 Project Monitoring and ControllingHow was monitoring and control conducted? How was project progress, budget spending, cash flow, specification control, risk, etc. monitored and communicated?How did the project identify problems? How were control decisions made?

Monitoring and control were conducted to measure performance and reconcile it against the project plan. The project progress was communicated through meetings, WBS and e-mail. Problems were usually identified and worked on immediately by the subject matter experts as soon as they were given ownership of the issue. Control decisions were made collaboratively.9.12 Communication ManagementHow was communications managed? How and what means were used to communicate with customers, team members, other functions, top management, subcontractors, etc.? Was the communication open, guarded (limited), or closed? What were the communication techniques meetings, reports, memos, e-mail, web, phone, etc.? What

specific actions were taken to enhance communications? Were there informal communication channels? Were there communication problems? How were they addressed?

Per SA: I believe that communications of this project were managed well. PM who was based out of Canada has communicated by teleconferencing, phone, e-mail and in person when he visited New York. PM2 and PROJ.CRD had done a great administrative job. Theyve been updating WBS and other documents, always had hard copies for meeting participants and shared updates through SharePoint site and e-mail. There were informal communications channels between team members, functional managers and PMs. They included everything from dropping by someones desk to

phone calls, e-mails and one-on-one meetings. Communications were enhanced byeither availability or quick response of most project participants. There weresome communication issues between some functional managers and their subordinates, but they were addressed effectively and were not a disruption to the NASTI project.

9.13 Customer ReadinessDid the project take action to make the customer ready for using the projects results/deliverables? Did the project prepare proper documentation, simulations,


29/36

training and other materials? How were training and documentation tested?

Customer readiness was not a part of this project.

9.14 Vendor ManagementWho selected the vendors? How were they selected? Was this the first time a specific vendor was used? What was the previous history with the company? What was the quality of the vendors products/work? How and who interacted with vendors? Were they involved in the projects initial planning, decisions, etc.? What impact did the vendors have on the project? Were vendors considered part of the Project Team?

No vendors were involved in this project.10. Tools

10.1 Common Project Management ApplicationsDid the project use common project management tools for scheduling, budgeting, etc.? What were they? How often and for what were they used? Who picked the tools? Were they common tools used in the organization? or were they specificall

y picked for the project?The project used Microsoft Project for scheduling and Excel for budgeting. MS Office and MS SharePoint applications were used for meeting notes, document sharing and maintenance of tasks lists. These generic tools were used on daily basis. These tools are generally used by everyone in the firm who works on projects,

and they were used for the NASTI as well. The tools were picked by the functional managers and PMs because they are used for planning throughout the firm.10.2 Specifically Developed Tools For The ProjectDid the project use specific tools that were developed for this project? What were they? Who developed them?

A system administrator was contracted to write scripts to automate and speed updesktop migration. These scripts proved unreliable and only a small subset of them was used.10.3 DocumentsList the documents (reporting, monitoring, progress assessment, etc.) that wereused in this project types, description, extent of use, and usability. Did the bureaucratic level employed fit the project type and problems encountered?

Consolidated action items were presented to team members at meetings and conveyed what is on the agenda for the next couple of days/weeks/month. These were recorded in WBS and included task names and numbers, owners of tasks and when theyare due. Items in red indicated critical path. Consolidated action items wereused for monitoring.Status reports were used for progress and assessment. NAS move strategy, migration tasks, migration agenda, infrastructure plan, server migration, desktop migration, WBS, overall VBG IT infrastructure integration, IT integration and requirements agenda were used for planning.

IT infrastructure issues list, meeting minutes, project initiatives list, change calendar, issues log, reporting list, program plan, project master, WBS wereused for progress assessment, monitoring and controlling.RBS was used for risk identification, progress, monitoring and controlling. The

routine level employed fit the project type.11. Adaptation to Specific Project TypeIn retrospect, did the project management style fit the Shenhar project type? How was this project managed differently from other projects in the organization?

Were there problems with wrong fit? Speak to Shenhars UCP Management Styleguidelines. Please describe in detail.

The Shenhar project type fit medium-tech project. Per SA: the project had a ve


30/36

ry small risk exposure and use of the new technology was minimal. This was a generic project for the VBG because company had integrated acquisitions successfully in the past.Shenhars UCP Management Style guidelines are proportional with the project type. The uncertainty is medium-tech, complexity is array, and pace is regular. Complexity is the array because project involved integrating multiple systems such

as telephony, networking, desktop migration, server migration, etc. Each of these systems had subcomponents: software, hardware, licensing, facilities, etcThe pace was regular because some other projects took priority and consequentlyresources were sometimes scarce.To help you make the above analysis use the following table. Using the Formatdrop down, and Borders and Shading, shade one box in each of the rows that BEST describes your case study project. Highlight the Technical Uncertainty of your case study project too.

Adaptation to Fit LowTech MediumTech HighTech Super

High TechManagerialApproach

Firm ModeratelyFirm ModeratelyFlexible FlexibleProject ManagerSkills

GoodAdmin SomeTechnical GoodTechnical ExceptionalTech LeaderStrategy Build toPrint Build toSpec Build toState-of-the-Art Build toAdvancedNeedAttitude

Stick toPlan SomeChanges ManyChanges Look forTroubleCommunicationPattern

FormalPeriodic SomeInformal ExtensivelyInformal EnormouslyInformal12. Learning

12.1 Pre-Project LearningDid the project benefit from past lessons on previous projects? Were these lessons available to the organization and shared with team members?

The project had a great advantage because projects of similar nature were conduc


31/36


32/36

13.3 Project Schedule/PlanA detailed specification of the individual action steps for project implementation.

The NASTI schedule was defined in the WBS and through the milestone list. The activity sequencing was collaboratively determined and tentative schedule was formed. All the tasks in the WBS were decomposed into the smallest subtasks. Percentage completed was documented in the WBS. Activity sequencing through PDM diagram was helpful in determining sequence. Resource diagram showed techniciansavailability. Critical path was identified and documented through the WBS. Requested changes were done through change management meetings and corrective actions were introduced. Per PM: Carefully scheduled implementation process was a major contributor to project success.

13.4 Client ConsultationCommunication, consultation, and active listening to impacted parties.

Client consultation does not apply to this project.

13.5 PersonnelRecruitment, selection, and training of the necessary personnel for the ProjectTeam.

Two consultants were brought in from outside. A few employees from the team were replaced because they were needed on other projects. Few techs left the firmand needed to be replaced. There was no formal training for personnel because the project utilized experienced technology professionals and subject matter experts. New employees joining the project were given a brief project orientation

to familiarize them with the current status and what needs to be done. Employees were encou