Unit 3 Discussion: Identification & Cost Estimation

ProjectScope.docx

Home >Business & Finance homework help >Operations Management homework help >Unit 3 Discussion: Identification & Cost Estimation

Running Head: PROJECT SCOPE 2

PROJECT SCOPE 2

Project Scope

Name of student;

Course;

Institution;

Date of submission;

Project Scope

The geothermal plant construction project had various goals which were not limited to; finishing the project on time, ensuring the project meets the allocated budget requirements, delivery of a quality project at completion of the project, and the plant after completion should be able to meet the purpose to which it was constructed. The project was to last six and half years and I was project manager, I believe we were able to meet the project goals. (Heagney, 2016). The scope of project was clear because it highlighted the projects estimated costs, the number of people in the project which is 27 members in total, it gives the timelines for completing the project which is 1 and half years as well as subdividing the work into phases together with their timelines.

Breakdown	Description	WBS Code
Project	Project Title The Green Geothermal Power Plant	1.0
Deliverable 1	Deliverable 1 Description Drawings designed and the reports from engineering These were done after understanding all the parameters needed like the amount of output needed, the terrain of construction, the available technologies. And the literature review on such a site.	1.1
WP1	First Work Package Utilizing the details from early researches in the chosen site as well as the team’s research on the site and compare. Determination if the report parameters meet the parameters of the project.	1.1.1
WP2	Second Work Package Designing of the plant using the appropriate parameters that in line with the site needs.	1.1.2
Deliverable 2	Deliverable 2 Description Reports on site investigation and reviews on designs. This analysis the viability of the project in terms of meeting the output intended as well as generating profits. Such things as the geological factors, the economic factors and then community acceptability are determined here. Therefore, in case of any differences from the early estimates, then the designs should be changed to meet the site requirements.	1.2
WP1	First Work Package Verifying the investigations from the site and compare them with what the team had come up with previously.	1.2.1
WP2	Second Work Package Reviewing the earlier designs and aligning them with the information gotten from the site. Afterwards appropriate changes should be applied.	1.2.2

My team employed three key features that has led to the success of the project this far. These are; clarity of the project goals, clear and open communication, and managed conflict. The project goals were developed after all the team members views were heard and consolidated into a single statement which was agreed upon by all the team members. This was so because no one wanted to embark on a project whose aim was not clear.

The communication channels were clear and each and every member was free to make any communication to any member of any necessary suggestion or present any questions related to the project. (Meredith, Mantel Jr, & Shafer, 2017). The spirit of a free social environment was embraced so that to ensure no member keeps crucial information due to social fever. Mechanisms were put in place to solve any conflict in case it arose. Such things we did to avoid conflict were the team work spirt, and fair competition among the members through open compensation packages. We did this to keep the team together to ensure that no member leaves the team which will disorient the scope of the project.

My team did follow all the team development stages. The formulation stage which look into features such as the members’ interests and skills, the goals of the project and timelines. Then the storming level. Here, as a manager I got to understand each member’s features and the reality of the project hits each member. The norming level is where the team members started appreciating the efforts of each other and people worked as one. The performing stage. Here, the members became confident, familiar with the project quite enough and motivated towards achieving the goals without intense supervision. The final stage was adjourning stage. Here the team disbanded after the project and members feel the loss to each other since they were close to each other.

At the storming stage, a conflict arose between two members where one felt that the other was not working hard enough in meeting the project’s daily goals. (Kerzner, 2017). This seemed bad because the other whom they work as partner felt like he was being drained. However, asked each one to state how best they can work to determine how each will be comfortable working. We had to reshuffle the unit and took one member to another unit which had the same features and it worked. We were able to complete our project one month earlier and to me this was a great success for the team.

References

Heagney, J. (2016). Fundamentals of project management. Amacom.

Kerzner, H. (2017). Project management: a systems approach to planning, scheduling, and controlling. John Wiley & Sons.

Meredith, J. R., Mantel Jr, S. J., & Shafer, S. M. (2017). Project management: a managerial approach. John Wiley & Sons.