problem management short report
masiwei123
ExampleAssignment1.pdf
ASSIGNMENT 1 Davidsen
Boston University
MET AD 642 Project Management
(Year and Term)
Assignment 1
Rationale for Little Rock, Arkansas’ new Dog Park
Leif Davidsen
ASSIGNMENT 1 Davidsen
Executive Summary
The Executive Summary is a brief paragraph to summarize the report. Imagine you’re
your reader is a busy executive who wants the ‘elevator speech’ the main idea in short form. The
idea is not to tease them into reading the paper by saying what you will provide. That’s an
abstract. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, sed an eirmod delenit. Partem viderer sed in, vel cu
graecis noluisse repudiare. Eum quidam ornatus ad, nam ut paulo corrumpit adversarium, minim
aeque mei ea. Qui ex vidit ullamcorper. Usu ipsum audire ea, an assum eligendi senserit usu. Ius
te liber euismod quaerendum, appetere intellegat at quo, tation option propriae eos at.
Contents Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 2
Description of the Little Rock XYZ Dog Park Project ................................................................... 3
City of Little Rock – Mission, Vision, Values, and its connection to the Dog Park ...................... 4
Financial and Other Justification .................................................................................................... 5
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................... 5
References: ...................................................................................................................................... 6
ASSIGNMENT 1 Davidsen
Description of the Little Rock XYZ Dog Park Project
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, sed an eirmod delenit. Partem viderer sed in, vel cu graecis
noluisse repudiare. Eum quidam ornatus ad, nam ut paulo corrumpit adversarium, minim aeque
mei ea. Qui ex vidit ullamcorper. Usu ipsum audire ea, an assum eligendi senserit usu. Ius te
liber euismod quaerendum, appetere intellegat at quo, tation option propriae eos at.
Justo erant quidam ei ius, nostrud dissentiunt accommodare no duo, pri prima deserunt consequat
ex. Ex vim reque graeci delenit, cum te paulo aliquam interpretaris. Cu ius hinc simul eligendi,
eu vim tale falli nostro. His quod eirmod in. Eum meis docendi et. Mea ut ridens electram, mea
accusata consectetuer ei.
Sale atqui intellegam sea eu. Nec cu essent apeirian, summo persius offendit ex est, nec sonet
exerci epicuri id. Torquatos percipitur ex eum. Duo iusto zril cetero in. Augue postea pertinax te
mel, ei sea ponderum maiestatis.
Nominati dissentiunt in cum. Cu tale simul antiopam pro, hinc nihil duo at, copiosae euripidis
vituperata eam ex. Qui alii molestiae elaboraret ex, iudico doctus elaboraret est eu, singulis
conceptam ad pri. Dolor accusam ne eum, illud essent audire id mea. Errem choro
comprehensam vim ex. Ea nonumy intellegam eam, magna illud discere sea eu.
Ea eam suas diam disputando, dicant quodsi id mea. Commune imperdiet quo cu, pro ei graeco
habemus alienum. Nec no quaeque mandamus similique, nam essent urbanitas temporibus ut, et
usu justo malorum adipiscing. In vis facete facilisi assueverit. Esse justo ex has.
ASSIGNMENT 1 Davidsen
Duo illum similique id. Eu epicurei luptatum pro. Ei velit eirmod debitis has, ut vitae mentitum
vim. Te suscipit abhorreant has, omnis praesent intellegat ut quo. Purto voluptaria id qui, sit iusto
tractatos definitiones no.
City of Little Rock – Mission, Vision, Values, and its connection to the Dog Park
Little Rock city mission
It is our mission to ensure our City is a safe, secure, and prospering place for all to live,
work, and play. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, sed an eirmod delenit. Partem viderer sed in, vel cu
graecis noluisse repudiare. Eum quidam ornatus ad, nam ut paulo corrumpit adversarium, minim
aeque mei ea. Qui ex vidit ullamcorper. Usu ipsum audire ea, an assum eligendi senserit usu. Ius
te liber euismod quaerendum, appetere intellegat at quo, tation option propriae eos at. (Little
Rock City website).
Justo erant quidam ei ius, nostrud dissentiunt accommodare no duo, pri prima deserunt consequat
ex. Ex vim reque graeci delenit, cum te paulo aliquam interpretaris. Cu ius hinc simul eligendi,
eu vim tale falli nostro. His quod eirmod in. Eum meis docendi et. Mea ut ridens electram, mea
accusata consectetuer ei. (City of Little Rock town meeting minutes, 5-May-2013)
Sale atqui intellegam sea eu. Nec cu essent apeirian, summo persius offendit ex est, nec sonet
exerci epicuri id. Torquatos percipitur ex eum. Duo iusto zril cetero in. Augue postea pertinax te
mel, ei sea ponderum maiestatis.
ASSIGNMENT 1 Davidsen The connection to this project
Nominati dissentiunt in cum. Cu tale simul antiopam pro, hinc nihil duo at, copiosae euripidis
vituperata eam ex. Qui alii molestiae elaboraret ex, iudico doctus elaboraret est eu, singulis
conceptam ad pri. Dolor accusam ne eum, illud essent audire id mea. Errem choro
comprehensam vim ex. Ea nonumy intellegam eam, magna illud discere sea eu.
Duo illum similique id. Eu epicurei luptatum pro. Ei velit eirmod debitis has, ut vitae mentitum
vim. Te suscipit abhorreant has, omnis praesent intellegat ut quo. Purto voluptaria id qui, sit iusto
tractatos definitiones no. (Petropoulos 2016).
Ea eam suas diam disputando, dicant quodsi id mea. Commune imperdiet quo cu, pro ei graeco
habemus alienum. Nec no quaeque mandamus similique, nam essent urbanitas temporibus ut, et
usu justo malorum adipiscing. In vis facete facilisi assueverit. Esse justo ex has.
(Moon 2017).
Financial and Other Justification
Ea eam suas diam disputando, dicant quodsi id mea. Commune imperdiet quo cu, pro ei graeco
habemus alienum. Nec no quaeque mandamus similique, nam essent urbanitas temporibus ut, et
usu justo malorum adipiscing. In vis facete facilisi assueverit. Esse justo ex has.
Include, if available, some of the basic figures and calculations. If you have lots of tables and
figures (don’t overdo it, just a few, if you want), include them in an Appendix.
Conclusion
ASSIGNMENT 1 Davidsen
Use this section to briefly wrap things up and tie together your thoughts. In vis facete
facilisi assueverit. Esse justo ex.
NOTE TO STUDENTS: We do not expect you to have 30+ references as you see below,
only a few are required. However, this happens to be a reasonable list of potential sources
for the actual Assignment and also shows the scholarly nature of the sources that we prefer.
References:
1. Baker NR: R&D project selection models: an assessment. R&D Manag 2012,5(1):105– 111.
2. Brenner M: Practical R&D project prioritization. Res Technol Manag 1994,37(5):38– 42.
3. Bstieler L: The moderating effects of environmental uncertainty on new product development and time efficiency. J Prod Innov Manag 2005,23(3):267–284.
4. Cicmil S, Williams T, Thomas J, Hodgson D: Rethinking project management: researching the actuality of projects. Int J Proj Manag 2006,24(8):675–686.
10.1016/j.ijproman.2006.08.006
5. Cook WD, Green RH: Project prioritization: a resource-constrained data envelopment analysis approach. Socioecon Plann Sci 2000,34(2):85–99.
10.1016/S0038-0121(99)00020-8
6. Danneels E, Kleinschmidt EJ: Product innovativeness from the firm’s perspective. J Prod Innov Manag 2001,18(6):357–374. 10.1016/S0737-6782(01)00109-6
7. El Emam K, Koru A: A replicated survey of it software project failures. Software (IEEE) 2008,25(5):84–90.
8. Gulla S: Seven reasons why IT projects fail. IBM Systems Magazine. 2012. . Last accessed 22 Nov 2013
9. Hadad Y, Keren B, Laslo Z: A decision-making support system module for project manager selection according to past performance. Int J Proj Manag 2012,31(4):532–
541.
10. Henriksen AD, Traynor AJ: A practical R&D project-selection scoring tool. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 2002,46(2):158–170.
11. Kavadias S, Loch CH: Project selection under uncertainty: dynamically allocating resources to maximize value. Norwood, MA, USA: Kluwer; 2004.
12. Kruglianskas I, Thamhain H: Managing technology-based projects in multinational environments. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 2000,47(1):55–64. 10.1109/17.820725
ASSIGNMENT 1 Davidsen
13. Kumar PD: Integrated project evaluation and selection using multiple-attribute decision-making technique. Int J Prod Econ 2006,103(1):87.
10.1016/j.ijpe.2005.04.008
14. Larson E, Gray C: “Organization strategy and project selection,”. In Chapter 2 in Project Management: The Management Process. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2011:22–63.
15. Lemon WF, Bowitz J, Burn J, Hackney R: Information systems project failure: a comparative study of two countries. J Glob Inf Manag 2002,10(2):28–39.
16. Loch CH, Pich MT, Terwiesch C, Urbschat M: Selecting R&D projects at BMW: a case study of adopting mathematical programming models. IEEE Trans Eng Manag
2001,48(1):70–80. 10.1109/17.913167
17. Mantel S, Meredith J, Shafer S, Sutton M: “Selecting projects to meet organizational objectives,”. In Chapter Section 1.5 in Project Management Practice. Hoboken, NJ,
USA: Wiley; 2011:10–22.
18. National Science Foundation (NSF): The 2010 user-friendly handbook for project evaluation. Division of Research and Learning in Formal and Informal Settings.
Arlington, VA, USA: National Science Foundation; 2010.
19. Oral M, Kettani O, Lang P: A methodology for collective evaluation and selection of industrial R&D projects. Manag Sci 1991,37(7):871–881. 10.1287/mnsc.37.7.871
20. Remer DS, Re Stokdyk SB, Van Driel M: Survey of project evaluation techniques currently used in industry. Int J Prod Econ 1993,32(1):103–115. 10.1016/0925-
5273(93)90013-B
21. Shakhsi-Niaei M, Torabi S, Iranmanesh S: A comprehensive framework for project selection problem under uncertainty and real-world constraints. Compt Ind Eng
2011,61(1):226–237. 10.1016/j.cie.2011.03.015Shenhar A, Milosevic D, Dvir D,
Thamhain H: Linking project management to business strategy. Newtown, PA, USA:
Project Management Institute (PMI) Press; 2007.
22. Shore B: Systematic biases and culture in project failures. Proj Manag J 2008,39(4):5–16. 10.1002/pmj.20082
23. Standish Group: Chaos Tuesday. 2013. . Last accessed 22 Nov 2013 24. Thamhain H: Team leadership effectiveness in technology-based project
environments. IEEE Eng Manag Rev 2005,33(2):11–25.
25. Thamhain H: Optimizing innovative performance of R&D teams in technology-based environments. Creativity Res J 2006,18(4):435–436. 10.1207/s15326934crj1804_3
26. Thamhain H: Team leadership effectiveness in technology-based project environments. IEEE Eng Manag Rev 2008,36(1):165–180.
27. Thamhain H: Leadership lessons from managing technology-intensive teams. Int J Innov Technol Manag 2009,6(2):117–133. 10.1142/S0219877009001595
28. Thamhain H: Critical success factors for managing technology-intensive teams in the global enterprise. Eng Manag J 2011a,23(2):30–36.
29. Thamhain H: Evaluating and selecting technology-based projects. In Engineering measurements encyclopedia. Edited by: Kutz M. New York: Wiley; 2011b.Scholar
30. Thamhain H, Skelton T: Success factors for effective R&D risk management. Int J Technol Intell Plann (IJTIP) 2007,3(4):376–386. 10.1504/IJTIP.2007.016307
31. Verganti R, Buganza T: Design inertia: designing for life-cycle flexibility in internet- based services. J Prod Innov Manag 2005,22(3):223–237. 10.1111/j.0737-
6782.2005.00119.x
ASSIGNMENT 1 Davidsen
Appendix A: Tables and Figures
NPV of Dog Park, including intangibles quantified using formula XYZ
Project: Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Totals
Education
Required rate of return 0.15
Outflows -50,000.00 -6,966.48 -6,966.48 -6,966.48 -6,966.48 -6,966.48 -6,966.48 -6,966.48 -6,966.48 -6,966.48 -6,389.31 -69,087.63
Inflows 72,000.00 82,800.00 86,940.00 91,287.00 95,851.35 100,643.92 105,676.11 110,959.92 116,507.91 122,333.31 128,449.98 1,041,449.50
Net inflows 72,000.00 82,800.00 86,940.00 91,287.00 95,851.35 100,643.92 105,676.11 110,959.92 116,507.91 122,333.31 128,449.98 1,041,449.50
NPV 145,854.28 972,361.87
