Power Point Presentation IP 4
wvaonz
phase_2_ip_notes_and_done.docx1
TopGear Corporation Project Charter
PM600-1502B-03
Managing Organizational Development and Change
Phase 2 Individual Project
TopGear Corporation Project Charter Update and SWOT Analysis
By John W. Casto
Instructor
Professor Sadu Shetty
Project Name: Development of a new GPS cargo tracking system
Project Description: Development of a new GPS cargo tracking system device will be used both in train and ships. It will produce a stronger signal as compared to the previous ones, more portal, durable and cheaper than the competition.
Department(s): Marketing, Procurement, Electrical and IT departments
Focus Area: Cargo Transportation
Product/Process: Development of cargo tracking device
Schedule: The project will start on 1st June 2015 and is expected to be complete by 29th Feb 2016
Estimated Budget: Development of new cargo tracking device (materials and supplies bought) - $ 450,000, testing $ 100,000 and cost of labour $ 250,000. Total amount $ 800,000
Current Date: 1st June 2015
Project Stakeholders
|
Document Owner(s): Stakeholders |
Project/Organizational Title |
Internal or External |
|
John W. Casto |
Communication Management Planner
|
Internal |
|
Jim Young |
Communication Management Planner |
Internal |
|
Jerry Lawson |
Programmer |
Internal |
|
Melissa Grant |
Risk Manager |
Internal |
Stakeholder Description:
|
Stakeholder Role |
Name |
Level (high/mid/low) |
Subject Matter Expert |
|
Sponsor |
Sam Ryder |
High |
The CEO and the Chairman of the Board of TopGear Corporation |
|
Sponsor |
Gloria Ryder |
High |
The CFO and the co-founder of TopGear Corporation |
|
Client |
Cargo trains |
High |
|
|
Client |
Cargo ships |
High |
|
|
Project Manager |
John W. Casto |
High |
|
|
Associate |
Customer Service Departments in India and China |
Medium |
|
|
Team member |
Mike Green |
High |
He will oversee public relations and has an MBA in marketing |
|
Team member |
Sara Jenkins |
Medium |
Her procurement and acquisition experience is crucial to the team |
|
Vendor |
TopGear Corporation |
High |
|
Stakeholder’s involvement on the project.
John W. Casto is the program manager for the project and holds a senior-level administrative position in the logistic department. He is an internal stakeholder, directly involved in the full lifecycle of the project (Berkun, 2008). He manages procurement processes, budgets, contracts and resource allocation. Sara Jenkins, Mike Green and Jerry Lawson will report to him directly.
Jim Young is the assistant program manager of the project and holds a senior administrative position in the electrical engineering departments. He is an internal stakeholder who will be directly involved in the full lifecycle of the project. He will assist John W. Casto in the management of budgets and contract as well as resource allocation. Jerry Lawson and Mike Green will report directly to him (Lester, 2007).
Mike Green will assist the team with marketing of the product. Sara Jenkins will work with John W. Casto in the procurement and acquisition of raw materials. Melissa Grant will analyze the business side of the project to ensure that the product has quality standards and assists in managing the company risks.
Jerry Lawson designs and develops the new tracking cargo device
PROJECT CHARTER PURPOSE
The project charter establishes the roles and authorities of the project manager. It explains the need of the project to the project participants and stakeholders, who the project involves, duration the project will take, cost of the project, other resources required and how successful project completion will help the organization.
PROJECT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The project goal is to make it easy to obtain critical shipment information. The GPA cargo tracking system will enable the organization to track customer’s freight and know its where about all the times.
The project objective is to give a GPS Geo-Fencing tracking system for transportation and also for the customers that will in turn integrate the organization’s dispatch systems and ERPs.
We aim at developing a monitoring system that has a WIFI receiver, GPS receiver, GPRS transceiver, motion detectors, sensors, ZigBee transceiver, MCU, Gen2 RFID and battery and power management.
The assumptions when developing this system are:
(i) It will be complete within the set timeline.
(ii) It will meet the planned budget.
(iii) It meets the user expectations
The risks involved in the development are:
(i) The system might not work.
(ii) The system might be vulnerable to threats.
(iii) The development might exceed the planned budget.
(iv) High risk in maintenance of the system
The cost will include manufacturing costs, deployment cost, maintenance cost and the cost of operation. This is approximately $800,000
The timeline of developing the GPS cargo tracking system is 8-9 months. If we take that our project is starting this June, it should be complete by February next year.
I would employ modular design approach that will enhance the flexibility of the system.
The development team was organized according to area of specialization who took different roles in development
PROJECT OVERVIEW
The system will reduce the unnecessary cost that would have been used to communicate about the whereabouts. It will help the business to keep track of all the shipments operations.
PROJECT SCOPE
Goals and Objectives
|
Goals |
Objectives |
|
The project goal is to make it easy to obtain critical shipment information. The GPA cargo tracking system will enable the organization to track customer’s freight and know its where about all the times.
|
The project objective is to give a GPS Geo-Fencing tracking system for delivery and also for the customers that will in turn integrate the organization’s dispatch systems and ERPs.
|
Departmental Statements of Work (SOW)
|
Departmental SOW |
Owner/Prime |
Due Date/Sequence |
|
System requirements gathering |
Melissa Grant |
07/28/2015 |
|
Coming up with the code |
Jerry Lawson |
11/23/2015 |
|
Marketing the system |
Melissa Grant |
03/12/2016 |
Organizational Impacts
|
Organization |
Impact to and Participation in Organization |
|
Project Manager |
He leads the team. He plans, coordinates, motivate and controls the project development. |
|
Builders |
They come up with the system. They code and draws the representation model. |
|
Marketers |
They introduce the system to the users. They persuade, educate and respond to questions from users. |
Project Deliverables
|
Milestone |
Deliverable |
|
System requirement |
WIFI receiver GPS receiver GPRS transceiver motion detectors sensors ZigBee transceiver MCU Gen2 RFID battery and power management
|
|
User requirements |
System Specifications documents Project Timeline Project budget |
|
Test and operational review |
Unit testing Component testing System testing Implementation of the system |
Deliverables Out of Scope
(i) Server to run the application
(ii) Five reports which allow for five unspecified reports.
(iii) Company Summary screen
Project Estimated Costs and Duration
|
Project Milestone |
Date Estimate |
Deliverable(s) Included |
Confidence Level |
|
System Requirements |
07/01/2015 to 01/31/2016 |
WIFI receiver GPS receiver GPRS transceiver motion detectors sensors ZigBee transceiver MCU Gen2 RFID battery and power management
|
High |
|
User requirement |
06/01/2015 to 06/30/2015 |
System specifications documents Project Timeline Project budget |
Medium |
|
Test and operational review |
02/01/2016 to 29/02/2016 |
Unit testing Component testing System testing Implementation of the system |
High |
PROJECT CONDITIONS
3.1 Project Assumptions
(i) It will be complete within the set timeline.
(ii) It will meet the planned budget.
(iii) It meets the user expectations
0. Project Issues
Priority Criteria
|
# |
Date |
Priority |
Owner |
Description |
Status and Resolution |
|
1 |
10/12/2015 |
High |
System Analyst |
The system requirements did not integrate with the user requirements. |
System failure. Review, the user, needs and make necessary changes |
|
2 |
02/21/2016 |
High |
Testing Officer |
The system was not working as per expected. |
System error and human error. Make changes in the code |
0. Project Risks
|
# |
Risk Area |
Likelihood |
Risk Owner |
Project Impact-Mitigation Plan |
|
1 |
System failure |
High |
Programmer and Designer |
Review the code and make changes relating to where the problem is. |
|
2 |
Vulnerability to threats |
High |
System security officer and Programmer |
Come up with proper encryption techniques |
1. Project Structure Approach
The system will be built based on the modular design approach. This involve developing small components then integrates them to form the overall system.
The project dependencies are:
(i) Development team depends on user expectations
(ii) User requirements depend on nature of the user’s problem
(iii) Designers depend on system specifications
I would plan the project using schedule such as chart, graphs and also through various methods defined in the project scope. I will assign the team, according to their specialization.
Project Team Organization Plans
|
Project Team Role |
Project Team Member(s) |
Responsibilities |
|
Project Manager |
John W. Casto |
To coordinate, organize, plan, motivate and control the overall project development. |
|
System analysts |
Melissa Grant
|
To analyze user specifications and system requirement to come up with a software requirement specification document. |
|
Architects |
Jerry Lawson |
Use software requirement specification to come up with the best architecture of the system by developing a design document specification. |
|
Developers/Builders |
Jerry Lawson |
They develop the system by programming code as it is generated in the design document specification. |
|
Testing officers |
Jerry Lawson |
They test the system to see whether it is detected and fix the errors if they are detected until quality standards defined in software requirement specification is reached |
Project Milestones
|
Milestone |
Deliverable |
|
Project management docs |
project-documents/milestone-list.html |
SWOT Analysis
|
Strengths |
Weaknesses |
|
· Executives respect other members.
· People to focus on willingness and ability to work
· Focus on the system to avoid blame
|
· Confusion among the current working group.
· There is no comprehensive supervision or performance evaluation.
· Misuse of office by the working group.
· Executives are threatening other members. |
|
Opportunities |
Threats |
|
· Standardized guidelines · Proposal evaluation criteria · Work breakdown structure templets · Risk tablets · Project schedule network diagram templates · Organizational standard processes · Project files · Financial control procedures
|
· Products standards (most project manager should be aware of this) · Organizational communication channels · Project management information systems(PMIS) · Organizational culture, process, and infra-structure · Quality products · Government standards · Market rules and conditions · Code of Conducts
|
References
Sameroff, Arnold, and Robert Emde (2013). Organization and stability of newborn behavior: a commentary on the Brazelton Neonatal Behavior Assessment scale. [Chicago]: Published by the University of Chicago Press for the Society for Research in Child Development.
Thompson, Charles Woody (2010). An analysis of environmental and managerial factors in the success or failure of small manufacturing enterprise.
1
Page 1
