Assessment Task In this Supplementary Assessment, you will combine your learnings from the
subject into writing an Individual Report on the assigned Supplementary Case Study. You will
present a critical evaluation of the project from the Case Study by outlining a project change to be
implemented and identifying risks associated with this new change request. You will also need to
indicate how stakeholders will be communicated about the risk strategy and the change via
developing and proposing a status report to appropriate stakeholders from the project. The Case
Study is available at the Supplementary Assessment folder, in the Assessments link or will be sent
to you by your Learning Facilitator via email. To be successful in this assessment, please read
Modules 1 to 6.
There is one certainty in projects, uncertainty. As you’ve seen in this subject, projects are naturally
prone to risks given a number of reasons, including their volatility. This volatility arises from
changes that are introduced in the project from external or internal drivers. Changes thus need to
e controlled, ensuring that all of their impacts upon the project are managed effectively and are
incorporated into existing management plans and project baselines.
Risk management is a continuous process, that starts together with the project and continues
throughout the execution phase. During the execution of your project, and as a result of changes
equested in the project, new risks may be introduced, for which appropriate assessment and
management of responses is required.
Effective communication with stakeholders is a key factor to successfully managing risks and
implementing the necessary changes to the project in order to maintain their support and
engagement until successful completion.
The Supplementary Assessmentis an individual report, which will provide you the opportunity to
apply insights formed from your review of the assigned Case Study.
To complete this assessment task, you must:
1. Read and analyse the given Case Study
• Refer to your subject notes, lecture slides and any additional research you may conduct that may
add value to your report.
2. Complete the report addressing the following requirements:
Part 1 – Integrated Change Control
a) Explain what change control process you recommend to submit change requests for the given
project and address responsibilities to each step of your process considering the stakeholders of
your Case Study.
) Identify one (1) change you believe is required for the Case Study.
c) Justify this proposed change by applying any of the tools and techniques to identify the
ootcause(s) for the issues in the Case Study and showing the application in the report.
d) Complete a Change Request Form (CRF) - provided in the Supplementary Assessment folder in
the Assessments link of the subject - containing:
● Critical analysis the impacts of your change proposal on scope, time, cost and quality of the
● Risks associated with your change proposal (identify at least 3 risks).
● Recommendation of at least 2 options to satisfy/implement your proposed change in the
Part 2 - Risk Management
e) From the risks identified in item “e”, you will develop a complete Risk Register, which should
o Risk Identification with critical analysis of the source and effects of these risks on the project.
o Risk Assessment for each risk that is aligned with a Risk Probability and Impact (P&I) matrix to
ate and prioritise these risks. You should provide the matrix in the report.
o Risk Response Strategies, including a proposed course of action, to effectively manage each
Part 3 – Communication Management
f) Identify and explain how stakeholders will be communicated and engaged with on the project’s
ongoing activities by developing a Communications Matrix for the project.
g) Choose a stakeholder from the project you would like to communicate the cu
ent status of you
project. Create and justify a sample of a project status report:
In your status report, you will need to communicate the identified change and risks identified from
parts 1 and 2 of this assessment
3. The report should consist of the following structure:
• A Title Page with subject code and name, assignment title, student’s name, student ID, lecturer’s
name, word count and date submitted.
● An Executive Summary (270–300 words) providing a summary of your report, containing key
findings, tools and techniques used, methodology, constraints and recommendations. This section
allows the reader to rapidly become acquainted with a large portion of your material. It is usually
around 10% of your report and written last.
● A Table of Contents with the structure of the report, including page numbers and headings.
● An Introduction (270–300 words) that will also serve as your statement of purpose for the report
— this means that you will tell the reader what you are going to cover in your report as well as
● - Background of the Case Study and context of the report
● - What the reader can expect to find in the body of the report
● The Body of the Report (1900–2100 words) in which you will cover the nine (9) requirements
listed in point 2 above (a – i). This section of your report will contain the information that is required
to demonstrate your understanding of the Case Study and key Project Management concepts
under discussion by applying them into your report. - The report layout should be logical and lead
the reader through a story which identifies the key points being discussed and takes the reader to
● A Conclusion (270–300 words) summarising any findings or recommendations that the report
puts forward regarding the concepts covered in the report.
- There should not be any new information in the conclusion.
● A list of References providing every source cited within your report.
● - Only cited sources are listed in the References.
● - The number of references should be between 8 to 14 references.
● - The references should be relevant, reliable and reputable.
● - They should be listed alphabetically.
● - They need to be valid and linked with the topic/content provided within the report.
● An Appendix that consists of any additional tables or information that support your report. - You
Excel spreadsheet with your complete Risk Register (requirement g) may be contained in the
Appendix as an Object.
Format of the report
The report should use Arial or Cali
i 11-point font, be line-spaced at 1.5 for ease of reading, and
have page numbers on the bottom of each page. If diagrams or tables are used, due attention
should be given to pagination to avoid loss of meaning and continuity by unnecessarily splitting
information over two pages. Diagrams must ca
y the appropriate captioning.
It is essential that you use appropriate APA style for citing and referencing research. Please see
more information on referencing here: Academic Skills webpage.
“No deal!” said the union. “The cu
ent method of evaluating government employ-
ees at this agency is te
ible, and if a change doesn’t occur, we’ll be in court seek-
In 1984, a government agency approved and initiated an ambitious project,
part of which was to develop an updated, automated evaluation system for the
50,000 employees located throughout the United States. The existing evaluation
system was antiquated. Although there were forms used for employee evaluation,
standardization was still lacking. Not all promotions were based on performance.
Often, it was based on time in grade, the personal whims of management, o
friendships. Some divisions seemed to promote employees faster than others. The
success or failure of a project could also seriously impact performance opportu-
nities. Some type of standardization was essential.
In June 1985, a project manager was finally assigned and
ought on board.
The assignment of the project manager was based upon rank and availability at
that time rather than the requirements of the project. Team members often pos-
sessed a much better understanding of the project than did the project manager.
1Copyright © 2005 by Harold Kerzner. This case study is fictitious and was prepared as the basis fo
classroom discussion rather than to illustrate an effective or ineffective handling of an administrative
c09.qxd 12/21/12 5:44 PM Page 323
Kerzner, H., & Kerzner, H. R XXXXXXXXXXProject management case studies : Case studies. Retrieved from http:
Created from think on XXXXXXXXXX:30:57.
The project manager, together with his team, quickly developed an action
plan. The action plan did not contain a work
eakdown structure, but did contain
a statement of work which called out high-level deliverables that would be essen-
tial for structured analyses, design and programming. The statement of work and
deliverables were more so in compliance with agency requirements for structured
analyses, design, and programming than for the project’s requirement. The entire
action plan was prepared by the project office, which was composed of eight
Bids from outside vendors were solicited for the software packages, with the
constraint that all deliverables must be operational on existing agency hardware.
In October 1985, the award was made by the project office to Primco Corporation
with work scheduled to begin in December 1985.
In the spring of 1986, it became apparent that the project was running into
trouble and disaster was imminent. There were three major problems facing the
project manager. As stated by the project manager:
1. The requirements for the project had to be changed because of new regu-
lations for government worker employee evaluation.
2. Primco did not have highly skilled personnel assigned to the project.
3. The agency did not have highly skilled personnel from the functional
areas assigned to the project.
The last item was argumentative. The line managers at the agency contended
that they had assigned some of their best people and that the real problem was that
the project manager was trying to make all of the decisions himself without any
input from the assigned personnel. The employees contended that proper project
management practices were not being used. The project was being run like a dic-
tatorship rather than a democracy. Several employees felt as though they were not
treated as part of the project team.
According to one of the team members,
The project manager keeps making technical decisions without any solid
foundation to support his views. Several of us in the line organization have
significantly more knowledge than does the project manager, yet he keeps
iding our recommendations and decisions. Perhaps he has that right,
ut I dislike being treated as a second-class citizen. If the project manage
has all of this technical knowledge, then why does he need us?
In June 1986, the decision was made by the