Subheading
MANAGE ICT PROJECTS
ICTPMG501
ASSESSMENT GUIDE
1
ICTPMG501 ASSESSMENT GUIDE 37
Assessment requirements
elements and performaNce criteria
1. Manage project definition activities
1.1 Confirm organisational project governance policy and processes
1.2 Confirm business problem or opportunity and project objectives
1.3 Develop project charter, including preliminary statement of project scope and obtain sign-off
1.4 Conduct a feasibility study and prepare a business case as necessary
2. Undertake project planning
2.1 Plan information gathering activities to determine project requirements, constraints and risks
2.2 Identify project partitioning on the basis of intended system development life cycle and risk
2.3 Prepare project work breakdown, schedule and budget
2.4 Compile project management plan documents as necessary to communicate the intended management strategy for the project and obtain sign-off
3. Establish the IT project team
3.1 Identify and select team members, and allocate roles and responsibilities, based on project solution requirements
3.2 Determine training and support needs of team members
3.3 Establish project team values and agreed behavioural standards with team members
4. Manage project execution activities
4.1 Monitor delivery and acceptance of assigned project team work activities and manage individuals
4.2 Monitor and control the quality of project deliverables
4.3 Monitor and control project scope changes, risks and issues
4.4 Manage system testing and hand over activities
5. Coordinate project closure
5.1 Prepare IT support plans and maintenance or support documents
5.2 Obtain final project sign-off
5.3 Conduct post project review and document lessons learned
5.4 Review and update disaster recovery plan
5.5 Close project
performance evidence
Evidence of the ability to:
· scope the activities of a complex information and communications technology (ICT) project
· prepare a project plan
· determine the project team and duties
· execute a project
· close the project, ensuring it has met requirements.
knowledge evidence
To complete the unit requirements safely and effectively the individual must:
· describe the characteristics of leaders and technical teams
· outline the consultation and communication techniques and strategies
· describe the process of establishing technical teams and determine stages of team development
· explain estimation and cost-analysis techniques
· describe the methods of communication and communication styles, including interviewing techniques
· identify the objectives and perform benefits analysis
· outline the organisational values, policies and processes that apply to the project
· conduct performance management and project team appraisal methods
· explain the processes for monitoring team and own performance
· outline the project cash flow and budgeting processes
· identify the range of project-management methods and tools
· conduct systems analysis and modelling techniques
· explain team roles and delegation within a multi-project methodology context
· identify and analyse technology solution models and frameworks
Special Needs
Remember to allow reasonable adjustment for any particular needs of the candidate in line with your organisational policies. If a candidate believes they have special needs, they must talk to their trainer.
Assessment MarkING Guide
Included in this assessor guide is a marking guide with suggested model answers for each task.
Part 1: Case Study
Purpose:
Case studies are used to assess the required knowledge and skills needed to undertake the tasks as outlined in the performance criteria and elements.
Candidate instructions:
Read the final report for the business case below and answer the questions that follow.
Business solutions through information technology
FINAL REPORT
FREP Handheld Business Case
BC Ministry of Forests and Range
FRPA Resource Evaluation Program
Paul K. Hooper – MBA, PMP
Senior Consultant
1405 Douglas Street, 6th Floor
Victoria, BC V8W 2G2
[email protected]Source: https://www.for.gov.bc.za/ftp/hfp/external/!publish/frep/ciworkshop/2007/Business-Case-FREP-Handheld.pdf
Document Sign Off
This document has been approved as the Final Report for the File Transfer Mechanism Risk Assessment and accurately reflects the current understanding of the project.
Prepared by:
Paul Hooper – MBA, PMP
Date
CGI Senior Consultant
Approved by:
Frank Barber
Date
Effectiveness Evaluation Coordinator
BC Ministry of Forests and Range
Glossary
The following terms appear throughout this document and its related attachments:
FREP
Forests and Range Evaluation Program
FRPA
Forest and Range Practices Act
FREWG
FRPA Resource Evaluation Working Group (FREWG)
J2EE
Java Platform 2 Enterprise Edition is a Java programming platform for server
applications
JAVA SWING
Java Swing is a graphical user interface toolkit for java that allows the same
deployment on all platforms without having to use the native handheld (XP)
facilities. Sometimes reduces application development costs and compensates
for server disconnections.
JRun
JRun is a J2EE application server currently owned by Adobe Systems. This
handheld runtime environment would reuse most of the J2EE screen business
logic of FREP Release 1 with the same layers and interface
NPV
The Net Present Value (NPV) is the discounted monetary value of the expected
net benefits of the project.
TCO
Total Cost of Ownership for applications and technologies (hardware and
software) includes development, support, disaster recovery and retirement costs
along with the costs of flexibility, scalability, ease of use/support over the life
cycle of the technology or application. For the purposes of this business case
the life cycle is assumed to be five years.
UMPC
Ultra Mobile Personal Computer’s fill the gap between tables and handheld with
the ability to run Windows XP
XForms
XForms is an XML (extensible mark-up language) format specification
for user interfaces for XML data such as web forms.
1. Executive Summary
The FREP Handheld Business Case has concluded that the overall net cost/benefit of a Handheld is unacceptable and is significantly different from the current Non-Handheld. Initially, we were optimistic that a handheld deployment phase would be valuable for FREP but due to the characteristics of FREP and the recommendations from the Vivid Solutions study, this business case has identified an NPV difference of $500K.
Technology investments are complex but difficult decisions must be made within the strategic context of the BC Government. This business case process looked at many different options and consulted with other handheld deployments within the MoFR. The approach of this business case is comprehensive and looked beyond financial (quantifiable) estimates. It is important to note that the financial estimates are forecasts over a five-year term and are not guaranteed to occur. Hence, a risk assessment of the estimates was completed to account for potential future variability.
Although the data for FREP is collected in the field, there are no other characteristics that support the replacement of paper checklists with a handheld. Characteristics that typically drive handheld investments and are missing from FREP are the following:
· Not an audit-driven need
· No legislation need for handhelds
· No fines, penalties or extra revenue
· No ‘customer service’ or competitive advantage driver (e.g. in private sector)
· No safety, security or health issue
· No significant benefits from business process improvements, productivity savings, better information flow, decreased information publishing costs (minor), reduced staffing costs (overtime) or turnover.
· No significant qualitative benefits like: higher citizen or licensee satisfaction, improved staff efficiency, improved or timelier decision making, increased staff morale, regulatory or legislative compliance or significant cost avoidance
There are data quality effort savings with handhelds, but these savings do not bridge the $500K NPV difference.
Most of the significant benefits are delivered with FREP online application in Release 1. This application provides significant data quality improvements with business data rules in the system and there is only incremental value to push this out to handhelds.
In summary, unless there is a significant change in the key business drivers, mandatory requirements for a handheld or the ability to share handheld investment costs with other program areas, FREP should stay with the Non-Handheld. CGI recommends that MoFR complete an update to the business case in three years to verify assumptions, evaluate if remote communications in the field are technically and economically feasible and ascertain if there are any significant changes to costs or benefits.
2. Purpose
Information technology represents a significant investment. To ensure that scarce resources are optimized, the full benefit of initiatives is realized, the risks are mitigated and the business functions of MoFR are supported, a business case approach to managing information technology priorities for FREP is being undertaken. Technology investments are complex and difficult decisions must be made within the strategic context of the BC Government. This decision process, like government itself is continuously evolving and improving. A major component of the decision-making process is business case analysis.
The purpose of this business case is to:
· Describe the options of solving the handheld deployment decision in clear business terms to facilitate decision making
· Analyse what will happen if various handheld options are implemented or not
· Provide an objective (non-emotional) assessment
· Analyse how the handheld options meet the FREP objectives
· Identify what resources (costs) and benefits are required for implementation
· Provide a recommendation on the best option
Business cases are an important managerial tool and capital funding is a limited resource. Thus, management has to carefully decide whether a handheld is economically acceptable. MoFR management must identify the projects that will contribute the most to Ministry priorities. This, in essence, is the purpose for the handheld business case.
3. Approach
The approach of this business case is comprehensive and involves a process which looks beyond financial estimates. Although financial estimates are of critical importance, they do not capture certain issues. At the same time, it is important to understand that the estimates, financial and other, which are used for investment evaluation, are always opinions about the future and are thus not as accurate as is suggested or thought.
The basic steps of the business case process include the following:
1. Identify viable alternatives that solve the decision-making problem.
2. Analyze the alignment of the alternatives to strategic objectives at the Government, Ministry and Program levels.
3. Review all stakeholders that have an interest in either alternative.
4. Complete a Quantitative and Qualitative cost/benefit analysis.
5. Complete a Risk Assessment to develop a Risk Factor.
6. Final Recommendation.
4. BUSINESS CASE – FREP HANDHELD
Estimated Project Start Date: July 1, 2007 (Handheld)
Estimated Project End Date: July 1, 2012 (Handheld)
Overall Project Description and Objectives:
Current State: (Non-Handheld)
· The first release of the online FREP application occurred in early February 2007. This application will allow the field teams to enter checklist data from their Branch offices. This current state improves the data quality, timeliness, completeness and reporting capabilities from the previous fiscal year. Data is still collected in the field on paper checklists. The opportunity exists to continue to improve functionality, data quality, timeliness and save operating costs.
Project Purpose:
· The purpose of the FRPA Resource Evaluation Program (FREP) information management system is to have one central database to collect and analyze resource monitoring values. The FREP system will determine if forest and range policies and practices in British Columbia are achieving government’s objectives for FRPA resource values, with a priority on environmental parameters and consideration for social and economic parameters where appropriate. The data collected by the system will be used by forest professionals to report on forest conditions.
Project Scope/Timing:
· Release 1 of the new system will be implemented before the next field data collection phase in 2007. Additional checklists will be implemented in later releases. This project reviews the business case for a five-year period.
Business Case Project Objectives:
· Reduce overall business process, project and IT support costs.
· Improve effectiveness of forecasting as well as governance and forecasting accuracy.
· Implement consistent business and reporting processes.
Project Stakeholders/Users:
· Resource Value Team members that collect and enter the field data
· FRPA Resource Evaluation Working Group (FREWG) which consists of number of branch specialists, resource value team leads and a selection of district staff from MOFR and MOE
· Headquarters and specialist staff in Forests Practices Branch
· MoFR Information Management Group (IMG) for systems implementation, integration and support
· Workplace Technology Services (WTS) for handheld management and maintenance
· External users: Licensees have access to their individual data
Strategic Alignment:
Alignment to Department Strategic Plan and Government Objectives and Priorities:
The FREP IMS project and both business case options align equally well to two of the BC Government Five Great Goals:
· Lead the world in sustainable environmental management;
· Create more jobs per capita than anywhere in Canada.
The FREP IMS project and both business case options align equally well to all three of the MoFR Goals:
Goal 1: Sustainable Forest and Range Resources
Goal 2: Sustainable Forest and Range Benefits
Goal 3: Highly Effective, Innovative and Responsive Organization
Both business case options align equally well to all three FREP Objectives:
· Assess the effectiveness of the Forest and Range Practices Act (FRPA) in achieving stewardship of the eleven resource values identified under FRPA;
· Identify issues regarding the implementation of forest policies, practices and legislation as they affect the resource values identified under FRPA;
· Implement continuous improvement of forest management.
If urgency increases with respect to reporting on FREP Objectives achievement, the handheld option may align better in the future.
In summary, implementation of Option #1 (Non-Handheld) or Option #2 (Handheld) will equally improve achievement of relevant Government, Ministry and Project level goals.
Stakeholders:
· Key Stakeholder Group #1 – Resource Value Team members and FREWG collect, enter and analyze field data. This group is central to the objectives of FREP. Their requirements are well documented in the ‘Core Hand-Held Requirements’ document and are consistent with the Vivid Solutions report recommendation. This group is impacted the most by the implementation (or not) of a handheld option.
· Key Stakeholder Group #2 – Headquarters and specialist staff in Forests Practices Branch. This group is impacted mostly by data quality, data entry and reporting requirements.
· Key Stakeholder Group #3 - MoFR Information Management Group (IMG) for systems implementation, integration and support and Workplace Technology Services (WTS) for handheld management and maintenance. This group is impacted with any support tasks.
· Key Stakeholder Group #4 – External users (e.g. Licensees)
All stakeholders are considered in the Quantitative and Qualitative assessments.
Option Descriptions
This business case looked at various options and finalized to two viable options for the following reasons:
· Various Non-Handheld options were reviewed that changed variables such as data entry time, data entry location or whether documents were scanned/copied in the district or at headquarters. Since the purpose of this business case is to assist with the decision on whether to implement a handheld or not, various non-handheld options do not provide any extra insight. This business case is not meant to decide on the best non-handheld option to implement.
· The following Handheld options were reviewed:
o Real-time remote communications in the field via satellite that would avoid handheld application development and maintenance costs.
· Not-viable. Protection Branch, which uses this technology for fire camps, utilizes portable satellite dishes that are cumbersome (3-foot size) and too expensive ($18K purchase cost and $4K per week) with a vendor that is not stable (Global Star) (Brian Howden/Mike Winder)
o Java SWING and JRUN development environments on the handheld were examined with the hope that most of the J2EE code could be re-used on the handheld and could run in a ‘disconnected’ state.
· Not significantly lower costs. These development environments had their own costs and were not significantly different than XML forms.
o Different XML forms development environments (InfoPath versus X forms) are assumed to have little significant development environment cost differences (Please refer to, ‘FREP Mobile Application – Architecture Recommendations’, Vivid Solutions, Nov. 16, 2006)
In summary, CGI examined many viable options but decided to complete estimates for only...