PROJ6003 Project Execution and Control

PROJ6003 Project Execution and Control
Assessment Case Study
2021
1
* The contents of this Case Study were adapted from a real case to suit the requirements of the PROJ6003 subject’s assessments and are the
property of Torrens University Australia.
Department Asset Management System – DAMS Project
Background
The organisation is a large state-based government department in Victoria with assets and
stakeholders throughout the entire state of Victoria. This project is to deliver an Asset Management
Information System which will store the details of all new and existing assets, which include land and
buildings across multiple locations. We will call the system DAMS, Departmental Asset Management
System. The DAMS System replaces over 20 department asset management systems and manual
processes, including systems written in MS Access, Excel and Lotus Notes. Due to the number of assets
and divisions within the department, it was decided that the system would be developed and deployed
over a three-year period, with three separate deployments.
The project was purchased on the basis of responses to a tender, and the successful supplier was an
experienced vendor, who had previously delivered this application to other state government-based
agencies. We will call the vendor Great IT Systems (GIS). The contract was approved as a fixed price
contract, using the Requirements Specification document from the Tender as the agreed basis for
costing. The contract allows for changes to specifications and requirements at a fixed hourly rate
according to the rate card.
The CoTS (Commerical Off the Shelf) software solution was purchased for a cost of $5.5M plus
implementation and training costs. Training development and delivery was quoted at a cost of 500
days at a daily rate of $1000 per day. Implementation costs, including requirements analysis,
customisation and system testing were charged at $3M. Hardware and infrastructure was purchased
at a cost of $4.5M. Total cost of the project is recorded as lifecycle cost, whick includes ongoing
maintenance during the life of the program, generally made up of the initial contract plus two
extensions of the initial contract. Changes and additions to scope are based on the rate card (Appendix
1)
The initial intention was that the selected application would be implemented as it was, out of the box
and with minimal customisation. The business users would need to change their ways of working to
follow the processes that are introduced via DAMS.
Project Team
The current vendor Project Manager has successfully delivered many projects and is well known for
her Stakeholder Management and Project Delivery skills. We will call her Lee. The current department
Program Manager is a consultant with many years of experience, but has only recently joined the
department on a contract basis, specifically to deliver the DAMS Program. We will call him Mark. Glenn
is a Project Manager, who reports to Mark, and has also joined as a consultant. Glenn has worked with
this department previously as a consultant, and has delivered a number of applications, including
AssetMan which will now be replaced by DAMS.
A Business Analyst has also been allocated to the Program. He comes from within this government
department and has worked in an IT delivery role for six years, He too has implemented AssetMan
and knows Glenn well. We will call him Martin.
Recently, a Project Officer, Teena, has joined the Project Team. Her role is to schedule and manage
meetings and training dates. Teena is an experienced Project Manager who has worked for many
government organisations and understands how to communicate effectively with the key
PROJ6003 Project Execution and Control
Assessment Case Study
2021
2
* The contents of this Case Study were adapted from a real case to suit the requirements of the PROJ6003 subject’s assessments and are the
property of Torrens University Australia.
stakeholders. Teena is present in all meetings and in all training sessions. Teena feels that she is
underutilised and that Mark is not taking advantage of her skillset. She also feels that Lee is using her
as the scapegoat for any issues that are coming to light. Teena is not included in the Project Steering
Committee Meetings, which frustrates her, as most of the Project Team and stakeholders come to her
first with any questions or problems.
The organisation has allocated Subject Matter Experts to the Program, with the expectation that the
solution will satisfy all of their needs, and that all staff will use the full system once it has been
delivered. The Subject Matter Expersts are specialists in their area of work, with a number of
stakeholders allocated to a super user role. This role allows them to create new users, and update
new code tables according to the needs of the teams and applications.
The key internal stakeholders, especially the Subject Matter Experts, who have been seconded to the
Project Team, have worked in their role and team for many years, and are very experienced in their
current applications. They do not understand the roles or needs of other teams and really are not
interested in knowing what the others do or how they do it. They do not understand why they need
to use an application that takes into consideration the needs of the other teams. The benefits of
implementing DAMS are not immediately visible to these internal stakeholders, who believe that the
new systems are imposing more work on them, rather than simplifying the processes. A number of
Subject Matter Experts, who have been seconded to the Project Team, do not have a long-term view
of the needs of their team, but rather have a limited view based on what they currently do. The
application requirements have been developed on the basis of information gathered from these
Subject Matter Experts.
PROJ6003 Project Execution and Control
Assessment Case Study
2021
3
* The contents of this Case Study were adapted from a real case to suit the requirements of the PROJ6003 subject’s assessments and are the
property of Torrens University Australia.
Figure 1 Program Organisational Structure
Corporate and Branch teams
The Staff, who are located at Head Office within their corporate teams, are primarily responsible for
liaising and supporting the branch office staff, however they are mainly called upon to report on KPIs
and ensure that the projects which are created for each branch office, are delivered according to
agreed requirements. For the purposes of simplicity this report will focus on the impacted divisions
within the Corporate Head Office location, along with their branches which are located in
Metropolitan and Non-Metropolitan Regions across the state.
The Branch staff are responsible for their assets and their staff as well as their own customers. The
Branches are the delivery arm of the department. While they manage assets and maintenance work
at their own sites, they are also responsible for the delivery of the department services to their local
communities. These Branch staff are also responsible for reporting back to the Corporate Divisions.
The aim of DAMS is to reduce the amount of duplication in the preparation of these reports for the
Corporate teams, using the data from a centralised base of information, which can be accessed,
depending on securities and permission, by all staff who need to access the data.
PROJ6003 Project Execution and Control
Assessment Case Study
2021
4
* The contents of this Case Study were adapted from a real case to suit the requirements of the PROJ6003 subject’s assessments and are the
property of Torrens University Australia.
The Corporate and Branch teams and their applications within DAMS are listed below in Table 1 Division and Applications.
The Regional structure is shown in the map below in
Figure 2 Regional Divisions within Victoria
Table 1 Division and Applications

YOU MAY ALSO READ ...  Explain How to Design the Best Organization Strategy for a Competitive Advantage.
Corporate Division / Branch
Responsibility
Application Release date
Asset Management
Asset Register Release 1 – deployed
Agreements Release 1 – deployed
Disposals Release 1 – deployed
Acquisitions Release 1 – deployed
People and Culture
People and Lists Release 1 – deployed
Corporate Finance / All branches
Contractors Release 1 – deployed
Corporate Finance
Investment Management Release 3 – no release date
Capital Allocation Tool Release 3 – no release date
Corporate Reporting
Reporting Release 1 – deployed
Forecasting and Modelling Release 3 – no release date
Corporate Planning
Asset Management Planning
Modelling
Release 3 – no release date
Corporate Planning / All branches
Condition and efficiency
management
Release 3 – no release date
Asset Management Reform
Implementation Team / All
branches
Property Condition Evaluation Release 2 – delayed
Capability Building Unit/ All
branches
Asset Maintenance Plan Release 2 – delayed
Corporate ESM Team / All
branches
Essential Safety Measures Release 2 – delayed
Response Programs Unit / All
branches
Asbestos Registers Release 2 – delayed
Safe Program Release 2 – delayed
Asbestos Management and
Audits
Moved to Release 3
Cleaning Unit / All branches
Cleaning Release 2 – delayed, part has
been moved to Release 3

PROJ6003 Project Execution and Control
Assessment Case Study
2021
5
* The contents of this Case Study were adapted from a real case to suit the requirements of the PROJ6003 subject’s assessments and are the
property of Torrens University Australia.

Corporate Division / Branch
Responsibility
Application Release date
Contractor Panel application and
management
Release 3 – no release date
Cleaning Audits Release 3 – no release date
All branches Work Order Management Release 2 – delayed

Figure 2 Regional Divisions within Victoria
The product
The key benefits of DAMS are mainly aimed at the Corporate Management Teams, who are looking at
the centralised reporting and centralised future planning options which will be delivered when the
project has been completed. Several applications scheduled for Release 3 are aimed at achieving the
future planning requirements. At this completion of Release 3, all of the applications will have been
delivered and all staff, state-wide, will have been trained with some havingused the applications for
at least 12 months. The Corporate Reporting Team will be developing key reports to provide planning
and modelling for future asset acquisitions and asset maintenance programs. These reports will feed
future budget proposals which will be submitted to the Treasury Department in order to acquire
future funding. The Forecasting and Modelling application will allow the Corporate Planning Team to
utilise the key criteria set for funding of services to the community, on the basis of future planning of
resident numbers in each Region This form of planning looks at a 10 year view into the future and is
PROJ6003 Project Execution and Control
Assessment Case Study
2021
6
* The contents of this Case Study were adapted from a real case to suit the requirements of the PROJ6003 subject’s assessments and are the
property of Torrens University Australia.
essential for the ongoing funding of services. The Corporate Reporting teams understand the need for
this application, but it also requires the input of data that is maintained by other Corporate Teams, as
well as data that is maintained by the Branch staff.
The Branch staff have supplied representatives for a Branch Reference Group, and have worked
together for a number of years to identify their specific requirements, and to agree the terminology
and the expectations of what they will see and how they will be able to view this data. The Branch
Reference Group are aware of the need to supply data to all of the Corporate Teams, and continually
feel pulled between the teams, as each team requires data from them throughout the year, often at
the end of each quarter.
As part of the initial communications with Department Senior and Executive Management,
expectations have been set regarding the way in which DAMS will benefit all of the department
stakeholders, and in particular, how some of the key applications will be used and will be useful. It has
recently come to light, that these expectations were not conveyed to the Subject Matter Experts or to
the Project Team.
Non Department Stakeholders
External stakeholders include the Training Team, Trainers Are We, who report to the Vendor Project
Manager, Lee, and who have been engaged to supply training materials and provide training to key
stakeholders within the Corporate Teams for each application as it is ready to be delivered. The
Training Team have carried out a Training Needs Analysis very early in the project, and on the basis of
this Training Needs Analysis, they have provided recommendations regarding the materials and
training that will be developed. The Training Team are not employed by the Department, and have
not been able to meet with internal or external stakeholders of the Department. Therefore there is a
lack of understanding of the current as-is processes which are followed within the department and
specific teams and the Training Team are developing the materials based on their understanding of
undocumented to-be processes, taken from the Solutions Specification Document.
The application solutions are under development by the vendor following workshops with selected
Subject Matter Experts, who have been appointed by the internal Project Team. The workshops are
facilitated by the Business Analyst, and the Solutions Architect, both of whom note all of their findings
and their solutions into the Solutions Specification Document, This technical document is mapped
back to the Tender Requirements Specification Document.
Program Governance
Mark meets weekly with the Vendor Project Manager (Lee), the Training Team Project Manager
(Emma), the Business Analyst (Martin), the Change Manager (Brett) and the internal Project Manager
(Glenn). Mark reports monthly to the Project Steering Committee, which is chaired by the Project
Sponsor.
The members of the Department Project Management Team have developed a schedule for
requirement workshops, development of the solution, and development of training materials as well
as training delivery. They have also listed the key milestones, which Mark uses as the basis of his status
reporting to the Steering Committee.
The Training Team is able to communicate with the Solutions Development team in order to confirm
their understanding of the applications and how the business will use these applications. They have
PROJ6003 Project Execution and Control
Assessment Case Study
2021
7
* The contents of this Case Study were adapted from a real case to suit the requirements of the PROJ6003 subject’s assessments and are the
property of Torrens University Australia.
identified that there has not been a process review of as-is processes, and the to-be processes can
only be found within the Solutions Specification Document. No process maps have been supplied and
they do not appear to have been developed. This has been raised with and requested of the
Department Project Management Team on many occasions, with no positive outcomes.
Figure 3 Program Governance
Schedule and Milestones
Release 1 was delivered late. The original release date was end of August 2020. Corporate User
Training was delivered in August and September with the final go live date of end of September 2020.
Release 2 has not been delivered yet. The original release date was March 2021. Training for each
application has been delivered during March and April 2021. The go live date was rescheduled to end
of July and has since been cancelled. Release of applications to the Branches has been scheduled as a
Pilot rollout, with the Branch training to be delivered by the Department’s Internal Training Team,
headed by Rick. Rick is a Branch Manager who has been seconded to the Project, to deliver training to
the Branches, and he is concerned that this must be successful as it may impact his career progression.
As Rick has been learning to use the applications, and preparing the training materials to be used for
the Branches, he has discovered that the applications do not contain the promised features, the
terminology on the screens does not match that which was promised to the Branch Reference Group,
and features which were to have been automated remain manual data entry. He is concerned as the
requirements were gathered in conjunction with his branch colleagues, and he understands their
PROJ6003 Project Execution and Control
Assessment Case Study
2021
8
* The contents of this Case Study were adapted from a real case to suit the requirements of the PROJ6003 subject’s assessments and are the
property of Torrens University Australia.
needs and their concerns. Rick is concerned that his colleagues in the Branch Reference Group will not
accept the DAMS system in its current format. He feels let down and embarrassed and is unsure of
how he will deliver this training to the Pilot Branch Group. Rick needs to begin training soon and is not
comfortable that his training will be well accepted once the Branch Managers realise that they are not
going to receive the benefits that they have been promised.
Release 2 has also suffered a loss of confidence with the Corporate Teams who are completing User
Acceptance Testing. As Release 2 approaches its go live date, User Acceptance Testing is underway.
Testing staff have been provided with a walk through by the Vendor Training Team, and this was the
first time that the Testing staff have seen the applications that they will be testing. They have been
provided a testing script which they must follow in order to test the solution. These staff are finding
that their expectations of what the DAMS system will do for them, and how it will do it for them, are
not being realised, and the volume of discontent is becoming louder after UAT testing.
The Management of the teams receiving the new applications have not previously seen the solution,
and they are beginning to express some concerns as they hear their testing staff comment and
complain about how they are to use the new system. The UAT Team members have found that the
promised features are not in the current release, headings and field names are confusing and contain
incorrect reference data, and the screens are not user friendly, nor do they contain the data that is
required. The Management staff therefore asked for a walkthrough of the new applications, and were
provided with a training session, during which they were taken through the step by step approach to
using the application, and were provided with review scenarios to ensure that they have understood
the application.
During these training sessions, the Management staff began to ask questions of the trainer, about how
the system works and find that it is not delivering what has been promised to them. Questions about
new processes and how these apply to their existing processes come to the fore during these training
sessions. This is repeated in every training session and with different divisions of the department. The
trainers are beginning to become frustrated as they find new information about expectations, but they
have already completed the development of materials. The trainers also find that some features which
should have been working, are now not working, as updates have been implemented.
Release 3 is due to be delivered in September 2021 and will be rolled out to the Branch offices
beginning in February 2022. Training and go live dates, however, have not been confirmed. Currently,
many features of Release 2 have been deferred to Release 3, in an attempt to deliver Release 2 on or
close to schedule, and there is ongoing discussion between the Vendor and the Project Team,
regarding the changes and increases in scope. Lee and Mark have had a number of strong discussions
regarding requirements and the agreed specifications. Lee has escalated many of these issues to her
Senior Management from a contract perspective.
Mark has left the project, suddenly and with no warning, in mid-May 2021 along with his assistant
Teena.
Table 2 Scheduled Applications and Release dates

YOU MAY ALSO READ ...  We can help on: Sex Hormone-Binding Globulin Gene.
Application Release Number Notes
Asset Register Release 1 Deployed
Agreements Release 1 Deployed
Disposals Release 1 Deployed

PROJ6003 Project Execution and Control
Assessment Case Study
2021
9
* The contents of this Case Study were adapted from a real case to suit the requirements of the PROJ6003 subject’s assessments and are the
property of Torrens University Australia.

Application Release Number Notes
Acquisitions Release 1 Deployed
Contractors Release 1 Deployed
People and Lists Release 1 Deployed
Reporting Release 1 Deployed
Property Condition Evaluation Release 2 Delayed past July
Work Management Release 2 Delayed past July
Asset Maintenance Plan Release 2 Delayed past July
Essential Safety Measures Release 2 Delayed past July
Asbestos Registers Release 2 Partially moved to Release 3
Safe Program Release 2 Delayed past July
Cleaning Release 2 Partially moved to Release 3
Asbestos Management and Audits Release 3 Delivery date not scheduled
Capital Allocation Tool Release 3 Delivery date not scheduled
Investment Management Release 3 Delivery date not scheduled
Forecasting and Modelling Release 3 Delivery date not scheduled
Asset Management Planning Modelling Release 3 Delivery date not scheduled
Condition and efficiency management Release 3 Delivery date not scheduled
Contractor Panel application and
management
Release 3 Delivery date not scheduled
Cleaning Audits Release 3 Delivery date not scheduled

A new Program Manager, Jenny, has just been appointed to replace Mark. She is hearing rumblings of
discontent and has a number of meetings scheduled with Project Team Managers, the Corporate Team
Managers and the Branch Training Team Lead, Rick, who is liaising with the Branch Managers. Release
2 is on hold, and the training for the Pilot Branches has just been cancelled. Jenny reviews the current
Project Reporting dashboard (Appendix 2) before meeting the team.
PROJ6003 Project Execution and Control
Assessment Case Study
2021
10
* The contents of this Case Study were adapted from a real case to suit the requirements of the PROJ6003 subject’s assessments and are the
property of Torrens University Australia.
Appendix 1 Rate Card
PROJ6003 Project Execution and Control
Assessment Case Study
2021
11
* The contents of this Case Study were adapted from a real case to suit the requirements of the PROJ6003 subject’s assessments and are the
property of Torrens University Australia.
Appendix 2 Department Dashboard Reporting
* How to cite this: Torrens University Australia (2021). Department Asset Management System –
DAMS Project. PROJ6003 Project Execution and Control – Assessment Case Study.

YOU MAY ALSO READ ...  PS Music UNADJUSTED TRIAL BALANCE July 31, 2016

CLICK HERE TO GET A PROFESSIONAL WRITER TO WORK ON THIS PAPER AND OTHER SIMILAR PAPERS

CLICK THE BUTTON TO MAKE YOUR ORDER

YOU MAY ALSO READ ...  what resources to utilize during the preparation.