BPM Final Report Sample

BPM Final Report

Overview of Assessment:

You are required to develop a project evaluation report based on a case study that will be released via Canvas in week 10 of semester. Your project evaluation report will answer specific questions about the case study which will be provided when the case study is released. The project evaluation report is an opportunity for you to demonstrate what you have learned during the semester about project management. To achieve a pass grade or higher you must develop a complete project evaluation report using the structure outlined in the details below, citing relevant sources to underpin your responses to the questions posed. Your course coordinator will make an announcement when the case study and questions will be posted.

Overview of Assessment:

You are required to develop a project evaluation report based on a case study that will be released via Canvas in week 10 of semester. Your project evaluation report will answer specific questions about the case study which will be provided when the case study is released. The project evaluation report is an opportunity for you to demonstrate what you have learned during the semester about project management. To achieve a pass grade or higher you must develop a complete project evaluation report using the structure outlined in the details below, citing relevant sources to underpin your responses to the questions posed. Your course coordinator will make an announcement when the case study and questions will be posted. 

Solution

Section 1: Stakeholder Engagement and Communication Plan

The Service Victoria (SV) project has struggled to meet its goals partly because its initial business case failed to account for stakeholder engagement adequately (Lehtinen and Aaltonen 2020:90). As per the MBA assignment expert, Understanding the advantages of good stakeholder management is crucial for critiquing the case's clear stakeholder engagement and communication plan. Stakeholder management was identified as an area needing improvement in the 2014 preliminary business case, along with defining delivery and finance methods, benefit realisation strategies and stakeholder management (VAGO 2021, p. 18). This early warning sign shows that stakeholder engagement was not given appropriate attention from the start, which might lead to difficulties.

In addition, the programme team's lack of expertise in using diverse techniques was addressed at the Gate 3 review in 2016 (VAGO 2021, p. 25). This reveals a scarcity of knowledge and experience in the field of stakeholder management. Stakeholder engagement calls for serious thought into various approaches and individualised methods for efficient communication and cooperation. The flaws found in this review show how neglecting this important part of project management may have significant repercussions.

The project's risk management strategies should also be taken into account. In 2017, a separate Programme Control Board (PCB) evaluated the project's risk management, which shows that the possible consequences of insufficient stakeholder engagement were considered (VAGO 2021, p. 56). Risk assessment, prevention, and reaction plan all benefit from attentive stakeholder management. Potential hazards may be better identified, and the right countermeasures can be implemented if stakeholders are involved early and regularly (Larsson and Larsson 2020:585). Involvement of the PCB shows that efforts were made to address the stakeholder-related concerns; nonetheless, it may have come too late in the project's timeline to implement lasting solutions.

The 2018 Gate 5 review validated the project's progress and revealed opportunities for growth in stakeholder engagement and communication (VAGO 2021, p. 86). However, the Gate 6 review in 2020 reaffirmed the Reform Program's business case's inadequacies in dealing with current or updated project modifications (VAGO 2021, p. 86). This demonstrates how challenges and limits continue due to a lack of responsiveness in the stakeholder engagement tactics.

Advantages accrue to a project as a result of well-executed stakeholder management. In the first place, it ensures that stakeholder viewpoints, worries, and expectations are considered and included in the project's goals and decision-making procedures (Bahadorestani et al. 2020). Stakeholders' knowledge and experience may be used to spot problems early on, improve project design, and increase the likelihood of success by incorporating them from the beginning. Second, trust and cooperation are built via clear lines of communication made possible by good stakeholder management (Lehtinen and Aaltonen 2020:90). Because of this, misunderstandings and disagreements might be avoided, and problem-solving, conflict resolution, and consensus-building could all improve.

In the instance of Service Victoria, missing opportunities and unmet project goals resulted from poorly crafted stakeholder engagement tactics in the business case (Burton 2021). The timeline eloquently displays the repercussions of poor stakeholder management, including project delays, scope restrictions, and persistent difficulties. For future projects, the takeaway is prioritising stakeholder management from the get-go by stressing the significance of good stakeholder engagement and communication (Hendry 2021). Opportunities were lost, the project's scope was reduced, and problems persisted because good stakeholder management wasn't a top priority.

Section 2: Strengths and Weaknesses of SV’s Project Management Approach

Agile, waterfall and Lean project management methodologies were merged in the Service Victoria (SV) approach to project management. The project's entire lifetime and execution were significantly impacted by this intricate blend of project management approaches, each of which had its own strengths and weaknesses (CiricLalic et al. 2022). Incorporating Agile methodologies into SV's approach to project management helped encourage flexibility and adaptation, two of the approach's strengths. Agile methodologies strongly emphasise iterative development, ongoing feedback, and adaptability. This allowed SV to adapt its strategy and outputs to meet the changing requirements of its stakeholders and market circumstances (Gemino et al. 2021).

In contrast, the stages, milestones, and final products of a project were all laid out in detail with the help of the waterfall approach (Thesing et al. 2021). This time-honoured project management approach made it possible to carefully plan, collect requirements, and define the project's parameters. It offered a structure for handling dependencies and scheduling activities, allowing SV to define unambiguous goals. The strengths of the waterfall approach lay in its ability to provide a clear path forward and guarantee adequate documentation and accountability (Andrei et al. 2019). Lean project management principles were included because of the value they brought regarding efficiency, waste reduction, and iterative improvement (Lalmi et al. 2021).

The project management approach at SV faced several weaknesses and issues due to the complicated mix of Agile, waterfall, and Lean methodologies. First, there is a high bar to entry for successfully merging several methodologies. The Gate 3 review revealed that the programme team lacked the expertise to apply the various methodologies properly (VAGO 2021, p.85). This might have caused delays and scope reductions in the project due to misunderstandings and poor communication due to a lack of experience implementing and integrating these methodologies (Nusraningrum et al. 2020).

Furthermore, inconsistencies between Agile, waterfall, and Lean principles and practices may exist. The waterfall approach focuses on a predetermined scope and a series of consecutive stages, while Agile places a premium on flexibility and adaptation (CiricLalic et al. 2022). This discord creates difficulties in coordinating project needs, scope changes, and stakeholder anticipations. This sophisticated project management approach significantly impacted the SV lifespan and implementation (Gemino et al. 2021). The review at Gate 5 gave confidence that they were making headway and beginning to have a handle on the complexity. There are still difficulties adapting to project changes, as highlighted in the Gate 6 review of the Reform Programme.

The lack of clarity and consistency in project management practises may have been exacerbated by the adoption of many methodologies at once, such as Agile, waterfall, and Lean (Thesing et al. 2021). The lack of a uniform approach hampered effective communication, collaboration, and decision-making throughout the project. Alignment among team members and stakeholders may be difficult to achieve without a well-defined project management structure, which can lead to inefficiency and misunderstanding. It's possible that resource allocation, scheduling, and risk management would have been made much more complicated by the use of different methodologies. Careful planning and coordination, as well as a complete grasp of the strengths and limits of each approach, are necessary to strike a balance between the needs and restrictions of each methodology (Andrei et al. 2019). The project's delays, cost overruns, and inability to provide the stated scope may have resulted from insufficient attention to these challenges.

Section 3: Risk Management Practices

Inadequate risk management practices were visible throughout the Service Victoria (SV) project, which resulted in substantial problems and difficulties. The requirement for efficient risk management was often recognised during the SV project's timeline. Slipping project deadlines necessitated the creation of a separate Programme Control Board (PCB) in 2017 (VAGO 2021, p. 56). This board's purpose is to evaluate the project's risk management procedures. This demonstrates an understanding of the significance of risk management and the need for supervision. Despite this understanding, the SV project's overall risk management practises were insufficient, which had a major effect on the project's results (Willumsen et al. 2019).

Failure to aggressively and promptly address hazards was a major flaw in SV's risk management practices. The Gate 6 review in 2020 confirmed the Reform Program's business case's inability to accommodate new or altered project requirements (VAGO 2021, p. 86). Insufficiently updating and adapting the risk management strategies to handle new hazards as the project advances are suggested. The project's inability to adapt to shifting conditions resulted in delays, reduced scope, and cost overruns. The lack of thorough risk identification and evaluation was another flaw in the SV project's risk management practices. Potential risks must be identified and evaluated for probability and impact, and suitable mitigation techniques must be developed for risk management to be effective (Rishnyak et al. 2020). It is clear from the gate reports that the SV project did not place a high priority in this area, as there are persistent problems and restrictions when it comes to adapting to new developments.

Furthermore, the failures of the SV project may have been avoided with better risk management. Stakeholders such as project managers, team members, and key decision-makers must all be involved in and held accountable for effective risk management (Al Mhdawi et al. 2020). Identifying, monitoring, and mitigating risks may be difficult to achieve if duties and expectations for risk management are not clearly defined and communicated. There were several options available for better risk management on the SV project. At the commencement of the project, it was essential to create a thorough project risk management plan. As part of this plan, there should have been explicit instructions for keeping the risk register up to date and monitoring potential threats throughout the project's lifetime (Willumsen et al. 2019). The project team would have been better prepared to handle hazards as they occurred if they had a solid risk management plan in place.

Section 4: Gateway Review Process (phase gates)

Important insights and suggestions were gleaned throughout the Service Victoria (SV) project's lifetime thanks to the Gateway Review Process, often known as phase gates. The project results would have differed if these suggestions had been considered and implemented from the outset. At strategic points, called "gates," throughout the course of a project's development, independent evaluations are performed by seasoned reviewers as part of the Gateway Review Process. All of the project's progress, hazards, and preparation for the next stage are analysed and rated in these evaluations. The SV project had assessments at Gate 3, Gate 5, and Gate 6 to evaluate the project's management, delivery, and governance so far (VAGO 2021, p. 86).

These evaluations revealed the project's strengths, weaknesses, and areas needing development, and their findings and suggestions were very helpful. For instance, the programme team's inexperience in integrating diverse methodologies was recognised in the Gate 3 review (VAGO 2021, p.85). The Gate 5 review validated the project's effectiveness in handling its complexity. The Gate 6 review, on the other hand, reinforced the Reform Program's business case's inability to accommodate future or reworked projects (VAGO 2021, p. 86).

The project may have benefited from considering these assessments and implementing their suggestions earlier, but they weren't. The project team lost chances to address risks, enhance procedures, and alter tactics by not acting quickly on review findings (Service Victoria 2023). Project delays, scope reductions, and budget overruns were only a few negative effects. The capacity of the Gate Way Review Process to provide an unbiased opinion on the project's status and hazards is one of its main advantages. Insights and knowledge from outside sources are brought in by the reviewers, who may assist in discovering possible hazards and blind spots that internal project teams might miss (Hendry 2021).

The Gateway Review Process allows project teams to check their plans, schedules, and deliverables against established benchmarks and best practices (Burton 2021). The project's progress may be measured against industry norms and adjusted accordingly. By taking the reviews' suggestions to heart, project teams may boost the project's credibility and decrease the chance of failures or setbacks by bringing their methods and procedures to industry standards. In addition, the Gateway Review Process advocates for constant project tracking and evaluation. Independent assessments at major checkpoints help foster a culture of responsibility and progress (Auditor-General 2021).

The SV project team wasted a chance to quickly and effectively resolve crucial concerns by ignoring the advice the Gateway Review Process gave them (Armstrong and Li, 2022:30). The Gateway Review Process is a proactive risk management technique that aids in the identification and mitigation of potential threats to project success at an early stage. The Gateway Review Process delivered actionable insights and advice for the SV project. However, the team's inability to heed and act upon these suggestions greatly impacted the project's results (Hoque and Thiagarajah 2022:21). Project teams may proactively manage risks, boost project performance, and raise the chance of successful project delivery by implementing the recommendations from the Gateway Review Process (Auditor-General 2020).

References

Al Mhdawi, M.K., Motawa, I. and Rasheed, H.A., 2020. Assessment of risk management practices in construction industry. In The 10th International Conference on Engineering, Project, and Production Management (pp. 421-433). Springer Singapore.

Andrei, B.A., Casu-Pop, A.C., Gheorghe, S.C. and Boiangiu, C.A., 2019. A study on using waterfall and agile methods in software project management. Journal of Information Systems & Operations Management, pp.125-135.

Armstrong, A. and Li, Y., 2022. Governance and sustainability in local government. Australasian Accounting, Business and Finance Journal, 16(2), pp.12-31.
Auditor-General, V., 2020. Personnel security: due diligence over public service employees.

Auditor-General, V., 2021. Service Victoria—digital delivery of government services. Victorian Auditor-General's Office.

Bahadorestani, A., Naderpajouh, N. and Sadiq, R., 2020. Planning for sustainable stakeholder engagement based on the assessment of conflicting interests in projects. Journal of Cleaner Production, 242, p.118402.

Burton, T. 2021, Auditor Declares Service Victoria a White Elephant, The Australian Financial Review, Melbourne, viewed 15 March 2023, <https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/auditor-declares-service-victoria-a-white-elephant-20210324-p57dk1Links to an external site.>.

CiricLalic, D., Lalic, B., Delić, M., Gracanin, D. and Stefanovic, D., 2022. How project management approach impact project success? From traditional to agile. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 15(3), pp.494-521.

Gemino, A., Horner Reich, B. and Serrador, P.M., 2021. Agile, traditional, and hybrid approaches to project success: is hybrid a poor second choice?.Project Management Journal, 52(2), pp.161-175.

Hendry, J. 2021, Service Victoria a 'Missed Opportunity', Audit Finds, itnews, Melbourne, viewed 15 March 2023, <https://www.itnews.com.au/news/service-victoria-a-missed-opportunity-audit-finds-562320Links to an external site.>.

Hoque, Z. and Thiagarajah, T., 2022. Local government auditing in Australia. In Auditing practices in local governments: an international comparison (pp. 13-26). Emerald Publishing Limited.

Lalmi, A., Fernandes, G. and Souad, S.B., 2021. A conceptual hybrid project management model for construction projects. Procedia Computer Science, 181, pp.921-930.
Larsson, J. and Larsson, L., 2020. Integration, application and importance of collaboration in sustainable project management. Sustainability, 12(2), p.585.

Lehtinen, J. and Aaltonen, K., 2020. Organizing external stakeholder engagement in inter-organizational projects: Opening the black box. International Journal of Project Management, 38(2), pp.85-98.

Nusraningrum, D., Jaswati, J. and Thamrin, H., 2020. The Quality of IT Project Management: The Business Process and The Go Project Lean Aplication. ManajemenBisnis, 10(1), pp.10-23.

Rishnyak, I., Veres, O., Lytvyn, V., Bublyk, M., Karpov, I., Vysotska, V. and Panasyuk, V., 2020. Implementation Models Application for IT Project Risk Management. In CITRisk (pp. 102-117).

Service Victoria, 2023, Service Victoria, Melbourne, viewed 15 March 2023, <https://service.vic.gov.auLinks to an external site.>.
Thesing, T., Feldmann, C. and Burchardt, M., 2021. Agile versus waterfall project management: decision model for selecting the appropriate approach to a project. Procedia Computer Science, 181, pp.746-756.

Victorian Auditor-General’s Office (VAGO), 2021, Service Victoria—Digital Delivery of Government Services, Melbourne, viewed 15 March 2023, <https://www.audit.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-03/20210318-Service-Victoria-report.pdfLinks to an external site.>.

Willumsen, P., Oehmen, J., Stingl, V. and Geraldi, J., 2019. Value creation through project risk management. International Journal of Project Management, 37(5), pp.731-749.