Critique of Group-2 Draft Implementation and control systrem

.docx

School

Laurentian University**We aren't endorsed by this school

Course

OPER 5001

Subject

Information Systems

Date

Dec 17, 2024

Pages

Uploaded by BaronMusicGazelle37

As we were assigned to critique Group 2’s draft implementation plan and control system ofLaurentian University’s Parking Lot Rehabilitation, we went through their submitted file anddiscussed it with our group. They outlined the overall approach detailing each stage from sitepreparation to risk management. However, here is the analysis of their implementation plan andcontrol system based on adequacy and completeness along with our group’s recommendations forsome key areas. Project ScopeThe project scope is well-defined and supports the university's goals of improving safety,accessibility, and sustainability. Moreover, it could place more emphasis on user engagement byshowing how feedback from key stakeholders such as students and faculty influences theproject’s objectives.Recommendation:Add a section that explains how stakeholders were involved in setting the project’s scope andobjectives. This addition would strengthen the justification for the project’s specific featuresand benefits, highlighting its responsiveness to user needs.Project ScheduleThe schedule is well-organized, with clear milestones and completion dates. However, thetimeline might not fully account for potential delays caused by harsh winter weather, especiallyfor outdoor tasks like paving.Recommendation:Add buffer periods or create a contingency timeline specifically for weather-sensitive tasks. This would help keep the project on schedule even if winter conditions cause unexpected delays.Risk ManagementAlthough the plan identified key risks, such as weather, supply chain challenges, stakeholdercoordination, and mitigating contingency funds, it doesn’t yet address some high-impact risks,such as potential regulatory changes or technology failures.Recommendation:They can focus on the risk management section to cover unexpected regulatory changes ortechnology integration issues such as a backup technology solution in case primary systems,like payment or access platforms and experience issues.Cost Control

Though the cost control plan is well-structured, with a detailed budget breakdown and the use ofEarned Value Management (EVM) for expense tracking, the 5% contingency fund may be too low,given the unpredictability of weather and fluctuating material costs.Recommendation: Can consider raising the contingency fund to 10% of the total budget to provide a strongersafety net and also can implement a phased expenditure approach could help control cashflow more effectively.Change Control ProcessThe change control process includes a structured request and approval procedure, which isessential for managing project adjustments. However, it would benefit from clearer thresholdsfor automatic escalation to the Change Control Board (CCB).Recommendation:Set specific criteria for escalating changes to the CCB, such as budget impacts above a certainamount or delays affecting critical milestones. Establishing these criteria can streamline theprocess, allowing smaller changes to move forward without requiring a full board review.The key discussions as discussed above, here are some other recommendations they can apply suchas clear success metrics for project objectives, contingency timelines, establishing a more frequentreporting schedule, and creating backup plans. Incorporating these recommendations wouldenhance the plan’s adaptability, helping to ensure a smooth implementation of this importantproject for Laurentian University.