Assignment 1 Coursework
Student’s Name
Managing Global Projects
5023SSL
Dr. Mario Cuevas
PART ONE: PROJECT INITIATION DOCUMENT
The work breakdown schedule is as follows:
1.3 Project schedule
1.4 Project stakeholder assessment
The main stakeholders reviewed for this project include:, , green energy activist groups, private sector representatives, Commonwealth Games representatives, residents of the Birmingham, the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets, and the internal employees of the SES project. Due to the nature of the project, SES has received positive feedback from all stakeholders. All of the chosen groups have significant power and interest in the project. Therefore, the project will need to manage all of these groups closely, keep them satisfied, informed, and engage them in order to monitor views.1.5 Project Risk assessment
The negative risks that are presented by the project include:
Time delay
Difficulty recruiting private sector partners
Data protection and management issues
Process issues
Technology failure
Communication breakdown
Risk of overall failure
Cost issues
The response strategy will be simple based on an identification, prioritization, and a link of each of the mentioned risks to its impact. After this assessment, for each of the risks, a development and cultivation of responses will be made. A contingency plan will also be created for each risk. Additionally, each risk will be recorded and tracked against the associated task.
PART TWO: PROJECT SUCCESS MANAGEMENT
References
Al-Hajj, A., & Zraunig, M. (2018). The impact of project management implementation on the
successful completion of projects in construction. International Journal of Innovation, Management and Technology, 9(1), 21-27.
Bannerman, P. L. (2008, July). Defining project success: a multilevel framework. In Proceedings
of the Project Management Institute Research Conference (pp. 1-14).
Bronte-Stewart, M. (2015). Beyond the iron triangle: Evaluating aspects of success and failure
using a project status model. Computing & Information Systems, 19(2), 19-36.
Caccamese, A., & Bragantini, D. (2012, May). Beyond the iron triangle: year zero. Newtown
Square, PA: Project Management Institute.
Clayton, M. [Online PM Courses]. (2017, February 15). What is the Iron Triangle? Project
Management in Under 5 [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHSHOAfV-uw
Davis, K. (2017). An empirical investigation into different stakeholder groups perception of
project success. International Journal of Project Management, 35(4), 604-617.
Ebbesen, J. B., & Hope, A. (2013). Re-imagining the iron triangle: embedding sustainability into
project constraints. PM World Journal, 2(III).
Lishner, I., & Shtub, A. (2019). Measuring the success of Lean and Agile projects: Are cost,
time, scope and quality equally important?. The Journal of Modern Project Management, 7(1).
Mirza, M. N., Pourzolfaghar, Z., & Shahnazari, M. (2013). Significance of scope in project
success. Procedia Technology, 9, 722-729.
National Ausit Office. (2012). Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General: The Completion
and sale of High Speed 1. Department of Transport. http://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/10121834.pdf
Opoku, A., & Tallon, A. (2019). The role of project sponsors in defining and realising project
benefits. Management, 710, 719.
ProjectManager. [ProjectManager]. (2015, January 19). Which is Best – Managing, Time, Cost or
Quality? [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0p5fSNLW8Q
Radujković, M., & Sjekavica, M. (2017). Project management success factors. Procedia
engineering, 196, 607-615.
Ul Musawir, A., Serra, C. E. M., Zwikael, O., & Ali, I. (2017). Project governance, benefit
management, and project success: Towards a framework for supporting organizational strategy implementation. International Journal of Project Management, 35(8), 1658-1672.