Page 133 - DMGT302_FUNDAMENTALS_OF_PROJECT_MANAGEMENT

Fundamentals of Project Management

Notes
Final Productivity

Name Person Scope 1 Scope 2 Scope 3 Scope 4 Scope 5 Ongoing Ongoing
Lab Work Lab Work
1 2
Chia-Ling Graduate Poor Best Adequate Poor Poor Adequate Best
student
1 Point 3 Points 2 Points 1 Point 1 Point 2 Points 3 Points
Suzanne Post-doc Poor Poor Best Poor Adequate Adequate Best

1 Point 1 Point 3 Points 1 Point 2 Points 2 Points 3 Points
Hortence Post-doc Adequate Poor Poor Adequate Poor Adequate Poor
(sick)
2 Points 1 Point 1 Point 2 Points 1 Point 2 Points 1 Point
Pradip Post-doc Adequate Best Adequate Poor Best Best Adequate

2 Points 3 Points 2 Points 1 Point 3 Points 3 Points 2 Points
Examine the table above. Using the columns, copy the check boxes of the scope projects
and personnel you used from the previous table. Record the points you received for each
project at the bottom. If you chose a project and at least one of the personnel you placed on
the project had a “Best” score it as 3 points. If the personnel had “Adequate” score it as 2
points. Add up your points and place the sum in the “TOTAL POINTS” Box. If the
personnel had “Poor” score it as 1 point. If you switched any projects between table one
and table (i.e. after the misfortune) subtract 2 points from your total.

TOTAL POINTS
SUBTRACT 2 POINTS IF YOU CHANGES SCOPES
FINAL POINTS

Final Point Scoring

FINAL POINTS OUTCOME
10-12 Excellent- Kept current lab funding and added new grant
8-9 Good-Kept current lab funding
0-7 Poor – Too high risk, lost all lab funding
The goal of this case study is not to win, but to see how ongoing events can affect your
laboratory, and how project management can help you control your resources for your
benefit. Key things to consider as you analyze your projects.
1. After the initial things went wrong, how did you reallocate your resources?
2. How much risk were you willing to take? If you lost a scope project, did you refocus
on protecting the current lab funding? Were you willing to risk your current lab
funding to get more funding?

3. What would you do differently next time?
This case study was developed by Milton Datta, M.D., Emory University, for the session
on project planning at the 2005 BWF-HHMI Course in Scientific Management

Question
Analyse the case and discuss the case facts.

128 LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY