W4_Joseph Adewale_Identification of negative float, effect and elimination

1.      Problem recognition, definition, root cause analysis and evaluation

                                I.            Problem recognition

Negative float was observed in one of the site schedule chart attached to a report. Although, it skipped verification at the initial phase, but while appraising the project status it was discovered that the project manager wanted to finish the rehabilitation job and process payment before government coffer is closed for the year. The effect is felt on the productivity curve of resources allocated to the project.

Problem definition: Scope definition is a vital phase in project life cycle, so also is the detail scheduling of the project itself. Float is a measure of how much a project can slip without impacting the entire project duration. However, negative slope is not an ideal situation; it affects the health status of the project due to poor resource management.

                              II.            Root cause analysis and evaluation: The major cause is the influence of authority imposition of deadline to project completion and inexperience of the project manager to advice on the effect.

2.      Development of feasible alternatives

Among alternatives available for consideration in are:

                                I.            Let the days slip

                              II.            Add resources to the project

                            III.            De-scoping the process

                            IV.            Improve the work process

3.      Development of outcomes for each alternative

Let’s consider the original finish date as 47 days (Eight weeks) while imposed date as 42 days (seven weeks)

WBS	Activity	Duration	ES	EF	LS	LF	Float
1.1.1	A	5	1	5	-5	0	-5
1.1.2	B	4	6	9	1	4	-5
1.1.3	C	6	10	15	5	10	-5
1.1.4	D	6	16	21	11	16	-5
1.1.5	E	4	22	25	17	20	-5
1.1.6	F	7	26	32	21	27	-5
1.1.7	G	5	33	37	28	32	-5
1.1.8	H	6	38	43	33	38	-5
1.1.9	I	4	44	47	39	42	-5

                                I.            Let the days slip: This first alternative considers effect of additional budget on the project. Hence the project managers do nothing to arrest the situation.

                              II.            Add resources to the project: Although addition of more resources to the project increase the budget of the project but the target date is met.

                            III.            De-scoping the process: This is only practicable at the initial phase of the project. When the project had gone beyond planning phase, it is impracticable to  alter any project scope

                            IV.            Improve the work process: This address the situation by encouraging incentive like bonuses for meeting target.

4.      Selection of criteria

The criteria for selecting best alternative lie in:

                                                        I.            Meet the deadline

                                                      II.            Has little or no effect on the budget of the project

                                                    III.            Project quality not compromised

                                                    IV.            Scope definition is maintained as stated in the contract document

                                                      V.            Productivity maintained

5.      Analysis and comparison of the alternatives

The problem statement analyzed two methods:

                                I.            Let the days slip: Much effect on budget, productivity might tend to be depreciated due to overloading resources; Quality of work done might not meet standard.

                              II.            Add resources to the project: Budget increase, scope maintained but recourses increased, productivity maintained while meeting the deadline.

                            III.            De-scoping the process: Budget is reduced, deadline is met, and project quality is also ensured. Workers productivity is of high standard.

                            IV.            Improve the work process: Budget is increased while productivity is not guaranteed. Hence quality standard might not be maintained.

6.      Selection of preferred alternative

Based on the analysis of the alternatives, the management is interest in what retains quality standard and saves budget.

Therefore, alternative III is preferred.

7.      Performance monitoring and post evaluation of results.

By de-scoping, fewer tasks are performed while there is room for quality check to ensure that specification standards on the project are maintained. Continuous monitoring is important by PMO to evaluate the level of productivity and quality of work done to meet the set target.

8.      References:

                                I.            Giammalvo, P. D. (2010). AACE Certification Prep Course [PowerPoint slides], Day 4 (pp. 79-88). Lagos: Nigeria.

                              II.            Garry C. Humphrey, (2011) Project management using earn value (2^nd Edition) (Chapter 1 (pp. 32-42) CA USA Humphrey & Associates inc.

                            III.            Sullivan, W. G., Wicks, E.M., & Koelling, C.P. (2009). Engineering economy and design process. In M.J. Horton (Ed.), Engineering economy (14^th ed.) (Chapter 1.)  New Jersey, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.