Forums › Ask ACCA Tutor Forums › Ask the Tutor ACCA SBL Exams › Marks allocation /identification
- This topic has 1 reply, 2 voices, and was last updated 7 years ago by Ken Garrett.
- AuthorPosts
- August 4, 2017 at 5:40 am #400317
Hello Mr. Garrett
In looking at the answers to the questions, i notice that they don’t give a summary of the points in the answers but instead what is given is “1 mark for each relevant point up to a maximum of 18 marks”.
Using an example of the question and answer shown below,… this was for 18 marks but i am finding it difficult to identify the 18 points within the answer. Can you please assist? as an example, I’m looking at the info in section of the answer “Project objectives and project scope: what is the project?” (6th line in answer) and i see it as 1 point.Question:
Identify and analyse mistakes made by the CEO in the project management process (initiation, conduct and termination) in his attempt to introduce strategic planning, and an associated information system, at MidShire Health.Answer:
Project Initiation
It is good practice to establish a Project Initiation Document (PID) or Terms of Reference (ToR) at the start of the project defining the objectives, scope, constraints, authority (owner, sponsor) and resources of the project.
In the context of the case study scenario, there appears to be confusion around the objectives, scope and ownership of the project.
Project objectives and project scope: what is the project?
The objectives and scope of the project appear to be at different levels.
The project might be ‘to establish a formal strategic planning system at MidShire Health’, or, it might be more restricted to the development of a ‘comprehensive computer-based information system recording the outcomes and activities of the organisation’.
Certainly the implementation team set up to undertake the detailed work appears to be primarily concerned with the functionality of the software package and the presence of Eurotek support consultants would tend to support this focus.
The assertion from the CEO that the objective of the steering group is ‘to deliver health to the Midshire community’ adds further confusion.
Although this objective is amended later in the project, restricting it to ‘effectively and efficiently treating disease’, both of these objectives really concern the organisation as a whole, not a specific project within that organisation. It is preferable that the project objectives should be more restricted.
The immediate employment of consultants with a potential software solution will inevitably skew the project towards a particular technical solution designed to support the planning system.
There needs to be a distinction at the initiation of the project between the business objectives of the project and the technical objectives of the software system required to support those business objectives.
The CEO confuses the two, a confusion accentuated by the early selection of a technical solution, before the business requirements have been defined (see later).
A failure to define a consistent achievable objective often results in projects lacking focus, leading to confusion amongst the project participants about what they are supposed to be doing.
Terry Nagov really needed to establish a proper project objective within a formal Project Initiation Document.
The role of the steering group: who owns the project?
All projects should have a sponsor or authority that makes decisions about the project and supports it throughout its lifecycle.
Ideally, this should be one person. It is possible for a group of people to play this role, but it is important that they promote a united front.
Even if the objectives and scope of the project can be defined (see previous paragraph), the steering group is disunited in the context of project sponsorship.
There are clear conflicts within the group and some of these have been made public.
Projects without a well-defined committed sponsor are likely to be unsuccessful as they lack clear leadership and support. Furthermore, if the sponsor is a group, then the focus of the project will veer to reflect changes in interest and power in the make-up of the group.
The sponsor (owner) role should have been given more thought at the start of the project and responsibility should have been documented in the Project Initiation Document.
Conduct of the project
Two aspects in the conduct of the project deserve scrutiny. The first concerns the procurement process. The second is group and stakeholder management.
Procurement process
The Eurotek solution was selected before the requirements of the strategic planning process had been defined.
Once these requirements had been developed, it became clear that the software package was a poor fit and that a considerable amount of bespoke work was needed to make it fit-for-purpose.
The cost of these developments effectively led to the end of the project. This was a poor process. The information system requirements of the strategic planning process should have been developed before a potential software package solution was selected.
The selection process should have involved more than one company and should have been transparent, so that the reasons for selecting a particular solution were documented and auditable.
It is unclear from the scenario why the Eurotek solution was selected so early in the process, particularly as their expertise appeared to lie in the banking industry, rather than health care.
Most public sector organisations have to follow strict procurement guidelines and it is surprising that these were not in place at MidShire Health.
Group and stakeholder management
Terry Nagov appears to believe that the three employee sets within the steering group (senior hospital doctors, hospital nursing managers and health service support staff) are equally powerful within the project context.
However, this is clearly not the case.
The hospital doctors resent the inclusion of the health service support staff in the steering group. The hospital nursing managers side with the hospital doctors at key points.
The objectives of the health service support staff appear to be aligned with those of Terry Nagov, but this support is not as effective as it may appear because it comes from the weakest set within the steering group.
In Tuckman and Jenson’s terms the group is fractional, stuck in a storming stage. Differences in power and culture will make it extremely difficult for the group to move beyond this stage.
However, the person who could make it happen (Terry Nagov) undermines possible progress by choosing to openly question the ethics of one of the hospital doctors.
This appears to destroy the possibility of group harmony and also brings into play a significant actor (Etopia’s health minister) who, although very powerful, had hitherto had no obvious interest in the project.
Project cancellation procedures
The CEO did not explore opportunities for negotiating the $600,000 quoted development cost or look for alternatives.
Eurotek might have been flexible on price, particularly if the developed software could have potentially been used in other health authorities.
In such circumstances, MidShire Health might have negotiated a royalty fee, to help them recoup their investment. Perhaps this was also the point when alternative suppliers could have been sought, providing solutions which were closer to the requirements of the organisation.
This would have led to the investment in Eurotek being written off, but this was also a consequence of project cancellation. No post-project review was conducted, and lessons learned were not fed back into the project management process.
In fact, the email sent to the steering group members specifically stated that there would be no further meetings. As someone once wrote, the ‘only unforgiveable failure was the failure to learn from failure’.
August 5, 2017 at 11:54 am #400506Sorry, I’m not going to read all that. Keep questions short.
You will have todotbebest youcan withthe i formation in the marking guide.
- AuthorPosts
- The topic ‘Marks allocation /identification’ is closed to new replies.