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.