THIRD LEVEL CHECKS

   

Project plan: Gantt chart analysis, all jobs

As we mentioned earlier, the Gantt chart can be assessed at a number of different levels. The level we will look at in this check is that of all the jobs in the plan.

The Gantt chart analysis can be applied to all jobs in the project. This is something that could be quite time-consuming . While you might expect the project manager to do it, you probably wouldn't do it in a plan you were assessing. What you might do, however, would be to do it in the form of spot checks on particular jobs. For instance, you might spot check:

  • particularly large jobs

  • jobs to be done by an outside contractor

  • jobs to be done by somebody new to an organization

  • jobs that are known to be technically complex

  • jobs that are ground breaking, i.e. that haven't been done by that organization before

  • and so on.

Whatever you choose to do, the steps are laid out here again. Check:

  • Does the amount of effort associated with the particular job seem reasonable?

  • Do the calendar days on which the job is due to be carried out make sense? For instance, have tasks been scheduled on public holidays or are unrealistic assumptions being made about what will get done over a holiday season like Christmas?

  • Does each job have somebody's name against it “ not the name of an organization but the person who will cause the work to be done?

The same comments made in the previous section about paralleling of tasks also apply here. Are tasks which actually have a dependency between them being run in parallel?

All of these tests applied to each job will generate review comments of the plan.

Finally, if you wanted to, you could do a simple risk analysis using the four parameters from the First Law of Project Management:

  • Functionality “ what is to be done

  • Effort “ how much work is involved

  • Delivery date (or elapsed time) “ when the job must be done

  • Quality “ how well it is done

You would do this by asking questions like:

  • What happens if the job runs over? (Elapsed time)

  • Can the job be shortened ? (Elapsed time)

  • What happens if the job is bigger than we estimated? (Effort)

  • What would be the effect of adding more people? (Effort)

  • Is this job doing something which is crucial to the project? If not, could it be put into a later delivery? (Functionality)

  • What happens if this job isn't done perfectly ? (Quality)

CASE STUDY 10

Scenario

You receive a project plan to review. It is a document of about 15 pages in length. The pages are unnumbered and there is no table of contents. Looking through it you find it has three sections with the following titles:

  • Introduction

  • Technical requirements

  • A hand-drawn Gantt chart

The section entitled technical requirements is quite detailed. As you read it, you come to understand that the plan is to implement a system that will interface to some of the organization's other systems. The system will be bought in, having been tailored by the supplier. Some development work will also be required on the organization's side. The new system will replace an existing system. The plan shows the project beginning on December 12, 2000 and being declared live by June 28, 2001.

The section called Technical requirements describes:

  • the system that the project will deliver to the users

  • the software, documentation, training and support services that form part of the project

  • a period of parallel running and conditions that must be satisfied before the system can be declared live

  • the hardware and software environment in which the system will be developed and run

This section also lays heavy emphasis on the users being involved at all stages of the system specification, design and development.

The Gantt chart is partially shown in Figure 14.7. The horizontal bars indicate detailed breakdowns of each of the high-level tasks. The breakdowns are very detailed for December and January, and less so thereafter, but the Gantt chart gives the impression of being rich in detail. When you assess it using the WBS analysis, little or nothing seems to have been forgotten. Each task in the WBS has initials against it, showing who will carry out the task. Each task also has amounts of effort shown against it. Notes to the Gantt chart explain how these estimates were arrived at and also explain the basis that each individual is involved in the project “ full-time , two days per week, required only for reviews, etc.


Figure 14.7.

graphics/14fig07.gif


What would be your assessment of this plan?

Analysis

First level checks

Contents analysis

The plan contains three sections, whereas our proposed ideal table of contents contained thirteen! On the face of it, this doesn't seem like a very promising start, but we decide to persevere just a little to see what else we can find out.

  1. Statement of what is to be done. This turns out to be covered adequately in the technical requirements.

  2. Deliverables. Covered in the technical requirements.

  3. Completion criteria. Covered in the technical requirements.

  4. Acceptance criteria. Covered in the technical requirements.

  5. Work breakdown structure. The tasks down the left-hand side of the Gantt chart.

  6. Gantt chart. Present.

  7. Milestones. Can be deduced from the Gantt chart.

  8. Resources required. Human resources are present in the notes to the Gantt chart. Other resources (computers, software, etc.) are covered in the technical requirements.

  9. Resource loading. Not stated explicitly but could be deduced from the previous section.

  10. Project budget. Not stated.

  11. Project organization chart. Not stated. The implication from the plan is that the author is the project manager.

  12. Backup plan/margin for error. If, on June 28, the system isn't ready, then the existing manual system can carry on as before. It may not be a very elegant backup plan, but it'll work!

WBS analysis

See point 5 above. Looks OK.

Gantt chart analysis: high-level overview

Looking at the Gantt chart we see exactly the kind of high-level overview we are looking for. We can see:

  • the main phases of the project and exactly when each phase starts and ends

  • which phases depend on one another and which can proceed in parallel

  • the amount of work in each phase

Resource analysis

A quick look at the Gantt chart shows that the project is due to start the week before Christmas, and a high level of activity is assumed between then and the end of the year. Cultures vary, as do organizations. However, in Europe, it would be unlikely for such a schedule to hold true, and so this part of the schedule would probably have to be amended. This might have serious implications for the June 28 deadline. Analyzing the critical path on the Gantt chart would determine (a) whether or not this was the case, and (b) what could be done about it. As for Check 2, all jobs have people's names against them.

PSI analysis

Finally, let us calculate the PSI of the project.

  1. Goal clearly defined. Yes, but the detail needs to be filled out. This will be done during the RFP and ultimately the development process. Score, say, 6 out of 20. Remember, a low score can either be a reflection of (a) a trouble spot, or (b) a result of where you are in the project's life. In this case, it is the latter.

  2. List of jobs. Yes, but the list is necessarily incomplete given where we are in the project. Say 6 out of 20 again.

  3. One leader. Yes, assuming the author of the plan acts as the kind of leader we require, i.e. the trail boss. Score 10, maximun points.

  4. People assigned to jobs. Yes, though because the job list is incomplete (see 2 above), this is as well. Score 3 out of 10 at this stage in the project.

  5. Backup plan/margin for error. Yes, albeit an inelegant one. Score 7, say, out of 10.

Total from the planning phase is 32. As we already noted 40 is the threshold for a successful project, so we're not there yet. However, once the project has proceeded through the RFP stage we should be in good shape to go forward.

So, based on our initial quick assessment, despite an unpromising appearance, and some omissions, this plan appears to be in good shape. The main problem in it at the moment is the one with Christmas.

We could now go on to do:

  • schedule and effort analysis

  • critical path analysis of the Gantt chart

  • resource loading analysis (Checks 3 and 4)

and among other things, this would tackle the Christmas problem.

Finally, if we chose to, we could do a Gantt chart analysis of the entire project.

CASE STUDY 11

Scenario

You receive a project plan to review. It is about 30 pages long. The plan is for a project to develop a piece of software, deliver it to a user site, install it and load user data on it by March 31, 2000.

Checking the contents you find that it has sections corresponding to all of the items on our table of contents checklist. Each of these sections looks fairly substantial and contains the kinds of things we talked about. In particular, a leader for the project is named.

The Gantt chart, which contains the WBS under the heading "Name," for the project is shown in Figure 14.8.


Figure 14.8.

graphics/14fig08a.gif

graphics/14fig08b.gif


What is your assessment of this plan?

Analysis

First level checks

Contents analysis

As described in the scenario, it appears to be OK.

WBS analysis

The following appear to be missing from this WBS:

  • any kind of requirements analysis or definition

  • any kind of high-level design

  • software integration

  • development of tests (as opposed to carrying out the testing)

  • project management

  • configuration management and other project support activities

  • production of documentation

  • anything significant on installation or training

Gantt chart analysis: high-level overview

Non-existent.

Resource analysis

The problem with the Christmas holiday season also seems to be hitting this project (Check 1). All the jobs do have people's names against them (Check 2).

PSI analysis

  1. Goal clearly defined. The goal of the project really cannot be defined clearly if there are no activities (requirements analysis or high-level design) to define it! Assuming there is some requirements definition in the text of the document we will give them 10 out of 20.

  2. List of jobs. The list of jobs, the WBS, is “ to put it charitably “ not very good. Say 10 out of 20 again.

  3. One leader. The plan says that there is, so let's accept that. Score 10 out of 20.

  4. People assigned to jobs. Yes, they have been. But because the job list is a mess, this assignation will be flawed too. Score half marks, as we did for point 2 above, 5 out of 10.

  5. Backup plan/margin for error. Doesn't look good. The plan shows the system delivered and data load (job 56) taking place on March 31, 2000. If everything doesn't happen exactly on schedule, then the March 31 date will pass with nothing happening at the user site. Score “ 15 (i.e subtract fifteen), maximum score here is 10.

Total here is 20. With 40 as the threshold and with no jobs in the plan which might increase the goal and job list scores, this project would look as though it has very depressing prospects indeed.

CASE STUDY 12

Scenario

You receive a project plan to review. It is about 30 pages long. The plan is for a project to develop and release a system. The document makes it clear that the plan is a very aggressive one, that the project will start on May 1 and must finish at August 31 at the latest. The plan is based on a requirements document which has already been signed off.

Checking the contents you find that it has sections corresponding to all of the items on our table of contents checklist. Each of these sections looks fairly substantial and contains the kinds of things we talked about. A leader for the project is named.

Checking the WBS you find that there are lots of omissions and inaccuracies and you note these down.

You look for a high-level overview Gantt chart and find it (reproduced in Figure 14.9). It is hand drawn but nonetheless appears to have the major blocks in it. A more detailed Gantt chart (not reproduced here, but containing all the kinds of things we expect) accompanies the high-level overview.


Figure 14.9.

graphics/14fig09.gif


A schedule and effort analysis, resource analysis histogram showing everyone scheduled at or less than 100 percent and assumptions on people's availability are all included among the pages of the plan. There is also a note in the plan to the effect that all of the project team members ' summer holidays have been accounted for in the estimates and schedules.

What is your assessment of this plan?

Analysis

First level checks

Contents analysis

As described in the scenario, it appears to be OK.

WBS analysis

The results of the WBS analysis are already noted in the scenario.

Gantt chart analysis: high-level overview

There is certainly a high-level overview with a more detailed Gantt chart backing it up. However, there is a major flaw in the high-level overview: the four activities in it overlap one another to a highly suspect degree.

  • Software is being written while the system is being designed. This is always a dangerous thing to do.

  • Integration of the software begins before all of the software has been written. While this could indicate good forward planning on the part of the project manager, it can sometimes be an indication that somebody is merely trying to squeeze everything into the allotted time. This would merit further investigation at a lower level of detail “ at the critical path level.

  • The system test isn't entirely what it seems. A system test should do exactly that: it should test the entire system. Yet, in this plan, system test begins before the system is fully available. Again this might imply great foresight on the part of the project manager. Unfortunately it more often implies the presence of Parkinson's Law “ "Work expands (or contracts!) to fill the time allotted."

Resource analysis

As we noted in the scenario, the summer holiday season has been allowed for (Check 1). Also the who's doing what is contained in the more detailed Gantt chart (Check 2).

PSI analysis

  1. Goal clearly defined. By paralleling the design and writing of the software, there is a fair chance that the goal of the project will never be clear; that what the software people write will not be what the designers wanted. Give it, say, 12 out of 20.

  2. List of jobs. The list of jobs, the WBS, is, as stated in the scenario, not very good. Say 12 out of 20 again.

  3. One leader. The plan says that there is, so let's accept that. Score 10 full points.

  4. People assigned to jobs. If the job list is flawed, this will be too. Score in the same proportion to point 2 (above), 6 out of 10.

  5. Backup plan/margin for error. Doesn't look good. The plan shows every sign of Parkinsonian planning. Not only is there probably no margin for error, but the plan as it stands is probably not based on reality to begin with. Score “15 (i.e subtract fifteen), maximum score is 10.

Total here is 25. With 40 as the threshold and with no jobs in the plan which might increase the goal and job list scores, this project would look as though it has very depressing prospects indeed.

As we have seen in all three of these case studies, you can often “ but not always “ find out all you need to know about the plan by applying the five small checks that we talked about earlier, i.e. the ones that take 30 or so minutes. Just to remind you, these are:

CHECK EFFORT INVOLVED
Contents Small
WBS Small
Gantt “ overview Small
Resource analysis checks Small
PSI Small

Second level checks

For Case Study 12, just for interest, we will look at what we can find out by applying one of the tests at the second level. Thus, out of the three tests at this level, i.e. we will apply schedule and effort analysis.

CHECK EFFORT INVOLVED
Schedule and effort Medium
Gantt “ critical path Medium
Resource loading 3 and 4 Medium

Schedule and effort analysis

The schedule and effort analysis, given in the plan, is shown in Figure 14.10. Adding our comparison figures is shown in Figure 14.11. An interpretation of the differences between these two sets of figures is as follows .


Figure 14.10.

graphics/14fig10.gif



Figure 14.11.

graphics/14fig11.gif


  1. The amount of effort going into design would appear to be too low. On top of the paralleling going on between Design and Code and unit test, this further evidence is very disturbing .

  2. This figure of 75 percent in Code and unit test is bordering on the insane!

  3. So is the 3 percent in Integration.

  4. As is the 10 percent in System test.

This check only adds weight, if it were needed, to the evidence we already have.

   


How To Run Successful Projects III. The Silver Bullet
How to Run Successful Projects III: The Silver Bullet (3rd Edition)
ISBN: 0201748061
EAN: 2147483647
Year: 2001
Pages: 176

flylib.com © 2008-2017.
If you may any questions please contact us: flylib@qtcs.net