SOFTWARE PROJECT MANAGEMENT

GROUP ACTIVITY 1 WEEK 2

AMPERA
GROUP MEMBERS:

CHOIRUL AZIM ADDINI AINUL HAQ MUHARROMI MAYA AGUSTIN ESTIANA PRAYADIANTI

X12CS0007 X12CS0001 X12CS0012 X12CS0026

LECTURER NAME : DR. DAYANG NORHAYATI ABG JAWAWI DATE : 1st OCTOBER 2011

ACTIVITY 1 Match the content of FREP Handheld Business Case with the Business Content. Business contents are: 1. Introduction / Background (business-case-frep-handheld.pdf , Page 10) The first release of the online FREP application occurred in early February, 2007. This application will allow the field teams to enter checklist data from their Branch offices. This current state improves the data quality, timeliness, completeness and reporting capabilities from the previous fiscal year. Data is still collected in the field on paper checklists. The opportunity exists to continue to improve functionality, data quality, timeliness and save operating costs.

Comment: The introduction describes problem which is Data is still collected in the field on paper checklist. And opportunity which is The opportunity exists to continue to improve functionality, data quality, timeliness and save operating costs. We can consider this introduction already as a good introduction of business content.

2. The proposed project (business-case-frep-handheld.pdf , Page 10) Release 1 of the new system will be implemented before the next field data collection phase in 2007. Additional checklists will be implemented in later releases. This project reviews the business case for a five year period.

Comment:

The proposed project means the scope of the project. From FREP Business Case document, we know that they will release 1 of the new system will be implemented before the next field data collection phase in 2007. They explained that additional checklist will be implemented in later release, which is we can consider as a scope too. This explained how they give a deadline to their project and the plan of project implementation.

3. The market (business-case-frep-handheld.pdf , Page 10) Business Case Project Objectives: Reduce overall business process, project and IT support costs. Improve effectiveness of forecasting as well as governance and forecasting accuracy. Implement consistent business and reporting processes.

Comment: The market describes what kind of product they want as a result of the project. And from FREP Business Case document we can conclude that they needs to reduce business process and cost, improve effectiveness, and Implement consistent business and reporting processes. Theyll produce a product which is fulfilled they need.

4. Organizational and operational infrastructure (business-case-frep-handheld.pdf , Page 12) Key Stakeholder Group #1 Resource Value Team members and FREWG collect enter and analyze field data. This group is central to the

objectives of FREP. Their requirements are well documented in the Core Hand-Held Requirements document and are consistent with the Vivid Solutions report recommendation. This group is impacted the most by the implementation (or not) of a handheld option. Key Stakeholder Group #2 Headquarters and specialist staff in Forests Practices Branch. This group is impacted mostly by data quality, data entry and reporting requirements. Key Stakeholder Group #3 - MoFR Information Management Group (IMG) for systems implementation, integration and support and Workplace Technology Services (WTS) for handheld management and maintenance. This group is impacted with any support tasks. Key Stakeholder Group #4 External users (e.g. Licensees)

Comment: Organizational and operational infrastructure contains in which the project will give an impact for people in different ways. The impact will be different based on the operational and function for each organization or team.

5. Benefits (business-case-frep-handheld.pdf , Page 19) Low Change to Current Process Description: Cost avoidance at all levels. Improved Morale Description: Improved morale for users in the field that would view a handheld as an investment.

Leverage non-FREP Tasks Description: FREP handheld could be re-used for other mobile applications.

Comment: The benefits explained about the advantages of the project, after the project delivered to the customer. In FREP business case they arent explained the benefits of the project in financial terms. Itll be better if the benefits explained in financial terms, because itll be easier to estimate the benefits of the project. If they considered itll benefit them they can continue the project. If they arent satisfy enough team can give another option or solution.

6. Outline implementation plan (business-case-frep-handheld.pdf , Page 11-12) Implement continuous improvement of forest management. Assess the effectiveness of the Forest and Range Practices Act (FRPA) in achieving stewardship of the eleven resource values identified under FRPA. Identify issues regarding the implementation of forest policies, practices and legislation as they affect the resource values identified under FRPA. Implement continuous improvement of forest management.

Comment: The outline implementation plan is a strategy about how we will implement the project. For FREP business case they planned three strategies. They implemented some improvement and identify the issues regarding the implementation. Each implementation is design to fulfill the product requirements and user needs.

7. Costs (business-case-frep-handheld.pdf , Page 19) Organizational overhead at Headquarters Description: IMG and WTS management effort. Organizational overhead at Branch Office Description: Paper checklist data will be reentered in the Branch Office. There will be increased costs paper management. Transition Description: Transition Management during first year to handle increase in escalated help desks and change management. Initial Loss of Productivity Description: Initially productivity may drop while staff learns to work new handheld too and application.

Comment: From FREP business case document we can see that the cost explanation isnt come from the continuation of Implementation plan. A good content of cost is an explanation which is decided based on the implementation plan before. The cost explanation mostly talks about the financial cost, but the explanation about cost isnt always about financial of the project, it can be the implementation. For example, Implement continuous improvement of forest management they can explained about the cost that they need for this implementation plan.

8. The financial analysis

Comment: The Financial Analysis is a combines costs and benefit data value of project. From the table, the present value of Total Benefits Non-Handled = 0.00 and Present Value of Total Benefits Handled = 32.47. And the present value of Total Costs Non-Handled = 706.54 and Present Value of Total Costs Handled = 1,190.19. So, Net Present Value of Project for NonHandled Option #1 = -706.54 and Net Present Value of Project for Handled Option #2 = -1,157.72. We can conclude that Handled Option #2 larger than Non-Handled Option #1.

9. Risk (business-case-frep-handheld.pdf , Page 29) Stakeholders Category : Project Management Risk of schedule delays due to MoFR staffing resource

constraints to completed migrations of applications. Overall risk of training commitment and subject matter

experts being committed throughout the project impacting objectives.

District staff is not 100% dedicated to FREP and DM

reallocating resources based on priorities. Great deal of detailed, complex data capture required

& support for long term resourcing/training/maintenance will impact project success. Risk of changing nature of 'handheld' technology will

impact costs and schedule. Penalties (WTS?) to manage handheld technology may

impact costs. Category : Project Sponsorship Risk of project funding requirements being reduced

impacting resource constraints in the field. Handheld cost/benefit analysis not clear impacting

stakeholder expectations and system capabilities. WTS support may not be sufficient to meet minimum

service levels impacting user adoption. Credible Indicators Category : Project Management Risk of inconsistency of contractors for data analysis and could lose project continuity - eg. SAS experts. Challenges to the data could cause project credibility and cause project delays. Category : External Public have expectations of immediate data, meaningful / good baseline data results, which could cause loss of credibility. Potential for conflicting results (with other ministries) impacting data integrity, project credibility.

Comment: In FREP business case document, they divided the risk based on each position that will have a direct interaction with the product. The risk has been explained in a perfect format. They explained the risk for each position differently. For each position they divided once more based on the category. They explained about some risk that they might faces after the project delivered to them.