Sodor Oil Terminal Project Management

Sodor Oil Terminal Project Management The initiation phase of the Sodor project involved the formation of the project team and the nomination of the project manager. Group 12 is made up of 4 Nigerians and 1 Vietnamese which reflects a multicultural team with each nationality possessing peculiar personality traits. The objective of the first meeting was to nominate a Project Manager and to define and agree on ground rules for project team meetings. To ensure equal participation of all team members, it was agreed that the rotational project manager system will be adopted whereby each individual in the group would serve as the project manager for 1 week each throughout the 5 week duration of the Sodor project. It was agreed that meetings will be scheduled 3 times a week by the project manager lasting no more than 2 hours each. At each meeting, specific tasks is assigned to each team member to be submitted at the next meeting day. CONTRACTOR SELECTION CRITERIA The contractor selection criteria adopted by the team is the Trade-off technique. This technique uses a scoring system to quantify specific attributes of the various contractors and provides a numerical output, the highest of which represents the best contractor choice. The use of this technique provided the best possible contractors to manage the various stages of this project. CONSTRUCTION AND CLOSE OUT The close out process involved a review of the final Sodor terminal project plan to confirm scope, cost and schedule deadlines have been met. The lesson learned document was then prepared which showed the various conflicts that occurred throughout the project and how they where managed by the team in order to provide lessons for the future. The final project plan was then presented to the project sponsor and the Group 12 team was deformed by the project manager. We were able to arrive at a final project cost of  £7,356,123 and at a time of completion of 90.93 weeks. This can be mainly attributed to the fact that we used the TRADE OFF technique for contractor selection. The trade off technique provided an objective way of selecting contractors using a set of rank scores. INTRODUCTION Teamwork has been found to be an essential ingredient responsible for the success or failure of projects. The effective use and management of teams for projects has been noted to be a key determinant for how successful a project will be; however, the effectiveness of a team depends on the ability of the team members to interact appropriately with one another to produce a common output. DEFINITION Hoegl (2004) defined teams as a social interaction between two or more people within an organization who share a common task. Teams have also been described as a group of people who hold themselves mutually accountable to each other and who work together to achieve a common purpose(Scholtes et al,2003). The above definitions take into account the fact that for a team to exist, certain basic ingredients need to be in place which include; mutual accountability, constancy of purpose, and a shared responsibility for success or failure. The benefits of teamwork in project management cannot be overemphasized. Teams help in the mobilization of diverse resources to a project as compared to that achieved by a single individual. Church(1998) also noted that teams provide the flexibility to use the mobilized resources thus helping to continue with the project in the event of a particular individual being indisposed. Perhaps the greatest value of teams in managing projects rests with the ability of teams to provide a synergy of the efforts of the individual team members whereby the results achieved is greater than the arithmetic sum of the contributions of the individual members to the team. FACTORS THAT AFFECTED TEAM EFFECTIVENESS OF SODOR OIL TERMINAL PROJECT PLANNING AND DESIGN The need to have a plan for the management of the Sodor oil terminal cannot be overemphasized. Grachev et al(2006) using 3M corporation as a case study proposed that a key benefit of planning upfront for a project is the creation of well defined project goals. The goals help to give direction to a teams project. Other benefits of planning include; it helps the team members in the coordination of individual tasks by providing clearly stated assignments. Furthermore, the project plan also enables the team to have an overview of the project schedule, costs and constraints which the team can then use as a baseline to measure actual project progress. The planning and design of the Sodor oil terminal started with the identification of the Cost, Schedule and Scope goals from the data derived from the Project Sponsor. These goals where then integrated into a sequential structure by the use of the MS Project ® to produce the Sodor oil terminal preliminary Gantt chart. The final Sodor oil terminal plan is a comprehensive document showing the actual budget, time of completion, scope of the project, and the approved contractors selected for the project. Christina(2009) proposed that key factors that affect team success at the planning and design phase include; A. Well-Defined Goals: The definition of clear project deliverables has been shown to improve the success rate of project teams. Pinto and Slevin(1988) proposed that clearly defined and structured goals is a significant factor that determines the effectiveness of teams and hence the success rate of projects. Zander(1980) postulated that teams with clear and measurable goals perform better than teams with fuzzy goals. This is as a result of the use of clear goals by teams as a baseline through which team results can be measured. Furthermore, the use of clear and concise goals also helps the team in planning for what they can achieve within a particular timeframe.The goals of the Group 12 team where clearly stated and well defined at the onset of the project which was to deliver a project plan within 98 weeks at no more than the stated project budget provided by the project sponsor. B. Management Support: Pinto and Slevin(1988) suggested that the support upper management gives a team helps in facilitating team success. This occurs by facilitating the release of resources to the project team hence ensuring their efficiency and helping to remove administrative bottle necks. Group 12 received the support of the project sponsor in the designing of the sodor plan especially with respect to weekly review meetings to assess the current status of the project plan and proffer ways to bring the plan back on track. C. Cross-Cultural teams: The importance of having multiple individuals from differentcultures in a team has been proposed to impact positively on team results(Earley and Mosakowski,2000). Ochieng and Price(2009) also suggested that the effective use of proper communication techniques to handle cultural differences in a team helps in promoting project success. Multiple cultures in a team brings together people with different skills, competencies, and personal attributes dedicated to a common purpose. The multicultural environment of Group 12 provided a pool of diverse ideas derived via brainstorming from which the best possible solution was agreed on and translated into the Sodor project plan. D. Team experience and continuity: Pinto and Slevin(1988) suggested that the inclusion of individuals with specific project experience into a team helps in promoting its success. This is because this individuals already have a knowledge of the critical factors needed to ensure the success of the particular project from the lessons learned from past projects managed by them. Scott-Young(2009) suggested that the stability of a team throughout the project lifecycle helps in ensuring team success. Stable teams have been shown to maintain the consistency of ideas generation and are not susceptible to the distraction that tends to occur from a team member joining or leaving the team(Akgun and Lynn,2000). The use of team members with a wide range of experience managing projects like healthcare, education, and engineering played a key role in the results of Group 12. This is due to the diverse nature of the knowledge pool available for planning the project. The stability of the Group 12 team throughout the project lifecycle also played a key role in the design of the sodor project plan. CONSTRUCTION AND CLOSEOUT A. Handling Conflicts: The absence of conflicts in a team has been proposed to be a pointer to the failure of the team(Saj-Nicole and Damon,2009). The presence of conflicts and how the conflicts are managed indicates how successful the project team will be. The nature of the conflicts i.e. conflicts relevant to the project scope, serves to provoke a generation of ideas from the project team on the best way to manage the crises. Several conflicts arose during the management of Group 12; an example will be the, Who to choose as the project manager? The way it was managed was to have a face to face meeting with the project team, everybody laying their individual ideas on the table, then arriving at a decision mutually beneficial to everyone which is to have a rotational project manager system with each member of the project team having a taste of the pie of being the project manager for 1 week each. This solution helped during the construction phase of the plan because all the team memb ers felt a sense of belonging and making a positive contribution to the team. B. Leadership Continuity: The proposal by Akgun and Lynn(2000) on the positive benefits of leadership continuity to the project team success is largely not applicable to the Group 12 project team. This is because the use of a single leader throughout the project lifecycle will have led to the presence of domineering tendencies being shown by the individual chosen which may affect certain decisions made during the formulation of the construction plan. It will also have led to project team members being made to feel they are not a part of the team. Hence in a bid to avoid this scenario, the rotational project manager system was proposed and adopted. C. Resource availability: The availability of resources plays a major role in the ability of a team to produce results. Peters and OConnors(1980) postulated that the availability of specific resources can either promote or interfere with a team effectiveness. The resources needed by a team to be effective varies depending on the project scope. It may include financial, Human, and Environmental resources. D. Reward and Recognition: The relationship between appropriate reward structures and team effectiveness cannot be overemphasized(Bullock and Lawler,1984). Developing a reward system that focuses on the entire team rather than individuals help in improving team motivation and hence its effectiveness. It is a fact that people are motivated to achieve results if they feel that the results provide value to the organization and this value is acknowledged by the organization. E. Lessons-learned documentation: The preparation of the lessons learned document is an essential part of the project team closure phase(PMI,2008). The lessons learned document captures the lessons learned at various milestones in the planning of the project. The final meeting of the Group 12 team was a brainstorming session to identify various challenges we had during the creation of the Sodor project plan and how the challenges where managed. CONCLUSION This paper details how the Group 12 team managed the Sodor project from design to the closeout phase. It explains in detail the various factors responsible for the success of the team in arriving at the final project plan; and also the various challenges Group 12 team had and how those challenges where managed to produce positive results. The paper sheds light on the key factors that affected various stages of the project and how they where harnessed and utilized positively by the Group 12 team.

Tesco Case Study

Tesco’s main activities: -Retailing -Financial services It’s a major global retailer 1) Retail activity 5 store formats: * Tesco extra * Tesco superstore * Tesco metro * Tesco express * One stop Non-food ventures: -Tesco Homeplus – Dobbies Since 2005, they have opened a member of non-food outlets: Tesco Homeplus, Dobbies( garden centres) 2) Banking activity Tesco Bank A will to extend their involvement in the financial services Service: credit cards/ loans/ mortgages/ saving accounts/ insurance It’s run separately from the rest of the businessIt was a 50/50 joint venture with RBS( Royal Bank of Scotland) But the 28 of July 2008, Tesco bought out the shares of RBS . Internet: tesco. com .Telecom: Tesco mobile, it’s a joint venture with O2 The scale of its operation: 1994: First move into Central Europe 1998: First move into South East Asia 2007: First move in California 2008: First wholly owned Tesco opened in Guangzhou, China China/ Czech Republic/ Hungry/ Republic of Ireland/ Japan/ Malaysia/ Poland/ Slovakia/ South Korea/ Thailand/ Turkey/ Uk/ US They entered the US grocery market in 2007 Through the opening of a new chain: Fresh & EasyOver the past 10 years, the profits per year have constantly increased Tesco’s business strategy: â€Å"At the core of Tesco’s business model is a focus on trying to improve what we do for customers† .To create value for customers: In such way that â€Å"if the business is performing well in the eyes of the customers, then it will also be performing well for other stakeholders† Strategy in the UK: Growth is sought through expansion into markets such as financial services, non-food and telecom Strategy outside the UK: Growth is sought by entry into locations, most recently China, India and in the USTargets are defined under: Five prospective of the steering wheel -community -operations -people -finance -customer To increase the customer loyalty is the single most imp ortant driver of long term financial performance Tesco’s corporate culture: â€Å"Customer is king† . a customer centric company . a customer focused company Maintaining a global staff retention The average longevity within the Tesco management is around 14 years e. g. : the CEO Sir Terence Leahy joined Tesco in 1979 after graduation It’s one of the KPI ( Key Performance Indicator) â€Å"everyone feel accountable for the company’s success†Every little helps A relatively flat grade structure Five levels Whereas 470,000 employees e. g. : top grade 200 people The company’s values: .We treat people how we like to be treated * work as a team * trust and respect each other * listen, support and say thank you * share knowledge and experience No on tries harder for customers * understand customers * be first to meet their needs * act responsibly for our communities Tesco has a rather unique approach of risk management * diversification both geograph ically and in areas * risk devolvement at thedepartment level * absence of overall risk management

Agile Methodologies vs. Traditional lifecycle

Agile methodology and traditional lifecycle refers to the way in which software is developed. However, agile development develops software in a way that is different from the traditional method. Agile philosophy allows frequent inspection and adaptation of the project while the traditional methodology is a sequential method that splits the project into parts that are supposed to be fulfilled.However, it lacks adaptability and flexibility in ensuring the requirements of the project are fulfilled (Baker 2006, pp. 34).In traditional methodologies when a glitch occurs and plans are made, such as changing the software, nears impossibility which means that the software needs to go to the beginning with the development of a new code. This happens as long as there is no further glitch in the development process.On the other hand, agile methodology has a low risk level when developing the software. This means that it emphasizes the values and principles rather than traditional method of proce sses. Hence, agile methodology supports working in cycles and at the end of each cycle the priorities of the project are re-evaluated to check whether it conforms to the requirements.In most cases the Traditional lifecycle and the agile methodologies allows cutting down the total software or picture into puzzle size bits such as coding, designing and testing.However, when it comes to specific methodology in understanding the breaking down of the project, there are some variations that are evident. In the traditional lifecycle, when a stage is completed it remains like that because it is hard to manipulate according to time and user needs (Clammer 2007, pp. 56).This means that the process should start from designing a completely new system. Agile methodology is flexible and allows for change at the end of each stage depending on new ideas that may arise. It enables changes to the project without the entire project been rewritten. Hence, such approach reduces overhead costs and provid es a flexible way in which upgrade of programs can be commissioned.In the case of agile methodology, the project can be launched at the end of each tested stage. This means that it is an opportunity that ensures that bugs are traced and eliminated at the development level and it is further double tested to ensure that the first bug is eliminated.However, on the view of the traditional methodology, this capability is not provided, but the project is tested at the very end of it. It means that if bugs are found the entire program needs to be re-written (Eberle 2006, pp. 90 – 91).Another point is the customer satisfaction and object oriented designers and programmers. The modular nature of agile ensures that the right people are employed for the stage for timely release even if it does not match with the entire customer specifications.While, on the traditional methodologies it supports one main release and any problems such as delays or fulfillment of the customers specification s results into highly dissatisfied customers (Melton 2007, pp. 70).Both methodologies allows for departmentalization administration. The traditional methodology allows departmentalization at each stage while in the case of agile methodology the coding module of each stage can be delegated to separate players.Hence, allows many parts or stages to be fulfilled at the same time. However, the level of departmentalization differs; in the case of agile it is more pronounced than in the case of traditional methodology (Eberle 2006, pp. 94).The two software methodologies have diverse means in the ways that are supposed to fulfill the requirements of software development. Scalability, adaptability and flexibility in addition to customer satisfaction are the main features that set these two methodologies apart.BibliographyBaker, F. 2006, Traditional Software Development: Waterfall, McGraw Hill, New York.Clammer, L. 2007, Software Methodologies: An Introduction, Jakarta, Prentice Hall of Jakar ta.Eberle, J. 2006, Introduction to Software Development, New York Publishers, New York.Hawthorne, F. 2005, Software Development Methodologies, Oxford University Press, London.Melton, Z. 2007, Extreme Programming: Agile Software Development, Cambridge University Press, Singapore.

Are Wars Good for the Economy

One of the more enduring myths in Western society is that wars are somehow good for the economy. Many people see a great deal of evidence to support this myth. After all, World War II came directly after the Great Depression  and seemed to cure it. This faulty belief stems from a misunderstanding of the economic way of thinking.The standard a war gives the economy a boost argument goes as follows: Suppose the economy is on the low end of the business cycle, so were in a recession or just a period of low economic growth. When the unemployment rate is high, people may make fewer purchases than they did a year or two ago, and the overall output is flat. But then the country decides to prepare for war. The government needs to equip its soldiers with extra gear and munitions. Corporations win contracts to supply boots, bombs, and vehicles to the army. Many of these companies will have to hire extra workers to meet increased production. If the war preparations are substantial enough, large numbers of workers will be hired, reducing the unemployment rate. Other workers might be hired to cover reservists in private-sector jobs who get sent overseas. With the unemployment rate down, more people are spending again and people who had jobs before will be less worried about losing their jobs, so theyll spend more than they did. This extra spending will help the retail sector, which will need to hire extra employees, causing unemployment to drop even further. So a  spiral of positive economic activity is created by the government preparing for war.   The Broken Window Fallacy The flawed logic of the story is an example of something  economists call  the Broken Window Fallacy, which  is illustrated in Henry Hazlitts  Economics in One  Lesson. Hazlitts example is of a vandal throwing a brick through a shopkeepers window. The shopkeeper will have to purchase a new window from a glass shop for, say, $250. People who see the  broken window  decide that the broken window may have positive benefits: After all, if windows were never broken, what would happen to the glass business? Then, of course, the thing is endless. The glazier will have $250 more to spend with other merchants, and  these, in turn, will have $250 to spend with still other merchants, and so ad infinitum. The smashed window will go on providing money and employment in ever widening circles. The logical conclusion from all this would be ... that the little hoodlum who threw the brick, far from being a public menace, was a public benefactor. The crowd is correct in believing that the local glass shop will benefit from this act of vandalism. They have not considered, however, that the shopkeeper would have spent the $250 on something else if he hadnt had to replace the window. He might have been saving that money for a new set of golf clubs, but since he has now spent the money, the golf shop has lost a sale. He might have used the money to purchase new equipment for his business, or to take a vacation, or to buy new clothing. So the glass stores gain is another stores loss. There hasnt been a net gain in economic activity. In fact, there has been a decline in the economy: Instead of [the shopkeeper] having a window and $250, he now has merely a window. Or, as he was planning to buy the suit that very afternoon, instead of having both a window and a suit he must be content with the window or the suit. If we think of him as a part of the community, the community has lost a new suit that might otherwise have come into  being  and is just that much poorer. The Broken Window Fallacy is enduring because of the difficulty in seeing what the shopkeeper would have done had the window not been broken. We can see the gain that goes to the glass shop. We can see the new pane of glass in the front of the store. However, we cant see what the shopkeeper would have done with the money if he had been allowed to keep it because he wasnt allowed to keep it. Since the winners are easily identifiable and the losers not, its easy to conclude that there are only winners and the economy as a whole is better off. Other Examples of the Broken Window Fallacy The faulty logic of the Broken Window Fallacy occurs often with arguments supporting government programs. A politician will claim that his new program to provide winter coats to poor families has been a roaring  success because he can point to all the people with coats  who didnt have them before. Its likely that there will be pictures of people wearing the coats on the 6 oclock news. Since we see the benefits of the program, the politician will convince the public that his program was a huge success. What we do not see is the school  lunch proposal that was never adopted to implement the coat program  or the decline in economic activity from the added taxes needed to pay for the coats.In a real-life example, scientist and environmental activist David Suzuki has often claimed that a corporation polluting a river adds to a countrys GDP. If the river has become polluted, an expensive program will be required to clean it up. Residents may choose to buy more expensive bottled wat er rather than cheaper tap water. Suzuki points to this new economic activity, which will raise GDP, and claim that the GDP has risen overall in the community, although the quality of life has decreased. Suzuki, however, forgot to take into account all the decreases in GDP that will be caused by the water pollution precisely because the economic losers are more difficult to identify than the economic winners. We dont know what the government or the taxpayers would have done with the money had they not needed to clean up the river. We know from the Broken Window Fallacy that there will be an overall decline in GDP, not a rise.   Why War Doesnt Benefit the Economy From the Broken Window  Fallacy,  its  easy to see why a war wont benefit the economy. The extra money spent on the war is money that will not be spent elsewhere. The war can be funded  in  a combination of three ways: Increasing taxesDecrease spending in other areasIncreasing the debt Increasing taxes reduces consumer spending, which does not help the economy improve. Suppose we decrease government spending on social programs. First,  weve lost the benefits those social programs provide. The recipients of those programs will now have less money to spend, so the economy will decline as a whole. Increasing the debt means that well either have to decrease spending or increase taxes in the future. Plus  there are all those interest payments in the meantime.If youre not convinced, imagine that instead of dropping bombs, the army was dropping refrigerators in the ocean. The army could get the refrigerators in one of two ways: They could get every American to give them $50 to pay for the fridges.The army could come to your house and take your fridge. Does anyone seriously believe there would be an economic benefit to the first choice? You now have $50 less to spend on other goods, and the price of fridges will likely increase due to the added demand. So youd lose twice if you were planning on buying a new fridge. The appliance manufacturers would love it, and the army might have fun filling the Atlantic with  Frigidaires, but this would not outweigh the harm done to every American who is out $50 and all the stores that will experience a decline in sales due to the decline in consumer disposable income.As for the second one, do you think youd feel wealthier if the army came and took your appliances? That idea might seem ridiculous, but its not different from increasing your taxes. At least under this  plan,  you get to use the stuff for a while, whereas with the extra taxes, you have to pay them before you have an opportunity to spend the money.  So in the short  run, a war will hurt the economies  of the United States and its  allies. Next time you hear someone discuss the economic benefits of the war, tell them the story about a shopkeeper and a broken window.