WGU MGT2 task3.V2 - Copy - Task 3 using Case study 5 Latest Update,100% CORRECT

WGU MGT2 task3.V2 - Copy - Task 3 using Case study 5 Latest Update MGT2 TASK PROF Jake [Pick the date]   WGU MGT2 task3.V2 - Copy - Task 3 using Case study 5 Latest Update Monitoring and Controlling Task 3 WGU IT Project Management – MGT2 Monitoring and Controlling Project Title Project Manager Customer Name Merrilton Mobile Payment Portal City of Merrilton A. Risk Assessment Risk Description Likelihood (L, M, H) Impact (L, M, H) Responsible Person Prevention/Mitigation Strategy Inadequate User requirements leading to system mismatches may cause delays in account activation. M H Maya Johnson System Requirements Improve communication and send out additional email and a hard copy with the July bill to the physical address on file. Data cleanup delays impacting database readiness including individuals who relocate, start, stop, or transfer service left unaccounted for in calculations. H M Fatima Kalani Utilities Allocate additional resources to data cleanup and maintain continuous synchronization of databases up to the project launch in July to include all user data changes. Insufficient Hardware for Citywide Coverage H M Alex Patel Code Enforcement Develop a detailed forecast of technology needs and ensure procurement of essential hardware by July 1. Duplication in Maintenance Request Handling H H Jack Martin Public Housing Prioritize the digitization of paper requests and transition all new maintenance requests to a digital-only format. Customer Dissatisfaction with Limited Payment Options. H H Mateo Costa Payment Processing Explore and integrate additional payment APIs to expand the range of payment methods available to users. Communicate additional options for making payments with all customers to prevent confusion. Key: L=Low, M=Medium, H=High B. Gantt Chart Please see attached PDF C1. Earned Value Analysis Team EV AC PV CV CPI SV SPI System Requirements (Maya Johnson) $6,175.96 $6,800 $7,360 ($624.04) .91 ($1,184.04 ) .84 Utilities (Fatima Kalani) $4,616.48 $4,500 $5,866.67 $116.40 1.03 ($1,250.19) .787 Code Enforcement (Alex Patel) $4,123.20 $4,500 $5,837.84 ($376.80) .92 ($1,636.80) .706 Public Housing (Jack Martin) $5,471.72 $5350.00 $8,295.65 $121.72 1.02 ($2,796.28) .660 Payment Processing (Mateo Costa) $2,287.48 $2,950 $1,606.45 ($662.52) .78 $681.03 1.42 Total $22,674.84 $24,100 $28,966.61 ($1,425.16) .94 ($6,127.61) .782 C2. Earned Value Projections Team EAC ETC Est. Dur. Est. Completion Date System Requirements (Maya Johnson) $10,129.60 $3,329.60 24 04/06/2023 Utilities (Fatima Kalani) $17,155.93 $12,655.93 34 04/30/2023 Code Enforcement (Alex Patel) $26,193.25 $21,693.25 52 05/25/2023 Public Housing (Jack Martin) $20,728.40 $15,378.40 35 05/02/2023 Payment Processing (Mateo Costa) $42,815.67 $39,865.67 44 05/23/2023 C3. Discussion of Earned Value Analysis and Projections The Earned Value Analysis (EVA) for the project reveals varying financial performance across the five teams. Starting with Utilities and Public Housing, these teams have been doing a great job, financially speaking. Their Cost Performance Index (CPI) scores are 1.03 and 1.02, respectively, which is commendable. This is indicative of their efficient resource management, aligning closely with the budget expectations. However, the journey hasn't been as smooth for the System Requirements, Code Enforcement, and Payment Processing teams. Their CPIs, which range between 0.78 and 0.92, highlight areas where budget management requires closer attention, particularly in the Payment Processing team with a CPI of 0.78. Looking at this variance it seems they're finding it challenging to stick to the budget, which is something we'll need to keep an eye on. Time management is another interesting aspect. The Payment Processing team, surprisingly, is ahead of schedule with an SPI of 1.42. But this is an outlier. Overall, we're at a cumulative SPI of 0.78, suggesting that, except for Payment Processing, the other teams including System Requirements, Utilities, Code Enforcement, and Public Housing are trailing behind their schedules, with SPIs between 0.66 and 0.84. These figures, while close, still signify that they are not quite hitting the mark. Taking all this into account, along with what our Gantt chart tells us, it seems we're leaning towards overshooting our budget and missing our deadlines. It's a bit concerning, but it's also a learning opportunity. While the Utilities and Public Housing teams provide a benchmark for successful budget management, the overarching focus must now shift to realigning the broader team, especially Payment Processing, with the project's financial and time constraints. Some teams have demonstrated commendable performance in budget management, the overall project still requires careful adjustment in both budgetary and scheduling aspects. Acknowledging these successes is important, but it's equally crucial to address areas where we are not meeting our targets. This situation calls for a unified approach towards strategic realignment, ensuring that we maintain our focus on both the budget and the timeline, and move forward with a clear and realistic perspective. D1. Burndown Chart D2. Discussion of Burndown Chart Analyzing the progress of the project using the burndown chart provides insights into the performance of different teams and the completion of various tasks. As of day 16, the burndown chart reveals that only 5 out of the total 25 tasks have been completed, indicating a slower overall pace of progress across the project teams. Maya Johnson's System Requirements team has shown significant early progress. The burndown chart suggests that while initial groundwork has been laid, more work remains. In comparison, Fatima Kalani's Utilities team has only managed to complete the task of creating database tables. Important tasks like data cleanup, utility module customization, and system integration are still in progress. This aligns with the burndown chart's indication of slower progress, as these pending tasks are vital for the project's utility aspect. For the teams led by Alex Patel (Code Enforcement) and Jack Martin (Public Housing), the burndown chart shows minimal progress. Jack Martin’s team has completed one significant task, but major tasks are still unaddressed. Similarly, Mateo Costa's Payment Processing team has yet to make substantial progress, as evident from the burndown chart. The Earned Value Analysis offers a more detailed picture, considering the budget and scope of the completed work. In summary, the project's current trajectory, as indicated by the burndown chart, necessitates an increased pace in task completions, especially for certain teams. Concurrently, the EVA's insights into the financial and schedule performance of these tasks should continue to inform strategic decisions to ensure successful project delivery. E. Mitigation Plan potential root issues impacting the performance of specific teams based on the burndown chart and Earned Value Analysis. The approach to formulating a mitigation plan is to address the underlying issues, ensuring we move the project forward successfully. For the System Requirements team, despite their significant early achievements, they are slightly lagging behind in schedule. This may stem from an underestimation of task complexities or possible resource constraints. To mitigate this, we plan to implement more rigorous project tracking and increase the frequency of status meetings. This will help us identify issues early. Additionally, reallocating resources from teams that are ahead of schedule could provide the necessary boost to get back on track. In the case of the Utilities team, their progress has been slower than anticipated. Technical difficulties with utility module integration or insufficient manpower could be the culprits here. Our strategy involves conducting a technical review to identify the pain points. Cross- training team members from other areas of the project where we have spare capacity could also address any manpower shortages. For the Code Enforcement team, the slow progress and lag in schedule are concerning. This might be due to procurement delays or a lack of specific expertise in handling the specialized software required for code enforcement. To address these issues, we plan to expedite procurement processes and establish a clear timeline for the remaining tasks. Outsourcing some software development tasks could help expedite progress, and arranging specialized training for team members might build the necessary skill sets more quickly. In implementing these strategies, we are mindful of the project’s triple constraints: scope, time, and cost. Our aim is to align the mitigation strategies with the original project scope while addressing the specific issues head-on. Regular tracking and expedited processes should bring us back on schedule. Our focus is on steering the project back on its intended course, ensuring successful completion within the project's defined timeline and budgetary goals. References Project Management Institute. (2017). A guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK guide) (6th ed.). Project Management Institute. Case Study 5 (2023): Merrilton Mobile Payment Portal. MGT2_KKM1 Monitoring and controlling task 3