Report 2 PROJECT SCOPE STATEMENT Project Name: Faculty of Business Student Presentation Competition Project Objective: The objective is to effectively plan a successful Student Presentation Competition to be held 31st March 2017 from 17:00 until 21:00pm, with attendance from 100 academics from outside of the University of Greenwich and industry experts. This event will not be for profit, will be free of charge to guests and will be making use of the University’s internal Facilities and catering services, therefore minimizing costs, allowing for better prizes for the competition winners. Students will be briefed on the presentation they should give in groups on ‘How to Lead a Sustainable Business in 2017’. The competition will include a small-scale prize giving ceremony at the end of the event, to award students for their efforts – there will be prizes for third and second place runners up in addition to that of the winner. A guest list including 100 academics working outside of the University of Greenwich and industry experts will be given to the Faculty for approval, following this, invites will be sent to those featured on the final/approved list, asking for dietary requirements, which inform catering. The budget for this event is £3,000 – the money is to be used on catering internally provided by the University café (paid for through internal recharge), and with support from IT staff and security staff in the University being free, the rest of the money will be used on prizes. Deliverables (bullet point): - Guest list - Invitations to guests - Catering - Prizes - Venue - Host - Competition brief - Judging system and procedure for audience - Event schedule Technical Requirements: - Guest list that includes external academics and industry experts and is also Faculty approved. Should be electronic in order to manage RSVPs and special requirements. - Invitations to guests should be electronic and include date, time, duration, venue, and competition brief and will be used as access to the event. Requests for special food requirements. RSVP system.- Catering – £5 voucher for canteen that guests can use during interval, tea, coffee and cakes for the venue itself in adherence to special requirements outlined by invitees. - Prizes – runner up prizes and a grand prize for the group that comes first place. - Venue – complies with health and safety regulations, equipment for presentations, allows for space for tea, coffee and cakes, can be set up with voting hardware. Is available on rehearsal day and day of event. - Host – senior member of staff within Faculty of Business. Is available on rehearsal day and day of event. - Competition brief – details what students should present on, presentation schedule for groups, description of audience they will present in front of, time limit for presentations, group size, dress code, confirmation of prize, where to report to. - The judging system for the event will be electronic, with members of the audience being able to vote on a scale of 1 to 4 how well they feel each group performed. - Event schedule that is clear for attendees to understand. Milestones: Task Date to complete Task Date to complete Guest list approval 09.03.2017 Briefing to students presenting 02.03.2017 Venue approval 01.03.2017 Confirm attendees 23.03.2017 Catering approval (includes £5 voucher) 28.03.2017 Distribution of invitations 14.03.2017 Rehearsal and equipment check 27.03.2017 Confirm host (for rehearsal and event date) 02.03.2017 Day of event 31.03.2017 Event schedule 29.03.2017 Exclusions (if applicable): - This project will not deliver the content of presentations, this is the responsibility of the student participants. - We are not responsible for the security or health and safety of the venue, this is the responsibility of the venue owners (University of Greenwich security staff). - This project does not guarantee the working of electronic equipment on the day, this is the responsibility of the owners of the equipment, whom we will be working with. However, rehearsals and on the day checks will take place - This project does not aim to provide or organise parking for attendees but will give information on local car parks.WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE: Student Presentation Competition Venue Approval Organise Reception Organise IT Equipment Organise Host Table for counting votes Table for refreshments Invitations Propose guest list Approval of guest list Prepare the invitations Send invitations Confirm final list of attendees Catering decide food and drink for the venue order food for venue Organise £5 voucher Competition Brief presenting students Organise voting sofware for audience Timetable event Decide Prizes Procure prizes Organise rehearsalGANTT CHART:GANTT CHART (WITH TASK DETAILS – DATES IN USA FORMAT)NETWORK DIAGRAM (FULL SHOT): Here you can see in red, the critical path, consisting of tasks that, if delivered on late, will cause delays to our project.NETWORK DIAGRAM (DETAILS)STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT Using the stakeholder mapping tool below, we identified those whom we need to keep satisfied, manage closely, monitor only or keep informed based on their level of power and interest. This stakeholder analysis also aids in understanding the behaviours of each individual stakeholder, helping the project management team to better tailor stakeholder management approaches to each stakeholder (Brugha and Varvasoszky, 2000). In using applying stakeholder management we hope to come up with methods of strategically dealing with the wide range of stakeholders who have an effect or whom are affected by our project (Boutilier, 2012). In order to effectively communicate with the various stakeholders in a way that is personal and promote buy-In from them, communication will be personalised and where possible, for example with regards to the Faculty’s senior management, the presenting students and the key catering, IT and security staff – this also offers the opportunity for stakeholders to ask questions and have things clarified, affording us the better chance of keeping those with high interest AND high power informed and satisfied (Andriof, 2003). High power Keep Satisfied These are stakeholders key to the project, but are not that interested in the success of the event. These individuals or groups need to be kept satisfied otherwise, the project will be at risk. -IT support staff – without their help, the equipment for presentations may not be ready on the day -Catering staff – these staff are required to help cater for and provide refreshments to guests. Also given the £5 voucher concerns the canteen and in turn their team, they will need to be privy to discussions surrounding our plans for this. -Security staff – these staff need to be informed of the event happening so that they can be sure the building is open. Also, if they are unaware guests are coming, this could cause issues for guests hoping to enter the venue. Manage closely Those with high power and interest are the most important of the stakeholders as they are interested in the event running smoothly but also have the power to put a stop to it. Their interest in the project will need to be managed because if they are dissatisfied, a shift in their interest in the project, considering their high power, could delay the project or bring it to a halt. -Senior management within the Faculty These are the individuals whom have put on the event, and hope to use it to the Faculty’s benefit. While they wish for the event to go as smoothly as possible and can be a big help, if they identify that the project is being poorly managed or is a risk, they could pull the plug on it. -Guests – these individuals are the means by which the competition can function, and act as judges so managing their attendance, expectations and satisfaction is key -Host – the host will act as master of ceremony and so will need to kept happy as they will be the face of the event.Low power Monitor only These stakeholders are the ones we are least worried about, and therefore will not spend a lot of time trying to satisfy or keep informed. -Staff in rooms next to or near venue of event – these stakeholders may be affected by the noise on the day of the event but they do not have high interest nor do they have the power to disrupt the event. We can monitor them but they are a low priority for the project team. Keep informed For us, those with a high interest but low power, they will need to be in the loop during the project’s planning stages and with regards to the event itself. -Presenting students – the students will have a high interest in the event, with the incentive to win a prize but individually if they do not turn up, they lose out and the presenting groups will just need to improvise, therefore we class them as being high interest and low power. Low interest High interestPROJECT EVALUATION We are using the MODeST framework, detailed below, to outline our evaluation of how this project, in it’s planning stages has been handled and whether any improvements can be made in each area. By evaluating our project as we do below, we can use this to inform us of the impact of any shortcomings we faced during planning and use that to make better decisions when taking on future projects (Dey, 2006). MODeST Mission The mission was simply decided, as it was clearly laid out by the Faculty’s senior management, but was vague. Our main contraints were timings and approval – we rely heavily on Faculty’s swift approval of proposed guests lists so that invites can be sent out as early as possible to maximise the chances of individuals attending. The project also relied heavily upon effective communication of parties that we delegated to – for example, IT support staff, so that added another layer of complexity and more human resources to manage. The objectives seemed relatively easy to come up with based on the very clear requirements of the client but there were certain elements we had to make decisions by ourselves as a project team due to the vagueness of the overall mission. We were admittedly a bit slow to come to this understanding so seeking clarity earlier would have aided in this area and could have afforded us the opportunity to come up with more adventurous or ambitious objectives at the very beginning of the planning stage. Organisation All of the main team members, both in the project management team and those involved as third parties in the project, were based in the University so that helped organising as we were not dealing with others in other organisations. It was made clear from the beginning whom was project leader but also how the tasks were broken down and what milestones we were working towards. The biggest challenge was organising communication with the guests as they worked in many different Universities and industries so choosing the best form of communication and when to send follow ups was something we had to consider carefully. For the organisation, in this case, the University of Greenwich, the failure of this event would be a reputational risk, and could paint it in a bad light in the eyes of key industry links, research partners and external academics – this adds another layer of complexity and outlines the importance of this event running smoothly and being a success. Delivery The project is on track for delivery but It is still very dependent on many different elements so we as a project team must stay on top of things by ensuring we maintain good contact with stakeholders, especially those with high power to ensure all goes well. With regards to tasks reliant on timely decision making, we used team meetings as a way to keep each other reminded on key tasks, with the project team leader acting as a chaser for those whom are at risking at slipping behind and advising whom to approach should a third party not be responsive. Stakeholders The complexities and risks associated with the different stakeholders, as outlined in our stakeholder analysis belong mainly to those with high power and high interest. On the day, guests will need to be satisfied – since it is free attendance they may not feel obliged to stay throughout the whole competition to keeping them where they are and wanting to take part in thewhole event will be a challenge. In future, we could incorporate gifts or more incentives to ensure the good will of industry experts and external academics, otherwise they may not see the Faculty in a good light and therefore will not want to attend another event similar to this. Team The project team is a diverse and large one, consisting mainly of students whom also have work and family commitments so a complexity in this area of evaluation was being able to meet up, and find time to conduct team meetings. Technology such as group instant messaging services was used to overcome this but we all agree meeting in person is best. Moving forward the team should take on the project earlier, to better plan meets in advance rather than on an ad-hoc basis. Additionally, when using Project management software, it was clear some members of the team were not entirely familiar nor did they retain all information provided in training sessions, which resulted in time being spent repeating the gantt chart/network diagram stage of planning. Fortunately this did not effect the project overall but seeking clarification on project management software functionality will be a priority in future to lower the risk of time being wasted.REFERENCE LIST: Andriof, J. (2003). Unfolding stakeholder thinking. 1st ed. Sheffield: Greenleaf. Boutilier, R. (2012). A stakeholder approach to issues management. 1st ed. New York: Business Expert Press. Brugha, R. and Varvasoszky, Z. (2000). Stakeholder analysis: a review. Health Policy plan, 15(3), pp.239-246. Dey, P. (2006). Integrated project evaluation and selection using multiple-attribute decision-making technique. International Journal of Production Economics, 103(1), pp.90-103. .