Candidate Details

Page | 19

Candidate Details

Assessment – BSB51407 - Scope

Please complete the following activities and hand in to your trainer for review. This forms part of your assessment.

Name: ______

Address: ______

______

Email: ______

Employer: ______

Declaration

I declare that no part of this assessment has been copied from another person’s work with the exception of where I have listed or referenced documents or work and that no part of this assessment has been written for me by another person.

Signed: ______

Date: ______

If activities have been completed as part of a small group or in pairs, details of the learners involved should be provided below;

This activity workbook has been completed by the following persons and we acknowledge that it was a fair team effort where everyone contributed equally to the work completed. We declare that no part of this assessment has been copied from another person’s work with the exception of where we have listed or referenced documents or work and that no part of this assessment has been written for us by another person.

Learner 1: ______

Signed: ______

Learner 2: ______

Signed: ______

Learner 3: ______

Signed: ______

Competency Record to be completed by Assessor

Learner Name: ______

Date of Assessment: ______

The learner has been assessed as competent in the elements and performance criteria and the evidence has been presented as;

Assessor Initials
Authentic
Valid
Reliable
Current
Sufficient

Learner is deemed: COMPETENT NOT YET COMPETENT (Please circle)

If not yet competent, date for re-assessment: ______

Comments from Trainer / Assessor:

______

Assessor Signature: ______

Table of Contents

Candidate Details 2

Assessment – BSB51407 - Scope 2

Competency Record to be completed by Assessor 3

Table of Contents 5

Reflections 6

Reflection: Scoping a project (Stakeholder involvement in project scoping) 6

Conduct project authorisation 7

Authorisation checklist table 8

Reflection: Breaking deliverables into manageable chunks (defining the scope of a project) 10

Reflection: Conducting a Works Breakdown exercise 11

Reflection: Developing a performance review plan (clarifying outcomes and establishing performance measures) 12

Reflection: Improving scope management - Sydney Opera House project 13

Reflection: Assessing scope effectiveness and recommending changes 15

Manage Project Scope - Assessment Activities 16

All Elements 16

Assessment Activity: Scoping a project 16

Assessment Activity: Managing processes to secure scope authorisation 16

Assessment Activity: Developing a scope management plan 18

Attachments 19

Scope Management Plan 19

WBS (Work Breakdown Structure) 19

Scope Change Request Template 19

Reflections

Reflection: Scoping a project (Stakeholder involvement in project scoping)

Case Study 2: Training Program Development provides details of a Request for Tender (RFT) to produce a program and resources for the Training of Customer Service Officers in a local police force. Reflect on the scenario below, considering whether to respond to the request for tender.

The unit you manage is quite small – just yourself as manager, three full time content development specialists/writers and one administrator. The unit designs and publishes learning materials and draws on the services of consultant instructional designers, editors and graphic artists as required.

In reviewing the RFT you note that the timelines are very tight (only three months to write and produce 400 hours of teaching material). You know that you have the expertise to develop the curriculum and assume that because the Training Program is similar to one that the unit already delivers that you will be able to customise some existing materials. You note also that the materials produced by the project will be owned by the contracting organisation and that you will need to carefully document your existing intellectual property so that the materials already produced by the unit for use in teaching will remain the property of the college. You realise that you will need to source two teachers for a month each to help prepare the materials and that you will need the head of school to agree in principle to the temporary transfers of two teachers to you.

As you only have one week to write the proposal and will need to put aside some other work for this time, you decide that you need to talk over the options with the head of school.

As a basis for that meeting you need to prepare a briefing note including details on the following:

1. The outcomes of the project – for the Unit and the School.

2. The project deliverables.

3. The resources you will need from the school to complete the project.

4. The risks associated with proceeding or not proceeding.

Conduct project authorisation

Before proceeding, find out about the project authorisation procedures in your own workplace, and answer the questions in the tables below.

Project authorisation in your organisation

Name of organisation
Name and position of my project authorising officer
Is there a document that outlines the authorisation procedure?
At what stage(s) does authorisation need to be secured?
Is there a proforma/template to use?

The checklist in the following Authorisation Checklist table identifies standard items that may be addressed in a project authorisation process. Use the checklist to compare your own organisation’s authorisation procedures with these standards.

How does your organisation compare? Are there items that are not addressed? If so find out why. Are there additional items included in your own authorisation processes? If so add these items.

Authorisation checklist table

Standard item / Explanation/definition / Used in my workplace (ü) /
Project name and number / Used to identify and classify the project
Project sponsor / Person/company who has contracted the project
Project manager / The person leading the project team who is responsible for project outcomes
Project director / The person to whom the project manager reports
Priority ranking / Urgency in relation to other projects
Problem/opportunity / What led to the project being commissioned
Deliverable / Specific outcome(s)
Key objectives / Major commitments/ work to be achieved
Critical success factors / Indicators that the outcome has been achieved
Stakeholders / People who have a stake/ interest in the project and can influence its success
Performance reporting / A statement of how progress will be measured and communicated
Specification / Describes the deliverables in detail
Budget & resources / The funding and other resources (including people, space, equipment) required to achieve project outcomes on time
Time / Start and finish dates; critical milestones
Risks, obstacles, assumptions / What might go wrong or get in the way; assumptions on which the specification, budget and timelines are based on
Escalation management / Strategies for managing issues, conflict and disputes
Contingency / Backup strategies – part of risk management
Contractual arrangements / Between project sponsor and project organisation; between project organisation and sub-contractors
Business value / Rationale for taking on the project
Approvals / Sign-off required for project to commence and proceed
Attachments / Any document accompanying the authorisation proforma
Prepared by/ Date / Person submitting the authorisation
Approved by/Date / Person(s) authorising the project/approving the scope

Reflection: Breaking deliverables into manageable chunks (defining the scope of a project)

First read Case Study 1 about Perfect Pergolas and list all of the project tasks that are mentioned in the story. Then take the 5 subtasks listed below and break each down into smaller components. Once you have divided the sub-tasks into sub-sub-tasks, ask yourself whether these components are small enough to be manageable. If so, list the sub-sub-tasks in the order in which they will need to be completed.

Use the table below to format the tasks and sub-tasks. The first set of sub-tasks have been completed as a guide

Perfect Pergolas: JOB NO: 129: MR ARCHIBALD COMMENCEMENT DATE: 4 APRIL 2009
WORK PLAN
Planning and permits
Finalise building design and specifications and get client sign-off
Apply for permits to clear and build
Develop 1st draft master schedule
Source and price materials
Finding and contracting suitable subcontractors
Email/phone three sets of sub-contractors with offer; 24 hour turn-around on acceptance
Develop sub-contracting schedule and contract; organising signing
Lock construction team into schedule
Revise and distribute master schedule to sub-contractors and team
Preparing the site for construction
Undertaking the construction in compliance with building regulations
Making good – including rubbish removal and handover

Reflection: Conducting a Works Breakdown exercise

In the Case Study of Training Program Development breaking down all the tasks to be done to the level of detail required will ensure that adherence to timelines and budgets can be monitored. This breakdown will become an attachment to the contract.

To develop the breakdown, first list all of the project management activities, for example:

Get content of each component agreed;

Source lists of probable attendees, find out leave schedules, develop training schedule etc.

Once you have listed all work activities, put them in order and plot them against the timeline for the project, and also identify the cost items for each stage. (For the purposes of this activity the budget should include all cost items but actual costs are not necessary).

Once you have allocated each activity to a time line and budget item, ask yourself if the breakdown of tasks is sufficient to be able to accurately cost the activity and identify time and budget blow-outs

Reflection: Developing a performance review plan (clarifying outcomes and establishing performance measures)

To develop a plan to review progress on the pergola construction, you should include details of what is being reviewed, when the review will take place and how it will be conducted.

You may decide to present the plan in tabular form, using the sample layout below.

Work Plan / Progress Review Plan
Work task / Scheduled Completion / Scheduled review / Conducted by: / Method / Actual completion

Reflection: Improving scope management - Sydney Opera House project

Read the extract below on the design and construction of the Sydney Opera House and develop an initial scope statement that would cover objectives and deliverables. Identify and classify all of the changes that took place and map these against the original scope of the project.

The construction of Sydney House- an example of scope creep

The Bennelong Point Tram Depot, present on the site at the time, was demolished in 1958, and formal construction of the Opera House began in March, 1959. The project was built in three stages. Stage I (1959-1963) consisted of building the upper podium. Stage II (1963-1967) was the construction of the outer shells. Stage III consisted of the interior design and construction (1967-73).

Stage I was called for tender on December 5, 1958, and worked commenced on the podium on May 5, 1959 by the firm of Civil & Civic. The government had pushed for work to begin so early because they were afraid funding, or public opinion, might turn against them. However major structural issues still plagued the design (most notably the sails, which were still parabolic at the time).

By January 23, 1961, work was running 47 weeks behind, mainly due to unexpected difficulties (wet weather, unexpected difficulty diverting stormwater, construction beginning before proper engineering drawings had been prepared, changes of original contract documents). Work on the podium was finally completed on August 31, 1962.

Stage II, the shells were originally designed as a series of parabolas, however engineers Ove Arup and partners had not been able to find an acceptable solution to constructing them. In mid 1961 Utzon handed the engineers his solution to the problem, the shells all being created as ribs from a sphere of the same radius. This not only satisfied the engineers, and cut down the project time drastically from what it could have been (it also allowed the roof tiles to be prefabricated in sheets on the ground, instead of being stuck on individually in mid-air), but also created the wonderful shapes so instantly recognisable today. Ove Arup and partners supervised the construction of the shells, estimating on April 6, 1962 that it would be completed between August 1964, and March 1965. By the end of 1965, the estimated finish for stage II was July 1967.

Stage III, the interiors, started with Utzon moving his entire office to Sydney in February 1963. However, there was a change of government in 1965, and the new Askin government declared that the project was now under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Public Works. In October 1965, Utzon gave the Minister for Public Works, Davis Hughes, a schedule setting out the completion dates of parts of his work for stage III. Significantly, Hughes withheld permission for the construction of plywood prototypes for the interiors (Utzon was at this time working closely with Ralph Symonds, an inventive and progressive manufacturer of plywood, based in Sydney). This eventually forced Utzon to leave the project on February 28th, 1966. He said that Hughes’s refusal to pay Utzon any fees and the lack of collaboration caused his resignation, and later famously described the situation as "Malice in Blunderland". In March 1966, Hughes offered him a reduced role as 'design architect', under a panel of executive architects, without any supervisory powers over the House's construction but Utzon rejected this. The cost of the project, even in October of that year, was still only $22.9 million, less than a quarter of the final cost.

The second stage of construction was still in process when Utzon was forced to resign. His position was largely taken over by Peter Hall, who became largely responsible for the interior design. Other persons appointed that same year to replace Utzon were E. H. Farmer as government architect, D. S. Littlemore and Lionel Todd.

The four significant changes to the design since Utzon left were:

·  The cladding to the podium and the paving (the podium was originally not to be clad down to the water, but left open. Also the paving chosen was different from what Utzon would have chosen)

·  The construction of the glass walls (Utzon was planning to use a system of prefabricated plywood mullions, and although eventually a quite inventive system was created to deal with the glass, it is different from Utzon's design)

·  Use of the halls (The major hall which was originally to be a multipurpose opera/concert hall, became solely a concert hall. The minor hall, originally for stage productions only, had the added function of opera to deal with. Two more theatres were also added. This completely changed the layout of the interiors, where the stage machinery, already designed and fitted inside the major hall, was pulled out and largely thrown away)