Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM


Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.


Team 3 – Ariba Case Study Presentation

Presentation by: Brian McNaughton Sorayuth Chiewchansuwan Kuan Wen Peng Phrut Jarukasemratana Jarutat Jamnong

Brian McNaughton

on 15 July 2013

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Team 3 – Ariba Case Study Presentation

Brian McNaughton | Sorayuth Chiewchansuwan | Kuan Wen Peng
Phrut Jarukasemratana | Jarutat Jamnong

Not sure of this analysis.
Our team uncovered a few mistakes that Christopher had made early in the project, they are listed below.

1. Martin should have performed an individual Earned Value Analysis (EVA) on each of the critical plans on the project every month. If this was done Christopher could have quickly identified which plan was behind schedule and over budget.

2. As soon as the project began to experience delays, such as the Sun server equipment being delivered late and the system testing being scheduled late, Christopher should have performed an Earned Value Analysis and developed an action plan to reset the project back on schedule and within budget.

3. Lastly, Christopher should have developed a clear communications plan that reviewed and analyzed the correct set of data, so that key stakeholders could address major project problems.

4. Project Milestones were not established. These milestones would have monitored key project aspects and alerted the project team if they were behind schedule.

5. Christopher should have requested a full time project team member from MED-X to eliminate any further delays to the project schedule.

6. A risk assessment was not done on the major components of the project. Therefore a proper action plan to handle these project risks was never established.
A Project Manager has four main ways to adjust the project schedule. However, each choice has its trade-offs.

1. Add Resources – Increase the cost.
2. Change Resources – Increase the cost and time.
3. Cut Scope – Decrease quality.
4. Fast Tracking (Do work in parallel) – Increase risk .

At this time, the project deadline is one month away. Since the project has a strict set of deliverable, cutting the scope is not an option. While adding resources may speed up the completion time of certain tasks, fast tracking will be Christopher's best shot at completing the project on time.

The following chart depicts the proposed schedule change that our team recommends. It involves adding resources to the Evolve stage and fast tracking it to work in conjunction with the Deploy stage.
The Technical Infrastructure Plan is under performing according to an analysis of both the CPI and SPI.

The SPI is an index that shows how efficient the project team is utilizing the time that has been planned for the project. An SPI value below 100% indicates that the project is behind schedule.

The CPI is an index that shows how efficient the project team is utilizing the projects resources. A CPI value below 100% indicates that the cost to complete the project is higher than planned.

As you can see from the graphs on the next slide, there has been an overall negative trend in both CPI and SPI over the past 6 months for the Technical Infrastructure component. While there has been a positive trend for the Software Customization component.
Christopher Martin from Implementation Technologies has consulted our team to provide an in depth analysis of the problems that he has encountered with the Ariba implementation at MED-X.

Through an earned value analysis of the past 6 months, our team has identified the source of these problems and has proposed a series of changes and recommendations to alleviate these problems.
Our team has found that the following high level issues contributed to the projects problems:

1. Christopher has limited experience managing projects with multiple critical paths.

2. There was a lack of proper reporting and data analysis throughout the project. Problems could have have been identified earlier with periodic Earned Value Analysis on the critical project components.

3. There was a lack of communication between major project stakeholders (MED-X, Implementation Technologies, and Ariba).

4. Lack of a consistent project team as a part-time team members from MED-X had been repeatedly taken off the project.

5. A risk register or assessment was never done on possible project set backs.
The Earned Value Analysis (EVA) our team conducted focused on three major indicators:

1. Schedule Performance Indicator (SPI)
2. Cost Performance Indicator (CPI)
2. Cost Variance (CV)

We studied both the combined and individual analysis of the two critical path components of the project, which were the Technical Infrastructure and the Software Customization.

The following slides show this analysis.
A Cost Variance (CV) analysis, indicated how much over or under budget the project was.

The CV analysis indicated that the Software Customization Plan is under budget and the Technical Infrastructure Plan is over budget.

As you can see from the graph on the next slide, it shows the CV of the two critical plans along with one that combines the two. You can easily see the negative cost variance with the Technical Infrastructure Plan and the positive cost variance with the Software Customization Plan.
The combined Earned Value Analysis was not useful in determining and isolating the root cause of the projects problems.

The graph on the following slide shows the combined EVA analysis. Besides for the month of June, the graph indicate that the project is ahead of schedule with a schedule variance (SV) of $67,250 and under budget with a cost variance (CV) of $83,750.

From the surface, the combined EVA analysis looks like the project is ahead of schedule and under budget. However when a project goes through two or more critical paths, a combined EVA analysis can be misleading. Being ahead of schedule and under budget on one critical path, can not make up for being behind schedule and over budget on another critical path.

We have seen in the previous slides that the Technical Infrastructure Plan is behind schedule and over budget. However, it would be impossible to draw this conclusion if you relied solely on the combined EVA analysis results.
* It is important to note that this recommendation has some inherit risks associated with it. Fast tracking the Evolve stage to work in conjunction with the Deploy stage will limit the amount of time that the team has to make changes to the system. Any major problems that are encountered while the project is being Deployed will ultimately delay the Evolving stage.
The goal of this project was to implement the Ariba software at MED-X. Since this project ran through two critical paths, the success of the project relied on the successful completion of both those components. Our analysis of this project has revealed the importance of properly monitoring and controlling the project.

Clear communication plans, risk assessments, and contingency plans needed to be prepared and ready for implementation. Also, project milestones and proper reporting metrics needed to be established to act as guidelines for managing the projects schedule and costs.

Hopefully the recommendations our team proposed will result in the completion of the project on schedule. We hope that our analysis can serve as a tool and template for future implementation projects.
Full transcript