QSO-345-Q3500 Project Mgmt/CAPM Cert

1- to 2-page Microsoft Word document with double spacing, 12-point Times New Roman font, and one-inch margins. All sources must be cited in APA style.Project Scenario 1 Summary: Technical Redesign. One required source is
Project Management Institute. (2017). A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide) — Sixth Edition and Agile Practice Guide (ENGLISH). Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.

Specifically, the following critical elements must be addressed in this milestone: Specify which scenario you intend to work with. Using the scenario you have chosen and the case study information, explore the reasons why the past project failed. Consider factors such as sponsorcommitment, senior management support, scope changes, funding, risks, project management methodology, priorities, resources, scheduling, and soon. In the context of the project scenario you have chosen, which process group is easier for management to influence? Which will consume the mostresources? Explain why and support your reasoning with PMI® principles. QSO 345 Milestone One Guidelines and Rubric
Overview: The final project for this course is a project management plan report. You will create several components of a project management plan, synthesizing
the skills learned in the course and required for the CAPM® into a well-organized deliverable. You will demonstrate your knowledge of CAPM®, specifically the
ten knowledge areas and five process groups critical for an understanding of PMI®. A grasp of project management language, structures, and processes will help
you succeed as either a member or leader of a project. This course is designed around the skills and abilities required for CAPM® certification and applicable to
careers in project management. Gaining the CAPM® certification can make you more marketable to potential employers.
Prompt: take time to read and understand the Harvard case study, Waterloo Regional Police Services: Reassessing the CIMS Project, which will be the basis of
your final project. Once you are familiar with the case study, you will choose one of the following two scenarios. Note that you will work with your chosen
scenario throughout the course; you cannot change your scenario choice at a later date.
Project Scenario 1 Summary: Technical Redesign
You are the project manager responsible for one of the projects in the overarching CIMS project program portfolio, and you will be managing the technical
redesign due to the new federal requirements. Chief Gravill, your project sponsor, needs the technical software designs to be reviewed and the new federal
requirements incorporated. Then the development, testing, validation, pilot, and deployment plans need a complete reworking. In addition to updates for the
internal platform, updates are needed for all websites to comply with inclusion and disability standards. This project must be completed first before the vendor
selection team can create the new requests for proposal (RFPs) and start vetting the new software vendors. Your development team has been given high-level
sizing of six months and $300,000. The rest of the project team and operational costs are estimated to be $150,000. Chief Gravill says the project cannot take
more than six months and has approved $200,000 more in the budget if the project can be done within four months. For complete project details, review the
Project Scenario One: Technical Redesign document.
Project Scenario 2 Summary: Procure a New Software Vendor
The technical redesign has been completed, and you are the new project manager taking over one of the critical projects in the overarching CIMS project
program portfolio; you need to select, contract, and onboard the new software vendor. Chief Gravill, your project sponsor, wants to get the project back on
track and would like you to lead the new software vendor project. Since the past project was unable to identify a vendor and there are new federal
requirements, this new project will be part of the critical path needed for CIMS program to get back on track. The project will involves creating new requests for
proposal (RFPs) with the new requirements, vetting the best vendors, negotiating the new contract within budget, and onboarding the new vendor for the
project. In addition to meeting the federal platform requirements, all of the regional offices need their websites updated to meet the new inclusion and disability
requirements identified by the project team. Chief Gravill wants this project completed within the next two months, but it should not take more than five
months. The operating budget for the project is $100,000, and the new vendor contract must be no more than $8.6 million for the internal software and $1
million for the website updates. For complete project details, review the Project Scenario Two: Procure a New Software Vendor document.
Specifically, the following critical elements must be addressed in this milestone:



Specify which scenario you intend to work with.
Using the scenario you have chosen and the case study information, explore the reasons why the past project failed. Consider factors such as sponsor
commitment, senior management support, scope changes, funding, risks, project management methodology, priorities, resources, scheduling, and so
on.
In the context of the project scenario you have chosen, which process group is easier for management to influence? Which will consume the most
resources? Explain why and support your reasoning with PMI® principles.
Rubric
Guidelines for Submission: Your paper should be a 1- to 2-page Microsoft Word document with double spacing, 12-point Times New Roman font, and one-inch
margins. All sources must be cited in APA style.
Critical Elements
Scenario
Reasons
Proficient (100%)
Specifies a scenario
Thoroughly explores the reasons why the
past project failed
Process Group
Explains which process group is easier
for management to influence, discusses
which will consume the most resources,
and provides supported rationale
Articulation of
Response
Submission has no major errors related
to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax,
or organization
Needs Improvement (75%)
Explores the reasons why the past project
failed but leaves out a significant number of
factors
Explains which process group is easier for
management to influence and discusses which
will consume the most resources but lacks
rationale and/or support
Submission has major errors related to
citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or
organization that negatively impact readability
and articulation of main ideas
Not Evident (0%)
Does not specify a scenario
Does not explore the reasons why
the past project failed
Does not explain which process
group is easier for management to
influence, discuss which will
consume the most resources, or
provide rationale
Submission has critical errors related
to citations, grammar, spelling,
syntax, or organization that prevent
understanding of ideas
Total
Value
10
40
40
10
100%
S
w
907E10
WATERLOO REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES: REASSESSING
THE CIMS PROJECT
Professor Deborah Compeau and Jane Movold prepared this case solely to provide material for class discussion. The authors do
not intend to illustrate either effective or ineffective handling of a managerial situation. The authors may have disguised certain
names and other identifying information to protect confidentiality.
Ivey Management Services prohibits any form of reproduction, storage or transmittal without its written permission. Reproduction of
this material is not covered under authorization by any reproduction rights organization. To order copies or request permission to
reproduce materials, contact Ivey Publishing, Ivey Management Services, c/o Richard Ivey School of Business, The University of
Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada, N6A 3K7; phone (519) 661-3208; fax (519) 661-3882; e-mail cases@ivey.uwo.ca.
Copyright © 2007, Ivey Management Services
Version: (A) 2007-04-11
Larry Gravill, chief of the Waterloo Regional Police Service (WRPS), reflected on the last eight years and
the attempts to build an integrated information system. The Common Information Management Systems
(CIMS)1 project had begun in 1997, as a joint effort between WRPS and seven other police organizations.
The project had been troubled since the beginning, and by now considerable resources had been invested
into the CIMS project by all stakeholders involved.
By September 2005, the relationship with the current vendor, Integrated Technologies Group (ITG), had
become less productive. In addition, WRPS needed to install a suitable computer aided dispatch (CAD)
and records management system (RMS), both key CIMS components, prior to December 31, 2005, since
2006 was the federally mandated deadline for implementation of this functionality within police agencies
(i.e. Canadian Police Information Centre, or CPIC, interface deadline). Moreover, there were new vendors
in the marketplace that had not existed when the original vendor selection was made, and Gravill wondered
if one of them might be a better choice. However, he knew that WRPS resources would be heavily tasked
to meet the December 31, 2005 deadline, even if a vendor were chosen immediately.
Gravill knew that this was a critical moment. He had to determine the best way forward for WRPS to begin
to achieve the benefits of an integrated and automated information system within the police service.
WATERLOO REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES (WRPS)
The WRPS employed 889 police service members in 2005: 652 police officers and 237 civilians, including
support staff. This staff served a total population of 497,900 located in the Waterloo Region, which
covered an area of 1,382 square kilometers. Waterloo, a prosperous region, had been ranked in the Top 7
1
Exhibit 1 contains a listing of all abbreviations and acronyms used in this document.
This document is authorized for use only by Angel Ivy in QSO-345-Q3500 Project Mgmt/CAPM Cert 20EW3 at Southern New Hampshire University, 2020.
Page 2
9B07E010
Smart Global Communities for the last two years by the Intelligent Community Forum (ICF) of New York
City. Waterloo was also recognized internationally as a home to a leading computer science–oriented
university (Waterloo University) and as a hub for many new and well-established high-tech organizations
(as many as 150 computer science–oriented research firms).
To serve this growing community, the WRPS comprised three major divisions that employed 430 police
officers and 13 civilians, each division covering a different geographical area. In addition, a Community
and Corporate Services group had a staff of 33 police officers and 15 civilians, and Support Services was
staffed by 29 police officers and 149 civilians. The Information Technology Department, part of Support
Services, consisted of two police officers and 17 civilians, while Investigative Services had 125 police
officers and 17 civilians. Headquarters employed 33 police officers and 11 civilians. Finance and
Administration had four civilians, and Supplies, Purchasing and Facilities had 11 civilians.
In 2005, the WRPS gross operating budget was $87,435,381, with $74,506,287 allotted for salary and
benefits; $5,764,344 for fleet, facilities; $2,683,445 for materials, supplies, uniforms, training maintenance;
$2,218,159 for services, fees and rentals; $1,317,812 for financial expenses and $945,334 allotted for
equipment.
In 2005, WRPS received the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police Community Policing Award, in
recognition of the accomplishments of the Waterloo Working Group, a group of police, residents, business
owners, elected representatives, social services and agencies that had worked together to develop long-term
strategies for a safe and vital community.
POLICE CHIEF LARRY GRAVILL2
Chief Gravill had been with the Waterloo Regional Police Service since 1973. He started his career
performing patrol duties, and then was assigned to the Police Traffic Branch – Motorcycle Patrol. He was
seconded to the Ontario Police Commission for two years, from 1977 to 1979. Many assignments
followed, including project leader of the PRIDE3 computer system; executive officer to the chief of police
divisional commander – Waterloo division; superintendent of field operations and deputy chief of
administration. He was also the recipient of the Police Exemplary Service Medal.
On October 1, 1992, Gravill was appointed chief of police of Waterloo Regional Police Service. He had
also served as president of the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police from 1997 to 1998, and accepted the
major responsibility of service as president of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police from 1999 to
2001. In addition, he was a member of the National Executive Institute Associates, a 400-plus-member
foundation, affiliated with the United States Federal Bureau of Investigations.
Chief Gravill had a long history of involvement with information systems. In 1981, he managed the
implementation of the first police network to extend beyond the police services political and geographical
boundaries (i.e. PRIDE). At that time, the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) had a network, but it did not
cross the organization’s boundaries. His appreciation for the value of effective management information
systems in implementing strategies for operational success continued throughout his career.
2
The information provided in this section on Chief Gravill’s professional background with WRPS was obtained from WRPS:
The CIMS Project Ivey business case, 2001.
3
PRIDE was the Police Regionalized Information Data Entry System. It was a joint initiative of WRPS and three other
municipalities: Stratford, Brantford and Guelph.
This document is authorized for use only by Angel Ivy in QSO-345-Q3500 Project Mgmt/CAPM Cert 20EW3 at Southern New Hampshire University, 2020.
Page 3
9B07E010
CIMS PROJECT HISTORY
In 1997, the Common Information Management Systems (CIMS) co-operative was formed to create a
common information-sharing platform for a group of Ontario police services consisting of PRIDE, Durham
Regional Police Service, Peel Regional Police Service, Halton Regional Police Service, Hamilton Police
Service, York Regional Police Service and Niagara Regional Police Service. The PRIDE Group last
upgraded its computer aided dispatch system (CAD) in 1989 and its records management system (RMS) in
1994.
CIMS was a complicated software solution, with five integrated modules: CAD, RMS, mapping, mobile
workstation environments and the CPIC module. Computer aided dispatch (CAD) was used to record calls
and assign work to officers. The records management system (RMS) was the primary system for
maintaining information on crimes and offenders. Mapping was the software that could generate maps for
dispatchers to identify addresses quickly to officers. The mobile workstation environment referred to the
systems in the patrol cars. CPIC was the module that was to provide integration with the Canadian Police
Information Centre — a federally operated, computer-based information system that provided national
information on crime. Standardized information (following the Universal Crime Reporting guidelines) was
shared between police forces through CPIC on a regular basis. The complexity of the CIMS project
resulted in a number of challenges in software development, implementation and project management.
Adding to the complexity of the project was the disparity between the different police agencies involved, in
terms of information needs and technical capability. Some agencies, such as Hamilton Police Service, had
few information technology resources and desperately needed to replace key computer hardware and
systems as soon as possible to avoid functional breakdown. Others agencies, such as WRPS, had
information systems professionals on staff with reasonably reliable legacy systems, but recognized the
need for updated information systems to meet growing needs, federally mandated functionality and multiagency information sharing needs.
The initial request for proposal (RFP) for the CIMS project took two years for the project team to develop.
No vendors were able to comply with the terms of the RFP, resulting in zero vendor responses. CIMS
project staff took another year to rework the RFP, which resulted in one vendor response — from ITG. In
August 1999, the CIMS group signed a contract with ITG to install a new CAD and RMS. The relationship
with this vendor was rough for quite some time, due to contract and software functionality requirement
misunderstandings, though some software functionality and integration was successfully implemented. The
ongoing software functionality requirement and implementation difficulties led to a lack of trust in the ITG
vendor / CIMS project group relationship.
Changes to the Project Scope
Since 1999, when the original CIMS contract was signed, additional functionality for the RMS system had
been federally mandated, and these changes were outside of the scope of the original ITG contract.
To maintain Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC) query capabilities, the new federally mandated
requirements for the RMS included replacement of the software interface currently used for the CPIC
reporting. The software within RMS that tracked information for Statistics Canada, based on Universal
Crime Reporting (UCR) guidelines, also needed to be updated in accordance with government
requirements.
This document is authorized for use only by Angel Ivy in QSO-345-Q3500 Project Mgmt/CAPM Cert 20EW3 at Southern New Hampshire University, 2020.
Page 4
9B07E010
The federal government had planned to offer funding, by means of grants available to police services, to
offset the cost of the federally mandated requirements for the RMS enhancements. However, this funding
was unilaterally rescinded before any municipal police agency in Ontario received grants for this
functionality. Therefore, the cost for ITG to provide this federally mandated functionality was becoming
financially prohibitive for WRPS and the other police agencies. The projected cost for full implementation
of the software was now more than $8.5 million (see Exhibit 2).
Changes in the CPIC requirements also affected the ITG CAD system, since the ITG interface solution for
CAD enhancements was becoming very labor intensive and costly. In addition, staff were not convinced
that the ITG CAD solution, as a design-build system, could be successfully implemented and delivered as a
working system with the required enhancements within the federally mandated timelines. Chief Gravill
commented:
We have serious doubts that ITG can deliver the results we need in time for this project.
We do not think they can develop a system as complex as we have specified. We have
multi-partners involved from the police side. ITG tried to incorporate all of our business
practices into the system. They wanted to build a system for other police agencies to use.
ITG was beginning to realize that considering the complexity of the software
specifications, the financial payback on the project would not be great. ITG’s ability and
our ability to satisfy this varied group’s needs is limited. Overall, I think it is very doubtful
that ITG can deliver any significant portion of the required software solution within any
reasonable timeframe.
It took a lot of discussion for our folks to realize that rather than changing the system to
suit our business practices we could change our business processes to suit a software
package that is designed for a typical police agency. Do we want to spend a huge amount
of money to change the package or develop software on our own . . . no. We do not likely
need to as we are not really that different from other police agencies in Canada. This took
quite a bit of internal education and selling to get the staff on board with this idea of
changing our processes rather than changing the software. This was primarily the problem
from the get-go of the CIMS project. The people at the middle level within our
organization were saying that if we can get the vendor to make the changes to the software
then we will not need to change our business practices. We found out the hard way that
this is not the right way to go in the long run.
I think it’s not worth it overall to customize software too much. That caused us a lot of
problems with the CIMS project in the beginning. Now we have the opportunity to get the
functionality that we want with the CIMS project through over-the-counter software
products that were written for police agencies needs rather than through customized
software altered for our needs specifically. That’s a much better deal. ITG is a good
vendor, but in my mind software customization should only be done if absolutely
necessary. ITG is not likely able to deliver the customized solution in time, so now it is
time to re-assess the project and evaluate the products on the market that have a good
chance of meeting our needs. The difficulty is that we have invested a lot of time and
money into the current software solution and we need to determine if we are willing, or
able, to cut our losses and basically start fresh. Some members may not like the idea of
cutting our losses with ITG so we’ll need to think of some alternative solutions that may
be viable for us.
This document is authorized for use only by Angel Ivy in QSO-345-Q3500 Project Mgmt/CAPM Cert 20EW3 at Southern New Hampshire University, 2020.
Page 5
9B07E010
With the new products available on the market we now have more opportunities to choose
from, and we can change our business practices to fit a software package if it is written for
agencies like us as, again, we are not that different from other police agencies. This is so
long as the software is well written and has good functionality and most of our business
and operational needs are met. I think we have some good options like this available to us
now.
Quite some time ago we recognized the importance of implementing software technology
to help us better access and share information within our organization and between
agencies. Now these information-gathering and -sharing needs have been recognized by
various software vendors who have developed software product solutions used by other
police agencies that reportedly seem to work OK. We need to investigate this further, but
with the information I have reviewed regarding currently available software products for
police agencies like us, I am reasonably confident there is a solution out there that would
be workable for us and would allow us to meet our federally mandated deadlines. It’s just
a matter of picking the best solution (vendor and product) to suit our current and ongoing
information sharing needs. This is a long-term and, likely, evolving project as we’ve found
out. We need a software partner flexible enough to change with us but also
knowledgeable enough to guide us along the way. It’s important to pick the right partner
for us as a growing police agency keen on sharing information with other agencies
because a poor vendor relationship results in us spending the bulk of our organization’s
energy toward managing the vendor relationship itself, rather than toward implementing
the required system. We couldn’t afford to do that if we want to achieve the information
sharing goals set out in the CIMS project in any reasonable timeframe. We need to reevaluate this situation and set ourselves on the right course for success now and in the
future.
VENDORS UNDER CONSIDERATION
Since the signing of the contract with ITG, two RMS solution providers had developed and matured in
Canada. Both these “canned” solutions were estimated to cost less than half the cost of the fully
implemented ITG solution.
Niche Technology, Inc.
Niche Technology, Inc. (Niche) was a private Canadian corporation based in Winnipeg, Manitoba, with
branch offices in Calgary, Alberta, and Victoria, British Columbia. Niche was founded in 1992, and was
wholly owned by its senior management. Since 1995, Niche had focused entirely on developing and selling
commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) law-enforcement software.
Installations of Niche law-enforcement software began in 1995. Niche software was now in use in
approximately 80 police departments across Canada and the United States. Additionally, Niche had
installations in Europe, the Caribbean, Africa and Australia. Niche offered an RMS that had additional
modules covering digital mug shot and custody functionality.
This document is authorized for use only by Angel Ivy in QSO-345-Q3500 Project Mgmt/CAPM Cert 20EW3 at Southern New Hampshire University, 2020.
Page 6
9B07E010
Niche had been chosen as the RMS solution by the OPP for its Ontario Police Technology Information
Cooperative (OPTIC) as well as by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP). There were 30,000
authorized users of the RMS in Canada and an additional 22,000 users of the software worldwide.
Strengths
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
A proven Canadian installation base.
Intuitive Windows-based product allowing for attachment of multiple file types within occurrence
reports, such as wave (sound), jpeg (photo) and Microsoft Word files.
No additional costs for CPIC or future CPIC interface changes due to provincial or federal mandated
requirements.
Ease of interface to external reporting systems.
Ability to share information with a large number of police agencies, including the OPP and the RCMP.
Easier for users to adapt to the new application since it had functionality similar to existing Windowsbased software used in the WRPS organization.
Seamless integration with the existing Niche mug shot system.
Ease of installation and training since the format for Niche mug shot was identical to the RMS
application.
Strong querying characteristics.
Weaknesses
•
•
Niche was a small company and had taken on several large installations recently; hence, the
organization’s resources may be overly burdened. Would it have the staff to allocate to the WRPS
project?
Field reporting components were newly developed and were not operationally proven in the field. Pilot
stage only.
Versaterm
Versaterm had been marketing police-oriented CAD and RMS software since 1991, and had a good
reputation in the industry. Versaterm was a privately held company based in Ottawa, Ontario, with a
wholly owned U.S. subsidiary based in Scottsdale, Arizona. Within Ontario, Versaterm successfully
supplied and supported CAD and RMS to the London, Ottawa and Windsor police services. CIO Canada
awarded the London Police Service the Technology Excellence ITX Award 2000, based on the
examination of four main elements of technology, two of which (CAD and RMS) were based upon the
Versaterm software. There were 8,600 users of the Versaterm software in Canada. Versaterm had
completed its CPIC interface, which was included in the product price.
Versaterm recommended its CAD and RMS software be installed as a combined integrated solution. The
company had experienced great success with the two systems functioning together and recommended this
combination to provide a well-supported, reliable, easily implemented solution — especially given the
tight timelines involved. Versaterm had no installations in Canada using its CAD product with a different
RMS.
Strengths
•
A solid existing user group structure with established enhancement selection process.
This document is authorized for use only by Angel Ivy in QSO-345-Q3500 Project Mgmt/CAPM Cert 20EW3 at Southern New Hampshire University, 2020.
Page 7
•
•
•
•
•
9B07E010
The only Canadian integrated alternative to ITG. If installed as an integrated product, there would be
seamless communication between CAD and RMS with a bi-directional interface, meaning both CAD
and RMS could be queried from the CAD environment.
Commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) law-enforcement software.
Well-established customer service reputation.
Product enhancement flexibility would maximize user group input. The user group participation
process was established and functioned well. Allowed greater ability to have a “customized-like” endproduct.
Web based inter-service query ability with Versaterm customers.
Weaknesses
•
•
•
•
•
•
Did not interface with WRPS’s current Aveltech mobile work station environment and would require
the purchase of the Versaterm mobile module at an additional cost. WRPS had $830,600 already
invested in Aveltech MobiCad software. Since Versaterm recommended an integrated installation, this
factor needed be considered when choosing the RMS solution.
Non-Windows environment, reducing ability to multi-task (e.g. the inability to open multiple incident
entry screens).
Used proprietary mapping. Would need to be converted to ESRI standard4 with a loss of map quality
when compared to the existing system.
Only one multi-agency installation in Canada. E-comm, in British Columbia, had a hybrid installation
with another CAD vendor and had experienced issues with multi-agency separation of data.
Could attach only PDF and TIFF files to occurrence reports, greatly reducing functionality when
compared to Niche.
Did not have a mug shot system — needed to integrate to Niche, which caused increased draw on
infrastructure resources, duplicated effort and increased opportunity for error.
The vendor comparison provides further information regarding the two vendors under consideration (see
Exhibit 3).
CONCLUSION
It was time to reassess the CIMS project, given the problems with the current ITG vendor and lack of
system development progress to date. Two key components of the CIMS project, the CAD and RMS
solutions, needed to be chosen and installed as soon as possible to meet the federally mandated timelines.
Other CIMS agencies were faced with the same challenges regarding compliance with the new standards
and were independently seeking CAD and RMS solutions from the limited selection of vendors that could
provide a viable CAD and RMS installation in a Canadian police agency environment. Which was the best
vendor for WRPS at this time, and how should WRPS proceed to meet timelines and ensure project
success? Would selecting the same vendor and software as other CIMS agencies benefit WRPS or
complicate the system implementation process? These were important questions that Chief Gravill needed
to consider before presenting the WPRS plan for system implementation to the board.
4
ESRI is the mapping standard developed by the Environmental Systems Research Institute, a leader in geographic
information systems.
This document is authorized for use only by Angel Ivy in QSO-345-Q3500 Project Mgmt/CAPM Cert 20EW3 at Southern New Hampshire University, 2020.
Page 8
9B07E010
Exhibit 1
LISTING OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
CAD
Computer Aided Dispatch (not to be confused with Computer Aided Design or Drafting)
CIMS
Common Information Management Systems project
CPIC
COTS
Canadian Police Information Centre — also the module of CIMS that links with the center
in Ottawa
Commercial-Off-the-Shelf — a standard technology product that is non-customized
ITG
Integrated Technologies Group — the current vendor
OPP
Ontario Provincial Police
PRIDE
RCMP
Police Regionalized Information Data Entry System — a precursor to CIMS, built by five
agencies in the Waterloo area — Larry Gravill was the leader of this project
Royal Canadian Mounted Police
RFP
Request for Proposal
RMS
Records Management System — a component of CIMS
UCR
Universal Crime Reporting
WRPS
Waterloo Regional Police Services
This document is authorized for use only by Angel Ivy in QSO-345-Q3500 Project Mgmt/CAPM Cert 20EW3 at Southern New Hampshire University, 2020.
Page 9
9B07E010
Exhibit 2
REVISED PROJECTIONS OF CIMS COSTS – ITG ESTIMATES
Description
Software and Training expenditure to date
Projected Cost – Required Updates/extras:
Product Enhancement
CPIC Integration
CPIC Functionality
Integration with Niche Mug Shot Software
Universal Crime Reporting Functionality
Oracle Software Costs
Functionality for Data Purge Requirements
Retraining
Support Issues
Field Reporting
Bar Coding Functionality
External Training
Cost
$1,679,952
210,000
960,000
1,200,000
150,000
800,000
450,000
150,000
75,000
150,000
1,800,000
150,000
150,000
Subtotal
$7,924,952
Taxes
TOTAL
633,996
$8,558,948
Source: Company Files
This document is authorized for use only by Angel Ivy in QSO-345-Q3500 Project Mgmt/CAPM Cert 20EW3 at Southern New Hampshire University, 2020.
Page 10
9B07E010
Exhibit 3
VENDOR COMPARISON
Legacy
ITG
Niche
Versaterm
Overview
Number of Agencies in Ontario
Number of Agencies in Canada
Number of Agencies in Canada (predicted 2006)
Meets PRIDE requirements in Next 2 Years
Multi-agency Capable
System Stable
Sharing of Information with Common Vendor
6
6
2
No
Yes
No
No
0
0
0–1
No
No
No
No
43
54
54–59
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
4
16
16–20
Yes
Unknown
Yes
Yes
Functionality Comparison
Multi-agency Needs
Ease of Use / Ease of Training
Integration with Existing Mobile Software System
CPIC Access – Current Requirements (incl. in costs)
CPIC Access – Requirement in 18 Months (incl. in costs)
CPIC Roll Over
Functionality for Data Purge Requirements
Connection to CAD System
Universal Crime Reporting Functionality
Case Management
Bar Code Tracking
Property Management
Field Reporting Entry – Mobile
Field Reporting Query Capability – Mobile
Access to External Application
CAD Integrated Interface to RMS – Bidirectional
Connection to Mobile
Audit of Information Changes
Security / Passwords / Authentication
Full-Text Search
One-Time Data Entry
Federal Tracking Software Integration
Workflow
Attachments to External Files
– PDF
– TIFF
– MS Office Files
– All Other File Types
Link to Jail Information Systems
Intranet Links
Creating External Documents (Crown Brief)
Ticket Entry Functionality
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes – Pilot
Yes – Pilot
Yes
Yes
Yes – Pilot
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Unknown
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Source: Company Files
This document is authorized for use only by Angel Ivy in QSO-345-Q3500 Project Mgmt/CAPM Cert 20EW3 at Southern New Hampshire University, 2020.
QSO 345 Project Scenario One: Technical Redesign
Module One: Project Topic
You are the project manager responsible for one of the projects in the overarching CIMS project
program portfolio, and you will be managing the technical redesign due to the new federal
requirements. Chief Gravill, your project sponsor, needs the technical software designs to be reviewed
and the new federal requirements incorporated. Then the development, testing, validation, pilot, and
deployment plans need a complete reworking. In addition to updates for the internal platform, updates
are needed for all websites to comply with inclusion and disability standards. This project must be
completed first before the vendor selection team can create the new requests for proposal (RFPs) and
start vetting the new software vendors. Your development team has been given high-level sizing of six
months and $300,000. The rest of the project team and operational costs are estimated to be $150,000.
Chief Gravill says the project cannot take more than six months and has approved $200,000 more in the
budget if the project can be done within four months.
Module Two: Project Charter and Stakeholder Management
Chief Gravill brings you into an introductory meeting to introduce you to the various people you will
work with, and to talk through what the technical redesign must cover. As you sit at the table, the chief
introduces you to all the parties he has pulled into the meeting.
Jared White is the assistant chief and comes from the Durham Regional Police Services; Sergeant
Samatha Zemora is from the York Regional Office; Mary Jones is the Director Operations for the Niagara
Regional Office, and Gary Duluth is the office manager for the Hamilton Office.
Kay Tuttle stands up and explains that she is the new assistant director and has taken over from the
Federal Regulators Office to oversee the implementation of the new requirements. Manoj Saraff is the
technology manager for the development team you will work with, and he introduces you to Scott Wall
and Ashok Patel, who are his lead developers and future members of your project team. You are told
that Tami Langford will be one of your key contacts because she is the product manager for the new
platform.
After introductions, Tami talks through the critical milestones that need to be accomplished over the
next months. For the project to get back on track, the project team needs to assess all the new software
requirements quickly within the next month. Once all requirements have been defined, the team has
two weeks to fully assess the impacts, risks, and likely costs that will impact all the affected
stakeholders. By month four, the project team should have a new technical specifications and
requirements document to be included in the vendor RFPs. Tami and the chief discuss how this project
has only been approved for $450,000, and Samatha says, “I hope it is much less than that; there are
other projects that need to get funded.” Finally, Tami explains that by the last month, the project team
should be ready to meet with the RFP project team so they can meet with the possible vendors that will
be used to implement the new requirements.
Kay said she is okay with Tammy’s timeline, but she warned that she would have to escalate to her
superiors if the PRIDE offices were not able to show compliance with the new requirements by the first
part of next year. Everyone in the room nodded in agreement, knowing that, if the project was not
tracking on time, Kay could shut the whole project down and cause the project team to be let go with
one phone call. The chief said, “We know, Kay. Thanks for the reminder. We will get this done long
before the deadline, right?” He looks to you for confirmation.
After the meeting, the chief and Kent Masters, who worked on the first project, debrief you on all the
stakeholders and provide the final details you need to get going. Kent says that, even though he will not
be working on this project with you, he wants you to know about several constraints and dependencies
on the project, including:
●
●
●
●
The requirements must be reviewed and approved by the technical team and Kay before they
can be used in the technical specs.
All regional offices must sign off on the preliminary specs.
Costs for implementation in the regional offices cannot be more than $50,000 or take longer
than one month.
The RFP team will need to be debriefed on all the requirements specs needed for the RFP.
As Kent is walking out, he leans over and says, “I have a few notes I kept on the last project about all the
people you met that may give you a little more background. I’ll send them to you.” His email is
reproduced below, including his original typos and mistakes:
Email
From: Masters, Kent
Subject: Notes on project participants
Congrats on your new role!
Here are some of the notes I took early on about everyone, let me know if this helps.
Chief – The boss and the one who signed us up for this project and pretty much calls the shots on the
PRIDE group and is the one behind the idea for the project.
Comes to every meeting and early and is very interested in the success of the project. He likes to get
weekly updates in a status meeting and emails if there are any major roadblocks.
Wants this whole project to get done asap and wants to make sure the project does not go over budget.
Kay – Regulator and can shut us down if the project doesn’t go well
She requires a monthly status update meeting just for her but doesn’t really want nor does she respond
to any other communication.
All she cares about is that the new software meets all the federal requirements by August of next year.
Jared – Durham Office
He is always late to meetings and does not come to the most meetings.
He hates the new federal requirements and is only involved because he has been told to.
He doesn’t respond to email because he not a technical guy but will return your phone calls if you have
questions.
Rarely ever offers any feedback and just wants the project to be over.
Samatha (Sam) – York office
Loves to help out on the project and jumps in whenever asked. She will do whatever it takes for this
project to be successful but fights to make sure to keep the cost down since she is using her work to
progress her career and show she keeps public spending low.
Attends every meeting and she likes to be cc’d on all project communication and has been a significant
help in removing project roadblocks.
Sam is favorite among the government leadership and the Chief. She knows many of the leadership
personally and can be a huge asset if she is on board with what you are trying to do. Watch out because
if she doesn’t like you, you will never get anything approved.
Gary – Hamilton office
The Chief and Gary go way back and have been friends since childhood.
Gary has questions from time to time and loves to just IM you rather than email or phone. He does not
attend meetings but says he reads the notes.
The Chief goes to Gary for advice so even though he doesn’t attend meetings you have to make sure he
isn’t misinformed with what is going on.
Wants this project to be over quickly because he feels like he has more important things to work on.
Mary – Niagara Office
Use to be a consultant for a big firm, she is really smart and has a lot to say when she attends meetings.
Most of the project team is intimidated by Mary and don’t listen to what she has to say because she
thinks she is smarter than everyone.
Mary comes to about half the meetings and always asks for the most up to date project documentation
before she will answer questions.
Mary used to work for Niche Technology and doesn’t really care how long the project takes she just
wants us to use Niche.
Tami – like the second boss to the chief
Tami has been the Product Manager for this new platform from the beginning. She is an excellent
resource.
Comes to every meeting meets with the stakeholders regularly to understand their needs and make sure
that the new platform meets all their needs.
She is fastest on email will but will also take IMs or phone calls.
She doesn’t have the final say on projects but she does influence their direction and if the project is
considered successful or not.
Manoj – Technology Manager
Manoj is excellent to work with and works directly with this dev team to make sure that all technical
work is done on time.
He has a lot of opinions about how the software should be developed and is very concerned that the
vendors will not be able to deliver on time, to specs, and within budget.
Manoj will be the technical validation for all the technical documents, and he has to sign off on the
designs before they can be considered “done.”
He comes to the meetings he can and said he would get more engaged once the project progresses to
the technical work.
Due to his schedule its best to set up meetings with him to talk through the project or what you need
from him.
I’ll look through my stuff and send you anything else I can find; please let me know if you have any
questions!
Kent Masters, CAPM
Technical Project Manager
Module Three: Scope Management
Kent stops by your office and asks how the project is progressing. You tell him that the charter has been
approved and you are are starting the scope management plan. Kent says, “Oh, I think I have something
that could help you with your work breakdown structure.” He tells you that when the new federal
requirements came in, they had started a requirements document. After a review of the email and
reviewing with the project team, you find that the requirements document comprehensively covers
what needs to be incorporated into the new vendor RFP.
Email
From: Masters, Kent
Subject: Start of requirements document
See the requirements document we created.
Objective
Update internal software to meet Federal
requirements
Requirements
●
●
●
Update Constituents Regional Police Websites
to comply with Federal accessibility
requirements
●
●
●
Update internal and websites to comply with
Federal Security Standards
●
●
●
Specs and Requirements Reviews
●
●
Update software within RMS to meet
Federal requirements to share
geographic and statistical information
Implement a joint computer aided
dispatch system for police and fire
agencies.
Create and implement data integrity
standards for all PRIDE offices
Ensure website accessibility guidelines
are incorporated into constituents
website style guides.
Develop and implement an inclusion
lens, integrating AODA requirements,
to provide guidelines and standards of
practice across various areas of
service.
Achieve compliance with the Web
Content Accessibility Guidelines
(WCAG) to ensure that websites and
web content are accessible to people
with disabilities.
Implement encryption technology to
meet the requirements of the RCMP
security policy
Create a data backup and disaster
recovery plans
Replace all software interfaces to
comply with Federal data encryption
standards
All technical specs have to be reviewed
and approved by Federal regulators
before RFPs can be created
Technical designs need to be reviewed
and approved by internal technical
teams
New vendor search and RFP teams ready to
vendor search
●
●
The vendor search and RFP teams
need to be fully debriefed on all the
new specs and technical requirements
to create the RFPs
All technical specs and requirements
need to be fully documented to hand
off to the new Project Team
Good luck and let me know if you have any questions.
Kent Masters, CAPM
Technical Project Manager
Module Four: Time Management
You arrive early on Monday morning knowing there is still a lot to be done, and as soon as you walk in
the door your phone rings. You pick it up, and it is the chief. You give him an update on where you are
on the project, and he asks you how long you estimate your project will take to complete.
You explain that you have not completed the time management plan for the project yet but should have
it soon. He tells you he needs the estimates by the end of the week. You explain it should not be a
problem because you have already broken down all the work and have your WBS ready to start your
activity durations and task sequencing, as well as the information needed to create your network
diagram. You explain that the network diagram will enable you to identify the critical path of the project,
which will provide the best estimate of the timeline.
The chief says, “Okay, I don’t know what all that means, just let me know when this project will be done
by the end of the week, okay?” You explain you will make sure it happens, and you pull out all your work
on the scope management plan to get going on your time management plan.
“Oh, one more thing,” the chief says. He tells you that you will need to build in one or two weeks for the
RFP debrief once all the technical teams have the new designs complete. Lastly, he reminds you that the
regulator takes at least four weeks to complete reviews once all the legal reviews are done. You thank
the chief again and hang up.
Right after you hang up, Manoj, the technology manager, stops by your office and hands you his team’s
estimates on how long it will take to complete each of the objectives to use in your time management
plan.
Time sizing estimates:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Internal software to meet Federal requirements designs contract work: 150 hrs
Federal accessibility requirements design contract work: 100 hrs
Accessibility SME work: 40 hrs
New security requirements contract work: 100 hrs
Security SME work: 50 hrs
Procurement of new software: 8 to 16 weeks
Procurement of new laptops: 4 to 8 weeks
Enterprise modeling software installation and training: 2 to 3 weeks
Internal tech team reviews and sign off for each objective complete: one to two weeks
Internal tech lead debrief with the RFP team: 40 hours
He says that is all his team could come up with for their components, and any other items you may have
from the work breakdown you will have to estimate yourself.
You thank him for his help and after he leaves you jump in and start your estimates on all the project
activities.
Module Five: Cost and Procurement Management
After a long day of meetings, the chief stops by your office and asks how the cost estimates and budget
breakdowns are going. You tell him you are just waiting on some estimates from Manoj. He seems
pleased and reminds you that the RFP teams are internal teams that will not require any costs. You
thank him for that feedback, and as he leaves, you notice you just received the email from Manoj you
were waiting for with the high-level estimates on costs that will be related to the project.
Email
From: Patel, Manoj
Subject: Costs and equipment estimates
It’s been great working with you so far on the project. Working with my team, I did some preliminary
sizings for your cost and procurement management plan.
For the technology contractors needed to update internal software to meet Federal requirements
usually, cost us between $140 to $200 hr for at least 100 to 150 hrs. For the federal accessibility
requirements, it will take about 100 hrs with the same contractor rates, but we will also need a subject
matter expert (SME) for about 40 hrs to review the designs at about $200 an hr. The new federal
security requirements will likely take about 100 hours at the $140 to $200 hr plus we will need a security
SME for about 50 hrs at $250 hr. The equipment that we need will include an enterprise software
license for the enterprise modeling, new developer laptops, and some new internal cloud needed so the
team can quickly collaborate on the designs at the various regional offices; equipment, software, and
training should run us 200k. In speaking with Tami, she said we are not required to pay for the regulator
time to the reviews, but we do have to pay a $5,000 filing fee.
Since my team has only incremental resources, we will need a technical lead from my team to work with
each of these resources for all the project time I have listed above plus about 160 hours of final reviews
and sign-offs. The lead from my team would be considered operational costs but keep in mind all but
the 160 hours will be during the same time frame as the contract resources.
Hopefully, this gives you the information you needed to do your cost and procurement estimates. Please
let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks!
Manoj Patel
Technology Manager
Module Six: HR and Communication Management
You are several weeks into your project planning and it is time to plan out all the resources needed for
your project and all the needed communications. To do this quickly, you pull your same internal
stakeholders together in the conference room. You have all of your subsidiary plans to this point ready
for discussion. You do not spend much time in the meeting on the project team, roles, and
responsibilities because you tell the group you have that information from your previous plan work and
meetings.
Manoj and the chief remind you they already sent you the information on the various types of human
resources that were needed for the project. You talk through the time management plan you have
created and explain that you were planning to bring in the resources to align when they would be
needed as identified in your time management plan. All the stakeholders agree, but Manoj asks that you
build in a couple of weeks with any contractors so they can be set up with equipment, access, and
training before they are expected to work. You agree and explain to the group that you will come up
with an acquisition plan and resource calendar that will clarify that.
He stated that it would be best if all those resources were trained with as many people as possible, since
any additional training classes that have to be done after the first one class will cost an additional $2,500
per person.
Gary and Sam ask how you will be tracking team performance and how often the project team
performance will be evaluated. Sam cracks a joke about a developer on the last project who stayed on
too long and caused the project to get behind. You assure them that you will be detailing how you will
be measuring their performance and how often that will happen in your HR plan so that they can review
it.
Speaking of performance, you share with the group the discussion you had last week with Manoj and his
technology leads about how important it is to make sure you plan how rewards and recognition for
great performance would work. The chief offers to do a big party for everyone if the team completes on
time and the regulators do not reject the plans. You thank him and explain you will also come up with
some smaller incremental reward and recognition options and will include them in your plan.
You move on to communication requirements, and through the discussion you make a quick list of the
types of group meetings that will be needed:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
A kickoff meeting to pull the team together at the beginning, with everyone in the conference
room
A weekly meeting with the project team, but with some people calling in, with current agenda
and updated time management plan
Technical design meetings, held as needed with the technical team, that will use collaboration
software to talk through all the open backlog of work
Monthly project status meetings with everyone who can attend in person and others on a
conference call (Tami tells you that she would like to lead those meetings, since all the
stakeholders should be at that meeting and they will need an updated PowerPoint for each
meeting.)
Biweekly emailed status reports for the chief and regional reps highlighting which things are on
track or off track, and if off track, what the negative variables are
A weekly update with Tami and the technical team to track status and coordinate efforts with
some other projects she is working on
A monthly regulator update meeting on conference call that will be led by the chief or Tami and
need a PowerPoint deck to go through
A one-time RFP debriefing meeting at the end, with a full presentation to walk through
everything the RFP needs to know
You thank everyone for their time and wrap up the meeting, taking all your notes back to your office to
start on your HR and communication plan.
Module Seven: Quality and Risk Management
It is late in the afternoon, but you are feeling good because your project plan is almost done: There is
just one more step, covering the quality and risk in the project, and you will be done. To help you with
the quality section, you set up a meeting with Manoj and Tami to talk through any unusual or unique
quality requirements that would be related to the project.
Talking through the quality requirements, you jot down some notes so that you can use them in your
plan:
•
•
•
•
•
•
This project will have process and product quality requirements.
The product quality will be related to the procurement equipment and install, and the process
quality will be related to the work done on the project.
All new equipment needs to be purchased and meet all the equipment specs that will be
provided by Manoj’s team. Any equipment purchased that has any issues in the first month or is
delivered not meeting specs will be returned. The internal cloud must have a 99% uptime based
on monthly availability stats. If the cloud is not meeting availability requirements, the vendor
must be brought onsite for troubleshooting and resolution. Enterprise software must load and
be fully functioning on all the new laptops purchased using the new enterprise software license.
Manoj’s team will be responsible for doing visual and burn-in audits to ensure all equipment and
software meets the product quality standards.
All new designs must be completed in the new enterprise software and validated for
completeness, and they must include data dictionaries and completed metadata, as well as
“Confidential: Internal Use Only” labeling. Manoj and Tami will be responsible for all design
audits as each is completed, and the RFP team will do a complete review audit before the
designs are accepted.
Project teams will need a high level of accuracy of designs and must have all requirements
completed within two weeks of deadlines. If the project team’s documents are missing any
components found in the audit, they will need to be returned and corrected. If documentation
does not meet accuracy standards, you and Tami will lead a process improvement analysis using
the quality tools you have determined and put in the plan. If the project teams are falling behind
on timelines, you and Manoj will need to determine if management reserves need to be use to
bring in more contractors to get project items back on track.
After all designs are created, new designs must pass the regulatory review in all requirements. If
the requirements do not pass, Manoj can authorize to bring in one or two more resources to
help correct issues and get the project back on track.
You will be responsible for defining the specific metrics and the audit process that will be used for each
quality validation. Additionally, you will suggest the quality tools that will be used in the quality
approach.
After some discussion about the possible risks of the project, the stakeholders agree to have you take
the first pass and suggest what the risk identification approach will be, what the most likely risks are,
what the risk scoring and ranking will be, how the team should respond to risk, and what the trigger is
for the response strategy. You explain that you will formalize everything in the risk management plan
and submit it to everyone for review.
You take your notes back to your office and review all the requirements, timelines, costs, and people
involved in the project to start pulling together your quality and risk management plans.