General management and oversight

1.

What was the real purpose of this project? Explain your observations.

2.

Was the project effort really a "project", a "program", or a "portfolio of projects"?

3.

Who was the project's sponsor, who was the project manager, who was really "in charge" and does this make sense? If not, what would you recommend?

4.

Based on the report and today's project management understanding, identify all the processes mentioned, as well as those that were apparent though not documented.

Scope

5.

Was the project well scoped and was the scope well controlled?

Quality

6.

Was a "quality grade" established for the facility and, if so, was it achieved?

Time

7.

Was a specific project duration contemplated and was it achieved? If so, how?

8.

Were there any delays and if so why? Were they justified and if so on what basis?

Cost

9.

What evidence is there that a budget was established, and how were costs controlled?

Risk

10.

The report provides one instance of concern for project risk. Was it a factor in the construction of the project, and if so, how? List other the risks that they might have considered.

People

11.

Can we learn anything from the way the organization and workforce were managed? Was any sort of culture established? How does that compare with how it might have been done today?

Procurement

12.

Even though apparently not mentioned in the report, was some form of procurement involved? Speculate on what probably took place based on today's experience?

Information/communications

13.

Obviously documentation was a key element in the survival of this case study. Discuss how and when it was assembled, what value the resulting report might have had back in those days, and what value does it have today?

The future

14.

From your observations arising from the previous questions, can you envisage how projects will be managed well into the future? Hence, what recommendations can you make for the future of project management?