Description
QSO 640 Milestone One Guidelines and Rubric
Overview
In the final project, you will develop a complete project plan for a hypothetical organization. Each milestone assignment will help you complete portions of the final project. In this milestone, you will analyze the Fabricant Manufacturing Project (case study available in MindEdge) and begin tasks related to initiation. You will first define the project in the project charter during the project initiation phase.
Prompt
The goal of this milestone is to apply project management skills acquired in the first three modules to a real-world project or situation. The analysis of the Fabricant Manufacturing Project case study (in Mindedge) should include an evaluation of the selection criteria, alignment with the organization strategic goals, project charter elements, project initiation approval, and stakeholder analysis (Template).
Specifically the following critical elements must be addressed:
Project Initiation
Identify the economic, technical, and organizational feasibility of the project. For instance, how is the project a viable fit within the organization?
Explain how the project aligns to the organization’s strategic goals utilizing the traceability matrix (in Mindedge).
Develop a project charter that includes a high-level scope of what is to be accomplished.
Create a high-level timeline and cost estimate to complete the project.
Identify the concerns of the internal and external key project stakeholders.
Compare the level of support from all key project stakeholders to inform the course of action resulting in success of the project.
Complete the stakeholder analysis template.
What to Submit
Your draft of the Project Initiation portion of your final project should adhere to the following formatting requirements: 3–4 pages, double-spaced, using 12-point Times New Roman font and one-inch margins. Utilize table(s) within your document as you create the high-level timeline and cost estimate. You should use current APA-style guidelines for your citations and a reference list with a minimum of two sources.
Milestone One Rubric
Criteria Proficient (100%) Needs Improvement (75%) Not Evident (0%) Value
Project Initiation: Feasibility Identifies the economic, technical, and organizational feasibility of the project and how the project is a viable fit within the organization Identifies the economic, technical, and organizational feasibility of the project, but does not discuss how the project is a viable fit within the organization or is inaccurate or cursory Does not identify the economic, technical, and organizational feasibility of the project 10
Project Initiation: Strategic Goals Explains how the project aligns to the organization’s strategic goals Explains how the project aligns to the organization’s strategic goals, but explanation is inaccurate or cursory Does not describe how the project aligns to the organization’s strategic goals 15
Project Initiation: Project Charter Develops a project charter that includes a high-level scope of what is to be accomplished and is detailed appropriately Develops a project charter, but does not include a high-level scope of what is to be accomplished Does not develop a project charter 15
Project Initiation: High-Level Timeline Creates a high-level timeline and estimate of cost to complete the project Creates a high-level timeline and estimate of cost to complete the project, but response contains inaccuracies Does not create a high-level timeline or estimate of cost to complete the project 15
Project Initiation: Key Project Stakeholders Identifies the concerns of key project internal and external stakeholders Identifies the concerns of key project internal and external stakeholders, but response either contains inaccuracies or is overgeneralized Does not identify the concerns of key project stakeholders 10
Project Initiation: Support Compares the level of support from all key stakeholders to inform the course of action of the project Compares the level of support from all key stakeholders, but discussion contains gaps or inaccuracies Does not compare the level of support from all key stakeholders 15
Project Initiation: Stakeholder Analysis Template Completes the stakeholder analysis template Completes the stakeholder analysis template, but template contains inaccuracies Does not complete the stakeholder analysis template 10
Articulation of Response Submission has no major errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization Submission has major errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization that negatively impact readability and articulation of main ideas Submission has critical errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization that prevent understanding of ideas 10
Total: 100%
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Graded Case Study 1, Part I
Project Selection
Fabricant Corporation manufactures and distributes highly specialized metal parts to over 1,000 clients across the Northeast. With state-ofthe-art facilities, Fabricant is the leader in designing, prototyping, and manufacturing engineering flexible materials for solar power, medical,
aerospace, and electric power applications.
As Fabricant has grown and expanded its base of shareholders, its mission has evolved from merely providing quality products at a
competitive price. Today, the company strives to create shareholder value and demonstrate corporate social responsibility by continuing to be
a leader in energy conservation, research, and development of advanced technologies.
Lee Feinberg, the company’s CEO, is eager to live up to Fabricant’s public commitment by engaging in activities that drive continuous
improvement on key sustainability metrics. Specifically, he has tasked his senior management team to propose projects that will align with
the following objectives:
1. Reduce energy consumption by a minimum of 20%
2. Raise community consciousness of environmental issues and concerns
3. Generate a return on investment of at least 15%
After several months of research by her staff, Janice Scott, the Head of Strategic Planning for Fabricant, brought the following project
proposals for consideration:
1. Solar panel installation on the main manufacturing facility
This 200,000 square foot manufacturing facility consumes 9.5 million kWh of electricity per year. The facility has just over two acres of
rooftop that is suitable for solar panel placement. According to estimates, this installation would generate about 700,000 kWh of renewable
energy per year, while offsetting over 500 tons of CO2 . The installation of 1,500 240-watt photovoltaic cells would cost about $700,000, net
of federal investment tax credits. With estimated energy savings of $50,000 per year and annual solar renewable energy credits (SRECs)
revenue of $70,000 per year, the solar panel investment is expected to break even in 5.6 years, with a 10-year return on investment of 20%
($120,000 per year for 10 years, with a discount rate of 7%).
This facility is also in a highly visible location adjacent to a major highway, with 300,000 people driving past the building on a daily basis.
The public exposure to the facility’s solar array will raise community awareness to renewable energy sources and create positive perception
for Fabricant’s commitment to environmental sustainability.
2. Interior and exterior retrofit of industrial lighting throughout facilities
The second project proposal involves replacing high energy consumption lighting fixtures in all Fabricant facilities with more efficient
technologies, including the following:
QSO 640: Project Management
Copyright © 2014, %year% MindEdge Inc. All rights reserved. Duplication prohibited. PMP, PMI-ACP, PMI-RMP, PMBOK, and the PMI
Registered Education Provider logo are registered marks of the Project Management Institute, Inc.
Replace metal halides with LED technologies
Replace T-12 fluorescent lighting to T-8 Vaportite fixtures
Retrofit offices and break rooms with sensors and new fluorescent fixtures
Install wireless sensors and motion detectors throughout offices, production stations, and break rooms to automatically turn off lights
These changes are estimated to produce energy savings of over 1.1 million kWh per year as well as $142,000 annually in utility costs. After
energy efficiency incentives and utility partner rebates, Fabricant’s total cost of the upgrades is expected to be in the $65,000 to $75,000 range
so the program will provide immediate financial and environmental returns. In the first year alone, this program is likely to produce an 89%
ROI.
To generate positive community and client awareness for this sustainability initiative, Scott recommends that Fabricant include the results in
the company’s newsletter and client literature, and on its website.
3. Adoption of less energy intensive welding processes in production facilities
A third proposal is to shift from traditional fusion welding processes (arc welding and laser welding) to friction stir welding (FSW). In
addition to providing solutions for persistent joining problems, FSW consumes less material and energy while reducing fumes and gases. The
proposed project is to develop a prototype system that proves the suitability of FSW for a range of Fabricant’s welding situations (e.g., engine
components, high performance aircraft parts, fuel tanks, etc.). Based on a feasibility study using the prototype, the team will decide whether
to pursue implementation of a FSW process development plan (including design, controls, and process knowledge) at 12 welding
workstations.
FSW reduces welding energy and material consumption by as much as 70% (estimated savings of $2,000 per machine), compared to
traditional arc welding techniques. Finally, FSW saves a considerable amount of welding time, compared to arc welding, due to higher
welding speed and fewer ancillary processes. In all, Scott expects a shift to FSW, where feasible, to save $24,000 per year.
FSW machine investment, licenses, tools, and personnel training would be approximately $400,000. The expected life of FSW equipment is
five years.
Scott believes Fabricant’s clients, especially government entities, will perceive the use of FSW process and technology to be a competitive
advantage, indicating high quality, cost effectiveness and energy efficiency.
Before you move on to the next section of the case study, identify the problems and/or issues that you’ll need to include in your analysis.
Document this information, and consider how you will integrate it into your evaluation of the project.
QSO 640: Project Management
Copyright © 2014, %year% MindEdge Inc. All rights reserved. Duplication prohibited. PMP, PMI-ACP, PMI-RMP, PMBOK, and the PMI
Registered Education Provider logo are registered marks of the Project Management Institute, Inc.
Stakeholder Analysis Template
Name
Role
Interest
Power
Classification
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
