Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ABBREVIATIONS 4
1: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5
1.1 COMPANY AND INDUSTRY DESCRIPTION 5
1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 5
1.3 CASE STUDY FINDINGS 5
1.4 CRITICAL EVALUATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6
1.5 CONCLUSION 7
2: DATA SOURCES, REFERENCES, METHOD OF ANALYSIS 8
2.1 PEOPLE 8
2.2 INFORMATION AND REFERENCES 8
2.3 METHOD OF WORK 9
3: PROJECT DESCRIPTION –BACKGROUND AND HISTORY 9
3.1 BACKGROUND 9
3.2 OBJECTIVE 11
3.3 DETAILED DESCRIPTION 12
3.4 MAJOR MILESTONES 13
4: PRODUCT AND PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS 13
4.1 PROJECT SCOPE 13
4.2 PROJECT SIZE AND DURATION 15
4.3 TECHNOLOGY ADOPTION LIFE CYCLE (TALC) 15
4.4 LEVITT’S WHOLE PRODUCT 17
4.4.2 WHOLE PRODUCT - FEATURES 18
4.6 SHENHAR UCP CLASSIFICATION 20
4.7 WHEELWRIGHT AND CLARK (W&C) 24
5. PROJECT SUCCESS MEASURES AND BUSINESS PERSPECTIVE 28
5.1 BUSINESS PERSPECTIVE 28
5.2 OVERALL SUCCESS 29
5.3 EXPLICIT OR IMPLICIT OBJECTIVES 30
5.4 SUCCESS DIMENSION OBJECTIVES AND RESULTS 30
5.5 UNEXPECTED RESULTS 31
6. PROJECT STRATEGY AND COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE 31
6.1 COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE 31
6.2 VALUE TO THE COMPANY 32
6.3 PRODUCT DEFINITION PROCESS 33
6.4 STRATEGY ALIGNMENT 34
6.5 STRATEGY AND COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE/VALUE 35
6.6 PROJECT VISION 36
6.7 CLAIM STATEMENT – USING CROSSING THE CHASM STYLE 36
6.8 CLAIM STATEMENT – USING REVISED PROJECT STRATEGY STYLE 37
6.9 STRATEGIC FOCUS 37
7. PROJECT SPIRIT AND LEADERSHIP 39
7.1 ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE 40
7.2 PROJECT SPIRIT 40
7.3 POLICY 41
7.4 LEADERSHIP 41
7.5 PROJECT TEAM EMPOWERMENT 44
8. ORGANIZATION 44
8.1 PROJECT ORGANIZATION 44
8.2 PROJECT STRUCTURE 45
8.3 TEAM SELECTION 46
8.4 WORK ASSIGNMENTS 47
8.5 TOP MANAGEMENT INVOLVEMENT 48
8.6 PROFESSIONAL ADVICE AND REVIEWS 48
8.7 ORGANIZATIONAL PROBLEMS 48
8.8 TRAINING 49
9. PROCESSES 50
9.1 PROJECT PHASES 50
9.2 PMBOK PROCESSES 51
9.3 WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE (WBS) 52
9.4 RESOURCES ESTIMATIONS 52
9.5 SYSTEMS ENGINEERING 53
9.6 REDUCING MARKET UNCERTAINTY 54
9.7 REDUCING REQUIREMENTS UNCERTAINTY 54
9.8 RISK MANAGEMENT 55
9.9 REDUCING TECHNICAL UNCERTAINTY 55
9.10 SYSTEM INTEGRATION AND TEST 56
9.11 PROJECT MONITORING AND CONTROLLING 56
9.12 COMMUNICATION MANAGEMENT 56
9.13 CUSTOMER READINESS 57
9.14 VENDOR MANAGEMENT 57
10. TOOLS 58
10.1 COMMON PROJECT MANAGEMENT APPLICATIONS 58
10.2 SPECIFICALLY DEVELOPED TOOLS FOR THE PROJECT 58
10.3 DOCUMENTS 58
11. ADAPTATION TO SPECIFIC PROJECT TYPE 59
12. LEARNING 60
12.1 PRE-PROJECT LEARNING 60
12.2 ON-GOING LEARNING 61
12.3 POST PROJECT LEARNING AND LESSONS LEARNED 61
13. SUCCESS FACTORS 61
13.1 PROJECT MISSION 62
13.2 TOP-MANAGEMENT SUPPORT 62
13.3 PROJECT SCHEDULE/PLAN 63
13.4 CLIENT CONSULTATION 63
13.5 PERSONNEL 63
13.6 TECHNICAL TASKS 64
13.7 CLIENT ACCEPTANCE 64
13.8 MONITORING AND FEEDBACK 64
13.9 COMMUNICATION 65
13.10 TROUBLE-SHOOTING 65
14. MAJOR PROBLEMS AND CHANGES 65
14.1 MAJOR PROBLEMS 65
14.2 CHANGES 66
15. CRITICAL EVALUATION 67
16. RECOMMENDATIONS 70
17. CASE STUDY ANALYSIS LESSONS LEARNED 72
APPENDICES 1
ORGANIZATION CHART 1
INTERVIEW NOTES WITH PROJECT PARTICIPANTS 1
ABBREVIATIONS
Description List Your ALIASES Below Abbreviation Used
Company 1 Vancouver Banking Group VBG
Company 2 New Amsterdam Securities NAS
Project Name New Amsterdam Securities Technology Integration NASTI
Product Name PowerTrade PT
Deliverable Disaster Recovery Facility DR
Location 1 Uptown, Manhattan (VBG US) UT
Location 2 Wall Street, Manhattan (NAS) WS
Project Manager 1 Project Manager (VBG US) PM
Project Manager 2 Project Manager (VBG US) PM2
Project Coordinator Project Coordinator PROJ.CRD
System Administrator System Administrator (formerly NAS) SA
Leader of System Administrators group Leader of System Administrators group (f
ormerly NAS) LSA
1: Executive Summary
Start the case study with an Executive Summary that can be used for organization
al learning.
Make this section compelling enough such that an executive will want to read you
r case study.
1.1 Company and Industry Description
Give a brief history of the company and the industry.
Vancouver Banking Group (VBG) is a growing global financial services company hea
dquartered in Vancouver, Canada. VBG had a significant presence in New York and
decided to bolster its capital markets portfolio with a purchase of Wall Street
broker-dealer called New Amsterdam Securities (NAS).
1.2 Project Description
Give a brief description of the project.
VBG had experience with prior acquisitions and knew it would realize significant
cost savings by reducing technology spending, if it merges NAS IT infrastructur
e with its own. NAS Technology Integration (NASTI) project was created to conve
rt NAS desktops, servers, telephones, network and PowerTrade (PT) trading enviro
nment back-end to VBG standards and merge them with VBG systems and support stru
ctures. A disaster recovery environment would also be created for NAS systems,
which previously did not exist.
1.3 Case Study Findings
Summarize the main points in your case study.
The NASTI integration project was successful because it was planned, executed, m
onitored, controlled and completed well. The project was an early majority. Ac
cording to Levitt’s whole project framework it was a generic product. Customer
type was internal according to the TALC. This project was typical to the organi
zation and only involved incremental change and addition to the family, making i
t a derivative project according to the W&C framework. The Shenhar UCP classifi
cation places NASTI into medium uncertainty due to previous experience with simi
lar projects, and an array complexity because it entailed upgrading multiple sys
tems, all of which had multiple subcomponents. Pace was regular because some ot
her projects took priority. Careful planning and successful completion were mor
e important than finishing a project in a short time. Corporate, business, and
operations strategies were clearly stated and aligned. The project has achieved
competitive advantage. The project’s strategy was to achieve cost advantage.
This was done by leveraging operational efficiencies, incorporating strict corpo
rate standards, and realizing cost-savings. The NASTI project aimed to succeed
in two dimensions: impact on business and building for the future. The competit
ive advantage was pursued relentlessly and strategically.
1.4 Critical Evaluations and Recommendations
Describe your top three recommendations in prioritized order, why they are impor
tant and how they can be implemented.
NASTI was completed successfully but not flawlessly. VBG should concent
rate on the following three areas to improve future projects.
1. Capacity planning. NASTI ran into delays when it became apparent that e
xisting UT data center couldn’t support an addition of 110 new servers. Capacit
y planning is a required discipline that VBG needs to follow meticulously and ro
utinely. Better project planning is also needed to avoid such pitfalls in the f
uture.
2. Lessons Learned. Lessons learned were not documented – this is a major
oversight. This documentation should be created for every project, updated thro
ughout the project’s life and made searchable and available and to the entire or
ganization. Lessons learned help avoid repeating old mistakes and accelerate fu
ture success by mapping out prior paths to it.
3. PM presence on site. VBG is a global organization that leveraged its Ca
nadian project management talent for NASTI. While this didn’t seem problematic
at first, a careful analysis of the project shows that having the PM on site wou
ld have prevented some mistakes, increased PM’s availability to the team and cre
ated efficiencies. Having a PM on site of the project is highly beneficial.
1.5 Conclusion
What conclusions can be drawn from this case study?
NASTI was completed successfully. It owes its success to the following factors.
The project was well planned out. It had strong support of the sponsor and th
e upper management. Project goals were well defined and understood by all the p
roject participants. There was good communication between the project managemen
t team and the project participants. The latter were highly skilled professiona
ls, knowledgeable in their field and highly committed to teamwork, knowledge sha
ring and project success. The project was well executed.
2: Data Sources, References, Method of Analysis
This is a critical section. It should be short, but clear. Describe your sourc
es of information – people and documents, how these sources were used, and your
method of analysis.
2.1 People
Identify the interviewees. Include a list of the people who provided informatio
n about the project – it is not necessary to include their names, instead, inclu
de their position or role in the project, how long they involved, how long were
the interviews. You must talk to the Project Sponsor and Project Manager. You
should also interview some Project Team Members, Customers, Functional Managers,
and Vendors. Use these titles throughout the case study. Do not use real names
or fictitious names for people. Identify people by their title. Insert additiona
l lines if there was more than one person that held the same title on the projec
t. Number the title holders Project Manager 1 versus Project Manager 2. The more
interviews you include, the better. You should document the dates and durations
of your interviews. You must include copies of your handwritten interview notes
in the Appendix.
TITLE YEARS IN
INDUSTRY YEARS IN
COMPANY MONTHS ON
PROJECT INTERVIEW DATES (MM/DD)
(DURATION - MINUTES)
PROJECT SPONSOR MM/DD(NN)
PROJECT MANAGER 14 8 39 02/23: 35MIN, 03/25: EMAIL 04/10: 75MIN
SYSTEM ADMINISTRATOR 10 2 21 02/20: 25MIN, 03/25: EMAIL 04/01
: 90MIN
LEADER OF SYSTEM ADMINISTRATORS 22 11 39 02/20: 35MIN, 02/27: EMA
IL 03/20: 15MIN
PROJ. CRD 10 3.5 36 03/19 E-MAIL
FUNCTIONAL MANAGER
VENDOR
OTHER (DESCRIBE)
2.2 Information and References
Include a table of project documents, meeting minutes, e-mails, guidelines, arti
cles, books and other references that you were allowed to review or that you wil
l reference in the case study. Do not include copies of these documents in this
case study. Indicate “Kept Up-to-Date” by ‘Yes’ or ‘No’, by whether there were r
evisions. “Assess Usability” as ‘Yes’ or ‘No’, if the document was readable, cle
ar and detailed. “Assess Value” with ‘Yes’ or ‘No’, by asking the interviewees i
f they found the document valuable. If you did not see a specific document and y
ou felt it should have been made available to you indicate “MISSING” in the “Kep
t Up-to-Date” column.
DOCUMENT TITLE DATE ISSUED LENGTH KEPT UP-TO-DATE? ASSESS USABILITY
ASSESS VALUE
MOVE PLAN STRATEGY N/A 12 YES YES YES
STATUS REPORTS DIFFERRENT DATES 1-5 YES YES YES
MIGRATION TASKS AND SCHEDULE DIFFERRENT DATES 8-20 YES YES
YES
CONSOLIDATED ACTION ITEMS DIFFERRENT DATES 4-13 YES YES
YES
INTEGRATION PLAN 06/2006 26 YES YES YES
MEETING NOTES DIFFERRENT DATES 1-5 YES YES SOMEWHAT
INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 08/2006 35 YES YES YES
ISSUES LOG 01/2007 8 YES YES YES
2.3 Method of Work
Describe the kind and type of data you collected. How was this data collected?
Describe your method of analysis. Mention the theoretical background for your a
nalysis, the frameworks that were useful for your work, and their references. Es
pecially include those that were not part of the syllabus of this course.
The data that I collected was administrative documentation prepared and provided
to me by the PROJ.CRD. These documents tracked planning and scheduling of move
s and migrations. The data listed in the consolidated action items recorded all
the changes that were done on the project and it also described how the executi
on process worked. Status reports and meeting notes provided project status, an
d facilitated monitoring and controlling the project. The theoretical backgroun
d for my analysis and the frameworks that were useful for this case study came f
rom Dr. Poli’s dissertation and other articles that were provided throughout the
semester. All other information was extracted from the documents that were col
lected for my case study and through class discussions.
3: Project Description –Background and History
3.1 Background
Describe the environment and the background of the project. Why was it done? W
hat was the motivation? How was it initiated? Who came up with the idea? What
happened before the project was initiated? How did the idea evolve? Who pushe
d it? How did it turn into a formal project? How long did it take to turn it i
nto formal project?
In November 2005 Vancouver Banking Group made financial news headlines when it a
nnounced its acquisition of New Amsterdam Securities, a Wall Street broker-deale
r known for its electronic trading platform – PowerTrade. This purchase allowed
VBG to expand its US presence and create a more complete and compelling capital
markets product portfolio.
It was determined from the start that all technology operations of NAS should be
merged and folded into the existing infrastructure of the larger VBG. This wou
ld include the migration of the PT back-end and supporting infrastructure, as we
ll as desktops, servers, networks and telecommunications equipment. This would
result in many operational efficiencies and financial benefits. Firstly NAS wou
ld move into the Uptown (UT) office building used by VBG. This would allow for
significant savings in network and market data feed costs. Standardization on c
ommon technology and procedures would result in fewer technicians needed to supp
ort the environment. Future technology expenditures on upgrades, licenses and n
ew products would cover a unified larger organization and would result in vendor
discounts. In addition to all of these benefits, financial companies are bound
by a myriad of regulations from several federal and state agencies, as well as
industry associations. Maintaining one technology platform removes a lot of com
plexity from compliance with all the laws and regulations.
VBG was a big and long established firm; it had significant experience with prev
ious mergers and acquisitions. Benefits discussed above were already realized i
n previous deals and didn’t require a long feasibility study in this case. Once
the acquisition of NAS was completed in January 2006, Capital Markets division’
s management contacted the project management team and created the project with
the above stated goals. The project was officially sponsored by the Managing Di
rector (MD) of the Equities division.
3.2 Objective
What was the objective of the project result (product, process, service, improve
ment, etc.)? What does the customer or user need? How will the project result
be used and serve this need? What are the expected advantages from the project?
The objective of this project was to migrate phones, desktops, servers and netwo
rks to VBG standards, consolidate NAS Wall Street (WS) data center at UT and fac
ilitate the setup of a DR site. The project was completed strategically; the mo
ve strategy was in place and consisted of four main objectives to achieve final
goals:
• Migrate end-user equipment and move the WS data center to UT
• Setup a DR facility as part of the move
• Minimize affect on clients
• Minimize risk to clients and to the reputation of VBG
The objective of the project result was to move technology operations and suppor
t to the parent company’s location. It was extremely important that this move h
appen as transparently as possible to minimize any down time or disruptions to t
he users and customers of NAS and PT. As discussed in 3.1 this would result in
significant cost savings in the IT budget. Migration to VBG standards would als
o prevent a creation of the patchwork of technologies that are difficult to supp
ort, upgrade and keep in compliance.
Due to federal regulations and the need for the resiliency of the business, it w
as also imperative to create a functional DR site. This site would house redund
ant systems, connections and office space and had to support full operations of
PT in case of any problems at the UT facility, such as a terrorist attack, power
or network outages, flood, fire or any other natural or man-caused disaster.
3.3 Detailed Description
Include a detailed description of the project’s enfolding history, process, and
timeline. Describe main events, milestones, decisions, difficulties, and crises
, and the way they were handled. Include interesting and relevant quotes as expr
essed by interviewees.
Ever since the purchase negotiations it was clear to the top management of both
firms that the purchase of NAS would involve tight integration with VBG on all l
evels and departments, including and especially IT. When the purchase was compl
eted there was full buy-in from the management for the NASTI project.
During the project execution phase it became evident that a lot of existing infr
astructure at UT would need to be expanded before it can support the added requi
rements of PT. New desktops and phones would need to be purchased for all NAS e
mployees as their original equipment didn’t meet VBG standards. Network routers
and switches needed to be purchased and new fiber and copper wiring needs to be
laid to handle all the extra traffic. The most challenging part of the expansi
on involved the UT data center. The existing one was not capable of handling ab
out 110 new servers needed, not to mention future organic growth. Per SA: “Expa
nding the data center was very challenging. Building out the extra space requir
ed construction work and permission from the building. More power, cooling and
UPS (Uninterruptible Power Supply) capacity had to be installed. New server rac
ks had to be purchased and installed. All of this was expensive and time consum
ing and had a potential of causing significant delays to the project. A separat
e project was created to handle the data center expansion.”
3.4 Major Milestones
Include no more than 10 of the major project milestones. List them from the earl
iest to the last.
MILESTONE DATE (MM/DD)
1 PHASE 1 – PARTIAL DESKTOP INTEGRATION
SECURITY, LEGAL AND COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS
FIREWALLED NETWORK ACCESS
VBG LOGINS AND CITRIX ACCESS 1/9/06 – 7/14/06
2 PHASE 2 – DESKTOP & PHONE MIGRATION 2/6/06 – 9/26/07
3 PHASE 3 – PT MOVE
NETWORK
MARKET DATA
FACILITIES
SERVERS
DISASTER RECOVERY PLANNING, IMPLEMENTATION & TESTING
CLIENT & USER PT MIGRATION 1/9/06 – 12/12/08
4 PHASE 4 – NAS DATA CENTER DECOMMISSIONING & CLEANUP 1/5/09 –1/30/09
4: Product and Project Characteristics
Characterize the project according to different classification schema.
4.1 Project Scope
Which functions of the organization were involved on this project? Which functio
ns were included in the core team? Which functions were included in the extended
team? Which functions were called upon infrequently? Which functions did not pa
rticipate in this project? Should any of those functions have been represented o
n this project? Why were they excluded? Were any outside organizations or consul
tants used? What was the extent of their role versus the role of internal staff?
Did all of the functions and consultants participate in the project from the be
ginning? If not, why not?
13 IT business units worked on NASTI project. Project’s successful completion d
epended on the following teams: information security, helpdesk, storage area net
work, network, sever, telecommunications, desktop, service quality management, P
T development, data center, business requirements, business continuity planning
and project management. Three project managers, information security team, serv
er team, business continuity planning team, PT developers, and data center team
comprised the core team. Storage area network team, business requirements team,
and desktop team made up the extended team. Functions of facilities, helpdesk
analysts, service quality management team, business requirements team and teleco
mmunications team were called upon infrequently. All the business units from NA
S were incorporated into VBG, but their involvement was not necessary in the int
egration project. As stated by the system admin “all relevant areas of IT were
involved”.
Two consultants were hired temporarily for the maturing phase of the project. P
roject coordinator consultant was hired to assist with planning and coordinating
administrative activities of the project. System administrator consultant was
hired to write scripts for desktop migration, but was removed from his duties sh
ortly, due to the quality of work that he produced. Some of his scripts were us
ed, but most of the desktop migration process wound up being manual.
Process
Change Next
Generation
Process White Space
Project
New Core
Product
Next Generation
Process Platform
Project
Next Generation
Product
Next Generation
Process Platform
Project
Addition To
Product Family Next Generation
Process Platform
Project
Derivatives and
Enhancements
Next Generation
Process
Single
Department
Upgrade White Space
Project
New Core
Product
Single
Department
Upgrade Platform
Project
Next Generation
Product
Single
Department
Upgrade Derivative
Project
Addition To
Product Family Single
Department
Upgrade Derivative
Project
Derivatives and
Enhancements
Single
Department
Upgrade
Less
|
V Incremental
Change White Space
Project
New Core
Product
Incremental
Change Platform
Project
Next Generation
Product
Incremental
Change Derivative
Project
Addition To
Product Family Incremental
Change Derivative
Project
Derivatives and
Enhancements
Incremental
Change
5. Project Success Measures and Business Perspective
5.1 Business Perspective
How was project success assessed? What was the business perspective of the prod
uct? Was there a business plan? Who developed it?
The project success was based more than on triple constraints, it was based on e
fficiency, impact on business and most importantly it was based on building for
the future. Per PM: “The business perspective of the integration project will b
e known in a year or two. Project was recently completed, of course we and our
top management want to see immediate results, but everyone understands that reve
nues, ROI can be measured after a year or two after the project completion. We
were already able to reduce facilities costs and realize market data savings. W
e also created a DR system and as well as completed data centre & PC integration
.” VBG head of North America technology operations, representative of the head
of the Equities division and the PT architect have developed the business plan.
5.2 Overall Success
What was the overall perception of different stakeholders about the project’s su
ccess? Did they view the project as an unqualified success, unqualified failure,
or as a mixture of success and failure? Justify their perceptions with quotes.
From the interviews that I’ve conducted with LSA, PM, PROJ.CRD and SA it is evid
ent that the stakeholders were pleased with the project results.
LSA:”I believe that the project was a success. NASTI did pay off in the short-t
erm and I am sure it will pay off in the long term. The new trading application
that VBG acquired from NAS has great potential and will meet long-term goals su
ch as revenue, ROI, etc.”
PM:”Project success should not only be measured by savings or profits it generat
ed, but also by the talent that VBG has acquired. Project architect and his tea
m provided great support during the migration and met Project Sponsor’s every de
mand, even if it was a last minute change.”
PROJ.CRD:”I believe that project was successful based on the speech from a Proje
ct Sponsor and the generous bonus the team has received every year during the pr
oject and after the project completion.”
SA:”This project has met all the goals. Not all the goals were completed within
the scheduled timeline or on budget, but that was not the priority. Building f
or the future was the priority. Merging NAS into VBG and positioning the combin
ed company for future success was essential.”
5.3 Explicit or Implicit Objectives
Were the Success Dimension objectives explicitly or implicitly determined up-fro
nt (i.e., were the expectations set in advance)? Was there a discrepancy about t
he Success Dimensions between the interviewees? What were they? Describe problem
s this caused during project execution.
Success Dimensions were determined up-front. The main goals were to prepare for
the future and minimize the impact on the business. From the quotes in Section
5.2 it seems that everyone was on the same page. Success dimension objectives
were a part of the business plan and were presented to the team members.
5.4 Success Dimension Objectives and Results
Objectives: What were the target objectives for each of the selected Success Dim
ensions?
Results: In retrospect, how did the project do on each of the Success Dimensions
?