The implementation of the project
The project that has recently been carried out at Hunter Institute of TAFE lasted fifty days. The suppliers selected for this project were quite reliable, and both hardware and software were delivered on time. More importantly, the team managed to stay within the budget. In addition to that, we need to point out that each of the project activities was based on continuous cooperation with the administration of the Hunter Institute, the students of this institution, and the faculty. The team briefed them at each stage of the project, and they, in turn, made their recommendations, which proved very valuable. Overall, judging from the follow-up assessment, we can argue that the administration of the Hunter Institute and students are content with the results of this project.
The progress of the task steps
As far as the timeframes of this project are concerned, we have to admit that the team did manage to meet the specified deadline. The project started on October 24th and ended on December 12th, although initially, the team planned to complete all task steps on December 5th.
The first activity (obtaining permission for the project) was completed within three days, although we intended to do it within one day. Moreover, this seven-day delay can be explained by the fact that it took us much longer to assess the actual and potential needs of the students in terms of technology usage. For this purpose, we needed to conduct a poll among learners and faculty in order to find out what kind of hardware and software they required for their classes. Without this information, the team could not effectively evaluate the technologies available on the market.
One should bear in mind that these tasks were linked with one another[1], and we could proceed to other activities only when we did the second and the third tasks[2]. Ideally, the tasks should be made independent from each other, and it is not advisable to pair them as such practice can result in many delays and stoppages (Barkley, 2007; Kerzner, 2004). However, this was one of those cases when such a task structure was compulsory because these two assignments were crucial for the success of the entire project. The rest of the project activities went as planned, and there were no other delays.
The assessment of the project outcomes
The evaluation of project efficiency has to rely on such measurements as cost, revenue, speed, and qualitative improvements that it has brought (National Research Council, 2005; Richman, 2002). In this case, we can present our findings in table format:
At this point, we need to make several remarks about the tangible benefits of this project. First, the exact revenue has yet to be determined. It is supposed that this computer lab will bring profit to the institution within the span of four years and in such scenario the gross revenue will equal $ 100. 000. As far as costs are concerned, we should mention that, Hunter Institute of FAFE has made initial investment worth of $ 75, 500, and they will also have spend one thousand dollars each year on the maintenance. No extra expenditures will be necessary, provided that the computer lab is maintained properly.
One should not disregard the intangible benefits of this project that cannot be measured by quantitative means. First, Hunter Institute of TAFE confirmed the reputation of an educational institution that provides only high-quality training and cares about students’ needs and demands.
Public opinion is one of those factors affecting the performance of any organization and the administration of Hunter Institute wants to prove to the community that their policies correspond to their strategic goals. In this context the word community includes various stakeholders of this organization, for example, the students along their parents and the faculty. It is quite probable that these stakeholders will spread the news about the initiative, displayed by the administration of Hunter Institute.
Another intangible benefit is the decreased dropout rate. We cannot provide accurate statistical data about the number of students who decided to drop out of Hunter Institute due to the poor use of technology. Nevertheless, there is great probability that many of them did so precisely for this reason. By adopting new attitude toward the technologies, the administration will be able to enhance students’ satisfaction and make them more willing to attend Hunter Institute.
Again, this is one of those cases, when the benefits cannot be described by quantitative methods. Finally, this computer lab may support other projects, implemented by Hunter Institute, especially; it may help to improve the functioning of their electronic library. Overall, this undertaking is in line with each of the strategic objectives, set by this institution.
Improvements, brought by the project
In the previous section of the paper we have partially discussed the improvements, achieved in the course of this project. It seems that it would be much better to display them in table format.
Findings
These activities have demonstrated that the outcomes of a project are determined by such factors as 1) meticulousness of planning; 2) the team’s ability to understand organizational needs; 3) the willingness of the management to assist them team by giving feedback and recommendations; 4) the efficiency of communication among team members; 5) the choice of suppliers; 6) appropriate risk management strategies. These are the key findings, derived in the course of this project.
Reference List
Barkley. B. 2007. Project Management in New Product Development. London: McGraw-Hill Professional.
Kerzner H. 2004 Advanced project management: best practices on implementation. NY: John Wiley and Sons.
National Research Council (U.S.). Committee for Oversight and Assessment of U.S. Department of Energy Project Management, National Research Council. 2005. Measuring Performance and Benchmarking Project Management at the Department of Energy. NY: National Academies Press.
Rad. P. 2002. Project estimating and cost management. New Jersey. Management Concepts.
Richman L. 2002. Project management step-by-step. NY AMACOM Div American Mgmt Assn.