Length: 300 words for each post (600 words total)
Due Date (special) – The first blog post is due to be posted on the forums by the 4th September, 2017. Failure to meet this deadline will result in a 1 mark deduction from the mark out of 10 the assessment is worth (this is the usual late penalty of 10% of the maximum available marks for that item).
Read: Eric G. Too, Patrick Weaver. (2014). The management of project management: A conceptual framework for project governance. International Journal of Project Management, 32(2014) 1382-1394. You can find this article in the CSU online library – http://www.csu.edu.au/division/library
In Section 2.1 (and described in Figure 1) beginning on page 1383 there is a discussion on two schools of thought regarding the effective approach to governance in an organisation. Choose one of these to support and write a post in the forums (under the specified heading) giving your supporting views and evidence for that position. It need not agree with your own personal views (you can argue either position), but you must show what arguments you have in favour of that position.
Following your initial post, find another post which favours a given position and debate, critique or discuss that view by providing counter argument and evidence in opposition to it. You can decide to counter the same view you supported, or you can debate the alternative view.
Please note that this is a logical and professional forum debate and not meant to be a personal argument.
Both of these posts must be made on the discussion forums of this subject, but to submit for marking you will need to copy/paste your posts into a Word Document (or similar) and submit to EASTS with the rest of the assessment. You should also include the copy of the post you are responding to in your reply post for the marker to gain context for your response, but be sure to show clearly which post belongs to whom.
Length: 2000 words.
Read: Eric G. Too, Patrick Weaver. (2014). The management of project management: A conceptual framework for project governance. International Journal of Project Management, 32(2014) 1382-1394.
- Compare and contrast the governance of strategic changeas defined in the article, with the function of program/portfolio management as defined by PMI. Provide evidence of similarities and differences. Show any specific areas within either of the program/portfolio PMI bodies of knowledge which you feel are relevant to this analysis. Show evidence for your views.
- Explain the role of sponsorsin project/program/portfolio outcomes. Show how the role of the sponsor differs between the three layers, and in what ways it remains similar or constant. Link the role of sponsorship to the governance of strategic organisational change. Support your views.
- Explain the role of the PMO for program/portfolio management. Show cause and effect which links the role of the PMO with the governance of strategic organisational change. How relevant is the role of the PMO in the modern organisation? Show evidence for your views.
- In the pursuit of successful organisational change consider the role of governance, sponsorship, program/portfolio (PMI) methodologies, and the PMO. Discuss which two (only two) of these you believe are the most vital or which have the greatest influence over change success. Fully explain and justify your views.
You are required to carefully examine and understand the concepts explained in this article and be able to present an effective discussion on the points above. You will need to analyse the ideas presented and give your personal views on their merits and weaknesses. In doing this you will show your knowledge and insight into the relationships between sponsorship, methodology, governance and the PMO in the achievement of strategic organisational change. You should fully explain and justify your views and opinions.
Length: 1500 words
Consider the article used in Part A of this assignment and your analysis of the factors contributing to successful change. Describe a program/project which you have some personal knowledge of or familiarity with. It need not be one in which you were personally involved, but one which you understand adequately to discuss for this assignment.
- Use approximately one third of your words to describe and summarise this program/project, providing contextual background which supports your remaining points to follow. Include an explanation of the strategic change being sought via this program/project.
- Describe the most significant risksthat your chosen program/project faced. Explain how the program/project dealt with those risks. Include in your discussion the role of communication, especially between the four layers of governance, executive, senior and program/project management. Support your views.
- Give your recommendations for improvements to one key area of either sponsorship, methodology or the PMO (choose one area only). Show how and why those recommendations might have delivered better outcomes for the strategic change. Support your views.
You are required to extrapolate how the concepts you discussed in Part A might relate another program/project you are familiar with. You should demonstrate your knowledge of how these principles can influence program/project performance and outcomes by explaining your reasoning in a specific case study context. You should express your views and opinions where required and support them with explanation and reasoning.
This assessment is intended to assess your ability to: differentiate and compare between program, portfolio and project management concepts and principles; design portfolio and program plans to bring about strategic business change; justify how risk and communication management relates to strategic business goals; and defend the value of program and portfolio management for large organisations.