1、Lessons Learned Entry: 1420Lesson Info:a71 Lesson Number: 1420a71 Lesson Date: 2004-01-01a71 Submitting Organization: ARCa71 Submitted by: Donald R. MendozaSubject: Project Management: Construction of Facilities Project Pitfalls Abstract: The success of a project is greatly impacted by the visibilit
2、y and advocacy within the NASA community, stakeholders, customers, and end users. In addition, an ambiguous project scope can lead to well-meaning changes on behalf of the project team which impact the cost, resources, and schedule to such an extent that the completion of the project may no longer b
3、e justified. For projects which cannot be clearly defined from the outset, clear communication between the Project Manager (PM) and the project sponsor is critical in order to receive continued support by the Agency.Description of Driving Event: The Project being a Construction-of-Facilities (CofF)
4、activity was supposed to modernize a unique test and simulation facility. It began under the Agencys Business As Usual (BAU) financial process which meant that the majority of its funding would come from Agency General and Administrative (G&A) budgets. Also, being a CofF project, the organizations (
5、end-users) that would ultimately benefit from the modernized facility did not contribute funding but did have significant input into the requirements. However, after the Agencys transition into a Full Cost Accounting (FCA) Mode, the Project had to adopt a process historically aimed at NPR 7120.5 typ
6、e projects, i.e. projects having a direct link between their products, funding organization, and end-user. In this new environment the Project found it difficult to compete with other well-known and established NPR 7120.5 projects for resources and was eventually cancelled. Key Words: Project cancel
7、lation, scope, requirements, full-cost accounting, stakeholders, project visibility and advocacy, cost creep Lesson(s) Learned: Provided by IHSNot for ResaleNo reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS-,-,-The following represents key factors and contributors to the Projects canc
8、ellation: 1. The dependence on funding from Agency institutional budgets, coupled with end users that historically did not pay for the facilities maintenance or infrastructure, did not provide the Project with sufficient resources to operate under full-cost accounting. Once the Agency converted to t
9、he FCA system, the Projects “non-paying” end users did not have the funds to sustain the Project and their advocacy became ineffective.2. The lack of project promotion to upper management and inadequate or slow communication of project results to stakeholders can result in an inaccurate appraisal of
10、 a projects value. This may increase a projects vulnerability to budget cuts, milestone de-scoping and a perception that the research results are unimportant or too incremental to merit continued support.3. The lack of a comprehensively defined and controlled project scope can result in significant
11、requirements creep and/or excessive modifications. This is especially true when various stakeholders have conflicting requirements. This will make it difficult if not impossible for the Project to estimate and control its budget.4. The lack of a clear stakeholder hierarchy made it difficult to prior
12、itize their requests and to control the project scope. So while the project was approved by the funding organization with a specific schedule and budget it, continued to accept input from other sources and was no longer able to stay within the approved budget and schedule.Recommendation(s): Based on
13、 the above observations and LL the following recommendations have been developed: 1. To provide the Project with sufficient resources to operate under FCA, CofF projects should ensure their funding sources are Agency institutional budgets, coupled with end users that historically do pay for the faci
14、lities maintenance or infrastructure, (FCA).2. To ensure the projects support is maintained and its merits recognized, other mechanisms, in addition to standard reviews and presentations, should be used for internal and external communication, promotion, and outreach. These mechanisms should include
15、 focused and broad based approaches such as occasional demonstrations, talks with Senior Management, and a Project website for a boarder audience.3. The Project plan must include a process to manage and re-scope its requirements. In addition, the Project plan should not only indicate what the scope
16、includes, but what it does NOT include, and how “to-be-determined” requirements will be closed out.4. The Project plan should clearly identify all its stakeholders and the level of responsibility it has to each in a graphical hierarchy chart. A process that describes how information and requests fro
17、m the various stakeholders is disseminated through the hierarchy should be used such that decisions at the appropriate level can be made with respect to directing the project and setting its priorities. Significant changes (as defined in the plan) to the project affecting scope, schedule, or resourc
18、es should be addressed with the funding organization.Provided by IHSNot for ResaleNo reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS-,-,-Evidence of Recurrence Control Effectiveness: N/ADocuments Related to Lesson: NPR 7120.5Mission Directorate(s): a71 Exploration Systemsa71 Sciencea71
19、 Space Operationsa71 Aeronautics ResearchAdditional Key Phrase(s): a71 Policy & Planninga71 Program and Project Managementa71 Safety & Mission AssuranceAdditional Info: Approval Info: a71 Approval Date: 2004-06-02a71 Approval Name: Andrew Hockera71 Approval Organization: ARCa71 Approval Phone Number: 650-604-4120Provided by IHSNot for ResaleNo reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS-,-,-
