PROJECT FIRECRACKER- PART 2

Your contributions are required here also.

a) EPM Fundamentals:

i) Use them to position NC in good EPM good practices

ii) Recommend how NC can address its challenges (Use theory to address them)

iii) Justify why you think NC should use those recommendations

     (Use EPM –theory to address issues that have been raised in the case)

• More

• History
• View source
• Link to

Hove (talk)‎03:19, 28 March 2011

Any contributions on this one guys?

• Parent
• More

• History
• View source
• Link to

Hove (talk)‎04:53, 28 March 2011

 

I didn't thoroughly analyse this portion, but I picked up the following challenges. I believe there are many more

• Project fire cracker has a dual leadership – not good for projects
• Timelines for the various tasks are not clear. Just wanted “Yesterday”
• No official project team.
• support from the executive level is not quite strong.
• communication channels to be used by the "project" team are not clear

--Shumimlingo 16:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

• Parent
• More

• History
• View source
• Link to

Shumimlingo (talk)‎04:56, 28 March 2011

Agreed Shumi. IUnfact Project Management as a tools is non existant at NC, and from the CEO downwards, there is no appreciation and understanding of how this can be used as an effective tool to manage projects.

• Parent
• More

• History
• View source
• Link to

JEREMIAH CHAPHXANYA (talk)‎05:04, 28 March 2011

 

Yes. The issue of how to address those shortcomings becomes the recommendations.

• Parent
• More

• History
• View source
• Link to

Hove (talk)‎05:06, 28 March 2011