Assessment 2: Academic Essay

Mirza Shariful Bari (23067419)

Northumbria University, London Campus
LD7206FLZ01: Data Analytics and Project Management
for Business Intelligence (Group-7)
Muhammad Rizwan
16th May 2024
Contents
1. Introduction:.........................................................................................................................................2
2. Planning:..............................................................................................................................................2
 Database Creation:........................................................................................................................2
 Creating a Work Breakdown Structure:......................................................................................2
3. Execution:............................................................................................................................................3
 SSM model:.....................................................................................................................................3
 Dashboard:......................................................................................................................................4
 Use of Trello:...................................................................................................................................4
4. Evaluation:...........................................................................................................................................5
5. Critical analysis of tools and techniques:........................................................................................5
6. Stakeholders Identification & Categorization:................................................................................5
 Primary stakeholders:....................................................................................................................6
 Secondary stakeholders:..............................................................................................................6
 Low power-Low interest:...............................................................................................................7
 Low power-high interest:...............................................................................................................7
 High power-low interest:................................................................................................................7
 High power-high interest:..............................................................................................................7
7. Potential causes of conflicts among stakeholders:.......................................................................7
I. Cognitive conflict:...........................................................................................................................7
II. Conflict of objective and interest:.................................................................................................7
III. Normative conflicts:........................................................................................................................7
IV. Conflicts of relationship:............................................................................................................8
8. Project lifecycle, Risk and Risk mitigation:.....................................................................................8
 Project lifecycle, Risk and Risk Mitigation Table:......................................................................9
9. Role reflection:..................................................................................................................................10
10. Critical analysis by applying SCRUM Agile Leadership:........................................................10
 Team Dynamics:...........................................................................................................................10
 Strategic and operational leadership benefit for this project:................................................10
References:................................................................................................................................................11
 1. Introduction:
The project our team worked on was the graduation ceremony for Northumbria University. Our
team intercepted the project on 1st of April 2024 and the closing was planned for 21st June 2024.
As a part of the project- we had to create a plan tasked schedule, comprise the task of all
assignees, formulate the task and the costing into visual representation, categorized the
stakeholders and created a dashboard for the business intelligence purposes.

2. Planning:
As we began the project there was a lot a miss. Firstly, we intercept the project in the middle.
So, we had to organize all the tasks, their updates and so on. Planning is a vital part of the
success of any project. Details description of some highlighted part of the planning is shared
below:

 Database Creation: Firstly, we formulated a database which represented all the tasks
that must be done including the current progression. According to Batselier et al. (2014)
it is important to have a database for any project management as they help to guide the
tasks and provide transparency for future reference.

Illustration: 01, Database

 Creating a Work Breakdown Structure: To make the database more usable and derive
more utility such as cost estimation from the database, we introduced the work
breakdown structure. Sequeira et al, (2015) emphasizes WBS application on cost
estimation which proved very useful for our project.
 Illustration:02, Work breakdown structure

3. Execution:
This stage required some more tactical approach from our end where we focus on task
system, progress visualization and communication.

 SSM model: Due to the nature of the project we choose Soft System Methodology.
Mehregan et al. (2012) states that the methodology helps to save time and allows user
to come up with solution suited to the time frame also enabling flexible changes. The
seven stages of methodology allowed us to make changes and execute plans according
to task requirements.

Illustration:03, Soft System Methodology

 Dashboard: Our team also introduced an interactive dashboard using excel. As it is
illustrated by Orts (2004) that having access to key performance indicators allows
decision makers to guide the project performance can be achieved by using dashboard.
It provided real life update of the task progression and costing with the use of created
database allowing us and the stake holders to overview the state of the project
efficiently.

Illustration:04, Dashboard

 Use of Trello: To ensure team coordination and work update we used Trello to connect
our team. Arranged daily meetings and constant communication through this platform.

Illustration:05, Trello
 4. Evaluation:
In the beginning the project progression and financials lacked transparency. We
established an interactive dashboard that allowed more control to the stakeholders and
assisted decision making in critical state. The implementation of SSM and WBS
segmented the work and allowed the project to be more flexible to implement any
required changes. identifying the lack of adequate time and budget was the result of our
evaluation phase.

5. Critical analysis of tools and techniques:

 The database and dashboard were made using excel. Slicers of cost overrun, duration,
status, assignee, date allowed stake holders and our team to navigate through important
KPI’s for the project. A pie and bar chart represented the individual and overall project
ensured transparency.
 Use of Soft System Methodology and Work Breakdown Structure provided flexibility for
task reorganization in moments need and step by step task structure for the smoother
progression of the project.
 We also worked with stake holder categorization and identification which allowed us to
create the dashboard depending on their requirement. It also allowed us to focus our
time more on the important cluster which consequently saved our time and effort.

6. Stakeholders Identification & Categorization:

Our project was the graduation ceremony of Northumbria university. For the efficient completion
of the project, we initiated multiple steps that helped us to coordinate the project in a structured
way. One of our initiatives was to identify the stakeholders.

According to Fassin (2008) stakeholders are the individuals who can and be affected by the
achievement of organizational objectives. Mitchell et al. (2019) identified that it is of paramount
importance to identify the stakeholders in the project to create the optimum value for those who
have a stake in the project. Making sure those figures have a positive outlook on our project
determines the level of success.

For our project we identified nine bodies of stakeholders and segmented them according to their
relevance, interest, and authority level. The identified stakeholders are:

 University administration
 Graduating students
 Parents and family
 Alumni
 Faculty and Staff
 Venders/supplies
 General public
 Sponsors and Donors
 Local Community
Categorization of Stakeholders based on relevance:

Primary Stakeholders Secondary Stakeholders

 University administration  Venders/supplies

 Graduating students  General public
 Alumni  Parents and family
 Faculty and Staff

Illustration:06, Categorization of Stakeholders

 Primary stakeholders: According to Hult et al. (2011) stakeholders who are highly visible
in the organization and whose choice, opportunities, decisions, and valuation of demand
is a priority to the organization are the primary stakeholders,
These four stakeholders are our primary concern. Their presence is noticeable and during our
project we had to prioritize their preferences.

 Secondary stakeholders: Clarkson (1995) states that secondary stakeholders are those
who may or may not be affected by the organizational objectives, furthermore they don’t
engage in active transactions and not mandatory to the survival of the organization. By
these traits- Venders/supplies, General public, Parents, and family our secondary
stakeholders who have some degree of association but not directly related to the project
itself.
From interest and authority aspect we have further categorized the stakeholders:

Traits Low Interest High interest

 Venders/supplies  Parents and family

Low power  General public  Alumni
 Faculty and Staff

 Sponsors and Donors  University

High power  Local Community Administration
 Graduating students

Illustration:07, Categorization of Stakeholders From interest and authority aspect

 Low power-Low interest: In the first quadrant we have low power and low interest
stakeholders. They do not have substantial authority over the project, nor they are
 affected by the outcome. Their interest is not particularly related to the project either, but
rather focuses on their individual gain.

 Low power-high interest: the second quadrant depicts the stakeholders who have high
interest in our project. They are directly connected to the project outcome but do not hold
significant authority to drive the project. We are focused on keeping this group in the
project loop and encouraging their participation as well as feedback.

 High power-low interest: This group has high power over the project as they are
contributing to the project resources. Their authority allows them to force us to make
significant changes to the project despite their interest. Sponsors and donors may
evaluate our resource management and the local community may object to caused
inconvenience by the celebration. We manage this group with importance providing
necessary details at moment’s notice and mindful of their requirement.

 High power-high interest: Our team closely monitored this group as they are directly
related to the project outcome. We kept them in the loop in every stage and established
direct communication with their respective representatives. Providing them with regular
updates and incorporating their feedback to complete the project was our utmost priority.

7. Potential causes of conflicts among stakeholders:

The primary goal of stakeholder identification was to cater to the stakeholders according to
priority. It also served as a structure of conflict resolution if such a situation arises. This part will
discuss the potential causes of conflict among the stakeholders in our project.

Conflict type and explanation, Chinyio and Olomolaiye (2009):

I. Cognitive conflict: this situation may arise when different stakeholders interpret the
data from different perspectives and understanding. For instance, the costing of
video and photography may seem exaggerated to university administration and
would like to focus more on guest orientation the student body may feel it is a
necessary allocation as this will be a memorable moment in their academic life.

II. Conflict of objective and interest: This category refers to the situation where different
stakeholders have different objectives to derive from the same project. While
accessing the project we pointed out that our donors and sponsors are more willing
to allocation budget to publicity, while the student body prefers quality catering
service and videography for cherished memories.

III. Normative conflicts: Normative conflict arises due to the divergence of norms,
values, and principles. In this project students wanted it to be about them and
pushed to maximize their experience in a positive manner. Whereas university
management wanted to pursue more academic setup as they wanted to focus on
 academics and special guests- may advise us to take more formal arrangements
which may prove to be rigid for the students.

IV. Conflicts of relationship: This conflict may arise from personal and behavioral
differences. Our two most prioritized stakeholders, the students, and the university
management, may have different communication dynamics. Students tend to be
more vocal and open minded. Where the university management takes more
professional may drive a rift in decision making leading to conflict of relationship.

These are the types of conflict that could have arisen according to our anticipation during our
project.

8. Project lifecycle, Risk and Risk mitigation:

According to PMBOK (2013) project management lifecycle is a sequential phase which a project
goes through from its inception to closer. For our project we decided to follow the AGILE
methodology. We intercepted the project in the middle of its duration so this methodology would
provide us with the level of flexibility we need as in different stages we would need to make
changes according to the associated risk.

Risk: PMI BOK (2017) describes risk as uncertain events or conditions that may have positive
or negative effect on a single or multiple project objective.

Risk management: Institute of Risk Management (IRM) describes risk management as a

process that allows an organization to evaluate, understand and act against the risk to minimize
failure and increase success.

Source: https://www.netsolutions.com/insights/what-is-scrum-development-agile-scrum-methodology/
  Project lifecycle, Risk and Risk Mitigation Table:
Project stage Explanation Risk faced Risk mitigation strategy

Define and When we intercepted the project, it Compliance Risk: In this stage we Corrective measure:
analyze the was already halfway through in terms may face Compliance Risk as we some issues like lack of
project. of project duration. Our priority was to are still understanding and defining transparency can be
(stage 1) define the objectives, what we need to our strategies. Ex: lack of mitigated by establishing
do, what has been done so far, how manpower, limited budget, lack of dashboard.
much we must do and what are the transparency.
Detective Measure: lack
available resources.
of manpower, and budget
we must accept for the
time being and plan the
project accordingly.
Work planning We breakdown the work through WBS, Hazard risk: there is some risk we Corrective measure: We
and process applied SSM methodology for work are unable to avoid as the new would implement the
optimization. efficiency. For further changes in any system implementation may create corrective measure.
(stage 2) moment, we can always make discomfort for the original members Include all the variables
improvement in this stage and reduce work efficiency. and try to minimize the
delay and resource waste
Collaboration in We create the dashboard for work Control risk: there is a chance we Directive measure: Our
project mapping progression. Now we take feedback may have some uncertainty. From plan is to use Directive
(stage 3) from stakeholders to further improve it vendor end or in other measure and provide
and align our future task with arrangement. Even stakeholders structural step by step
constructive feedback may suggest some structural direction to achieve the
changes that could force us to result.
repeat stage 2
Corrective measure: will
be applied for stakeholder
feedback. Adjust the
change to increase
efficiency.
Construction and In this stage we apply the dashboard, Opportunity risk: We are Corrective measure: we
implementation WBS and SSM to fully functional stage expecting some Opportunity risk to will keep using corrective
(stage 4) and start the wok following the method arise. It will also provide us a measure and make
we have established. chance to use the risk to our benefit changes to suit our need.
and improve the project overall

Evaluate and We will closely monitor the project and Hazard risk: at this point we expect Preventive measure:
Monitor evaluate the progress. Share the some unavoidable risk. process that is creating
(stage 5) information with the stakeholders. disruption will be
Opportunity risk: this type of risk terminated.
may also arise
Corrective measure: what
we can not discard will be
recourse to make the
process successful
 9. Role reflection:
Every team requires the collaboration of different people who are assigned to different tasks to
perform as a team. In our team I performed the role of the project manager. As part of my role, I
overview the project progression, managing schedules, delegating task to the members, and
communicating with the stakeholders to gain feedback to guide the team to achieve the desired
results of the stakeholders.

Our team was a small one so aside from my managerial role. I actively participated in creating
the dashboard. Adjusting the dashboard to the criteria provided by stakeholders was one of my
primary roles. I also conducted the critical analysis of the project and the business intelligence
tool that we implemented in the project. Based on the results we collected from the project, I
also provided analytical feedback based on both real-time data and measured estimation in the
form of a recommendation.

10. Critical analysis by applying SCRUM Agile Leadership:

I am simply unable to express in words the support and effort my team provided for this project.
It was further becoming my responsibility to be such a manager who is also worthy of leading
them. Being a project manager is a dynamic role. Different projects require different
approaches. Though the project was a short one and required a lot of reevaluations, I took on
the traits of strategic and operational agile leadership.

 Team Dynamics: To my evaluation the team dynamics was very active. Every member
was doing their task to the mark and allowed me to assist them in any way possible. One
distinct factor that helped me to make such driven team possible was my cultural
intelligence which allowed me work with the diverse members, understanding their wok
value and respect their insight for the benefit of the project.

 Strategic and operational leadership benefit for this project: The project duration, though
was short but the parameter of task, responsibilities and expectations of our
stakeholders were eminent. The project required the ability to think ahead so that we can
reduce the reevaluating process as the time was of the essence. On the same note
being rigid with a specific process would only hinder the project so the importance of
responding to short-term changes and challenges was paramount. So, to my judgement
the hybrid of strategic and operational agile leadership was the right tool to serve my
purpose in this project.
References:

 Abeythilake, Udara. “Agile Methodology.” Medium, 12 June 2022,

medium.com/@abeythilakeudara3/agile-methodology-106270809c99.

 Batselier, Jordy, and Mario Vanhoucke. “Construction and Evaluation Framework for a

Real-Life Project Database.” International Journal of Project Management, vol. 33, no.

3, Apr. 2015, pp. 697–710,

www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0263786314001410?

casa_token=lgN8l0gEEVYAAAAA:WVQQyky4q1m_2bsMLBGdUd_a8RmuTDtmGN_

d9eBldO34hi5uRpiXbnenYiSAE5GsaidEbitVjGqO,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.09.004.

 Benn, S., et al. “Defining and Identifying Stakeholders: Views from Management and

Stakeholders.” South African Journal of Business Management, vol. 47, no. 2, 30 June

2016, pp. 1–11,

www.researchgate.net/publication/305154862_Defining_and_identifying_stakeholders_

Views_from_management_and_stakeholders, https://doi.org/10.4102/sajbm.v47i2.55.

 Chinyio, Ezekiel, and Paul Olomolaiye. Construction Stakeholder Management. Edited

by Ezekiel Chinyio and Paul Olomolaiye, Oxford, UK, Wiley-Blackwell, 18 Dec. 2009.

 Clarkson, Max E. “A Stakeholder Framework for Analyzing and Evaluating Corporate

Social Performance.” Academy of Management Review, vol. 20, no. 1, Jan. 1995, pp. 92–

117, https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9503271994.

 Fassin, Yves. “The Stakeholder Model Refined.” Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 84, no.

1, 27 Mar. 2008, pp. 113–135, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9677-4.

 Hult, G. Tomas M., et al. “Stakeholder Marketing: A Definition and Conceptual

Framework.” AMS Review, vol. 1, no. 1, Mar. 2011, pp. 44–65,

link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13162-011-0002-5.

 Maphanga, Penny, and Hannelie Nel. Identification of Stakeholders in the Project Life

Cycle of a Capital Project for a State-Owned Enterprise in South Africa. 2020.

 Mehregan, M. Reza, et al. “An Application of Soft System Methodology.” Procedia -

Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 41, no. 41, 2012, pp. 426–433,

www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877042812009317,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.04.051.

 Mesquida, Antoni-Lluís, and Antonia Mas. “A Project Management Improvement

Program according to ISO/IEC 29110 and PMBOK®.” Journal of Software: Evolution

and Process, vol. 26, no. 9, 5 Aug. 2014, pp. 846–854, https://doi.org/10.1002/smr.1665.

Accessed 2 May 2019.

 Mitchell, Ronald, et al. STAKEHOLDER IDENTIFICATION and ITS IMPORTANCE in

the VALUE CREATING SYSTEM of STAKEHOLDER WORK. 2019.

 Orts, Daryl. Dashboard Development and Deployment a Methodology for Success. 2004.

 Project Management Institute. PMBOK Guide Fourth Edition. 2008.

 Sequeira, Sérgio, and Eurico Lopes. “Simple Method Proposal for Cost Estimation from

Work Breakdown Structure.” Procedia Computer Science, vol. 64, no. 1, 2018, pp. 537–

544, www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877050915026940,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2015.08.559.