Master in Decision Making and Innovation
The main objective of the Project Management activity was for the student to put him/herself in the shoes of a Project Manager in order to develop two different projects plus a conclusion.
After the assessment of all your contributions to the Project Management activity, we would like to provide you with a final and general feedback about the students’ performance and some tips about what we were looking for.
This activity was composed off three different parts:
1. A project proposal based on predictive methodologies for the drone creation
2. A project proposal based on agile methodologies for the AI System creation
3. A conclusion on the ethical components of both projects that also includes the students’ proposals to offer some solutions to possible problems.
Regarding the first project:
Almost all of the students have been able to identify the stakeholders of the Drone Project and have also explained the reasons of their choices. In this part it was essential to identify them in a specific way and avoid generalities such as “customers” or “providers”. We would like to know which are the customers and the providers, for instance. Although the majority was able to provide reasons and justifications there were some groups that didn’t explain the importance of those stakeholders over the project. It was essential to have clear this information in order to focus the rest of the tasks to develop the project in the right direction.
To continue, the students were asked to develop the Drone Project WBS detailed in four levels. This is one of the parts that the students have found more difficult. Although almost all of the groups were able to create the WBS in four levels, not all the groups have created it in the specific level we were looking for. You needed to develop a WBS that could have not been applied to any other project; we were looking for very specific tasks related to the drone project.
Moreover, the majority of the groups has developed a good risk matrix including specific risks. For sure you could have developed an endless list but almost you all have demonstrated your good criteria selecting the most relevant ones and classifying them! Regarding the questions to the human engineers it is important to say that very few groups have employed the SMART concept in order to ask these questions. Having this concept in mind you could have tried to ask more concrete questions that would have allowed you to know more about the requirements of the project.
Finally, it is important to state that the Quality Control and the Quality Assurance plan are two different plans and you needed to develop them separately. Have in mind that, in very general terms, the QC allows you to detect possible problems and the QA to prevent them. There were some groups that approached them as the same plan and they just developed one. In addition, it is also important to say that there were some groups that explained the theory but we want you to put the theory into practice.
Regarding the second project:
Regarding the Kanban, we would like to say that you all have tried to develop a real Kanban but you would have tried to take into account that at the beginning of the project there are tasks that cannot be located in “Done”. In addition, we asked for real tasks and the majority has met the objective.
To continue, you needed to develop a list of questions intended for the pilots in order to know how they develop their work to do your work and meet customer’s requirements. Not all of the groups have been able to take advantage of these questions to develop the next points: Product Backlog and ScrumBoard.
Don’t forget that the Product Backlog consists of the requirements asked by the customer and those requirements should have supported your ScrumBoard. During this last part of the activity our intention was that you all demonstrated the ability to link the Kanban to the questions, to the Product Backlog and, finally, to the ScrumBoard. Not everybody has met this goal but you have tried it!
Regarding the conclusion:
In this last part of the activity we have realized that not everybody has the scope of the project clear. Remember that the scope was a defence one and the project should have been focuses on that.
Some of the groups were able to reflect on the ethical components on the project but they have not given their own proposals and vice versa. It would have been interesting that groups could have tried to go further on the reflections and have supported them on strong arguments.
In general, the students have been able to appreciate the essence of this activity and there have been some groups that have assumed the role of Project Manager providing some good activities!
Keep growing and keep learning!