“Increase Network Bandwidth to University Building” <PMIT Project
#409>: IV&V Report
Project Manager:
Bill Jones
IV&V reviewer:
Tech
William Dougherty, Network Infrastructure & Services, Virginia
Date:
June 7, 2011
Methodology: The PM provided a comprehensive overview of the project through project
forms – including the detailed MS Project Plan, other written records and e-mail
interactions. This information shows the high level of detailed planning and effort that
has gone into the project thus far. Although the project’s complexity level from a purely
technology standpoint is moderate – all activities are well within the skill levels of
existing VCU or contract labor, the scope of the project based on the number of sites
affected provides significant visibility and a large number of stakeholders.
Findings: The written documentation provided by the PM addressed most of the
requirements specified by VCU’s project management methodology. Project planning
and technical proficiency is illustrated throughout the prepared documentation. Specific
comments and recommendations follow.
PMIT Document
Project Information
Work Breakdown Structure
Schedule
Communications Plan
Finding / Recommendation
Project Charter presents a clear business problem with
definable scope. Project plan outlines sites and internal
and external human resources. Schedule displays
appropriate flexibility, lead times, and overlap where
parallel tasks can be performed.
OK/Recommend clarifying whether “Engineer” listed
is an internal or an external resource.
“Engineer” has been updated with the names of the
assigned engineers in the MS Project plan. All are
internal resources.
Included as part of the MS Project Plan; see above
comments under Project Information. Because of
inherent flexibility of scheduling, assumption is that
scheduling updates will be released regularly to reflect
actual progress.
The MS Project Plan document is updated at least
once every other week, maintained on the Network
Services file server, and posted on the project web site.
Progress is also noted in PMIT.
OK/Recommend ensuring all “interested end users”
have access to “Change Management System” as
Quality Mgt Test Plan
Budget Plan
Spending Plan
Performance Plan
Risk Management Plan
distribution mechanism for any applicable requests
and/or actual adjustments to schedule or scope.
Changes will be summarized in PMIT; Detailed CM
forms will be maintained on the NS file server Rose
and posted on the project web site..
 Recommend performing “Functional Testing”
tasks as two events separated by some period of
time. Alternately a separate Quality
Control/Assurance step could be added for spot
checks/random sampling of connections made to
ensure interfaces remain error free and completely
accessible to users.
Added test plans in PMIT: 1. review Hobbit and
CiscoWorks periodically to ensure interfaces are error
free. 2. Monitor Help Desk tickets for systemic
problems in upgraded buildings.
 Recommend adding a feedback loop for
documentation review process to ensure any
deficiencies are corrected.
Added notation to “Activities Detail” spreadsheet to
initiate corrections as needed during Site Acceptance
process. Modifications to schedule, etc. will be
handled on a case by case basis.
OK/Budgeted amount seems adequate for scope;
Contingency Reserve very healthy.
OK/Assumption is that as purchases are made and
actual funds are expended, this document will be
updated.
Correct; will be updated in PMIT and posted to the
project web site as expenditures occur.
OK/A major side benefit of completed project should
be up-to-date building information. Closeout Checklist
document will also provide additional Performance
information.
 Risk #2: Recommend determining buildings that
will be “dropped from the schedule” as soon as
possible to mitigate negative reaction of
stakeholders.
Agreed. So far, 4 buildings have been removed due to
planned demolition under CM#1. About 30 buildings
on or around the 900 block of West Franklin are in
question; awaiting proposals to upgrade fiber before
making decisions. The buildings in question are not
scheduled until 2012, so no immediate schedule
changes are anticipated.
 Risk #5: A possible strategy here is to “Transfer”
the risk to the vendor(s) through specific contract
language to provide incentives and penalties for
impacting the project schedule.
Probably not feasible at VCU. One, we are using
existing contracts so no opportunity to add T&Cs;
Two, VCU Purchasing has not allowed incentives and
penalties for schedule-related performance in the past.
 Recommend identifying responsible individuals
for monitoring and mitigating listed risks.
Generally, the PM is responsible for overall
monitoring, and all project participants are responsible
for reporting the emergence of risk conditions. If a risk
does materialize it is reported as an Issue in PMIT and
the person responsible for addressing that issue is
identified at that time.
 Recommend citing highest risk items first. If
overall risk is a factor of Probability, Impact, and
Weight, this would place Risk #2 first in order, and
Risk #3 last.
This is a function of the PMIT system and is outside
the control of the PM.
Observations:

Assumptions numbers 1 and 3 made in the Project Charter (Section D.) carry risk not
documented in the Risk Management Plan.
 Scheduling network equipment and cabling installations around other building
activities could impact the overall project schedule.
This item was meant to be included in Risk # 3, Conflicting Client Schedules, but
added Risk # 6 to explicitly call this risk out.
 Outsourcing of equipment storage, break-in, configuration and site
documentation likely decreases budget and resource impact, but dependence
on a vendor’s schedule and ability to keep pace may prove risky.
Added item as Risk # 7.
 No mention is made of impacts, either positive or negative, to recurring maintenance
budgets as new equipment is installed or expanded. Although immediate impacts are
likely negligible due to warranty coverage extensions purchased with the equipment,
a five-year TCO analysis may be warranted.
No significant impact to the maintenance budget is anticipated. Layer 2 switches are not
maintained under a maintenance contract, and the project does not expand the number of
router ports supporting the buildings.
 No rationale is provided for what appears to be a Priority Order on the “G2B Budget”
tab of the “G2B Budget” spreadsheet. An explanation for the sequencing of buildings
might prove useful with stakeholders.
Interested stakeholders have been briefed on the prioritization scheme and have provided
significant feedback which has impacted the scheduling of certain buildings. A brief
summary will be inserted in a new tab on the “G2B Budget” spreadsheet and more detail
provided in the “G2B WBS-Schedule-Project” worksheet.