Project FFARM Report
Project FFARM Report
2021-03-23
Prepared by:
Dearbhla Brogan
Dearbhla Brogan
Project FFARM Report
Contents
1.
Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................................... 1
2.
Project Report: .............................................................................................................................................................. 1
2.1
Project purpose and justification: .................................................................................................................................. 1
2.2
Cost ................................................................................................................................................................. 5
2.3
Scope:.............................................................................................................................................................. 8
2.4
Duration/ Schedule ............................................................................................................................................
2.5
Communication ............................................................................................................................................. 13
2.6
Risk ............................................................................................................................................................... 18
3.
Lessons Learned .......................................................................................................................................................... 23
4.
Project Close Out ........................................................................................................................................................ 25
5.
Refrences and Acronymn legend…………………………………………………………………………………… 26
Dearbhla Brogan 22006151
Page i/i
Project FFARM Report
1.
Executive Summary:
“Expect the best, plan for the worst and prepare to be surprised,” a quote by Dr. Denis Waitley, author
of the audio series The Psychology of Winning, and a quote that resonates for effective Project
Management. Ineffective Project Management has resulted in 1 in 6 IT projects with a cost overrun of
200%, whereas, effective Project Management in a business offers a 38% increased chance of project
success (Stone, 2020).
A health insurance company, Company X, that manages the lives of over 45 million people relies on
accurate forecasting and financial modelling to support major business decisions. Inaccurate
forecasting can lead to missed revenue and an increase in administration costs across the business
(Huff and Sultan, 2014).
Inaccurate drug cost forecasting and generic utilization forecasting has resulted in a loss of potential
savings for Company X. Project FFARM will provide a new financial model for Company X,
comprising of enhanced forecasting accuracy, updated requirements for effective modelling and an
interactive interface to align with the requirements of the business resulted in a projected return on
investment of 358% by year 4. A combination of a Waterfall and an Agile approach will be used to
complete this project with an execution date of 1.6.2022. This will ensure the new models for each
Drug Therapy class are launched in preparation for the 2023 pharmaceutical manufacturer recontracting process.
2.
Project Report:
2.1
Project purpose and justification:
As reported in my Project Identification Document (Brogan, 2021), a health insurance and pharmacy
benefit manager company that touches the lives of over 45 million people in the United States, relies
on robust financial modelling. This provides assurance that all drug formulary positioning business
decisions being made are based on accurate data along with drug utilization and cost forecasting, as all
decisions made are critical for the lives that Company X covers. Currently, Company X is utilizing a
financial model that is in accurate and does not allow for the optimal business decisions on drug
formulary positions, hence the reason we have selected this project which aligns with Senior
Management Strategy.
Dearbhla Brogan 22006151
Page 1/28
Project FFARM Report
Team Y are responsible for making drug formulary decisions based on in depth clinical and financial
analysis and are currently utilizing a financial model that has been shown to be:
i)
Inaccurate in its drug utilization and cost forecasting
ii)
Unable to cater for non-standard drug dosing regimens
iii)
Ineffective data extraction process
Low quality forecasting can result in a company failing to meet their budget (Avci, 2019) and
employee distrust, in this case is resulting from untrustworthy financial models, can lead to an increase
in employee stress levels (Thielsch et al., 2018) which can negatively impact their overall
performance (Ajayi, 2018) and therefore the company performance.
Based on the foregoing, please see the rationale (along with Project costing comparison in section 2.2)
as to why this project was selected:
i)
Allow for accurate drug utilization and cost forecasting along with more effective data extraction
ii)
More efficient time management for Team Y
iii)
Regain employee confidence in the data and model resulting in a more positive work environment
iv)
Reduce patient spend
Due to the nature of this project we will use the Envelope method (Flahiff, 2011), a combination of the
Agile approach and Waterfall approach, to maximize workflow efficiency.
There is no one size fits all method for effective project management (Marcatto, 2020) making it
important to research many project management methodologies before finally deciding on which suits
your project best.
Post an in-depth analysis of the Waterfall, Agile, Scrum, Kanaban & eXtreme project management
methodologies we decided a hybrid model which integrates the Waterfall and Agile methods, called
the Envelope Model (Flahiff, 2011) would be the most suitable for Project FFARM. Kanban, due it’s
lack of structure and Scrum due to requirement of new recruits and the complexity of the business of
Company X, were eliminated from the selection process (Gorman, 2020).
Dearbhla Brogan 22006151
Page 2/28
Project FFARM Report
The Envelope method:
Waterfall, the preferred project methodology within Company X, has been used for over 40 years and
is known to be the original process model used and recognized for software development (Kienitz,
2017). The advantage of Waterfall is that the financial assumptions tend to be very accurate once all
requirements are recognized (Kienitz, 2017).
However, there are disadvantages too. Project needs must be very defined during the requirements
phase with very little room for maneuver through the development phase. Firstly, project FFARM
requires the development of a new financial model which in its nature involves an agile approach as
we anticipate rigorous and continuous testing throughout the development cycle so using Waterfall
only for this project would not be suitable. We also identified from the Lessons Learned Report Log of
a previous and similar project that Team Y was not satisfied with the previous model’s final
deliverable due to ineffective data extraction and forecasting which resulted in lack of use. This project
was carried out using the Waterfall methodology. An Agile approach will ensure multiple testing
phases of the model template along with an in-depth description of the data extraction process and
forecasting assumptions to prevent dissatisfaction of the final deliverable.
Secondly, due to the restrictive timeline associated with Project FFARM, and the fact we know that a
Waterfall approach can take longer to deliver the overall final project, a Waterfall only project was
finally determined as not suitable for this particular project (Kienitz, 2017).
An agile project management methodology allows customer (in this case Team Y) feedback
throughout the development phase and testing opportunities aligning with quality management for
Project FFARM.
Using an Agile approach can result in a project being completed in a quicker turnaround time than
other methods whilst ensuring quality management. However, it is more difficult for the Project
Manager to determine accurate cost and time budgets using an agile approach and here is where the
strengths of Waterfall and Agile unite to create an effective methodology known and the Envelope
method.
Dearbhla Brogan 22006151
Page 3/28
Project FFARM Report
Figure 1: The Envelope Method (Flahiff, 2011). Available from: https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/
integrating-agile-methodology-waterfall-environment-6311
Envelope 1:
The Project Manager and Analyst Team Manager work closely to ensure Analysts are protected and
allowed complete their work in developing the new financial models without interruptions from the
outside organization.
The joint iteration planning stage is where Team Y, Anlaysts, Project Champion and Analysts Team
Manager will take part in a Nominal Group Technique held by the Project Manager to finalise model
requirements.
Joint iteration Demonstrations will allow Analysts to share model drafts with Team Y (end users), in a
meeting facilitated by the PM where a a positive environment will be supported while focusing on the
successes so far in order to promote team motivation (Marsh, 2019). Following on from the iteration
demonstration the PM and Analysts Team Manager will work together on sharing feedback from
respective teams regarding any necessary model improvements and or further development for the next
model draft.
Dearbhla Brogan 22006151
Page 4/28
Project FFARM Report
Envelope 2:
Aligning with the Waterfall approach, in envelope two we will focus on all predictive elements of the
project for example recruitment of analysts, order and supply of hardware for new recruits and all
training sessions and goals.
Envelope 3:
PM will work closely with stakeholders outside of the Agile Analyst team reporting on project
progress while addressing any potential risks and managing these risks in line with the risk
management process.
Envelope 3 is also where the final financial model will be deployed to the organization coordinated by
the PM and the ATM.
2.2
Cost
The viability of this project was established through alignment with the Corporate governance
framework and analysis of the following:
•
Quantitative analysis
a. Return on Investment (ROI), developed in 1914 by Donaldson Brown an employee at
Du Pont (THE FATHER OF ROI: DONALDSON BROWN, 2015), and Net Present
Value (NPV) were used in this project selection process. While both selection processes
are reliable, both also have their limitations. For example, a suitable and acceptable
agreed upon description of profit is difficult to determine for ROI (Agarwal, no date)
and with NPV the forecasting of expected cash flows can be difficult to determine
accurately (Woodruff, 2019). Based on the foregoing we calculated and analysed both
ROI and NPV in our project selection process to allow for a robust project selection
process.
Based on the results (See Charts 1 - 4 below) it was concluded we proceed with Project
FFARM.
b. Drug cost saving opportunities were overlooked in 2020 (totaling $5.25 million) as a
result of business decisions made using the current financial model. The current model
Dearbhla Brogan 22006151
Page 5/28
Project FFARM Report
inaccurately forecasted for newly genericized classes, 5 of which went generic in 2020.
This was used as a proxy in project savings for the anticipated 4 new generic classes by
2022 (Year 1), 2 in 2023 (Year 2), 2 in 2024 (Year 3) and 3 in 2025 (Year 4).
Tablet 1: Project FFARM cost and savings breakdown.
*Training cost estimations at $1544 per new hire (Training Magazine, 2019).
Table 2: Project X cost and savings breakdown.
Dearbhla Brogan 22006151
Page 6/28
Project FFARM Report
Table 3: NPV evaluation for Project FFARM and Project X
Table 4: ROI calculation for Project FFARM and Project X
Dearbhla Brogan 22006151
Page 7/28
Project FFARM Report
•
Qualitative analysis
a. More effective time management for Team Y will result in increased job satisfaction,
motivation (Channar, 2015) and decreased staff turnover. A Decrease in staff turnover
amongst the analyst’s team could result in significant changes to the schedule
determination.
2.3
Scope:
According to Thomas W. Grisham, scope ambiguity is one major cause of project failure. However,
this can be avoided by developing and following a detailed Work Breakdown structure (WBS)
(Grisham, 2010).
The Project team, consisting of:
1
2
3
4
5
Project Team members
Project Team
Project Manager
Project Champion
Analyst Team Manager
Analyst Team
conducted a mind mapping session to identify items that fell both within scope and also out of scope,
(these findings were listed in the PID deliverable).
Developing on from the PID, a Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) has created for a visual
representation of all items within scope. Please note the out of scope list itemised below Figure 2.
Dearbhla Brogan 22006151
Page 8/28
Project FFARM Report
Figure 2: Work Breakdown Structure for Project FFARM
Outside Scope
1. Data warehouse issues
2. Moving away from Excel in favour of a different interface for new model
3. Change of agreed Company Corporate Branding
4. Inclusion of feature in new model beyond agreed upon requirements
5. Inclusion of employees beyond Team Y and Management in NGT
6. Model training beyond Team Y
7. Use of model beyond Team Y
8. Support of model maintenance beyond agreed upon SOP
Identification and creation of a WBS reduces the likelihood of scope creep. Scope creep can result in
deviation from the projected timeline of a project (What is Project Scope Management and Why is it
Important?, 2021) therefore affecting the baseline cost, schedule and potentially quality.
The quality of the Project FFARM deliverable aligns with Team Y’s main objectives of the new
models.
Dearbhla Brogan 22006151
Page 9/28
Project FFARM Report
a. The model can cater for non-standard drug regimens
b. This is an interactive model should any manual updates be required e.g., a drug not yet on the
market will not show in the billing system, but is required in the model to prepare for its
formulary management at launch
c. The final model will have a summary page suitable for extraction/ screenshot friendly for
presentations
All items above will be discussed and dissected by Analysts and Team Y in the weekly update
meetings (see stakeholder management). Team Y are the end users of Project FFARMs models and
without meeting regularly with Team Y for feedback on model developments and hopefully exceeding
these key stakeholders expectations this project will not be a success (STEWART, 2021).
Th following Assumptions, dependencies and constraints have been recognised within Project
FFARM. Please note, constraints have been further investigated in section 2.7, Risk.
Table 5: Assumptions, Dependencies and Constraints identification as laid out in the PID
Dearbhla Brogan 22006151
Page 10/28
Project FFARM Report
Resource & Budget sign off
Analysts redeployment (New Team Manager )
Recruitment process complete
Completion of Analysts Team training
Final sign off on requirements for new model
Completion, QC&delivery of Model Sample A (first draft)
Agreement on final deliverable
Team Y training
Completion of models for all DTC based on Model…
Testing phase complete, all bugs/ issues identified and…
Final model release for all DTCs
Time reserve
Offical launch of new models
Figure 3: Project FFARM Gantt Chart
The Gantt Chart (an effective tool that allows for accountability amongst teams) above shows the
breakdown structure of the proposed schedule for Project FFARM with an end date of 1.6.2021. This
end date is the final deliverable of Project FFARM whereby all new DTC’s models will officially
launch, aligning with the beginning of the internal pharmaceutical manufacturer re-contracting process.
This is a non-negotiable deadline.
For Project FFARM, this visual representation of the project timeline allows all Project team members
to be aware of knock-on effects due to delays in their performance/ outputs.
A time buffer, identified as part of the project risk management covered in section 2.7, is necessary to
avoid the danger of not meeting the final deliverable deadline. For Project FFARM the time risk buffer
has been allocated at the end of the project to align with Parkinson’s Law of 1957 C. Northcote
Parkinson, that “work expands so as to fill time available” (Shantz, 2008).
Dearbhla Brogan 22006151
Page 11/28
13 July 2022
24 May 2022
04 April 2022
13 February 2022
25 December 2021
05 November 2021
16 September 2021
28 July 2021
08 June 2021
19 April 2021
Duration/ Schedule
28 February 2021
2.4
Project FFARM Report
Figure 4: Visual Representation of Parkinson’s Law
Critical Path Analysis was also conducted to ensure Project FFARM every opportunity of optimization
of project delivery (Degwekar, 2013) and will assist in identifying:
1. Activities/ processes that can not be completed beyond a designated time allowance
2. Slack allowance/ extra time allowed for other processes
See below for the identified Critical path for Project FFARM highlighted in yellow. Another
identification and analysis conducted to limit the risk of scope creep in Project FFARM
Chart 1: Critical Path Analysis for Project FFARM
Dearbhla Brogan 22006151
Page 12/28
Project FFARM Report
2.5
Communication
A stakeholder has the ability to cause unwanted change to a project or even cause a project to be
terminated.
With effective stakeholder management this can be avoided. For Project FFARM we have created a
strong Stakeholder Management plan which is outlined below:
Step 1: Stakeholder Identification
Table 6: Stakeholder identification table as per PID
Dearbhla Brogan 22006151
Page 13/28
Project FFARM Report
Step 2: POWER/ INTEREST chart
Chart 2: POWER/ INTEREST Chart Project FFARM
A POWER/ INTEREST Stakeholder chart allowed us to categorise our identified stakeholders in to the
impact each may have on a project. This identification of the power and interest each stakeholder holds, is
another step to creating an effective communication strategy.
Step 3: Stakeholder Matrix
Results from our POWER/ INTEREST table above and the results from the Stakeholder engagement
assessment matrix below allows for effective Stakeholder Engagement and Communication strategies to
be compiled. Effective Stakeholder engagement aids project success, limiting project disruption (Project
Management Institute , 2008).
The Stakeholder Matrix will be continuously monitored and updated throughout the lifecycle of a
project due to it’s dynamic nature (Vogwell, 2003).
Dearbhla Brogan 22006151
Page 14/28
Project FFARM Report
Chart 3: Stakeholder Matrix Project FFARM
Step 4: Stakeholder Communication Plan
As all stakeholder within the Project have different POWER/ INTEREST results and have different
primary interests in the project we have developed a Communication/ engagement Plan for each cohort
of Stakeholders:
Table 7: Stakeholder Communication plan for High Interest/ High Power Stakeholders
Dearbhla Brogan 22006151
Page 15/28
Project FFARM Report
Table 8: Stakeholder Communication plan for High Interest/ Low-Medium Power Stakeholders
Dearbhla Brogan 22006151
Page 16/28
Project FFARM Report
Table 9: Stakeholder Communication plan for High Interest/ Low Power Stakeholders
Table 10: Stakeholder Communication plan for Low Power/ Low Interest Stakeholders
Dearbhla Brogan 22006151
Page 17/28
Project FFARM Report
2.6
Risk
Risk Management is a critical element of any Project. According to A.-M Dinu an unidentified risk
will put any project in a high-risk zone of not being completed within the agreed scope, schedule, cost
and potentially quality (Dinu, 2015).
We applied the Risk Management Process as laid out by the PMBOK Guide. The following steps were
carried out to complete the risk management process for Project FFARM:
i) Risk Identification – This is Including a risk statement
ii) Risk Analysis - Measurement and assessment
iii) Risk Response Planning – Should these risks occur what plan do we have in place to manage?
iv) Risk Monitoring and control – Identify the triggering events for that will require initiation of the
prepared response plan
Risk Identification:
Through on online interactive brainstorming session with Project Manager, Project Sponsor, analysts
Team Manager, Team Y and Analysts a comprehensive list of risks was identified and classified into
segments aligned with BPEST (Business, Political, Economic, Social, Technology), The results were
memorialized using an Ishikawa diagram (Pritchard, 2015) as per Figure 5 below.
Historic information from previous similar projects (Risk logs, change management templates and
lessons learned record) were also reviewed in this brainstorming session to help identify other potential
risks that may arise throughout Project FFARM.
Risk identification will continue to be carried out throughout the duration of the Project to ensure any
risk not recognised in the initial identification phase, will be acknowledged throughout the cycle.
As well as top line risk identification, a risk owner was named responsible for each risk and a risk
statement was finalised to provide further clarity on the risk itself, why it may occur and its
consequence
Dearbhla Brogan 22006151
Page 18/28
Project FFARM Report
Figure 5: Ishikawa diagram showing all risks identified for Project FFARM
Table 11: Extract from Project FFARM Risk identification report including risk statement for each risk,
projected probability and each risk owner that has been prepared and will be used throughout execution of
Project FFARM
Dearbhla Brogan 22006151
Page 19/28
Project FFARM Report
Risk Analysis - Measurement and Assessment:
Following on from the Risk Identification phase we used a risk assessment matrix to classify each risk
by order of severity in relation to Probability and Impact (see Probability table below used to score
each risk before plotting our risk assessment matrix). We then determined the probability of each
identified risk by using the Delphi method. This method allows for participants to reflect on the
original question poised over several rounds while listening to feedback of other participants after each
round, enhancing the validity of the data (Donohoe and Needham, 2009).
Score
1
2
3
4
5
Probability
Very Unlikely
Unlikely
Possible
Likely
Very Likely
Impact
Very Low
Low
Medium
High
Very High
Management
Possible to overcome
Likely impact but can be worked around
Reserves will need to be considered
Reserves will be required
Will result in change to project baseline
Table 12: Probability Impact scoring for risk assessment matrix
Chart 4: Risk Probability V Impact assessment matrix
Dearbhla Brogan 22006151
Page 20/28
Project FFARM Report
Risk Response Planning:
A risk response plan along with a risk response strategy has been created in the event that any
previously identified risk is realised throughout the life of the project. Each risk was assigned a
strategy of either avoid, transfer, mitigate or accept (Table 12). It is possible, however, for the
originally selected response strategy to change throughout the lifecycle of the project, therefore
continuous monitoring of the response strategies will be performed.
Each risk response plan must have clear direction on what the next steps are, who will be involved,
what timeline is applied and if necessary, how this will be funded. Each risk identified for Project
FFARM has an individual Risk response plan created.
(Please note due to word count limitation for this assignment I will select 1 risk and develop a risk
response plan as an example.)
•
Risk RS001 – Inaccurate billing:
Triggering event = Client complaint of inaccurate billing.
Once this has been identified the risk response plan in initiated.
Analysts Team Manager will manage this risk once triggering event is noted. The decided strategy
for this risk is transference to the billing team where the Analyst team Manager will work alongside
the billing Team Manager.
Expected outcome:
1. Correction of billing and delivery of updated invoices is 7 days.
2. The billing data will then be updated within 2 days of correct invoice delivery
3. Followed by affected DTC model/ models being updated within 1 day.
Should billing complaints and issues be a regular occurrence i.e., reported >4 times in a given
billing period, this will be escalated to the Project Champion.
Each inaccurate billing will lead to delays in model development, specifically if said inaccurate
Dearbhla Brogan 22006151
Page 21/28
Project FFARM Report
billing occurs during the final model preparation phase.
A request of extra resources may be required once the underlying issue has been identified or if
issue is reported >4 times within a billing period as mentioned above. If this becomes necessary, the
Project champion will seek extra resource funding for investigation or team expansion, with
Department X SVP. This recruitment budget will not be taken from Project FFARM budget as this is
outside of the scope of Project FFARM.
Monitoring and Control:
Trigger identification is an important aspect of monitoring and controlling risks. Theses triggers will
act as the green light for the implantation of the risk response plans. Please note the triggers for each
risk in Project FFARM in Table 12 below.
Continuous evaluation and re-examination of the identified risk and equally, evaluation of new risks
that arise throughout the project, guarantee that risk response plans are effective and updated where
necessary. This is a vital element of this risk management process.
All of this information will be compiled and added to the Risk Log during the project execution.
Table 13: Risk ID with corresponding Planned Risk approach and trigger
Should any of the risks identified, or any news risks noted throughout the project, upset the baseline
scope, schedule, cost or quality, change management will be required.
Dearbhla Brogan 22006151
Page 22/28
Project FFARM Report
For example, if in the execution phase of this project a Government announcement is made and
updates to drug cost rebate legislation are enforced (this was an identified risk) this will likely lead to
an upset on our approved baselines. To mange this particular change we will:
1. Inform all necessary stakeholders of this update. For this particular example, the Department
SVP, Project Champion, Team Y, legal department & Internal clinical and Sales team will be
informed initially.
2. The Project Manager and Project Champion will work with the legal department to understand
the new legislation in depth.
3. The PM will then liaise with Analyst Team Manager on the any updates in model requirement
to reflect the legislation changes
4. PM and ATM will conclude on final changes to the scope, schedule, cost and quality of Project
FFARM where necessary.
5. This will be communicated to Department SVP and PC
6. Sign off on these changes/ updates to Project FFARM baseline or a decision to abandon Project
FFARM will be made by the Department SVP.
7. This will all be recorded in a change management document as per below
Table 14: Change Management Log created for monitoring throughout execution of Project FFARM
3.
Lessons Learned
Lessons learned will be drafted throughout the lifecycle of Project FFARM. This process involves 5
steps (Rowe, 2006):
i) Identify
ii) Document
iii) Analyse
iv) Store
Dearbhla Brogan 22006151
Page 23/28
Project FFARM Report
v) Retrieve
Figure 6: Lessons Learned Process Available at: https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/lessonslearned-next-level-communicating-7991
Identify:
Each monthly Project team meeting, will have an allocated time slot for lessons learned to help us
identify project successes and failures throughout the project and at the final stage. This will be
facilitated by the Analyst Team Manager and a survey will be conducted where all participants will be
asked:
•
Success you noted throughout the project?
•
Areas of failure?
•
Improvement required? If so, where?
Document:
All identified lessons learned are documented and reported back to the participants for
confirmation that all Lessons Learned were captured accurately.
Analyse:
The facilitator (ATM) will analyse and compile the final summary of all the lessons learned to
be recorded in the Lessons Learned Report. Project FFARM lesson learned template below:
Table 15: Lessons Learned Log in preparation for Project FFARM execution
Dearbhla Brogan 22006151
Page 24/28
Project FFARM Report
Store:
All lessons learned will be stored in the Project Management Shared Drive folder at the
following location (this will be set up as an active link to allow stakeholders click directly in
to the associated folder):
C:\Users\Home\OneDrive\Project Management\Department X Project Management\ Project FFARM\Lessons
Learned
Retrieve:
For Project FFARM we retrieved the Lessons learned documents from a similar Project =
Project SMYLE.
It was identified at the end of Project SMYLE that Team Y was not satisfied with final model.
The Project FFARM team were able to analyse this data from the Lessons Learned Report
Log and action on this in the project methodology selection process for Project FFARM
4.
Project Close Out
Upon official launch of the new financial models for all DTCs, this project will have met its overall
goal - creation and delivery of new financial models for all DTC in line with Team Y’s requirements
delivered on 6.1.22. However, there are other tasks that require completion and sign off for full project
closure.
Dearbhla Brogan 22006151
Page 25/28
Project FFARM Report
Project FFARM shut down list:
Table 16: Project Close out check list
Dearbhla Brogan 22006151
Page 26/28
Project FFARM Report
5.
References and Acronyms:
Agarwal, R. (no date) Return on Investment (ROI): Advantages and Disadvantages, Your article library. Available at:
https://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/accounting/return-on-investment-roi-advantages-and-disadvantages/52928.
Brogan, D. (2021) Dearbhla Brogan Project Initiation Document, Project FFARM.
Degwekar, D. J. (2013) ‘CRITICAL PATH METHOD AND ITS SIGNIFICANCE IN PROJECT MANAGEMENT’,
Academia. Available at: file:///C:/Users/Home/Downloads/Critical_Path_Method_and_its_significanc.pdf.
Dinu, A.-M. (2015) ‘The importance of risk management in projects’, ResearchGate. Available at:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286480708_The_importance_of_risk_management_in_projects.
Donohoe, H. M. and Needham, R. D. (2009) ‘Moving best practice forward: Delphi characteristics, advantages, potential
problems, and solutions’, International Journal of Tourism Research, 11(5), pp. 415–437.
Flahiff, J. (2011) Integrating agile in a waterfall world, Project Management Institute. Available at:
https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/integrating-agile-methodology-waterfall-environment-6311.
Gorman, M. (2020) Scrum Vs. Kanban: Weighing Their Pros and Cons, Techvera. Available at:
https://techvera.com/scrum-vs-kanban-weighing-their-pros-and-cons/ (Accessed: 13 May 2021).
Grisham, T. W. (2010) International Project Management.
Huff, R. and Sultan, M. (2014) ‘Impact of Poor Forecasting Accuracy Gross Margin and Organizational Effects of Poor
Forecasting Accuracy’, Semantic Scholar. Available at:
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/54922abde4b0afbec1351c14/t/549ee1fae4b0db6a9b93cb44/1419698682752/SIOP+W
hite+Paper_DRAFT.pdf.
Kienitz, P. (2017) The pros and cons of Waterfall Software Development, dcsl. Available at: https://www.dcsl.com/proscons-waterfall-software-development/ (Accessed: 14 May 2021).
Marcatto, F. (2020) How to mix Waterfall and Agile in Project Management: The Envelope Method, miniply. Available at:
https://www.mindiply.com/blog/post/how-to-mix-waterfall-and-agile-in-project-management-the-envelopemethod#:~:text=With the Envelope Method%2C you consider these definite,ecology check on the health of each phase.
Marsh, E. (2019) WHY WE NEED TO GIVE MORE POSITIVE FEEDBACK, t-three. Available at: https://www.tthree.com/soak/insights/why-we-need-to-give-more-positive-feedback (Accessed: 13 May 2021).
Pritchard, C. L. (2015) Risk Management, Concept and guidance 5th Edition.
Rowe, S. F. (2006) ‘Lessons learned taking it to the next level’, in PMI® Global Congress 2006. Available at:
https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/lessons-learned-next-level-communicating-7991.
Shantz, J. A. (2008) ‘Battling Parkinson’s Law’, ncbi, 179(9). Available at:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2565709/#:~:text=Parkinson’s Law states%3A “Work expands,1955
article in The Economist.
STEWART, J. (2021) Top 10 Reasons Why Projects Fail, project-management.com. Available at: https://projectmanagement.com/top-10-reasons-why-projects-fail/ (Accessed: 16 May 2021).
Stone, K. (2020) The State of Project Management in 2020 [42 Statistics], saaslist. Available at:
https://saaslist.com/blog/project-management-statistics/#:~:text=Additional statistics showing the value,fail to meet
business objectives (Accessed: 20 May 2021).
THE FATHER OF ROI: DONALDSON BROWN (2015) Hagley. Available at: Gene Castellano (Accessed: 15 May 2021).
Vogwell, D. (2003) ‘Stakeholder management’, PMI.
What is Project Scope Management and Why is it Important? (2021) Kissflow. Available at:
https://kissflow.com/project/project-scope-management/ (Accessed: 4 May 2021).
Woodruff, J. (2019) Advantages & Disadvantages of Net Present Value in Project Selection, Chron. Available at:
https://smallbusiness.chron.com/advantages-disadvantages-net-present-value-project-selection-54753.html (Accessed: 1
May 2021).
Acronym legend:
PM – Project Manager
PC – Project Champion
ATM – Analyst Team Manager
NPV – Net Present Value
ROI – Return on Investment
Dearbhla Brogan 22006151
Page 27/28
Project FFARM Report
PID – Project Identification Document
FFARM – Financial Forecasting, Accuracy and Reliability Model
DTC – Drug Therapy Classes
Dearbhla Brogan 22006151
Page 28/28