EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
This project plan proposes to evaluate the impact of
the PPP projects related to the element ‘Places’ and compare them to the
objectives set by Sport England.
The project duration provided is 24 months. This plan
fits into the timing and leaves a slack of 2 weeks which can be used for
manoeuvre whenever necessary.
The elements under evaluation are Iconic Facilities,
Inspired Facilities, and Protecting Playing Fields. The focus of the evaluation
shall be the suitability of design, the capacity provided by the facilities,
their impact on promoting a sporting culture within the localities, and the
question of sustainability.
The scope is restricted to the evaluation of the PPP
project. It does not extend to the actual implementation of the project through
development of facilities nor mobilising support.
This plan is subject to assumptions such as the performance
of project team members according to plan, continued support from project
sponsor and expatriates, and absence of barriers such as calamities that could
paralyse the project.
The ultimate goal of the project is to provide
information that can be put into use when forming policy or making evaluations
for the improvement of the PPP projects.
1.
INTRODUCTION
1.1 PURPOSE
OF PLAN
The PPP
(Places People Play) Project plan introduces the project where the same is
defined and the goals and objectives provided with clarity. The project plan
will provide clear guidelines of the scope and the manner in which the work
will be done. It will provide the blue print for further action. More
importantly, it will serve as the basis of the agreement between the parties
involved including the project sponsor/owner, local partners, project
management team, and other stakeholders.
In this
project plan, the following elements have been defined in detail:
-
Purpose of the project
-
The goals and objectives of the project
-
The scope of the project and expectations
-
Roles and responsibilities (project team)
-
Assumptions and constraints
-
The approach to be taken in project management
-
Ground rules applicable (if any)
-
Project budget
-
Project timeline
-
Plan summary
1.2 BACKGROUND
INFORMATION
The project
sponsor is the English Sports Council (Sport England), a body established in
1996 with the responsibility to invest National Lottery and Exchequer funding
in the promotion of grassroots sports. The goal is to ensure that people excel
in their chosen sport. Their focus is to create a sporting habit for life and
in this regard, the organization intends to invest £1 billion between 2012 and
2017. In the pursuit of this goal, Sport England has the additional goals to:
create more sporting opportunities for young people; nurture and develop
talents; provide the right facilities in the right places; facilitate local
funding and support local authorities; and ensure there are real opportunities
for communities. One of the initiatives formed by the organization to achieve
this goal is the PPP initiative.
The PPP
initiative is one that is aimed at replicating the Olympic magic in the local
communities. It is made up of three strands namely: Places, People, and Play.
‘Places’ caters for the development of sports
facilities which can further be divided into 3: Iconic Facilities, Inspired
Facilities, and Protecting Playing Fields.
‘People’ refers to initiatives aimed at
spanning interest in sports among the local communities. This is to be
delivered using the Sport Makers and Club Leaders projects.
‘Play’ refers to the creation of sporting
opportunities and challenges that gives everyone a chance to participate. This
is to be delivered using the Gold Challenge and Sportivate projects.
The project
plan brief s to single out the ‘Places’ strand of PPP and evaluate its three
strands: Iconic Facilities, Inspired Facilities and Protecting Playing Fields. The
goal will be to base the evaluation on the stated objectives; evaluate
mechanisms and processes through which the objectives are achieved or
otherwise; to recommend context and manner of communication needed to support
the initiatives; and to provide evidence needed for obtaining further funding.
Sport
England’s summary of objectives for this project is as follows:
- To
measure the impact of Iconic Facilities, Inspired Facilities and
Protecting Playing Fields against the objectives for each of the three
strands
- To find
out what works to achieve these objectives, how, in what context and for
whom
- To
communicate the evidence effectively to optimize its influence on policy,
practice and future funding decisions
Iconic
facilities have a number of features including being the most attractive in
terms of design, containing the most advanced equipment, large enough to
accommodate multiple sports, and sustainable in their operations. The
organisation’s objectives on Iconic Facilities are as follows (Sport England,
2013):
-
Development of multi-sport facilities capable of
hosting high number of participants
-
A mix of facilities that can encourage regular and
sustained use by many people
-
Development of strategic facilities for more than 2
national governing bodies in sports
-
Generating strong involvement by local authorities in
funding and participation
-
Creating sustainable business plan for long term
sustainability of the facilities to attract investments
-
Creating quality design of the facilities
-
Creating an operating model that emphasises on the
community ownership of the facilities
The inspired
facilities element is focused on refurbishing old and dilapidated sports
facilities or converting existing buildings into sports venues that are
accessible to the whole community. Some of the areas for evaluation include
review of design, modernisation of the buildings, outdoor sports lighting,
outdoor sport surfaces, and provision of sports equipment (Sport England,
2013b). Sport England targets to upgrade at least 1000 sports clubs and sports
facilities.
On protecting
playing fields, the goal is to generate programs that can ensure that the
playing fields are maintained for the long term. The aim is to minimise the
cost of maintenance of the facilities. The specific objectives are as outlined
below (Sport England, 2013a):
-
Improving the condition of existing pitches
-
Creating new playing field land
-
Reclaiming disused playing fields
-
Facilitating support groups and local authorities to
protect playing fields
1.3 THEORIES
APPLIED
The theories
that will guide the project will be as follows: Grounded theory of research,
Communications theory, and Total Quality Management. The Grounded theory shall
be the dominant thought embraced when conducting an evaluation of the PPP
projects (Byrne, 2001). It will guide the collection of information from the local
authorities and populations with no preconceptions that could negatively affect
the arrival at an objective conclusion.
Communications
theory shall be invoked in ensuring that there is effective and meaningful
communication between the project team and the other stakeholders. It shall
also be useful in guiding the internal communication processes within the
organisation. Clear, concise and frequent communication shall be used to ensure
that there is internal cohesion to facilitate delivery of the project (Duncan,
1973). It is closely related to organisational leadership theories which
outline the critical role that leaders play in organisational success.
Also to be
applied at comprehensively is the theory of Total Quality Management. The
project shall focus on delivering the best quality. This shall imply the need
to ensure that every function within the project management team is up to the
required expectations (Lyle, 2013). The application of the concept shall also
guide the need to conduct a continuous performance analysis and initiation of
corrective mechanisms in situations where any lapses in quality are observed.
2. PROJECT
APPROACH
The project
shall be divided into several phases; some of which will run concurrently.
Effectiveness and efficiency shall be enhanced by embracing an activity based
approach where similarities between the three elements under consideration
shall be used to shorten the duration of the project. The activity based
approach shall also be used to create synergy in evaluation for accuracy and to
facilitate practicable recommendations.
The main
phases (milestones) for this project shall be as follows:
Phase One:
Identification of facilities for evaluation
Phase Two: Obtaining
requisite permits
Phase Three: Design
of evaluation project
Phase Four:
Procuring cooperation from local authorities and other stakeholders
Phase Five: Actual
evaluation process
Phase Six: Recommending
further actions as per evaluation results
2.1 Phase
One: Identification of facilities
In this phase,
the facilities that have been factored into the PPP project shall be evaluated.
In this phase, information on the specific facilities shall be drawn from the
Sport England. Upon identification, the facilities shall be divided into
clusters corresponding to the three strands under evaluation (Iconic
Facilities, Inspired Facilities and Protecting Playing Fields).
Further
classification shall be based on location and community of target. These
classifications shall facilitate evaluation in terms of the actual facilities
as well as the impact on the local communities.
2.2 Phase Two:
Obtaining requisite permits
The permits
that will be obtained will be for the purposes of legitimising the evaluation
processes. The evaluation based on the facilities will require physical
inspection of the premises. Evaluation on the impact of the projects on the
communities will on the other hand require an extensive survey within the
locality to determine the extent to which their participation has been enhanced
by the projects.
Obtaining of
permits is also expected to help in facilitating the ease of obtaining
information. This is especially the case with information that is regarded as
classified and can only be released only for legitimate uses. The permits will also
be useful for purposes of subcontracting in areas that may require additional
expertise as they’d provide a basis for the formation of binding contracts.
The permits
to be obtained shall therefore be related to the following fields: market
survey, architectural survey, quantity surveys, field maintenance, and
financial/operations audits.
2.3 Phase
Three: Design of evaluation
In this
stage, the specific criteria for evaluation shall be developed. The bases for
the evaluation shall depend on the organisational goals regarding each of the
elements under review. The tentative evaluation criteria as corresponding with
the organisational goals shall be as shown below.
Evaluation element
|
Organisational objectives
|
Evaluation approach
|
Iconic Facilities
|
Development
of multi-sport facilities capable of hosting high number of participants
|
- Gauge the
number of activities that can be hosted in the venue
- Gauge the
capacity of facility
|
A mix of
facilities that can encourage regular and sustained use by many people
|
- Gauge
the frequency of use
- Measure
rate of wear and tear
- Determine
ability of facility management to conduct timely repairs
|
|
Development
of strategic facilities for more than 2 national governing bodies in sports
|
-
Determine usability of the facilities in question
|
|
Generating
strong involvement by local authorities in funding and participation
|
-
Gauging the proportion of funding by the local authorities
-
Establishing reasons for poor performance (if so)
- Determining
conditions that ought to be met for local funding to be enhanced
- Reviewing
the level of participation in sports as a result of the projects
- Evaluating
reasons for participation/non-participation
- Gauging the
comprehensiveness of such participation
- Determining
whether the levels of participation are sustainable
|
|
Creating
sustainable business plan for long term sustainability of the facilities to
attract investments
|
- Comparing
incomes with expenditures to gauge financial sustainability
- Evaluating
options for attracting investments for strengths and weaknesses
|
|
Creating
quality design of the facilities
|
-
Evaluating facility design (gauging for attractiveness, effectiveness and
ability to facilitate sports activities)
|
|
Creating an
operating model that emphasises on the community ownership of the facilities
|
-
Creating an operating model that emphasises on the community ownership of the
facilities
|
|
Inspired Facilities
|
Review of
design
|
- Evaluating
facility design (gauging for attractiveness, effectiveness and ability to
facilitate sports activities)
|
Modernisation
of the buildings
|
- Evaluating
suitability of design
|
|
Outdoor
sports lighting
|
- Evaluating
suitability of design
|
|
Outdoor sport
surfaces
|
- Evaluating
suitability of design
|
|
Provision of
sports equipment
|
- Evaluating
suitability of design
|
|
Facilitating
community access
|
- Gauging
accessibility for sporting
|
|
Impact on
stimulating sporting activities
|
- Gauging the
level of participation by members of the community
- local
market survey to determine the impact of the PPP projects on the sporting
habits
|
|
Protecting Playing Fields
|
Improving the
condition of existing pitches
|
- Evaluation
for suitability of pitches for use
- Evaluation
based on frequency of use and maintenance
- Comparison
with international standards
|
Creating new
playing field land
|
- Determining
the amount of space created for pitches
|
|
Reclaiming
disused playing fields
|
- Gauging the
effectiveness of reclamation efforts made
|
|
Facilitating
support groups and local authorities to protect playing fields
|
- Gauging the
level of community participation in protecting playing fields
- local market survey to determine the impact of the
PPP projects on the sporting habits
- Determining
ways in which improvements can be made in efforts to protect pitches
|
After
determining the focus of the evaluation for each category, the evaluation
criteria shall be established. A mixture of quantitative and qualitative
elements shall be used.
The
quantitative element shall be used to generate scores ranging from 1 to 10 with
1 being the lowest and 10 being the highest result attainable. This criterion
shall be followed by detailed explanations about the evaluation made and the
strengths/weaknesses identified.
The use of
both measures shall facilitate comparison between facilities in a manner that
would facilitate ease in decision making where funds to invest in a limited
number of facilities are available. The project sponsor can with ease select
facilities to be acted on based on their performance in the evaluation. The
other stakeholders such as the local authorities can also be beneficiaries of
the project as they can obtain information on their performance as compared to
that of the other local authorities.
Where
external stakeholders such as surveyors and architectural consultants are to be
involved, a pre-evaluation training shall be done to acquaint them with the
evaluation criteria. This will help ensure that the results of the evaluation
project are consistent and reliable.
2.4 Phase
Four: Procuring cooperation from local authorities and other stakeholders
The success
of this project will depend on the level of cooperation with a number of
stakeholders. The cooperation of the local authorities shall be crucial in:
-
determining sustainability levels
-
obtaining crucial information about the management of
the facilities
-
understanding the characteristics of the local
communities
-
getting information in the trends as far as the
development of sporting habits is concerned
-
evaluation of their potential to fund the PPP projects
and in what ways further support can be extended to them
-
facilitation of local market survey to determine the
impact of the PPP projects on the sporting habits
This makes
the local authorities very central to the success of this project. Various
service providers shall also be engaged to provide expert opinion on certain
aspects of the evaluations. Quantity surveyors and architectural designers
shall be helpful in providing an expert opinion on the suitability and
sustainability of the facilities. Where necessary, the services of research
experts shall be procured to gauge the impact of the facilities in stimulating
sporting habits within the localities.
2.5 Phase
Five: Actual evaluation process
This phase,
the evaluation process shall be according to the standards set in Phase Three
above.
2.6 Phase Six:
Recommending further actions as per evaluation results
Recommendations
for improvement shall be based on the weaknesses observed as well as on
observed good practices in areas that have been able to achieve better
progress. They shall also be based on theory as relates to communication,
community participation, and sports.
The
recommendations shall be done systematically in line with the schedule outlined
in phase 3 above.
3. GOALS AND
OBJECTIVES
3.1 GENERAL
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The general
goals and objectives for this project shall be as follows:
- To
measure the impact of Iconic Facilities, Inspired Facilities and
Protecting Playing Fields against the objectives for each of the three
strands
- To find
out what works to achieve these objectives, how, in what context and for
whom
- To
communicate the evidence effectively to optimize its influence on policy,
practice and future funding decisions
3.2 PROJECT GOALS
AND OBJECTIVES
The specific
goals and objectives for the project can be summarised as itemised below:
- To
evaluate the design of the facilities to gauge their suitability in terms
of the range of activities and capacity
- To
determine the level of sustainability of use of the facilities
- To
evaluate the level of funding commitment by the local authorities and
investors as well as their sustainability
- The
determine the level of participation by local communities
- To gauge
the attractiveness of the sporting facilities to investors in terms of
revenue generation and other criteria
- To
evaluate the extent to which the PPP projects have stimulated sporting
activities within their localities
- To
evaluate the suitability of use of the pitches worked on
- To
measure the amount of additional pitches created from new land or
reclaimed fields
- To gauge
the robustness and sustainability of measures instituted by local
authorities and support groups in protecting playing fields
4. SCOPE
4.1 SCOPE
DEFINITION
The focus of this
project is the evaluation of the PPP project. It singles out the ‘Places’
component of PPP and its three strands namely: Iconic Facilities, Inspired
Facilities, and Protecting Playing Fields.
The
evaluation project will be restricted to reviewing the objectives of Sport
England as far as the three strands are concerned and using them as a basis to
evaluate the effectiveness of the initiatives undertaken.
It shall also
include engaging with the local communities for purposes of not only
determining their level of involvement, but also for generation of insights on
what needs to be done to increase effectiveness. The involvement of
architectural experts and other specialists for the purposes of delivering on
the evaluation goals; also falls within the scope of this project.
After the
evaluation, the project shall communicate results in a manner that can provide
insights for policy making and initiation of corrective actions.
4.2 ITEMS
BEYOND SCOPE
The following
related aspects are beyond the scope of this project:
- The
actual development of sports facilities
- Evaluation
of the Improvement Fund
- Actual
mobilisation of local communities to engage in sports
- Actual
mobilisation of local investors to invest in the sports facilities
5. PROJECTED
BUDGET
The budget
for the project is estimated at £295,000. The breakdown based on the main
activities is as follows:
Budget
Estimate
|
|
Activity
|
Estimated
cost(£)
|
General
scoping of project
|
5,000.00
|
Identification
of facilities to evaluate & initial survey
|
25,000.00
|
Obtaining
permits (fees and related expenses)
|
12,000.00
|
Development
of an evaluation approach
|
10,000.00
|
Contacting
and securing cooperation of local authorities
|
10,000.00
|
Subcontracting
architectural designers, sports experts, and others
|
90,000.00
|
Conducting
actual surveys in all localities
|
123,000.00
|
Analysis and
evaluation
|
15,000.00
|
Final report
writing and submission
|
5,000.00
|
295,000.00
|
6. RISK
ASSESSMENT
The initial
project risk assessment schedule enables the project managers to be able to
identify potential areas of weaknesses and how the same can be mitigated. The aim
is to ensure that the project manager is aware of impending risks and is in a
position to react to them in a timely manner to ensure that the execution of
the project is not interfered with.
Risk
|
Risk Level
L/M/H (Low, Medium,
High)
|
Likelihood of Event
|
Mitigation Strategy
|
Project Complexity
|
|||
Disruption of project schedule
|
H: Could be caused by lateness in execution of some sections or factors
beyond the control of the project team
|
High
|
Creation of a project timeline that allows for
flexibility. Measures shall be taken to ensure that some activities can be
carried out simultaneouly executed at the same time. This would create
reasonable flexibility to allow for disruptions.
|
Lack of expertise for some dimensions of the project
|
H: Some aspects of the project such as examination of the facilities’
design and evaluation of the potential for greater levels of activity may
require more expertise than is currently available at the project team.
|
High
|
Subcontracting the work to the experts in areas of
strategic disadvantage.
The process searching for the experts and confirming
their availability to be confirmed before the project is accepted.
|
Lack of capacity at peak
|
H: The project will need
at least 30 members at peak. This is above normal capacity by 10 people
|
High
|
Comprehensive staffing plans together with frequent
meetings to pre-empt any shortages.
Effective project oversight.
Job design revision to allow room for recruiting
temporary staff whenever need arises
|
Conflict in execution of several project activities
|
M: The flurry of
activities while simultaneously executing different aspects of the project
concurrently
|
Medium
|
Put in place effective project management controls.
Ensure that each element under review is recorded
differently to avoid conclusion.
Where possible, assign different employees to
different elements to lower the likelihood of misrecording.
|
Project Definition
|
|||
Little information existing on the project
|
M: Knowledge that may be
scarce given that this is the first evaluation to be done after the launch of
the PPP project
|
Likely
|
Insights to be drawn from other studies on a prorata
basis- compensating for the unique aspects of this specific project.
|
Likelihood of distortion of project by experts based
on what they may have been accustomed to in the past.
|
M: Distortion could
radically hamper the achievement of the project goals
|
Unlikely
|
Engagement in thourough inductions with experts and
exercises conducted for them to demonstrate their understanding of the
project
|
Diversion from the project scope
|
L: Risk level low since
project definition is agreed upon with project owner prior to acceptance.
|
Unlikely
|
Project manager and other supervisors in the project
team to review the project on a monthly basis and compare it to the initial
objectives.
This will facilitate early detection and timely
corrective action.
|
Poor coordination with subcontracted experts hence
poor deliverables
|
M: Likelihood can be high
where negotiations are not exhaustive
|
Unlikely
|
Thorough negotiations and clear definitions to be done
to ensure that deliverables by experts are well defined
|
Budget
costs unrealistic
|
L: Unrealistic budgets
can make execution impossible. However, the same can be minimized through
intensive market research.
|
Unlikely
|
Budget estimates are revised on a regular basis in
accordance with any changes in the market prices. Besides, sufficient allowances are made in
the budget to cater for any fluctuations.
|
Unrealistic time estimates
|
M: This can happen if
involving segments are allocated less time than is needed.
|
Somewhat likely
|
Timelines shall be subject to monthly reviews to
ensure that more demanding activities than earlier projected are allocated
more time.
|
Lack of
knowledge by project team members
|
L: Core team members are
already well versed with similar projects
|
Unlikely
|
Knowledge gaps to be identified by project manager and
expertriates contracted and a quick course in the same offered as
appropriate.
|
Project Leadership
|
|||
Steering Committee existence
|
L: Identified and
enthusiastic
|
Unlikely
|
Frequently
seek feedback to ensure continued support
|
Absence of Commitment Level/Attitude of Management
|
L: Understands value &
supports project
|
Unlikely
|
Frequently
seek feedback to ensure continued support
|
Absence of Commitment Level/Attitude of Users
|
L: Understands value &
supports project
|
Unlikely
|
Frequently
seek feedback to ensure continued support
|
Absence of Mid-Management Commitment
|
L: Most understand value
& support project
|
Unlikely
|
Frequently
seek feedback to ensure continued support
|
Project Staffing
|
|||
Availability of team members on location
|
M: This can happen if
there are disruptions in transportation arrangements
|
Likely
|
Continuous
review of transportation logistics and institution of corrective mechanisms
in a timely manner.
|
Project Management
|
|||
Internal procurement procedures
|
L: Team already well
versed with internal procurement procedures
|
Unlikely
|
N/A
|
Confusion over the management structure for the new
project
|
L: Project roles and
responsibilities to be well defined
|
Unlikely
|
N/A
|
Unclear quality management procedures
|
L: Clear definition of the
same and requisite training can pre-empt this risk.
|
Unlikely
|
N/A
|
Project execution
|
|||
Poor cooperation from local authorities
|
H: Likelihood could be
high
|
Certainty
|
Extensive
efforts to be made to establish contact and cooperation procured on the basis
of mutuality.
|
Inacuracy in the recording of information
|
M: Variations could occur
where wrong information is obtained where subjective views are collected.
|
Unlikely
|
A
research methodology shall be developed that enables the project team to
compensate for deficiencies in the research process.
The
team shall also undergo training to know how to adopt a common approach to
rating the elements in the evaluation.
|
Poor translation of researched content into the final
report
|
L: Even though the risk is
low, inaccurate recording could adversely affect the quality of the report
hence lead to dissatisfaction.
|
Unlikely
|
Measures
shall be instituted to ensure that the researched content is analysed
accurately.
The
final report shall be reviewed against objectives set and passed through
various quality checks and revisions to assure the quality of the final
report.
|
7. MILESTONES
The following
are the milestones for this project:
Activity
|
Estimated
timeline (weeks after commencement of project/ 48 weeks)
|
Phase 1:
Identification of facilities
|
|
Completion of
scoping
|
Week 1
|
Phase 2:
Obtaining requisite permits
|
|
Obtaining of
all the permits required
|
Week 3
|
Phase 3:
Design of evaluation
|
|
Definition of
all project activities
|
Week 3
|
Determination
of evaluation criteria
|
Week 3
|
Identification
of knowledge gaps requiring expertise
|
Week 3
|
Phase 4:
Procuring cooperation of experts and local authorities
|
|
Establishment
of operation approach with local authorities
|
Week 3
|
Signing of
contracts with expatriates
|
Week 5
|
Phase Five:
Actual evaluation process
|
|
Start of the
evaluation process
|
Week 4
|
Conclusion of
the evaluation process
|
Week 15
|
Phase Six: Recommending
further actions as per evaluation results
|
|
Final report
writing
|
Week 20
|
Submission of
final report
|
Week 22
|
8. ASSUMPTIONS
8.1 PROJECT
ASSUMPTIONS
The following
assumptions have been made for this project:
-
The employees that constitute the project team will be
able to adapt flawlessly
-
The project team management will be able to ensure
that employees are on location as needed from time to time
-
That approvals and execution will be as swift as
intended
-
That there shall be an initiative to further breakdown
the broad responsibility areas and quality management done with caution
-
Project outcomes will be negatively affected if
certain faults in the execution are not identified in time
-
The communications plan will be adhered to hence
ensuring that all deviations are noted and corresponding actions taken
-
That all the major guidelines shall be adhered to
-
That the expatriates subcontracted will deliver
according to expectations
-
That there will no major disruptions in the external
environment that could substantially alter the project schedule
9. CONSTRAINTS
9.1 PROJECT
CONSTRAINTS
The project
budget is restricted to the specified amount. This means that there is little
flexibility and no further research can be conducted without reverting back to
the sponsor.
The project
is also heavily reliant on the cooperation of the local authorities. This could
prove disastrous in the unlikely event that cooperation is not procured from
them.
9.2 RELATED
PROJECTS
No related
projects
9.3 CRITICAL
PROJECT BARRIERS
The critical
project barriers are risk factors whose presence would lead to the automatic
discontinuation of the project. These factors include:
-
Withdrawal of project funding: this could happen due
to financial constraints or change of strategic outlook by the project sponsor.
-
Natural calamities or political instability: these
factors could make it impossible to execute the project objectives.
10. PROJECT
MANAGEMENT APPROACH
10.1 PROJECT
TIMELINE
The activity schedule and their dependencies are as shown in the table and Gantt chart below:
The activity schedule and their dependencies are as shown in the table and Gantt chart below:
Level
|
WBS Code
|
Activity description
|
Dependency
|
Estimated timeline
(in weeks)
|
1
|
1
|
Identification of facilities
|
||
2
|
1.1
|
Iconic facilities
identification
|
1
|
|
2
|
1.2
|
Inspired facilities
identification
|
1
|
|
2
|
1.3
|
Identification of
protected playing fields
|
1
|
|
1
|
2
|
Obtaining requisite permits
|
||
2
|
2.1
|
Permits for
architectural design evaluation
|
1.1, 1.2, 1.3
|
2
|
2
|
2.2
|
Playing fields
evaluation
|
1.3
|
2
|
2
|
2.3
|
Financial audit
|
1.1, 1.2, 1.3
|
2
|
2
|
2.4
|
Market research
|
1.1, 1.2, 1.3
|
|
1
|
3
|
Design of evaluation process
|
||
2
|
3.1
|
Criteria for evaluating
facility design
|
C
|
2
|
2
|
3.2
|
Criteria for evaluating
capacity and range of activities
|
1.1, 1.2, 1.3
|
2
|
2
|
3.3
|
Criteria for evaluating
for evaluating impact on society and sustainability
|
1.1, 1.2, 1.3
|
2
|
1
|
3.4
|
Iconic facilities
|
||
3
|
3.5
|
Evaluating suitability
of facilities
|
3.1, 3.2, 3.3
|
12
|
3
|
3.6
|
Auditing the proportion of funding by the local
authorities and related research
|
3.1, 3.2, 3.3
|
10
|
3
|
3.7
|
Evaluation of the impact
of facility in sports participation
|
3.1, 3.2, 3.3
|
12
|
3
|
3.8
|
Gauging the financial
viability of the projects
|
3.1, 3.2, 3.3
|
12
|
3
|
3.9
|
Generating an operation
model for local community that is sustainable
|
3.1, 3.2, 3.3
|
12
|
2
|
4
|
Inspired facilities
|
||
3
|
4.1
|
Evaluating suitability
of design
|
3.1, 3.2, 3.3
|
9
|
3
|
4.2
|
Evaluation of capacity
and range of activities
|
3.1, 3.2, 3.3
|
12
|
3
|
4.3
|
Evaluating suitability
of facilities
|
3.1, 3.2, 3.3
|
12
|
3
|
4.4
|
Auditing the proportion of funding by the local
authorities and related research
|
3.1, 3.2, 3.3
|
12
|
3
|
4.5
|
Evaluation of the impact
of facility in sports participation
|
3.1, 3.2, 3.3
|
12
|
3
|
4.6
|
Gauging the financial
viability of the projects
|
3.1, 3.2, 3.3
|
12
|
2
|
5
|
Protecting playing fields
|
||
3
|
5.1
|
Checking pitches for
suitability of use
|
3.1, 3.2, 3.3
|
12
|
3
|
5.2
|
Gauging sustainability
of pitches
|
3.1, 3.2, 3.3
|
11
|
3
|
5.3
|
Determining amount of
land established as new pitches
|
3.1, 3.2, 3.3
|
12
|
3
|
5.4
|
Determine number of worn
out pitches reclaimed successfully
|
3.1, 3.2, 3.3
|
11
|
3
|
5.5
|
Determining ways in
which the pitches can be managed sustainably
|
3.1, 3.2, 3.3
|
11
|
1
|
6
|
Input from experts
|
||
2
|
6.1
|
Contacting and
negotiation with experts
|
1.1, 1.2, 1.3
|
2
|
2
|
6.2
|
Entering into binding
contracts
|
2.1, 2.2, 2.3
|
2
|
2
|
6.3
|
Actual involvement in
research
|
3.1, 3.2, 3.3
|
12
|
2
|
6.4
|
Report from experts
|
6.3
|
1
|
1
|
7
|
Involvement of local authorities
|
||
2
|
7.1
|
Agreement on approaches
to research
|
1.1, 1.2, 1.3
|
3
|
2
|
7.2
|
Actual
research/evaluation
|
6.1
|
12
|
1
|
8
|
Collation of information
|
6.4
|
2
|
1
|
9
|
Preparation of final report
|
8
|
2
|
The Gantt
Chart for the Project is as shown below:
10.2 PROJECT
ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
The project
responsibilities shall be as tabulated below:
Role
|
Responsibilities
|
Participant(s)
|
Project Sponsor
|
§ The owner of the project
§ Defines the project
goals
§ Reviews and
approves/disproves project
§ Provides funding for the
project
|
Sport
England
|
Steering Committee
|
§ In charge of the project
resources
§ Approves major funding
for major aspects of the projects
Reviews project progress and
generates solutions for anomalies identified
|
Senior Managers in the
Organization
|
Project
Manager
|
§ Oversees the operational
aspects of the project
§ Main link between the
steering committee and the project team
§ Supervises expatriates
subcontracted by the organization
§ Produces timely reports
to the steering committee
§ Responsible for the
project budget
§ Problem resolution
|
Operations manager
|
Project
Team Members
|
§ Execution of the project
goals
§ Communicating about
progress made and challenges faced in a timely manner
§ Identifying planning
deficiencies and prompting quite consideration of the same
§ Actual data collection
in the evaluation process
§ Coordination with
expatriates during research
§ Reporting on findings
|
To be
identified by Steering Committee
|
Expatriates
|
§ Providing professional
services in their respective fields
§ To advise on various
aspects of the project especially where it relates to their areas of
expertise
|
To be
identified by Steering Committee
|
10.3 ISSUE
MANAGEMENT
There are
bound to be changes in the project plan in the course of execution. As time
goes, there will be new pieces of information that may make it relevant to
review some plans. With each stage, there will be issues regarding the need to
review timelines and review the quality of work at the time. There is also the
likelihood that there will be a change in the availability of staff. This will
occasion change in the project plan. However, the changes shall not be
implemented in a haphazard manner. There will be a clear process whose steps
shall be as shown below:
Step 1: As soon as there is a change that
can impact a sensitive aspect of the project such as finances, time available
to availability of employees, the project manager will be expected to make a judicious
note of the same.
Step 2: The project manager will review the
change documented, determine the manner in which it impacts the project, and
come up with alternatives that can be implemented in reaction to the same. The
recommendations shall be forwarded to the steering committee for consideration.
Step 3: Upon receipt of the recommendations
by the project manager, the steering committee shall deliberate on the same and
come up with a consensus decision on what is to be done next. The options available
to the steering committee will be to accept, reject or modify the project
manager’s proposals. Where consensus is not possible, the input of the project
sponsor shall be sought through a written memorandum together with all the
options under considerations.
Step 4: The project sponsor shall
subsequently make a decision allowing or disallowing the change.
Step 5: Once a decision is made, the
requestor of the change is notified. There is no appeal allowable as the same
could culminate into further delays of the project.
11. COMMUNICATIONS
PLAN
The project
shall take cognisance of the need for information by the main stakeholders of
the project. There shall be deliberate efforts to ensure that communication is
frequent, timely and accurate. There shall also be swift communication whenever
an event that impacts the project significantly occurs. The following will be
the main audiences for the project communications: Project sponsor, steering
committee, project manager, expatriates, participants, project management team.
11.1 Communications
methodology
Three
communications methodology shall be used in the course of executing the
project. These include:
Top-Down communication: This shall
provide the unifying voice for the project. The organisation’s top management
shall communicate frequently to ensure that the project goals are understood
and that the general approach to executing the project is assimilated by all.
The top managers in the project management team shall be expected to practice a
hands-on approach to management as evidenced by clear and frequent
communication.
Bottom-up communication: This
approach to communication shall be where subordinates will be communicating to
their superiors in the project management team. This communication approach
shall be used to generate solutions for problems arising from time to time.
Apart from its potential to lead to the generation of many creative ideas, this
communication approach shall serve to numb any resistance to proposed changes
as the junior members of the project team will have been consulted.
11.2 Communications
outreach
Apart from
the normal communications experiences in the course of executing the project
goals, the following special events shall be created to facilitate
communication:
Monthly Status Reports: This shall be
an event through which the Project Manager shall furnish the Steering Committee
with monthly reports on the progress of the projects. The specific content of
the reports shall be summary of tasks completed in the month in question, list
of tasks to be executed in the next month, and a summary of issues faced and
resolutions proposed.
Monthly Steering Committee Meeting: This shall be
a status meeting that shall be held once a month. The main aim will be to
discuss the status report provided by the project manager and make decisions on
any issues pointed out.
Bi-monthly Project Team Status Meeting: These will be
status meetings that shall be held after every two weeks. The meeting shall be
attended by all members of the project team. The aim will be to review
progress. It shall also be a forum for focusing on emerging challenges and what
is to be done to resolve them. The meetings shall also be used as a forum for
revising the original objectives to ensure that the team members to not divert
from the scope of the project.
Expatriates
forum: The experts shall be expected to provide monthly briefings for the
duration of their contracts. They will be providing information on progress
made as well as any issues that are of interest to the project managers.
APPROVALS
SIGN-OFF
SHEET
We have read
the above project plan and will abide by its terms and conditions. We pledge
our full commitment and support for the project plan.
Project Sponsor:
Date
Project Manager:
Date
Steering Committee:
Date
Steering Committee:
Date
Steering Committee:
Date
Steering Committee:
Date
Steering Committee:
Date
Bibliography
Bo, B.N., 2005. Strategic knowledge management research: tracing the
co-evolution of strategic management and knowledge management perspectives. Competitiveness Review, 15(1), pp. 1-13
Byrne, M., 2001. Grounded theory as a qualitative research methodology. Association of Operating Room Nurses. AORN
Journal, 73(6), pp. 1155-1166
Duncan, W.J., 1973. Communications Theory and Problems Of Knowledge Flow
In Management. The Journal of Business
Communication, 11(1), p. 3
Harrington, R.J., Ottenbacher, M.C., 2011. Strategic management.
International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, 23(4), pp. 439-462
Kelly, D., 2000. Using vision to improve organisational communication. Leadership & Organization Development
Journal, 21(1/2), pp. 92-101
Larsson, J., Backstrom, I., Wiklund, H., 2009. Leadership and
organisational behaviour - similarities between three award-winning
organisations. International Journal of
Management Practice, 3(4), pp. 327-345
Lyle, M.A., 2013. Total Quality Management. Quality, 52(2), pp. 40-42
Sport England, 2013. Iconic
Facilities. (Online) Available at: http://archive.sportengland.org/funding/sustainable_facilities.aspx
(Accessed 22 September 2013)
Sport England, 2013a. Protecting
Playing Fields. (Online) Available at:
http://archive.sportengland.org/funding/protecting_playing_fields.aspx
(Accessed 22 September 2013)
Sport England, 2013b. What is
Inspired Facilities? (Online) Available at:
http://inspiredfacilities.sportengland.org/about/what-is-inspired-facilities
(Accessed 22 September 2013)
Sureshchandar, GS., Chandrasekharan, R., Anantharaman, R.N., 2002. The
relationship between management's perception of total quality service and
customer perceptions of service quality. Total
Quality Management, 13(1), pp. 69-88
No comments:
Post a Comment