Running Head: DOUBLE MASTERS SIMULATION SUMMARY 1 Double Masters Simulation Summary Colorado State University- Global Campus Double Masters Simulation Summary DOUBLE MASTERS SIMULATION SUMMARY 2 The Double Masters Simulation presented an instructive learning tool and a real-life understanding of project management. This simulation allowed an opportunity to obtain project management skills through the use of a virtual platform. After completing the simulation, a project scorecard, found in Appendix 1, was produced, which supplied an outline for each assessment item that was scored. This document intends to provide a summary of the areas I was unsuccessful in executing the project. Decisions and Questions As displayed in the scorecard in Appendix 1, the highest score achievable was 40; the achieved score was 33. Responses were scored good, fair, and poor. There was a total of 20 decisions with 13 good responses, three fair responses, and four poor responses. The first question that received a fair assessment was in regards to what type of contract was used for the localization vendors. I selected cost price plus incentive fees after reviewing the fee schedule within the contract. I choose this option because the fee per task was listed in the spreadsheet and stated a 10% fee was included. However, time and material was the correct answer. After receiving feedback within the simulation, I reviewed the fee schedule once again and then understood why this was the contract type used. The next question that resulted in a fair assessment was responding to Mr. Prince as to why the decision was made to not move forward with the Spanish localization. I chose to respond to Mr. Prince's email by explaining the steps taken into consideration when deciding to decline the project, including NPV, payback period, IRR, and resource constraints. However, I later learned and agreed with the decision that I should have also proposed solutions on how to work together in the future, helping smooth the situation, rather than creating tension. The final question that received a fair assessment was how my VAC/EAC would be affected due to the $9,000 back charge. I chose that my EAV/VAC would DOUBLE MASTERS SIMULATION SUMMARY 3 be negatively affected. I was under the assumption that we were initially responsible for the training costs, and since we did not fulfill the training, we were back charged. However, this was incorrect as management reserves are in place to pay for costs unrelated to the cost baseline. The four poor decisions that were made due to my lack of verifying before deciding. The first decision that received a poor assessment was the choice to replace a team member during his vacation time. The simulation stated that this team member did not have any work due during this time, and he would be available to take phone calls and answer emails. However, with having no professional project management experience, I chose to have someone take his place while he was out of the office. I made this decision to have support in the office just in case there was an issue that arose that the team member on vacation could not handle. However, the decision should not have been escalated to avoid conflict. The second decision that received a poor assessment was how should the over project work performance be reported. My decision to this scenario was to report with EAC, VAC, CPI, Gantt Chart tasks, risks. This decision was made incorrectly because I failed to reference my course notes. EAC and VAC are not helpful in reporting current work performance but used to forecast budget at completion. Also, the Gantt Chart provides too much detail for a report to senior management. The correct answer for this scenario would be to report using CPI, SPI, milestone charts, and risks. CPI “measures the value of work completed compared to the actual cost spent”(Usmani, 2019). SPI shows how the project is progressing, compared to the planned schedule. Again, this decision was poorly made as a result of me not checking my course notes. The last two poor assessments were related to forecasting the final budget of the project and to attend the launch party or archive records. I made the decision to use actual cost. However, VAC/EAC needed to be used to forecast the budget at completion. Lastly, I chose to archive records because a launch party sounded too DOUBLE MASTERS SIMULATION SUMMARY 4 good. However, records are archived throughout the project as deliverables are completed. Software typically does this automatically. Mail Read The mail read had a possible score of five; I achieved a score of three. After reviewing the scorecard, points were last in this category because of the lack of mail that was read. I failed to read 49 messages. Many of these messages were depicted as audio in the simulation. Also, many of these messages did not receive information to make decisions or answer questions, so I did not feel the need to read them. However, it is important that a project manager reviews all communications, as they could provide important information. Scheduled Completion Date The scorecard in Appendix 1 shows that I achieved a 17.5 out of a possible 25. The scorecard does not explain why points were lost in this section, but I can assume it was due to an overrun schedule. This was the most challenging part of the simulation for me. I had the opportunity to edit the schedule and costs for each task. It was not very easy to align the schedule with all of the involved national holidays. I would assume in a real project, multiple members of the team would be involved in creating a schedule this complex. Percent of Budget Used and Budget Requests In this area, the relationship of the cost schedule and risk was depicted. The risk register offered an opportunity to see how contingency reserves are set and how they are allocated. Project managers control the contingency reserve, therefore allowing them to use it when risk occurs (Usmani, 2019). I was also able to see how management reserves are calculated as an overall percentage of the cost baseline. It is crucial for a project manager to analyze all possibilities of DOUBLE MASTERS SIMULATION SUMMARY 5 risks, which then can be transferred into contingency and management reserves. These reserves offer the project a barrier against risk. Conclusion This project management simulation provided great insight to a real-world project. It is great to read all of the course material and learn the information, but it is much more useful when it can be applied. This simulation also gave feedback in scenarios that were incorrectly answered, which is important in understanding why something should have been done a certain way. The feedback provided also showed me areas where I need to focus. References Usmani, F. (2019, December 5). Schedule Performance Index (SPI) & Cost Performance Index DOUBLE MASTERS SIMULATION SUMMARY 6 (CPI). Retrieved from https://pmstudycircle.com/2012/05/schedule-performance-index-spi-and-cost-performanc e-index-cpi/ Usmani, F. (2019, October 22). Contingency Reserve vs Management Reserve. Retrieved from https://pmstudycircle.com/2012/02/contingency-reserve-vs-management-reserve/ DOUBLE MASTERS SIMULATION SUMMARY 7 Appendix Appendix 1
Purchase answer to see full attachment