MNGT 317 University of Massachusetts Contact Center Test and Implementation HW The documents below is about assignment instructions and the template that y

MNGT 317 University of Massachusetts Contact Center Test and Implementation HW The documents below is about assignment instructions and the template that you will work with. I also add the case study. The only part you’ll need to read is Overview part and organizational chart for stakeholder names. Case study named as: Contact center test and implementation PJM 6210 Communication Skills for Project Managers:
Lesson 2: Stakeholders
Overview and Rationale
In order to demonstrate proficiency with the content in this course and allow you to implement
relevant practices a real-world setting, you are asked to apply the various competencies presented
in this course to a specific case study. The case study focuses on evaluating stakeholders,
developing a communication plan development, and most importantly, communicating appropriate
levels of detail.
Program and Course Outcomes
This assignment is directly linked to the following key learning outcomes from the course syllabus:
•
LO4: Integrate best practices, tools, and techniques to identify, analyze, and classify
stakeholders
In addition to these key learning outcomes, you will also have the opportunity to evidence
the following skills through completing this assignment:
•
Critical thinking and analysis
Essential Components & Instructions
The Contact Center case study provides the foundation of this assignment which consists of three
separate deliverables. In each deliverable you will analyze the case to develop the specific
deliverable. The deliverables include:
• Brainstorm Map
• Power Interest Grid
• Stakeholder Register
Begin by reading the case study in detail. Below is a detailed description of each deliverable.
Brainstorm Map: Your first step will be to perform a brainstorming exercise to identify
stakeholders for the case study. After reading the case study, follow the high-level process
identified in the course to brainstorm a list of stakeholders. Most of the stakeholders have been
identified in the case study, but there are at least 5 that are not mentioned. Include ALL
stakeholders on the brainstorming map. You should have a minimum of 22 stakeholders listed for
the brainstorming exercise.
•
•
•
Remember this should be a true brainstorming session and the results do not have to be a
well-formatted document. You may sketch or draw this – just take a picture and insert into
the word document (please make sure it is legible)
Also be aware that the completed Brainstorm Map will impact each of the other
deliverables.
When identifying stakeholders consider the following:
o Who will have influence over the project?
o Who may be affected or have an impact from the project?
o Who may be against/for the project?
o Who are external stakeholders?
Power Interest Grid: Once you have completed your Brainstorming Map and identified
the project’s stakeholders, create a Power Interest Grid and map the stakeholders onto the
Power Interest Grid. In a real setting, you would accomplish this by conducting interviews
or group discussions.
For this exercise, use your interpretation of each stakeholder based on the case study
provided. Several stakeholder assumptions are provided to help you get started. All the
identified stakeholders should be in the grid, not just the ones with provided descriptions.
In addition, provide a statement that explains your reasoning for the placement of at least
four (4) stakeholders in the case study; one from each quadrant.
Stakeholder Register: Using the provided Stakeholder Register template, identify and
document each stakeholder’s interest, impact level, influence, power, assumptions, risks,
and communication expectations. Again, use your interpretation of each stakeholder based
on the case study provided. Assumptions may either be classified as (For, Neutral, Against)
or using the engagement levels identified in PMBOK (Unaware, Resistant, Neutral,
Supportive, Leading).
When determining communication expectations consider:
• The level of information that each stakeholder will require
• Stakeholders may not need to be involved in every aspect of the project
• Reference the Power/Interest grid to determine stakeholder clusters
Add additional columns to the register to provide more information regarding the
stakeholder if it is appropriate. The template provided contains the minimum information
you need.
Finally, describe the contents of each column, including standard designations used as
column data. Include references as needed.
Final Format: Combine all three deliverables into one document and submit via the
assignment link
Please be sure to review the attached rubric. It along with these assignment instructions will ensure
you have a solid understanding of the assignment requirements
Rubric(s)
Assessment
Element
Stakeholder
Identification
(Brainstorm
Map)
(20%)
Above Standard
(100-95%)
Stakeholders are clearly
represented within a
brainstorm map format.
Brainstorm map contains a
comprehensive list of
stakeholders that
represent all categories
(internal, external, primary
and secondary). More than
five additional
stakeholders have been
identified in addition to the
seventeen provided by the
case study.
Meets Standards
(94.9 – 84%)
Stakeholders are
represented within a
brainstorm map format.
Brainstorm map contains a
list of stakeholders that
represent all categories
(internal, external, primary
and secondary). Five
additional stakeholders
have been identified in
addition to the seventeen
provided by the case study.
Approaching Standards
(83.9 – 77%)
Stakeholders are
represented within a
brainstorm map format.
Brainstorm map contains a
list of stakeholders that
represent at least two of
the categories (internal,
external, primary and
secondary). Fewer than
four additional
stakeholders have been
identified beyond the
seventeen provided by the
case study.
Below Standard
(76.9 – 70%)
Stakeholders are
represented within a
brainstorm map format.
Brainstorm map contains a
list of stakeholders that
represent two or less of
the categories (internal,
external, primary and
secondary). No additional
stakeholders have been
identified beyond the
seventeen provided by the
case study.
Not Evident
(69.9 – 0%)
Stakeholders are not
represented within a
brainstorm map format.
Brainstorm map does not
contain a list of
stakeholders or does not
represent multiple
categories (internal,
external, primary and
secondary). Not all
seventeen stakeholders
provided by the case study
have been identified.
Stakeholder
Analysis
(Power /
Interest Grid)
(30%)
Stakeholders are
objectively analyzed and
represented within one of
the four quadrants of the
power/interest grid. The
power/interest grid is
clearly labeled and each
quadrant is defined. All
stakeholders are
represented by name or an
ID number associated to a
stakeholder key
Stakeholders are analyzed
and represented within
one of the four quadrants
of the power/interest grid.
The power/interest grid is
well-labeled and
stakeholders are
represented by name or an
ID number associated to a
stakeholder key.
Most stakeholders are
analyzed and represented
within one of the four
quadrants of the
power/interest grid. The
power/interest grid labels
are unclear and
stakeholders are not
represented clearly within
each quadrant.
A few stakeholders are
analyzed and represented
within one of the four
quadrants of the
power/interest grid. The
power/interest grid is not
labeled and not all
stakeholders are
represented within the
quadrants.
No stakeholders are
analyzed or represented in
a power/interest grid. No
power/interest grid is
provided.
Stakeholder
Planning
(Stakeholder
Register)
(30%)
Presents a logical and
organized Stakeholder
Register that clearly
articulates the standard
components of
stakeholder management
per PMBOK guidelines.
Clearly evident to reader
what is contained in each
section. Sections are
unified and not redundant
or contradictory with other
sections.
Presents a well-organized
Stakeholder Register that
articulates the standard
components of
stakeholder management
per PMBOK guidelines.
Evident to reader what is
contained in each section.
Sections are integrated but
not redundant or
contradictory with other
sections.
with the key topical
Presents a reasonably
organized Stakeholder
Register that articulates
the standard components
of stakeholder
management per PMBOK
guidelines, but some
columns are not clearly
labeled or contents are
inconsistent. It is generally
clear to reader what is
contained in each section.
There is some integration
between sections. There
may be some redundancy
or contradiction with other
sections.
Stakeholder Register is not
organized and does not
articulate the standard
components of
stakeholder management
per PMBOK guidelines. It is
unclear to reader what is
contained in each section.
There is little integration
between sections. There is
significant redundancy or
contradiction with other
sections.
Does not present a
Stakeholder Register that
articulates the standard
components of
stakeholder management
per PMBOK guidelines. Not
evident to reader what is
contained in each section.
Sections are not
integrated. There is
significant redundancy or
contradiction with other
sections.
Format &
Grammar
(20%)
Assignment is wellorganized; format can be
followed. Evident to reader
what is contained in each
section (column). Excellent
quality grammar. No
misspellings.
Assignment is organized;
format can be followed.
For the most part, evident
to reader what is
contained in each section
(column). High quality
grammar. No misspellings.
Assignment is reasonably
organized, format can be
followed. Evident to reader
what is contained in each
section (Column). Good
quality grammar. Few
misspellings.
Assignment is somewhat
organized, but the reader
may have difficulty
identifying what is
contained in each section.
Low quality grammar,
many misspellings
Assignment is not
presented in an organized
format. Not evident to
reader what is contained in
each section. Low quality
grammar, many
misspellings.
Contact Center Case Study
CONTACT CENTER STORE SUPPORT TEST & IMPLEMENTATION
CHRIS BOLICK
PJM 6210 – COMMUNICATION SKILLS FOR PROJECT MANAGERS | NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY
Contact Center Case Study
Version 2019
Contact Center
Store Support Test & Implementation
Version History
Version
2.0
1.0
Date
July
October
Author
Chris Bolick
Chris Bolick
Summary of Change(s)
Approved
Initial Draft
Approvers i
Program Role
Key Sponsor
Sponsor
Sponsor
Sponsor
Name, Title
Paulette Larson, VP Contact Center
Rickey Spencer, VP Store Operations Support
Francis Scott , VP Store Repair Support
Max Fox, VP Fleet Support
Date
Signature
Reviewers
Program Role
Co-Project Manager
Co-Project Manager
Business Lead
Business Lead
SME
SME
SME
SME
SME
PJM6210 Week 2
Name, Title
You, Northeastern University Project Manager
Bill Caldwell, Facility Operations Process Manager
Angela Stevens, Contact Center Director
Janice Freeman, Store Repair Director
Brian Vargas, Store Repair Team Lead
Lowell Guerrero, Contact Center Supervisor
Lawrence Collier, Fleet Operations Manager
Kenny Medina, Manager of Technical Writing
Orlando Patterson, Store Operations Manager
Stakeholder Identification and Analysis
Date
Signature
Page 1 of 13
Contact Center Case Study
Version 2019
Table of Contents
Contact Center …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 1
1 Overview………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….3
2 Project Goals – Measures of Success ……………………………………………………………………………………………………..3
3 Process ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………4
High-level map of current process …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 4
Proposed Changes ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 6
4 Scope ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..6
Stores ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 6
Assets………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 6
Communication Types …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 7
Days/Hours of Coverage ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 7
Access and Usage of Systems/Resources ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 7
Out of Scope (Contact Center) ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 8
5 Timeline and Key Milestones ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….8
6 Assumptions …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….8
7 Risks ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….8
8 Constraints ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………8
Supporting Documents ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….9
Organizational Chart (Contact Center) ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 9
Organizational Chart (Store Operations Support) ………………………………………………………………………………………. 9
Organizational Chart (Store Repair Support) …………………………………………………………………………………………… 10
Organizational Chart (Fleet Support) ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 10
Internal Stakeholder Assumptions (Contact Center)…………………………………………………………………………………. 11
Internal Stakeholder Assumptions (Store Repair Support) ………………………………………………………………………… 11
Internal Stakeholder Assumptions (Store Operations Support) ………………………………………………………………….. 12
Internal Stakeholder Assumptions (Fleet Operations Support) ………………………………………………………………….. 12
External Stakeholder Assumptions ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 12
PJM6210 Week 2
Stakeholder Identification and Analysis
Page 2 of 13
Contact Center Case Study
Version 2019
1 Overview
Background: Store Repair Support, Fleet Support, and Store Operations Support field approximately 186,000
support calls per year from the 2134 store locations via department specific hotlines. The 186,000 support calls
are in addition to the 10,000+ email requests per month that are received via the online Incident Management
System (IMS) and Site Management (SM) systems. Phone support ranges from 1st level general support, 2nd level
technical support, to dispatch of contracted vendors, to misdirected calls.
The Issue: Stores need to focus on serving our customers and time is a valuable asset for store personnel. Our
current asset management and repair processes are not as efficient as they could be (e.g. store personnel have
three individual phone numbers to call for asset service and repairs). The stores are responsible for tracking each
asset group serviced by the different phone numbers. Store Managers have reported many instances of calling
what they thought was the correct group only to find they had called the wrong number. Often, the group
receiving the call will do a cold transfer to the next group and not follow through.
The Goal: The goal of this project is to provide one centralized phone number for the stores to initiate support for
three departments, resolve all 1st level support calls with one contact, and hand-off the remaining calls to the
correct department for 2nd level technical support and work order creation to dispatch contracted vendors.
The Challenge: Translating technical information relating to the store’s assets (buildings, mechanicals, fleet, and
site) and developing 1st level and 2nd level call script information for general Contact Center Agents to use within
the Contact Center.
The Hypothesis: This approach will provide better customer service as well as take some of the call volume off the
Store Repair, Fleet, and Store Operations Support groups. With the reduced call volume, the groups will be better
positioned to perform analytical and technical support for the stores.
2 Project Goals – Measures of Success
Goal
Objective
(desired outcome)
(specific steps)
Conduct a Phase 1 pilot to
determine the amount of
1st and 2nd level calls.
•
•
•
Implement Phase 2 and
Phase 3
•
Improve operational
efficiency
•
•
•
•
•
PJM6210 Week 2
Conduct a pilot in a specific district for 60 days
Categorize all calls as 1st or 2nd level support
Analyze call data to determine feasibility of the
entire scope of the project
Bring on increasing levels of stores without
overloading the Call Agents
Utilize Phase 1 lessons learned
Streamline call process for the store locations
Complete all 1st Level Support calls with one
contact
Reduce the overall number of calls to Store
Repair Support, Store Operations Support, and
Fleet Support (Support Teams)
Improve technical analytics of the Support
Teams by allowing those groups to concentrate
on 2nd Level Support
Stakeholder Identification and Analysis
Measure(s) of Success
(target metric and timeframe)
– Capture meaningful data
– Analyze data to determine
next steps
– Complete pilot by March
– Have 100% store
participation by August
– Implement one contact
number for the store
locations as related to the
three Support Teams
– Develop knowledge articles
for the Contact Center to
use for 1st level support
– New phone programming,
store communication, and
technical support provided
for less than $25,000
Page 3 of 13
Contact Center Case Study
Version 2019
3 Process
High-level map of current process
PJM6210 Week 2
Stakeholder Identification and Analysis
Page 4 of 13
Contact Center Case Study
Version 2019
High-level map of proposed process
PJM6210 Week 2
Stakeholder Identification and Analysis
Page 5 of 13
Contact Center Case Study
Version 2019
Proposed Changes
• Store support calls will initiate with the Contact Center.
• Contact Center will provide 1st Level Support to the store locations.
o Knowledge sharing via written articles.
o On-the-spot system navigation and education of Incident Management System (IMS), Site Management
(SM), etc.
o Low-level troubleshooting and issue resolution.
• Contact Center will transfer calls requiring 2nd Level Technical Support and/or Vendor Dispatch to the applicable
group (i.e. Store Repair Support, Store Operation Support, and Fleet Support).
4 Scope
Stores
• Phase 1 – A specific group of districts will be selected for the pilot; 10% of store population.
• Phase 2 – A specific group of regions…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment