SNHU Final Project Milestone One: Project Initiation In this milestone, you will analyze the Fabricant Manufacturing Project and begin tasks related to ini

SNHU Final Project Milestone One: Project Initiation In this milestone, you will analyze the Fabricant Manufacturing Project and begin tasks related to initiation.To complete this assignment, review the Milestone One Guidelines and Rubric document. Running head: PROJECT INITIATION
Project Initiation
Matthew Phillips
QSO-640 Project Management
June 13th, 2019
Dr. Randolph Butler
PROJECT INITIATION
Fabricant Manufacturing has been given a project to replace the existing interior and
exterior lighting in the Fabricant warehouses, workspaces as well as the break rooms with the
modern lighting system. So as to ensure that the project is feasible for the organization, a review
of economic, technical as well as the organizational feasibility of the project is conducted as
below (Kerzner, H., & Kerzner, H. R.2017).
The economic feasibility assists an organization in assessing the viability, the cost and the
benefits related to a given project before allocating the financial resources. The main aim of the
project is to replace the current lighting system with the modern lighting system. The initial cost
of the project is estimated to be $310,000 whereby the incentives and rebates will be estimated to
be $245,000. Thus, the whole project will cost around $65,000. In addition, the project is
approximated to save more than 1.1 million kWh annually and $142,000 utility cost for each
year, with a return on investment (ROI) around 89%. The project has some risks such as; the cost
could be more than the estimate and the return on investment could be less but all the estimates
fit within the three primary objectives of the company.
Technical feasibility is explained as the assessment of technical resources which are
available to the given organization. The main question is if the technical resources can convert
the ideas to a working system (Turner, 2014). Fabricant Company will have to make sure that the
project team comprises of industrial lighting expert, public incentive programs expert,
environmentalist and a programming specialist who should give the expertise needed for the
project. The risk for this would be lack of the skills required to carry out the necessary activities
as well as technological failures to deliver the anticipated energy efficiencies. Even though there
are some risks, they seem to be lower than the possible results.
PROJECT INITIATION
Organizational feasibility on the other side is an assessment of how perfectly the project
will fit into the given organization and if there are readily available resources to complete the
given project (Turner, 2014). Based on the economic and technical feasibility assessments, the
given project will meet the three primary objectives of the organization. The said objectives
include; to reduce the energy consumption by 20%, to raise the community consciousness of the
environmental issues and to generate a return of investment of at least 15%. The project is
approximated to reduce energy consumption by more than 1.1 million kWh annually and register
an ROI of about 89%. In addition, the project team has made suggestions that Fabricant
Manufacturing should add the results of the given project in its newsletter, client literature and
website so as to raise community awareness. Therefore, the project is feasible for the Fabricant
Manufacturing to venture in.
Project charter
Project title
Industrial Lighting Retrofit
Date
June 13th, 2019
Sponsor
Janice Scott
Project purpose
To replace the present lighting in all Fabricant buildings, warehouses,
workspaces and break rooms with the modern technologies.
Strategic
To reduce the energy consumption by a minimum of 20%, to raise
objectives
community awareness about environmental issues and to generate a ROI of
at least 15%.
Project budget
Initial cost of $310,000 with expected offsets of $245,000
Project timeline
Three months from kickoff
PROJECT INITIATION
Project scope
The project will include an inclusive energy audit in all the buildings, life
cycle cost analysis as well as economic evaluation of retrofit, waste
management plan, demolition as well as installation requirements and a
construction phase schedule for all buildings.
Risks
Cost could be more than the estimates and less ROI
Lack of enough skills needed for the project activities
New technologies fail to deliver the expected energy as well as cost savings
Removal of the hazardous materials
Disruption of the production activities or delays in outputs
Acceptance
Installation of sensors in all warehouses, offices, workspaces and break
criteria
rooms.
Replacement of the metal halide and fluorescent tubes with energy-efficient
options.
Computer simulation model for measuring and verifying the energy savings.
Life cycle cost analysis as well as economic evaluation for the new fixture.
Project personnel
Project manager
Sam Massoni, American Grid Program Manager
Trudy Noble, Environmental Manager
Paul Callahan, Distribution logistics Manager
Elwood Vaughn, Systems/IT Director
Perry Silverman, Finance Analyst
Jeff Salvatore, PR/Communications Manager
PROJECT INITIATION
Emmitt McAuley, OSHA liaison
Matt Stevens, Strategic Planning Assistant
Measurable
success criteria
Improved lighting conditions
Demonstrated reduction in energy consumption in comparison to the
baseline audit.
Timeline and cost estimate
The project will take three months from kickoff. The timeline will be as follows;
Energy Audit
6/03/2019
6/06/2019
Recommendations
6/09/2019
6/13/2019
Life cycle cost analysis
6/16/2019
6/20/2019
Waste management plan
6/03/2019
6/06/2019
Procurement of Materials
6/23/2019
7/03/2020
Demolition & Installation Plan
6/16/2019
6/20/2019
Completion of Permit Applications
6/03/2019
6/27/2019
Construction Drawings and Phase Schedule
6/16/2019
6/27/2019
Completion of Phase 1
7/06/2020
7/10/2020
Completion of Phase 2
7/13/2020
7/17/2020
PROJECT INITIATION
Completion of Phase 3
7/20/2020
8/03/2020
Completion of Phase 4
8/06/2020
8/17/2020
Installation of Sensors & Motion Detectors
7/13/2020
8/17/2020
Delivery of Computer Model Tracking System
8/23/2020
9/03/2020
Public Relations & Communications Plan
8/03/2020
8/20/2020
Close of Project
9/20/2020
9/31/2020
The cost budget will be as follows;
The initial cost = $310,000
Incentives and rebates = $245,000
Final cost = $310,000 – $245,000 = $65,000
The anticipated ROI for the first year is 89%.
Key project Stakeholders
The primary stakeholders include; Lee Feinberg, CEO, Janice Scott, Strategic Planning,
Sam Massoni, American Grid Program Manager and Paul Callahan, Distribution Logistics
Manager. Lee Feinberg and Janice Scott are focused on ensuring that the project achieve the set
organizational goals and are mainly concerned with the final energy as well as cost savings. Sam
Massoni on his side he is concerned with achieving a beneficial agreement between him as the
PROJECT INITIATION
consultant and the Fabricant Manufacturing. Lastly, Paul is concerned with the distribution of
resources so as to ensure that the project attains its goals.
Stakeholder Analysis Matrix
PROJECT INITIATION
References
Kerzner, H., & Kerzner, H. R. (2017). Project management: a systems approach to planning,
scheduling, and controlling. John Wiley & Sons.
Turner, J. R. (2014). Handbook of project-based management (Vol. 92). New York, NY:
McGraw-hill.
QSO 640 Milestone One Guidelines and Rubric
Overview: In the final project, you will develop a complete project plan for a hypothetical organization. Each milestone assignment will help you complete
portions of the final project. In this milestone, you will analyze the Fabricant Manufacturing Project (case study available in MindEdge) and begin tasks related
to initiation. You will first define the project in the project charter during the project initiation phase.
Prompt: The goal of this milestone is to apply project management skills acquired in the first three modules to a real-world project or situation. The analysis of
the Fabricant Manufacturing Project case study (in Mindedge) should include an evaluation of the selection criteria, alignment with the organization strategic
goals, project charter elements, project initiation approval, and stakeholder analysis (Template).
Specifically the following critical elements must be addressed:
I.
Project Initiation
A. Identify the economic, technical, and organizational feasibility of the project. For instance, how is the project a viable fit within the organization?
B. Explain how the project aligns to the organization’s strategic goals utilizing the traceability matrix (in Mindedge).
C. Develop a project charter that includes a high-level scope of what is to be accomplished.
D. Create a high-level timeline and cost estimate to complete the project.
E. Identify the concerns of the internal and external key project stakeholders.
F. Compare the level of support from all key project stakeholders to inform the course of action resulting in success of the project.
G. Complete the stakeholder analysis template.
Guidelines for Submission: Your draft of the Project Initiation portion of your final project should adhere to the following formatting requirements: 3–4 pages,
double-spaced, using 12-point Times New Roman font and one-inch margins. Utilize table(s) within your document as you create the high-level timeline and cost
estimate. You should use current APA-style guidelines for your citations and a reference list with a minimum of two sources.
Critical Elements
Project Initiation:
Feasibility
Proficient (100%)
Identifies the economic, technical,
and organizational feasibility of the
project and how the project is a
viable fit within the organization
Project Initiation:
Strategic Goals
Explains how the project aligns to the
organization’s strategic goals
Needs Improvement (75%)
Identifies the economic, technical,
and organizational feasibility of the
project, but does not discuss how the
project is a viable fit within the
organization or is inaccurate or
cursory
Explains how the project aligns to the
organization’s strategic goals, but
explanation is inaccurate or cursory
Not Evident (0%)
Does not identify the economic,
technical, and organizational
feasibility of the project
Does not describe how the project
aligns to the organization’s strategic
goals
Value
10
15
Project Initiation:
Project Charter
Project Initiation:
High-Level Timeline
Develops a project charter that
includes a high-level scope of what is
to be accomplished and is detailed
appropriately
Creates a high-level timeline and
estimate of cost to complete the
project
Project Initiation: Key
Project Stakeholders
Identifies the concerns of key project
internal and external stakeholders
Project Initiation:
Support
Compares the level of support from
all key stakeholders to inform the
course of action of the project
Completes the stakeholder analysis
template
Project Initiation:
Stakeholder Analysis
Template
Articulation of
Response
Submission has no major errors
related to citations, grammar,
spelling, syntax, or organization
Develops a project charter, but does
not include a high-level scope of
what is to be accomplished
Does not develop a project charter
15
Creates a high-level timeline and
estimate of cost to complete the
project, but response contains
inaccuracies
Identifies the concerns of key project
internal and external stakeholders,
but response either contains
inaccuracies or is overgeneralized
Compares the level of support from
all key stakeholders, but discussion
contains gaps or inaccuracies
Completes the stakeholder analysis
template, but template contains
inaccuracies
Submission has major errors related
to citations, grammar, spelling,
syntax, or organization that
negatively impact readability and
articulation of main ideas
Does not create a high-level timeline
or estimate of cost to complete the
project
15
Does not identify the concerns of key
project stakeholders
10
Does not compare the level of
support from all key stakeholders
15
Does not complete the stakeholder
analysis template
10
Submission has critical errors related
to citations, grammar, spelling,
syntax, or organization that prevent
understanding of ideas
10
Total
100%
Graded Case Study 1, Part IV
The Project Charter
As the project sponsor, Janice Scott proceeded to write the project charter to authorize the lighting retrofit project and define high level
details:
Project
Title
Industrial Lighting Retrofit
Date
October 8, 2013
Project
purpose
Replace existing interior and exterior lighting in all Fabricant workspaces, warehouses, and break rooms with new
technologies
Project
objectives
Fabricant’s strategic objectives are the following: create shareholder value and demonstrate corporate social responsibility by
continuing to be a leader in energy conservation, research, and development of advanced technologies.
Project
See list in project scope statement
deliverables
Project
personnel
Project Manager
Sam Massoni, American Grid Program Manager
Trudy Noble, Environmental Manager
Paul Callahan, Distribution Logistics Manager
Elwood Vaughn, Systems/IT Director
Perry Silverman, Finance Analyst
Jeff Salvatore, PR/Communications Manager
Emmitt McAuley, OSHA liaison
Matt Stevens, Strategic Planning Assistant
Required skill sets: industrial lighting expertise ? understanding of appropriate lighting conditions for various workspaces and
factory floor activity; expertise in lighting technologies and electrical wiring; financial modeling; understanding of public
incentive programs; environmental impact assessment; hazardous material expertise; safety regulations; public relations
communication; wireless sensor technology, tools and implementation; programming; stakeholder communication, including
unions
Risks
Costs will exceed estimates and ROI will be less than expected
Team members do not possess all necessary skills to carry out necessary project activities
Replacement work will disrupt production activities and delay output
New technologies will fail to deliver expected energy efficiencies
Removal and disposal of hazardous materials in old lighting systems
Schedule
summary
Three months from kickoff
Budget
summary
Project cost estimate of $310,000, with expected offsets of $245,000
Measurable
success
criteria
Demonstrated reduction in energy consumption, as measured in comparison to baseline audit
Improved lighting conditions
Other
project
TBD
limitations
As you complete this last section of the case study, identify the problems and/or issues that you’ll need to include in your analysis. Document
this information, and consider how you will integrate it into your evaluation of the project.
QSO 640: Project Management
Copyright © 2014, %year% MindEdge Inc. All rights reserved. Duplication prohibited. PMP, PMI-ACP, PMI-RMP, PMBOK, and the PMI
Registered Education Provider logo are registered marks of the Project Management Institute, Inc.
Graded Case Study 1, Part I
Project Selection
Fabricant Corporation manufactures and distributes highly specialized metal parts to over 1,000 clients across the Northeast. With state-ofthe-art facilities, Fabricant is the leader in designing, prototyping, and manufacturing engineering flexible materials for solar power, medical,
aerospace, and electric power applications.
As Fabricant has grown and expanded its base of shareholders, its mission has evolved from merely providing quality products at a
competitive price. Today, the company strives to create shareholder value and demonstrate corporate social responsibility by continuing to be
a leader in energy conservation, research, and development of advanced technologies.
Lee Feinberg, the company’s CEO, is eager to live up to Fabricant’s public commitment by engaging in activities that drive continuous
improvement on key sustainability metrics. Specifically, he has tasked his senior management team to propose projects that will align with
the following objectives:
1. Reduce energy consumption by a minimum of 20%
2. Raise community consciousness of environmental issues and concerns
3. Generate a return on investment of at least 15%
After several months of research by her staff, Janice Scott, the Head of Strategic Planning for Fabricant, brought the following project
proposals for consideration:
1. Solar panel installation on the main manufacturing facility
This 200,000 square foot manufacturing facility consumes 9.5 million kWh of electricity per year. The facility has just over two acres of
rooftop that is suitable for solar panel placement. According to estimates, this installation would generate about 700,000 kWh of renewable
energy per year, while offsetting over 500 tons of CO2 . The installation of 1,500 240-watt photovoltaic cells would cost about $700,000, net
of federal investment tax credits. With estimated energy savings of $50,000 per year and annual solar renewable energy credits (SRECs)
revenue of $70,000 per year, the solar panel investment is expected to break even in 5.6 years, with a 10-year return on investment of 20%
($120,000 per year for 10 years, with a discount rate of 7%).
This facility is also in a highly visible location adjacent to a major highway, with 300,000 people driving past the building on a daily basis.
The public exposure to the facility’s solar array will raise community awareness to renewable energy sources and create positive perception
for Fabricant’s commitment to environmental sustainability.
2. Interior and exterior retrofit of industrial lighting throughout facilities
The second project proposal involves replacing high energy consumption lighting fixtures in all Fabricant facilities with more efficient
technologies, including the following:
QSO 640: Project Management
Copyright © 2014, %year% MindEdge Inc. All rights reserved. Duplication prohibited. PMP, PMI-ACP, PMI-RMP, PMBOK, and the PMI
Registered Education Provider logo are registered marks of the Project Management Institute, Inc.
Replace metal halides with LED technologies
Replace T-12 fluorescent lighting to T-8 Vaportite fixtures
Retrofit offices and break rooms with sensors and new fluorescent fixtures
Install wireless sensors and motion detectors throughout offices, production stations, and break rooms to automatically turn off lights
These changes are estimated to produce energy savings of over 1.1 million kWh per year as well as $142,000 annually in utility costs. After
energy efficiency incentives and utility partner rebates, Fabricant’s total cost of the upgrades is expected to be in the $65,000 to $75,000 range
so the program will provide immediate financial and environmental returns. In the first year alone, this program is likely to produce an 89%
ROI.
To generate positive community and client awareness for this sustainability initiative, Scott recommends that Fabricant include the results in
the company’s newsletter and client literature, and on its website.
3. Adoption of less energy intensive welding processes in production facilities
A third proposal is to shift from traditional fusion welding processes (arc welding and laser welding) to friction stir welding (FSW). In
addition to providing solutions for persistent joining problems, FSW consumes less material and energy while reducing fumes and gases. The
proposed project is to develop a prototype system that proves the suitability of FSW for a range of Fabricant’s welding situations (e.g., engine
components, high performance aircraft parts, fuel tanks, etc.). Based on a feasibility study using the prototype, the team will decide whether
to pursue implementation of a FSW process development plan (including design, controls, and process knowledge) at 12 welding
workstations.
FSW reduces welding energy and material consumption by as much as 70% (estimated savings of $2,000 per machine), compared to
traditional arc welding techniques. Finally, FSW saves a considerable amount of welding time, compared to arc welding, due to higher
welding speed and fewer ancillary processes. In all, Scott expects a shift to FSW, where feasible, to save $24,000 per year.
FSW machine inves…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment