Posted: April 8th, 2015

Project Management

Project Management

You are required to provide a cover sheet for each assignment undertaken. On the cover you
should provide: the assignment number, your student name and student I.D. number. You are
also required to provide a declaration on Page 1 that the work undertaken is entirely your own
work. All other sources used in the assignment should be properly referenced using the
Harvard Referencing convention, Times New Roman size 12, Line spacing 1.5
Note: Tables, charts, diagrams or appendices etc. are not considered part of the word count.

‘Risk Management in an effective means of managing uncertainty on a project. It is the responsibility of the Project Manager to ensure Risk is effectively planned and managed in a careful manner in order to successfully achieve project objectives’.
Assume the Role of a Project Manager and using the Residential Care Services case study provided below, discuss and demonstrate how you would propose to effectively plan and manage risk on the Residential Care Services Project.
Circa 2,000 words
Residential Care Services Project
Synopsis
This case study describes a project involving the setting up of a specific residential service for young adults (between the ages of 13 and 18) who need special care as opposed to being held in custodial institutions. The project was conceived in Jan. 2015 and the service needs to be in place by 30 June 2016. The case (which is fictitious), describes many of the challenges the project faces including the need to develop the various processes and procedures, constructing the facilities required, ensuring that all related supporting infrastructure is put in place and ensuring the organisation of the project and the various aspects of managing the project are completed successfully.
In the case study, the author presents the communication and authority challenges faced by a project manager when dealing with powerful and independent stakeholders such as childcare professionals, the wider community, the Department of Health and Children and the various senior functional staff in a typical health service.
Residential Care Services – A Case Study
1.0 Introduction and Context of the Project
Following the introduction of legislative measures the newly formed HSE South Western Health Team have been tasked with setting up residential care services for youths up to eighteen years who need supervisory care but not in a custodial environment. The relevant authorities were formally told of the ‘initiative’ at a departmental briefing; this was followed by a press briefing, where the key elements of the nation-wide programme were outlined to the press.
The initiative, which was a response to the absence of satisfactory care facilities for this group, is critical in the south western region as there are currently up to 6 individuals being held in various institutions, which are deemed by the courts as ‘highly unsuitable’. Indeed, in the past, the court has held a number of government departments in contempt on the basis of their poor co-ordination and absence of policy in this area. However, now that this legislative path has been taken, the rights of these individuals to be cared for in a suitable environment will be constitutional from July 1st 2015.
The department has published a series of guidelines outlining the services that this group are entitled to, thus ensuring that those that need to be accommodated through the scheme do not, in future, end up in jail or other unsuitable venues.
The Department has used budgetary estimates and a sum of 1.3 million Euro has been set aside for the set-up of the service in the region. Whilst this budgetary number is not set in stone, there is an expectation that after a more detailed plan emerges, that the estimate will not be exceeded.
The board and indeed the general public were generally aware for some time that this legislation was imminent and that the obligation to cater for this group was now clearly a Department of Health and Children concern. Some preliminary work, in respect of the facilities required, has already been carried out by the Technical Services Department of the authority. Two suitable sites (both owned by the authority) have been identified; these sites have outline planning permission.
Finally one of the health service managers, who specialises in child care services, has been identified as the project manager and a formal announcement of this will be made at a special meeting set up to discuss the project which is scheduled for Jan 30th 2015.
2.0 Current Perspectives of some selective stakeholders
2.1 Department of Health and Children:
After years of criticism from the public, the judiciary and politicians, the department sees this milestone as the fruits of their efforts over the previous two years. Pulling together the various parties to agree the framework of the new residential care services for this target group was not without its difficulties.
Despite their best efforts, it is with a sense of relief that the prime responsibility now rests with the HSE and the South Western Team to implement the scheme. They do however, still see themselves as the custodian of the services nationally and expect to receive data on the scheme, as per the guidelines, periodically. Moreover, they would like to exert as much control on the way that the scheme is implemented regionally to ensure consistency.
Their immediate concerns relate to the budget that was set aside for the scheme (both capital & expenditure), as the HSE Regional Team have already expressed their concerns, particularly on the capital side. No contingency was built into these figures and additionally, the Minister has not signed off on the incremental staff that is required to run the service as he does not wish this headcount & associated expenses to kick in until January 2016.
Finally, the Department of Justice were reluctant participants in setting up the scheme as they expected that the services would be operated under their auspices. The occasional veiled criticism of some aspects of the scheme has undermined it a little in recent months.
2.2 Regional Health Teams:
In general, other regional health team recently set up are neutral with respect to the project. On the positive side, they are reasonably satisfied with the guidelines because of the inclusive nature of the approach adopted by the Department.
On the other hand, they do have concerns on the drop-dead date of 30 June 2016 in particular to get the required staff with the specialised skills, given the current difficulties in recruiting this grade of staff. This may present a challenge. Moreover, the ambiguity around when staff can actually be recruited for the scheme and how the local sub-project teams responsible for the implementation will be funded has yet to be answered by the Department.
Finally, a number of the regional health teams have undertaken some analysis on the initial capital costs involved in setting up the required facilities. There is a general feeling that the budgets are a little on the low side as no estimates were included on a number of areas, such as an IT system and associated infrastructure to support the scheme. However, as the
Department usually builds in 10 – 20 percent contingency so they expect that revised budgets will redress this shortfall.
2.3 HSE South Western Health Team (SWHT):
The South Western Health Team, while they share some of the general concerns of the regional teams, is more positive towards the scheme and incumbent services.
This attitude stems from the fact that they were very strongly represented on the various planning committees for the scheme and the implementation of the service in the region will be fast-tracked in a ‘pilot’ manner. This is expected to help iron out any problems that might emerge so that learning’s and amendments / adjustments can be made which the other health teams can benefit from.
A couple of specific points relating to this stakeholder are also noteworthy. The fact that this is a fast-track implementation means that there is an expectation that the service will be operational from the 1st of January 2016 (note – this is not explicitly stated in any documentation). Moreover, while senior management support for the scheme exists, there are some subtle issues involved. The program manager involved (Ms. Mary McLaughlin) is strongly behind the project, however, because of the positive publicity that she has accumulated in promoting the scheme there is some tension on the management team. The Finance Director and to a lesser extent the C.E.O. are somewhat cynical on the ‘empire building’ that Ms. McLaughlin is pursuing (in their eyes). In truth the programme manager views this opportunity as career enhancing – if the project is successful.
2.4 Child care specialist staff (SWHT):
While the various ‘community care’ disciplines have been involved during the development of the scheme, this was selective and involved senior staff only. Some junior staff have had little knowledge of the scheme and in fact in a number of cases the official announcement to the press was how some of the staff were informed.
Additionally, there are ‘professional’ concerns between some of the disciplines involved: No child psychiatrists were represented on any committee to date; support therefore in implementing the service from this group may be a little more difficult, given this oversight. Social workers are seen by some as having an overly influential say, in both the development of the scheme and indeed in implementing the scheme. Certain ambivalence to the implementation of the services can be detected in some of the other disciplines.
The Project Manager (Michael Judge) that is earmarked for this key role was handed the job by the programme manager without going through any formal interview procedures. This has alienated some staff and indeed at least one individual has approached MEDPRO (one of the unions) on the issue. Moreover, while in general, the consensus is that Michael is a good ‘people manager’ there are some concerns on his ability to manage the technical aspects of the project (such as the facilities and infrastructural requirements).

3.0 Notes from the initial project kick off session
The following are the key points noted at the special project briefing session of Jan 15th,
2015.
All key staff were represented at the session (with the exception of the Finance Officer, Child
Psychiatry – though apologies were noted). Ms McLaughlin chaired the session following a brief introduction by the CEO (who subsequently had to leave for another session).
3.1 Project Structure
The following project structure outlined how the project team fitted into the wider
Organisational structure.

3.2 Actions & decisions arising:
A number of points to note from the meeting included:
1. A steering committee of the IT Director, the Technical Services Director, the Finance Director and the Programme Manager for special services was agreed. This group would meet every two weeks to review progress and provide support to the project Manager and the team.
2. In addition to the wider child care staff, who would be tasked with setting up the Residential care services in the region, (a group of 10 specialists was agreed), Technical Services was tasked with getting the building and physical infrastructure in place. IT were Tasked with getting the systems and related infrastructure in place, Finance were tasked with supporting the project by managing all budgetary issues while reporting to the Project manager (sign –off on items above 10,000 Euro is a matter for the steering Committee)
3. A representative of the Department of Health and Children will be on the advisory board
to ensure that the developed processes and procedures etc. are in line with the
guidelines.
4. Key milestones were agreed as follows:
Initial Meeting                     – end Jan 2015
Decision on location of the services         – end March 2015
Definite budget in place             – mid April 2015
Physical fitted out facility in place         – mid Dec 2015
IT systems in place                 – end Dec 2015
1st draft of required processes and procedures – end May 2015
Recruitment of 12 specialised staff         – end Dec 2015
Final draft of processes signed off         – end Jan 2016
Service Start date                 – end Jun 2016
5. It was made clear at the meeting that the union representing the care workers would be approaching the board and the Department of Health and Children to discuss
i) the appointment of the Project Manager (some were vocally opposed)
ii) additional remuneration for their members, given the additional workload and responsibilities that they would now face
6. A report by the Technical Services Director on the two sites shortlisted was circulated to the group. This is attached as an appendix and a decision in this matter is the first critical task for the project. Discussions on these options were inconclusive but site B was probably favoured by the group with the exception of Finance and the IT department as it would ensure that the service has its own identity from day 1. A subcommittee was asked to review the options in more detail.
7. Formal approval for the twelve specialist staff needed to run the facility is to be addressed immediately by the project manager.
8. Given the previous links and involvement with the department of Justice a local representative is to be invited onto the steering committee to ensure that this interface is addressed.
Appendix A – Report on the suitability of the two shortlisted sites
Site A
The first site is located on the grounds of one of the regional hospitals and is a two-storey facility, which has not been used for a number of years. In terms of size the building is 25,000 sq. meters, which is more than adequate for the facilities required.
It would need to be substantially refurbished, including rewiring for both electrical, data and voice infrastructure. This might prove to be a little difficult as the outside walls are up to a meter thick as are some of the internal walls in the facility. On the other hand, there is capacity in both the PABX in the hospital and indeed on the data infrastructure into the main site.
Preliminary work suggests the presence of asbestos, which would have to be addressed as part of the refurbishment and there is some evidence that dry rot might be present in one part of the structure.
Some of the hospital staff has expressed concern about locating the residential facility on the hospital grounds because of the related security issues that might arise because of the nature of the type of client that would be catered for.
From a financial perspective, despite the obvious issues, this option would certainly be the cheaper option.
Site B
The second site is a plot of land bequeathed to the Health Service Executive (HSE) in a recent will. It is located in a more rural setting and while outline planning permission is in place formal planning approval would be required once detailed plans were drawn up.
The main concern for this option is the time needed to get detailed planning approval and thereafter to build the structure in effectively a 9 months period. Additionally, it is possible that objections to the facility might be raised by neighbours, which could delay or indeed scupper the planning process altogether.
On the plus side, this option is the best opportunity to get a state of the art facility constructed and given the spotlight that is on the authority (particularly given that this service is to be piloted in the region), this is a consideration in any decision.
Financially this would of course be more expensive both from in terms facilities and supporting infrastructure requirements.