Example OF Group A: Report

This project concerned the BSU Enrollment Management Process Enhancement. The project team faced some obstacles achieving their proposals initially. There were difficulties reaching their sponsor, but with cooperation and hard work they met their timeline and delivered their completed project on time. Their proposal was good, but I recommended using professional applications similar to Microsoft project or any other free applications; I also suggested they add specific actions under each phase to promote understanding by other students. They considered my comment and updated their final proposal.
The business case was incomplete because they are waiting for the sponsor’s feedback. This may increase the risks and put them behind the schedule, but they resubmitted their final business case. It was clear and covered all requirements.
The project charter was well crafted and they explained the two-part project governance and project management well. They included full explanation and clear details. Also, I noticed that all the team members are working equally hard, increasing productivity on the project. I encouraged them to continue until the project was closed. I like their documentation of meeting notes, decisions, and issues. It appears each member participated equally; the responsibilities were obviously split and assigned to each member appropriately. I felt I had attended their meetings from reading the minutes. They documented the main points discussed and the schedule of your next meeting clearly and precisely.
In their status reports, they explained the problems that they faced instead of ignoring them; they also described how they overcame these problems in a manner that was easy way to understand. The project plan was good, but there are some missing points that need to be completed. These include the conceptual design, project cost and financial information after they get the input from their sponsor. Also, they need to correct some parts that are related to Water Park and do not apply to their project. After that, they uploaded the Revised Project Plan which is well structured and covers all needs.
On their final submission everything looks good, but they need to add the recommendation and the conclusion parts in their plan. It is hard to read the font of the text in the title page and it should be changed.
Risk management plan: The first version of their risk analysis talks about the Water Park Project in the book. This confused me because it is hard to identify the risks, but once they uploaded the updated risk management plan, it was clear. I really liked their method of describing all possible risks, making it easy to identify the risks that may be encountered in the project. 
This project is very interesting and beneficial if it is implemented at BSU correctly and we hope to get the support they need from their sponsor. The team did their best and covered all the requirements to meet their timeline.

Group B

The title of this project was about Capital Planning and Investment Control (CPIC) System. Even though they did not use the Gantt chart to represent their phases and their related actions, overall it was informative and complete; I recommended for them to use Microsoft Project to represent their timeline. They uploaded the updated version of the proposal, but it still did not represent it in a professional manner.
The business case was brief, but they provided sufficient explanation for each part. They also supported their document with figures that were effective. The project charter was complete and covered all the requirements in a well- structured business case. I advised them to pay attention to some grammar mistakes.The project plan was very good. The best aspect was their method of describing the scope of activities.
The meeting minutes were impressive and very neat. I noticed the project was under control with no issues. The team’s efforts were effective in distributing the tasks between the group members, increasing productivity of the project. I encouraged them to pay more attention to spelling mistakes. In general, the content and formatting of their meeting minutes was professional.
Their status reports presentation was interesting and caught my attention. They used creative and innovative presentations that looked professional and formal. The only thing I suggested to them was to create word documents for each point they mentioned in the presentation; it would be easier to understand than a PowerPoint document.
At the end, even though this project is complex and large, I believe they will overcome any challenges that might arise with collaborative efforts among their team and continuous direction from their sponsor.

Group D:

The title of this project was about Remote Desktop Application. The theme of this project was improvements on the BSU help desk. The team did a very good job working on this project. They did a comprehensive comparison between three different remote desktop application: Bomgar, Dell Kace, and Dell ROI. They supported their analysis with understandable tables, so it gave the reader good overview of their process. Finally, they found the suitable solution and convinced the school to buy Dell Kace. The proposal looks fine, but they represented their timeline as a pdf file so I recommended to them to use any free timeline applications for their project. These are much easier and more organized than pdf files. Examples include Timeline3D, Timeline builder, Xtimeline, and Microsoft project.
In addition, the template they used in describing the business case is more obvious and organized than the one explained in the book. I suggested they pay more attention to the cost when choosing the software solution because it is the main concern discussed by the sponsor.
In their project charter, they touched on every point well to allow their classmates to follow up on their work and apply these steps to their own work. It provides them with insight on what the project charter will look like.
The status reports were great, but it would have been better if they added project timelines to show all the team members what they have done to this point. The team members worked hard to find the best solution for the problem currently in the BSU system. Their Analysis Documentation for Remote Desktop App was good. The most important thing that I advised them to focus on was to make their software user friendly. This can be achieved by making the update and installation of the system easy, efficient, and effective. They can also use Graphical user interface (GUI) to navigate the system since the basic goal of GUI is to ease the job of the end user.
The team needed to pay more attention to the security feature since it is the most important characteristic‬ in this project. The meeting minutes were informative, providing the main points discussed during the meetings. Their project plan was perfect so I did not recommend additions or modifications.
In the end, the concept of this project was interesting and at the same time required a lot of effort. We are in a tight timeframe because the team needs to compare three different products to solve the current problem with the DIT. I am sure the team will be successful if they keep their present pace.

Group E:

The title of this project was about the IT help desk tier III for Bowie State University. They have developed and completed a well structured proposal that helped them gain their sponsor’s approval. The business case was full of explanations, especially in analyzing the potential cost involved in implementing the solution. I noticed in their project charter there are some missing points that need to be added in order to expand the project charter and go through each step if it is applicable to their IT help desk project. The points that I suggested to add are scope activities and defining your stakeholders. Also, you can divide the charter into two parts: project governance and project management.
For the first status report, they did two submissions. In my opinion, the first one was good, but I suggested they modify their timeline and add more details about their actions under each phase. This would serve as a guideline for them to avoid delays. Of course, it is possible to make changes and update some of the deliverables, but they have to be in a specific time frame without disrupting major deadlines. The second submission was not acceptable because there was not enough information and some parts, like the section concerning the problem encountered, was confusing. The two submissions in the second status report only list what they did without explaining whether they are on schedule and they did not mention what they are working on currently. Overall, there are not enough details.
My only recommendation to their third and forth status report is to add more explanation and details in order to present the information on their project instead of just mentioning brief points . Overall, there are not enough details to be a status report; I was confused in following their status. They documented the part of the feasibility study in their analysis documentation well.
The project plan was great, but I advised them to write a brief description for each job responsibility of their team members instead of just listing them without any clarification. The meeting minutes are very systematic, but I suggested mentioning the action that is taken in every meeting with a brief description. Also, they should mention the next meeting date and time to be more effective. At the end, team E did a perfect job in explaining the three tiers, but they have to provide the required training for the employees dealing with each tier.

Group F:

This project was about Emergency Message Communications. BSU has the need to adopt this kind of the project, especially in the basement level of the library where most of the students from different departments stay to use computers lab or to study. The proposal was approved by the sponsor because it was solid and covered all the needs in a well-crafted proposal.
The business case explained the payback analysis related to the project’s cost and its evaluation well. The project charter was brief and complete, but they did not follow the professor’s instructions in dividing it into two parts: project governance and project management. I advised them to follow the example that is written in the book and add some specific details for each part.
The status reports were awesome due to the team members’ success in presenting the idea of this project. The idea was to find solutions to an existing problem for BSU currently. They stated the problem first and then they list their reasons for choosing AlertUs system. They did so after comparing two selection solutions. They documented the functional and non-functional requirements in their analysis phase in a simple way.
The project plan was great and I like how they are specific in naming the person that is responsible for each task. However, I recommended to them to pay more attention to the formatting of the paper such as the number of pages and the table of contents.

The meeting minutes were very informative, giving us a clear picture about the progress of the project.

Finally, the concept of this project was interesting and the team members did a great job coming up with the perfect solution reflecting what they proposed initially.

Group G:

This project was about change management. The idea of this project is to improve the communications system between the students and the faculty which update students about any notification via text message on their cell phones. They have developed a solid proposal, but my only suggestion is to represent the timeline in a better way using a Gantt chart that is created by Microsoft office or any other free applications like 3Dtimeline or Xtimeline.
In their business case, they explained every point in a professional manner. The project charter was cohesive, covering the two official parts-project governance and project management with full explanations. However, in the milestone schedule ssection they missed some points in the tables and left it blank; that needs to be modified.
The status report was easy to follow, but there are some missing points. The first one missing is the timeline to their first status report presentation; I recommended them attaching it to give other team members an insight about the accomplished activities as well as the next intended deliverables. The second point I advised them to add is the project team, project schedule, references, and appendixes missing in their status report.

The project plan was well crafted and at this point I did not see anything that need to be changed.

Moreover, their meeting minutes were effective, covering the major events that occurred in their meeting. If the team members construct this project successfully and overcomes the difficulties that they encountered, the project will be beneficial to the university as well as to the students.

Group H:

This project was about work flow management. The team members tried to improve the current DIT request for service implemented in BSU. They achieved what they proposed in their professional and well-structured project proposal.
The business case was brief and to the point, but it would be better if they clarified the concept of their proposed request of service and its related issues. In their project charter, I advised them to add the responsibilities for each member in their group as well as adding the project schedule. In general, I liked the organized template that they used in describing their services requests charter.
I can see the information in their status reports and presentation. First, each member participated equally, demonstrated in their speech and the role job assigned to each member. Second, the project objectives were met and shown in their documentation. Third, the project was on the right track because they followed the solid timeline. However, I recommended for them to add a closing and hand over operation phases to their existing timeline as well as provide specific actions under each phase. In addition, they document clearly and perfectly the functional and nonfunctional requirements in their requirement analysis.
In the design documentation, they used sequence and state transition diagrams that made me aware of the process of request of service form and its usage.

The project plan was great and covered all the needs, so I have nothing to add at this point.

Finally, their meeting minutes were informative, neat, and concise, explaining the major points in every meeting. It is worthwhile for the university to adopt this project. The team members did a great comparison between the old and the new request of services in their final presentation, which showed their confidence in constructing their project.