Free Essay About Post Project Review

Ensign post project review.

1.0 Abstract.
This project is about Ensign which is a small startup Company. The Company is producing hand-build versatile powerboats for the leisure market. The boats provided by Ensign are crafted from aluminum and built in South Devon. The Company produces manmade boats that are the higher end of the market. Ensign is selling its boats at 16,000 pounds apiece. Ensign came up with a project that was investigating the needs of the customers in the market and the boats that are offered by the competitors in the market. The Company was determining the gaps that exist between the boats provided by the competitors and the boats that are needed by the customers. The following is the post-project review of Ensign Project.
1.2 Summary of the project.
Ensign conducted a research on the specifications that are a requirement for the boats. The research was mainly carried put to understand what customers want and need concerning the boats specifications. Also, Ensign was in need of understanding the gaps that may be prevailing in the market that Ensign Competitors are missing. The project was completed by the Ensign team despite the challenges they faced while in the field.
The goals of the project were to find out the features that customers desire in the boats. It will help Ensign greatly to develop the boats that will meet the customers’ needs and preferences. The other objective of the project was to find out the boats that are given by the competitors and the gaps that prevail between the offered boats and those required by the customers. It is of a great importance to Ensign since it will take the advantage of those gaps. It will provide the boats that customers are in need hence securing a competitive advantage in the market.
The scope was to identify the specifications of the boats that were needed by the customers. The deliverable that the project hoped to achieve a report that consists an outline of results about the market research. The results were to include an analysis that existed between the research on competitors and customers. The project provided a boundary between researches. The project was to research only on the features of the boats required by the customers and the boats that were offered by the competitors. Therefore, it will be very easy to determine the gaps that existed between the boats offered and those needed. Ensign project team had no need to research on other aspects like stakeholders. The scope of the project pertaining the research market consisted of two main target markets. The markets encompass families and hobby fishers.
2.0 Project team is staffing.
Ensign’s project consisted of a good team that encompassed skilled and knowledgeable members. The following is the list of Ensign Project team members: Nathan Heard, Rebecca Hicks, Marian Adu-Adjei, Jonathan Paul Keung and Daniel B van Cleak. Jonathan Paul is the Project Manager. He has the overall responsibility to ensure that there is successful opening of the project, proposal, execution, planning, monitoring, and conclusion. The other team members were responsible for making sure that the delegated tasks are executed and producing deliverables as per the outline of the project plan. The project team also included the University governing board. There were no other third parties that were involved in the project.
The team used relevant tools to make the project a success. For instance, effective communication, project management tools, and teamwork spirit. The team also applied the staffing lessons from previous projects to build a strong project team. From the guidance of previous projects, the team was able to allocate the resources needed appropriately. It was to the advantage of the project team that they were provided some assistance from the University board that was among the sponsors of the project.
3.0 Project deliverables (Planned vs. Actual)
Ensign completed the project successfully. Ensign had its planned deliverables for each of the project’s phases as well for the products completed. Below is the comparison of the planned deliverables with the actual deliverables as they occurred.
Ensign Project team met the deliverables. The feedback that was needed has been submitted by all the stakeholders that were part of the research team. From the feedback provided, we acknowledge that there are no deliverables that were missed or omitted during the research of the team of Ensign Project team.
4.0Transition to operation.
It is a challenging task for many organizations to transition a project to the operational environment. Ensign that there was the project team had effective communication throughout the Project’s duration. It ensured continuity once the transition takes place. The project team members were encouraged by Ensign in the research hence a success to the project.
The project was successfully transitioned to operations as a direct result of the effective communication of the team members and detailed planning. The team included the University governing board, and the Ensign Team members made sure that there is a collective approach to the creation of an improved product. The developed will ensure that the needs of the customers are met hence transitioned smoothly to a production environment.
In the future projects, they will benefit from this project by making sure that the operations staff is involved in the plan for the success of the project. The team determined the expectations of what operations required as part of the transition. Therefore, the project team was able to come up with a technical data and process specification that will be used by the operations in the manufacturing of the powerboats. Additional costs and a lot of delays may have been experienced if the operations staff has not been included in the team.
5.0 Market research.
In terms of boat shops, after the research into boat shops in the surrounding area, it was found that most generic boat shops do not sell fully developed power boats. They only sell boat parts and such engines. They also advertised areas that were used for boat storage online.

Ensign project team conducted research using online power boating forums to address the following questions:

What is the deck layout that is favored on 15 to 20ft sized power boats?
What are the features that the boats must have?
What do the customers value most in powerboat?
6.0 Results.

Uncluttered decks that had a good size and open space.

Clips that will be used to put rods on.
Space to keep the equipment for instance ice book.
The boat should have a buoy so that the boat does not move.
A thin hull.
For the powerboats that will be used, in general, the customers will prefer them to be:
Easy to fit and replace parts.
Less consumption of fuel hence efficient engine size.
Size should be considered as it costs to dock a bigger boat.
The information that the team acquired from the Powerboat Club was very useful to Ensign. It will adapt the features that are required by the customers. The information was a source of knowledge for the team.
7.0 Conclusion.
8.0 Recommendations.

The recommendation from the customer perspective was:

The deck layout should be around 17 feet with a center console and an open deck. The powerboat should have kill cord, a safety kit, and storage. The customers mostly value first price, second efficiency, third speed and fourth Engine size.
Mostly, the deck layout should range 18 to 29 feet, should have an open bow and a center console. The power boats should have V-drive, fishing equipment, and Vinyl Livery. The power boats should also have safety equipment, wakeboard, and extended warranty.
Therefore, Ensign Research was very beneficial to them since it help the team to find out what are the specification requirements of the power boats that are needed by the customers.
9.0 Reference List
Anbari, T., Carayannis, E., & Voetsch, R. (2008) ‘Post-project reviewing as one of the key project management competencies’. Technovations, 28(10), pp.633-643.
Collier, B., DeMarco, T., & Fearey, P. (1996) ‘Defined processes for project post-mortem reviews’. Software, IEEE, 13(4), pp.65-72.
Dikmen, I., Birgonul, M., Anac, C., Tah, M., & Aouad, G. (2008) ‘Learning from risks: A tool for post-project risk assessment’. Automation in Construction, 18(1), pp.42-50.
Nakayama, M., Gunawan, B., Yoshida, T., & Asaeda, T. (1999) ‘Resettlement issue of Strata Dam project: a post-project review’. International Journal of Water Resource Development (WRM), 15(4), pp.443-458.
Nakayama, M. (1998) ‘Post-project Review of Environmental Impact Assessment for Sailing Dam for Involuntary Resettlement’. International of Water Resources Development (WRM), 14(2), pp.217-229.
Ojansivu, I., Alajoutsijärvi, K., & Salo, J. (2013) ‘Developing post-project buyer–seller interactions in the service-intensive project’. Industrial Marketing Management, 42(8), pp.1318-1327.
Payne, J. M., France, K. E., Henley, N., D'Antoine, H. A., Bartu, A. E., Elliott, E. J., & Bower, C. (2011) ‘Researcher experiences with project management in health and medical researchers: Result from a post-project reviews’. BMC public health, 11(1), pp.424.
Schindler, M., & Eppler, M. J. (2003) ‘Harvest project knowledge: Reviews of project learning methods/Approaches and success factors’. International Journal of Project Management, 21(3), pp.219-228.
Wang, M., Lawal, A., Stephenson, P., Sidder, J., & Ramshaw, C. (2011) ‘Post-combustion CO 2 captures with chemical absorptions: a state-of-the-art reviews’. Chemical Engineering Research and Designs, 89(9), pp.1609-1624.
Zedtwitz, M. V. (2003) ‘Post-project reviews in R&D. Research-Technology Management, 46(5), pp.43.