11 Aug short answer of the project, a program, a portfolio, and an Operation

PART A:

Question and Answers: Each will be approximately one page each or less. Bullet format is ok.

a) If you are in a job interview and they ask you: “What is the difference between a project, a program, a portfolio, and an Operation. How will you answer that question? Give an example to illustrate.”

b) In the same job interview you are asked another question: “Can you tell me briefly the life cycles for a Project, a Program and a Portfolio? In other words what are the different stages they evolve through?”

Part B:

Your MET AD 646 Course outline (given to you at the start of the course) we listed the course learning goals as shown below. Let us attempt to gauge your knowledge using your group project as a case study. Other knowledge acquired in the PM courses you took can also be used.

The format is flexible but I have shown an example template for answers to make it easy for you. So you need to fill in your responses where it says A, C, C or X and Y or where there is a gap to write your responses. Most responses will require a sentence or two.

1. Upon completion of this course you will be able to appreciate the role of portfolios, programs and projects within the context of benefits realization. Answer: In my group project we created Program “x”. An example of a project we targeted was “z”

2. Compare the importance of benefits realization with value creation and understand why successful programs need both.

Answer: We identified three benefits: “a”, “b”, and “c”. Because of these benefits the organization benefits from the following values: “x” and “y”

3. You will be able to leverage a modern Project and Program Management (PPM) enterprise tool to plan and map new capabilities at the enterprise level.

Answer: Our team used: “X” enterprise tool to plan and map schedules at the enterprise level. The following capability “Y” of the enterprise tool was very good.

4. You will become familiar with the important terms and concepts related to program and portfolio management and the current processes and knowledge areas of global PPM standards.

Answer: See my PART A for key concepts I learned (nothing to write here since completed this earlier in PART A above).

5. You will be able to demonstrate capability in applying key Program and Portfolio tools, as it pertains to

· Strategy and Portfolio development

· Enterprise Resource Planning

· Managing schedules at the enterprise level

· Centralized Management of risks using PPM software

· Using PPM Reports and Dashboards

Answer: We described our business case, strategy, and comprehensive plan using templates. Examples of two sample templates from our project report is listed below:

a) X

b) Y

6. You will be able to describe the role of the modern Program and Portfolio manager, and distinguish it from the role of the project manager.

Answer: I believe the difference in role and skills between Program Manager and Project Manager is the following—Project Manager should be good at: X . Program Manager should be good at: X and Y.

7. You will be able to discuss the range, scope, structure, culture, and complexity of modern programs and portfolios, and be able to connect them to the organization’s strategic mission and to operations

Answer: For my group project we had the following mission

X: __________

8. You will gain proficiency in integrating the project management life cycle into the higher-level programs, portfolios and operations of an organization, with the commensurate financial metrics and drivers.

Answer: Our projects had the following start and end dates: x and y. They had the following budgets :z

Copy and paste diagram or write project and milestones below….

9. Establish the performance baseline for the program and define the key performance indicators and program metrics required to effectively monitor the delivery of the program benefits.

Answer: As a program manager I will monitor and manage “x” and “y” (example cost? Resource? Schedule? Quality?)

10. Define and prioritize program components and their interdependencies.

Answer: For my project the following are the component projects and their start and end dates.

11. Develop a methodology for stakeholder engagement and define the roles and responsibilities of both internal and external stakeholders.

Answer: For my project I had “x” stakeholders – I am showing an example of ONE stakeholder below and how to engage him/her.

12. Plan and implement the strategy, tactics, and processes needed for successful program management.

Answer: The program plan and strategy and processes are captured in the project template. I will know if my program was good and successful if in the future I see the following results:

PART C:

Case Study: Your professor was in a committee created by the Boston University President and Provost to contemplate on a Digital Strategy for Boston University (CETLI). Please answer the following questions after your read the information in the appendix and any Google Search about Boston University.

Question 1:

What is the strategic Framework for Boston University

· Mission:

· Vision:

· Values:

Question 2:

For the Digital Learning strategy initiative what is the recommended focus. I have left the case study example or GMX. Delete it and write for BU Digital learning initiative.

· Strategy

· To focus on GMX’s core competence and to develop and market product innovations in DNA microarray technology

· To build new strategic partnerships with third-party gene sequencing manufacturers and to improve existing ones

· To develop and market new products for seamless integration of arrays with the sequencers

Question 3:

Objectives:

SMART objectives are developed for each one of the above strategic goals. These objectives are presumably agreed to by the executive team and the key stakeholders.

For any one strategic goal write two objectives – these will eventually become a new portfolio or program and sometimes a project.

I have left the examples below from the GMX case study.

Strategic Goal 1: Introduce into the market at least three major new products to generate a revenue of at least $35 million over the next four years.

Strategic Goal 2: Introduce the product portfolio into Brazil within the next 18 months and obtain at least one major client to generate revenue of $5 million or more.

Appendix – study material for the final exam and case study is shown in the appendix

APPENDIX A

PORTFOLIO FOUNDATION

Exercise 1

An effective portfolio contains only those projects that are aligned with the organization’s mission, vision, strategy, goals, and objectives that form its strategic framework. The portfolio manager and team are not responsible for creating the strategic framework for the organization supporting the portfolio but must clearly understand it. The objective of this exercise is to identify the strategic framework of the protagonist organization that drives the portfolio. We present a profile of a fictitious company named GeneMatrix (GMX), a genomics-based biotechnology company located in San Diego, California. On the basis of the latest information on the company’s plans and outlook we undertake the following tasks.

· GMX’s strategic framework.

· Articulate the company’s strategic goals along the four perspectives of the balanced scorecard (BSC) framework.

· For each goal, we develop at least one corresponding objective. We make sure the objectives are SMART – specific, measurable, agreed-to, realistic, and time-bound.

Solution

The strategic framework of GeneMatrix (GMX) is summarized below in terms of its mission, vision, values, and strategy. Four strategic goals (SGs) and one SMART (specific, measurable, agreed-to, realistic, and time-bound) objective for each goal are identified.

Strategic Framework

· Mission: To save human lives and improve quality of life through human genomics

· Vision: To become the most innovative company in the area of human genomics

· Values

 Product innovation

 Technology excellence

 Customer focus

· Strategy

 To focus on GMX’s core competence and to develop and market product innovations in DNA microarray technology

 To build new strategic partnerships with third-party gene sequencing manufacturers and to improve existing ones

 To develop and market new products for seamless integration of arrays with the sequencers

· Strategic Goals

1. Expand revenue streams:

i. Introduce new product innovations

ii. Enter emerging markets

8. Increase customer satisfaction

8. Improve business processes

8. Enhance skills of project and product managers

Objectives

SMART objectives are developed for each one of the above strategic goals. These objectives are presumably agreed to by the executive team and the key stakeholders.

· SG 1A: Introduce into the market at least three major new products to generate a revenue of at least $35 million over the next four years.

· SG 1B: Introduce the product portfolio into Brazil within the next 18 months and obtain at least one major client to generate revenue of $5 million or more.

· SG 2: Improve customer satisfaction ratings by at least 10% each year for the next three years.

· SG 3: Improve the efficiency of the current business processes by 15% within the next 18 months resulting in either a cost saving or revenue generation of at least $5 million.

· SG 4: Obtain industry-standard credentials (e.g., PMP and Six Sigma) for more than 90% of the project and product management professionals within the next two years.

APPENDIX B:

Boston University Case Study

Scope and Opportunity

Online Educational Technologies

This report and its recommendations pertain to the use of online educational technologies in support of on-campus, residential programs and as a means for reaching new learning communities.

The Council defines online educational technologies as web-based services that support online educational activities, including online delivery of curricular content, online student-instructor and student-student interactions, online collaboration, and online assessment, among other capabilities.

The focus of this report is not on classroom technologies, such as clickers, audio-video capabilities, immersive environments, instrumented classrooms and studios. Implementing the report’s recommendations, however, does have implications for the redesign of classrooms and, potentially, other campus spaces.

Challenge

The maturation and pervasiveness of digital technologies have irreversibly changed the ways in which we connect with one another, access information, and acquire knowledge. As was the case in every other sector of the economy, these changes are disrupting traditional methods and models of the higher education sector.1 A transformation is underway in higher education.

With the growing availability of online educational content, including but not limited to Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs), society is justifiably questioning the value of a traditional 4-year residential college degree in a time of rising tuition and a slowing economy.

Not engaging in this transformation is not an option if BU wants to remain competitive, let alone advance its standing. Already, prospective students and parents are asking about online offerings. Moreover, BU should not wait for other institutions to define the “right model.” Rather, BU should proceed strategically by selecting areas and directions in which we are well poised to provide leadership.

Boston University must engage with emerging online educational technology to maintain, and if possible enhance, its ability to fulfill its mission as an “international, comprehensive, private research university, committed to educating students to be reflective, resourceful individuals ready to live, adapt, and lead in an interconnected world.”2

2 Boston University Mission Statement, available from http://www.bu.edu/info/about/mission-statement

3 While MOOCs have captured the attention of the public – fueled largely by popular press – the Council recognizes that the impact on higher education from using online web-based technology goes well beyond the impact of MOOCs.

Opportunity: Quality, Flexibility, Mission

Online technology3 has the potential to improve the quality of instruction and to advance learning outcomes by providing instructors with new capabilities such as:

− _Enabling the connection of students and teachers in multiple locations, thus increasing flexibility;

− _Increasing the intellectual resources of a course/program by bringing together students from around the world;

− _Via online discussion forums, enabling new forms of interactions, including anonymous, semi-anonymous, and pseudonymous interactions;

− _Enabling self-paced navigation of materials, alternative presentation of the same content in different form, length, etc.;

− _Making it possible for courses to be better adapted/paced to individual student needs, e.g., by filling gaps in the student background/preparation;

− _Making it possible to develop novel and alternative assessment methods, including the use of game-based and simulation-based approaches, adaptive and timed-release of homework assignments, peer assessment, etc.;

− _Making students’ work visible to instructors, including progress in reading assignments, specific contributions of individual students in group projects, etc.;

Developing high-quality online courses and other online content will also help BU attract stronger and better-qualified students in the following ways:

− _Leveraging online technologies is necessary to be able to converse with a new generation of students, for whom online interactions are becoming second nature, and for whom (and especially for stronger students) the completion of online courses should be expected, even before being admitted to college.

− _Offering online courses that can be made available to a wide audience will effectively promote BU to families and students and therefore should be considered as a potential recruiting tool.

Developing high-quality online courses and other online content advances the commitment in BU’s strategic plan special undergraduate educational environment that “combines our commitment to a liberal arts and sciences education with professional opportunities, while creating flexible educational opportunities to leverage the depth of CAS and our other schools and colleges”: 5 to developing a

− _Expanding the availability of online courses provides busy students with the flexibility needed to complete the degree in less time and/or at a lower cost, and may make it possible for students to reconcile study abroad with completing degree requirements.

− _Accomplished students may see the availability of online courses as a mechanism to place them out of lower-level required courses, thus enabling them to take more advanced courses.

Developing high-quality online courses and other online content will extend and solidify BU’s reputation as an institution with global reach:

− _By leveraging the scalability of emerging online platforms to reach tens of thousands of students around the world, BU will establish itself as an educator not just of international students on the home campus but of international students in their home countries.

− _Reaching new communities of learners on a global scale may lead to the development of new sources of revenue for the university, which is an important consideration in light of the increasing financial pressures on domestic institutions of higher education

Report

We believe that decisions about specific programs and institutional directions must emerge from projects/directions the faculty propose and from consultation with financial experts beyond what we had the time or capacity for. We have recommended structures for developing and prioritizing such proposals, as well as processes for involving the broader community. Specifically, (1) we set out principles that should guide BU’s investment in online technology and experimentation, (2) we recommend an organizational structure to enable both the development and execution of experiments and projects, (3) we offer a set of possible initiatives for BU to pursue

Part Two

Recommendations

The Council makes the following recommendations for institutional structures and processes that will enable BU to lead in using new technology to (a) improve the quality and flexibility of residential education, and (b) expand BU’s reach into new educational audiences and research domains. The Council believes that any strategy allowing BU to take advantage of and lead in the transformation of its traditional educational model must combine grass root participation of the faculty with top down guidance and incentives.

Recommendation #1: Organize for Innovation & Enablement

At a time of rising tuition costs and a slowing economy, advances in educational technologies will have a potentially disruptive effect on all of higher education. In such an environment, incumbent institutions, such as BU, must be particularly vigilant and capable of swift and bold responses, if circumstances warrant it. These needs are at odds with the culture and structures of most academic institutions, including ours. Operating in an environment of relative stability, academic institutions have developed traditions of decentralized self-governance where individual colleges, departments and even faculty operate with a degree of independence from the layers above them. Such a culture fosters creativity and freedom of inquiry, but also makes academic institutions slow-moving in times of radical change when coordinated action might be required.

In pursuing its charge, CETLI considered two types of activities: innovation sparked by new technology and enablement of technology-aided pedagogies. Innovation requires targeted investment, the ability to rapidly experiment, including abandoning one idea to move on to the next, and some level of detachment from the operational effort required to maintain the status quo. Enablement needs sustained, patient support, and should be undertaken after experimentation to establish best practices and foster their creative use across a broad spectrum. Both innovation and enablement must be proactive: both must combine ideas that bubble up and outreach to specific faculty. Both are necessary for institutional leadership and transformation.

To respond to the opportunities and challenges of technological disruption, the Council recommends that BU pursue a twin approach that balances innovation and enablement, and manages risk:

1. Set up a small, agile, high-profile organization to spearhead development of online initiatives, and

2. Consolidate and make visible university assets to develop and support creative uses of educational technologies across the university.

Digital Learning Initiative

Incumbent organizations usually fail to adapt to disruptive innovations due to their entrenched culture and more traditional client base.18 Clayton Christensen, one of the most prominent scholars in this field, believes that the best way for big organizations to harness the potential of disruptive innovations is to set up separate “spin-off organizations” that can behave as if they are small and agile.

The Council recommends setting up a Digital Learning Initiative (DLI), to spearhead the University’s most innovative projects in online learning, uninhibited by pre-existing culture and structures. The DLI will take on the development of the initial set of edX MOOCs, and will be tasked with pursuing the current CETLI seed grant projects and running a follow-on, similarly-fashioned grants program.

The Digital Learning Initiative should operate in an agile, start-up mode to foster and support strategic learning innovation activities. Like a start-up, if economic conditions change or the technology does not prove as effective as anticipated, DLI can be closed with no harm to the rest of the proposed support structure.

Recommendation #2: Establish a Funding Program to Advance Innovation

BU will need to provide resources to engage faculty in the development and adoption of emerging online educational technology. Volunteer faculty effort will simply not be sufficient, given the large amounts of time clearly needed to develop high-quality online courses and other materials.

Again and again in our conversations with the University community, we heard expressions of fear about, and resistance to, “another unfunded mandate.” Faculty must be afforded the time–most often through release time or summer stipends—and rewarded for undertaking the kind of innovation that will ultimately transform the university.

The Council recommends establishing an on-going funding program to be spearheaded by CETLI, in collaboration with the DLI and TRC. The program should act as a continuation of the seed grants program piloted by CETLI in Spring 2013.22

The goals of this program are to (1) promote learning innovation at all levels, and (2) advance BU’s strategic priorities for deploying online educational technology. Proposals across the full range of scope and ambition would be encouraged from individual faculty, departments and colleges.

Recommendation #3: Set up Processes for Online Courses

The council’s deliberations and community discussions on credentialing online courses indicate willingness – and even eagerness by some faculty – to entertain this possibility and to develop an approval process. Credentialing MOOCs and accepting online courses for transfer credit are different orders of business requiring different levels of scrutiny.

MOOCs

Anticipating faculty interest, institutional imperative, and student pressure to offer BU credit for MOOCs or to use MOOCs for placement – with or without additional face-to-face components or proctored assessment – the Council recommends that the Provost’s Office develop a new “stream” in the electronic Curriculum Approval Process (eCap) to review and approve proposals from departments and colleges for granting credit or course placement for MOOCs. Unlike proposals for other new courses, which are approved only at the college level, proposals for MOOCs will have institution-wide implications and hence call for the kind of institutional review the eCap process provides. CETLI, the provost, and the University Council Committee on Curriculum and Degrees (UCCCD) might be the approval bodies (in that order), with the Council of Deans as a consultative body able to offer feedback on the proposal, as is the case currently for new programs and substantive changes to programs. CETLI is in a position to align developments around MOOCs with BU’s overall strategy and with emerging best practices, and to prompt the creation of any necessary university academic policy. We note that BU’s registrar, a member of UCCCD, is part of an active group of AAU registrars working on credentialing MOOCs, and that he has written about the topic. CETLI should take advantage of that in-house expertise.

Online Courses

With the increasing quality and prevalence of online courses, there is increasing acceptance of the idea of granting transfer credit for online courses. Some BU schools and colleges do so already. The Council recommends that the review of online courses for transfer to BU be folded into the new Transfer Credit project currently being undertaken by the Registrar in collaboration with the Office of the Provost. As part of this project, CETLI should be charged with developing guidelines for evaluating online courses to help faculty in the relevant disciplines make informed decisions.

Targeted Initiatives

The Council recommends that BU start developing its online capacities by focusing on specific initiatives. Going forward, CETLI could be charged with developing and prioritizing these as well as other initiatives. To advance these priorities effectively and concertedly, a significant portion of the CETLI grants program funding might be targeted to a particular initiative for a period of time.

Initiative #1: Leveraging Digital Learning for Study Abroad

In the global context, U.S. university graduates must be able to operate effectively in teams with partners from different nations and cultural backgrounds. BU should promote the development of a diverse and globally engaged workforce. Educational technology and innovation can enhance the existing international experiences of students, provide the necessary flexibility to integrate study abroad as an essential component into higher education and allow for BU to enhance our position as a leader and service provider in the U.S.

Initiative #2: Introducing online courses using platforms such as EdX

Metropolitan College offers online courses in almost all their degrees. There is opportunity for other colleges to consider new platform such as EdX to introduce online MBA in the Questrom School.

Initiative #3: Funding Innovative software development

Faculty and staff will have opportunity to apply for funding to create innovative software. Such software (example, simulation, rich in graphics, tutorial oriented) will enhance the quality of education

1