Running head: PEAK LAN PROJECT CASE STUDY

Peak LAN Project Case Study

Group Earth

Kirk Baringer

Meagan Beeman

Allison Benton

Yolanda Boyd

Thomas Guess

Southwestern College

Joel Light, Ph. D.

MGMT 505 Project Management Fundamentals

February 05, 2012

PEAK LAN PROJECT 1

Introduction

Peak Systems is a small information systems consulting firm located in Meridian,

Louisiana (Larson & Gray, 2011). Peak Systems latest client is the City of Meriden’s social

welfare agency. The agency is in need of a local area network (LAN). The job will be

completed with one Peak Systems employee and two interns. The project is on a strict budget

not to exceed 90,000 dollars. Peak Systems has to configure 20 laptop computers, two laser

printers, and provide additional training for employees on the new system (Larson & Gray,

2011). The Peak associate has a tentative time line to complete the project in twenty six days.

There are many technical requirements that must be met in order for the LAN to work correctly.

It is essential that the team constructs an efficient system. There are also some additional

continuing services of warranties and maintenance only guaranteed up to one month after the

official project end date. Peak Systems and the clients have a clear understanding of the

limitations and expected services which are listed in a binding contract.

Risks Associated With Project

To an individual project risk is any unforeseen event or condition that can have a positive

or negative effect on project objectives (Larson & Gray, 2011). It is the process of risk

management that attempts to identify and manage potential and unforeseen problems which

might occur during the course of a given project (Larson & Gray, 2011). The risks associated

with a LAN project can be as numerous as the number of keys on a keyboard. There are many

factors that have to be put in place for an efficient system. The following paragraphs will discuss

the most notable risks associated with the City of Meridian’s Social Service Agency’s LAN

system.
PEAK LAN PROJECT 2

The first two notable risks identified in this project include the team size and

composition. The project team currently will employ only three personnel with two of these

individuals being interns from a local area university. It would be a concern to the project

manager if there will be enough manpower necessary to complete the project on time. The

necessary manpower required to install wires and cables, computer and printer set up, hardware

and software testing, customer support, and conducting required training might exceed the limit

of a three person team. There is also the possibility the interns will not be able to focus all their

attention and time to the project. Their school work could distract tear them away from working

on the project. There is no question on experience, since Peak Systems is an information

systems consulting firm. Experience is implied in this situation. Still, the team size along with

the potential loss of project team members are the first two risks that were very apparent with

this project.

The next risk is whether or not the budget allocated is realistic. When investing in a LAN

system you do not want to cut corners on anything. The current budget for the project is

$90,000. One of the most common problems with building a LAN is hardware and software

compatibility. Too often companies want to keep costs low, and the hardware that is ultimately

purchased is not compatible with the company’s software and lacks reliability. Peak Systems

should ask the City of Meridian’s Social Service Agency if the budget is really realistic and firm.

When you cut corners and try to purchase hardware based on a budget you can get hardware that

is not reliable in the long run. You can stay within the required budget by purchasing cheaper

hardware, but the potential loss in reliability and repair costs could outweigh the advantages of

purchasing subpar hardware. The cheaper hardware might present compatibility issues when

paired with security software, database software, and potential updates to software packages.
PEAK LAN PROJECT 3

Peak Systems needs to present a more realistic budget number if hardware reliability and

compatibility is a real concern to the customer.

Another risk that might present itself based on the one month expected project duration is

the availability of the critical hardware and software required for the project. The project

specifications call for a great deal of hardware, and the customer is very precise in what they

want. This could cause a problem with locating, purchasing, and delivery of the hardware within

the required time limit. If the customer is still expecting the project to remain within the $90,000

budget extra time could be required to test compatibility with software once the requested

hardware arrives. Peak Systems might have to use multiple suppliers to get all the hardware

delivered with enough time to complete the rest of the project.

The next risk identified is the direct result of the requirement for secure external access

for field workers. If this access is to be accomplished using the wireless cards multiple security

issues could come into play once the project is completed and possibly during the project itself.

The most secure connection is always going to be a wired connection via an Ethernet card. It

would be assumed the customer will be utilizing a database system which could contain

information subject to the Privacy Act of 1974. Wireless connections put the security of this

information at risk no matter how secure the wireless connection is. Also, if the customer plans

on using a physical database it should reexamine the type of work to be accomplished by field

workers using a wireless connection. Wireless connections work best with databases which are

totally internet based. You will still have the security issue mentioned earlier, but this prevents

database corruption due to field workers losing connection to the actual database.

Lastly, one of the milestones in the project involves setting user’s priority and

authorizations. This occurs pretty early in the project and any potential risks could be caught
PEAK LAN PROJECT 4

early enough, but they could also lead to delays in the rest of the project. The problem

associated with this milestone is data that will be provided to Peak Systems. If employees and

their required roles and permissions are not listed correctly when handed over to Peak Systems

employees may not be able to log onto computers, access network printers or drives, access

certain database features, or accomplish their duties in general.

The risks identified above are very notable and could present a burden on the project and

the project team. The purpose of risk management is to identify these risks in order to make the

necessary changes prior to starting the project in an attempt to reduce their impact on the project.

Peak Systems will need to present the risks identified above to the City of Meridian’s Social

Service Agency in order for to discuss any potential changes to the project. It will be in the best

interest of both parties involved to act on this risk analysis prior to starting any project work.

Risk Assessment

While there can be several risks with any project, mapping them out can be beneficial and

help prepare a team for what might occur. Conducting a scenario analysis is the most commonly

used technique for analyzing risks (Larson & Gray, 2011). Risk assessment matrices can use any

form of valuation, from very precise numbers, such as decimals, to whole numbers and

sometimes even rank-order descriptors. While analyzing the risks for the Peak LAN project,

rank-order descriptions were used for their simplicity to understand. When it came to the

likelihood of the team size of the project being affected by a person leaving, it is highly probable,

so it was given a rank of “very high.” The risk of user priorities and access not being granted is

low due to the fact it is a list given to Peak Systems. To ensure the list is not without errors, it

needs to be checked and double-checked before being handed over to Peak Systems.
PEAK LAN PROJECT 5

Figure 1: Risk Assessment Matrix

Detection
Risk Event Likelihood Impact When
Difficulty
Team Size Very High High Very Low Continuous

Budget High Very High Low Continuous

Availability of
Moderate High Moderate Installation
hardware and
software
Secure
High High High Installation
external/wireless
access
User priorities &
Low Moderate High Start-up
authorizations -
can’t log on

Impact scales can a bit more difficult to determine. The impact a risk has on a project

needs to be assessed in terms of project priorities (Gray & Larson, 2011). Different risks can

affect different areas of the project. For example, issues with the budget can have a serious

impact on the project. If enough money is not allocated for the project it can bring work to a

complete standstill. Working with a small budget can also cause compatibility issues if the

project manager chose to purchase cheaper equipment. With these reasons in mind, budget was

given a “very high” impact.

Detection difficulty is the measure of how easy it would be to detect that an event was

going to occur. Once again, rank-order descriptors were used. In determining detection

difficulty for availability of hardware and software it was given a ranking of “moderate.” The

ability to acquire the necessary hardware through multiple suppliers makes this risk moderate.

However, as the project moves forward this ranking may be adjusted. The “when” factor in the

risk assessment merely states when the risk could occur. In this scenario most of the risk is at the

beginning and throughout the project.

PEAK LAN PROJECT 6

Figure 2: Risk Response Matrix

Risk Event Response Contingency Trigger Who is

Plan Responsible
Team size Add personnel Sub-contract if Workload Peak Project
possible and compared to Manager
within budget timeline working with
City of Meridian
Budget Increase budget Negotiate with At the earliest City of Meridian
or downsize the City of point it becomes And Peak project
project Meridian obvious the manager
budget is too
small
Availability of Send bids out to See if extras can From the onset Peak project
hardware and several suppliers be placed on of the LAN manager
software standby and project if there
returned if are shortages
unused
Secure Set up tests to Have alternate At the earliest Peak Project
external/wireless ensure this ways for remote point this system manager
Access system is employees to can be tested
working and access the server and doesn’t
secure work.
User priorities & Have a standby Have a At the earliest Peak Project
authorizations - system while secondary server point the LAN manager
can’t log on transitioning to system on can be tested,
the new LAN or standby and run tests
work weekends don’t take the periodically
and off peak entire LAN down throughout the
hours until the new installation to
system is help catch
running glitches.

With this being such a big project with such a small team it is apparent that there may be

some glaring risks before the project ever kicks off. It is very risky to use a full-time employee

and two interns to install a LAN with a working government operation. It is also typical for a

government organization to take the lowest bidder and for the contractor to low ball the bid in
PEAK LAN PROJECT 7

order to get the contract. Change orders need to be discussed along with the budget constraints

long before this project gets off of the ground.

Unfortunately, much of the risk mitigation and management falls squarely on the project

manager, because you may presume that the only full-time employee working with the interns

would be the project manager. This person will also become the primary worker and negotiator

with the City of Meridian. A Monte Carlo risk simulation would be essential as it may reveal

that this project could be a real problem before the project begins, and the simulation will save a

lot of hassle and heartache if it can be renegotiated, re-budgeted, sub-contracted by Peak, or if

Peak backs out of the contract altogether. The realization is this might be too big of a project for

such a small operation like Peak Systems. Conversely, if Peak System is in a position to sub-

contract and work within the established budget it may be the one sacrificial contract that really

allows them to “get on their feet” with contracting LAN installations.

Monte Carlo Simulation

Since there’s a high level of uncertainly regarding the established budget for the Peak

LAN project, it will be in the best interest of all parties to run a Monte Carlo simulation to

determine the probability that the project can be completed within the prescribed budget and

timeframe. The Monte Carlo Simulation helps predict risk and uncertainties by using statistical

data to help project managers determine trends in the data (Bowden, Lane & Martin, 2001). The

Monte Carlo Simulation helps identify variables that begin to make a pattern or a norm. This

simulation could also include variables associated with the other named risks: human resource

capital, availability of materials, network security and user authorizations. The data is also used

to make a distribution chart to help realize the trends in the data.

PEAK LAN PROJECT 8

The main advantage by completing a Monte Carlo analysis of potential risks is that it will

provide an improved decision as to whether to move forward with the existing project scope

or to negotiate with the City of Meridian for different project terms. These modified terms

would include increased budget, additional team members, and more time among other

things. As with any project, the basic benefits of performing a Monte Carlo simulation for

the Peak LAN project can further be described as follows:

 Monte Carlo simulation allows for the testing of theories prior to launching the

project. The relatively short time it takes to complete the simulation and affordable

cost of a program to run the necessary calculations would offset additional time and

money wasted on an unsuccessful project.

 Performing a Monte Carlo simulation for the LAN project will provide statistical

validity to the city. Rather than moving forward and potentially compromising

quality and or efficiency, the Peak project manager can confidently communicate the

percentage probability of the project meeting its stated goals based on the existing

plan.

 A Monte Carlo simulation will assist the project manager in communicating with the

customer in regards to their expectations. The analysis will help the project manager

explain how quality, efficiency and favorable cost can all be met if the project is

restructured (i.e., project delivery date of 2/16/2012 has a 36.4% chance of being

achieved yet a 3/01/2012 date has an 85.6% probability of being met).

 By reviewing certain factors within the analysis, certain actions can be compared with

others from a risk perspective. Models can then be tweaked to balance risk and return

in the estimate and/or plan. Monte Carlo simulations allow the project manager to
PEAK LAN PROJECT 9

see what factors are causing changes within your model. For example, they may

learn that the larger the project team, the more unlikely it will be that the LAN project

will suffer from delays (Lanza, 2009).

Conclusion

The Key to success of this project is to realize the difficulty of the project scope, asses the

risks, and inquiring about possible solutions. It is Peak Systems specialty, but the complication

of the LAN system must be addressed with number of employees and interns allocated to the

project. The risk associated with the low number of personnel could cause the project to come to

a standstill and affect the projected timeline, budget, and customer satisfaction. Peak Systems

should use more full-time employees dedicated to the project as well as discussing if the

allocated budget is reasonable. Corners should not be cut on LAN networks, because if they are

done incorrectly it could affect the whole agency resulting in lower productivity. The risk

assessment and risk response matrix help pinpoint the areas of concern. Also, the Monte Carlo

Simulation can offer some statistical data on the risks associated with the project. Still, with the

proposed changes and planning the project could be a success.

PEAK LAN PROJECT 10

References:

Bowden, A. R., Lane, M. R., & Martin, J. H. (2001). Triple bottom line risk management. New

York, NY: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Brabston, M., &Chen, F. (2011). LAN configuration and analysis: projects for the data

communications and networking course. Journal of Information Systems Education,

22(1), 7+.

Brewin, B., & Verton, D. (2002). WIRELESS LAN WORRIES MOUNT. Computerworld,

36(6), 1.

Heck, M. (1993, February 1). High-end project managers: coordinate enterprisewide projects

with desktop flexibility. InfoWorld, 15(5), 59+.

Lanza, R. B. (2003). Getting to realistic estimates and project plans: A Monte Carlo approach.

Information Strategy The Executives Journal, 19(4), 26.

Larson, E. W., & Gray, C. F. (2011). Project Management The Managerial Process. New York:

McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

Prince, J. (2007). Best Practices for LAN Security Projects. Business Communications Review,

37(11), 54-57.