1. Is it customary for a company like HCP to hold quarterly review meetings without having representation from its contractor, SoftSmart? 2. Can project status be determined without the use of metrics? 3. Should the project manager have taken the lead for the establishment of project metrics for the QuickPay Project? 4. If you were Paul Harris, how would you have reacted after being briefed at the first quarterly review meeting? 5. Do 200 scope changes in the first three months of the project indicate that there was a poor definition of the requirements? 6. Once the bad news appeared in the first quarterly review meeting, should HCP have gone to weekly rather than monthly review meetings? 292 Project Management Case Studies 7. Why did it appear that HCP's team members did not want to establish metrics? 8. Why did it appear that SoftSmart's personnel also did not want to establish metrics? 9. Would the establishment of metrics have had any impact on the project up to that point? 10. Is the turnover of key personnel in the first three months of the project an indication of looming disaster? 11. Is it advisable to perform a health check after just the first three months of the project? 12. What were the three life-cycle phases that Pegasus used in performing the health check? 13. Did Pegasus do its job correctly? 14. Was three weeks sufficient time for Pegasus to do its job? 15. Was it appropriate for Pegasus to recommend that Evelyn Williams, the project manager, be dismissed? 16. What should Paul Harris report to the executive staff? 17. What should Paul Harris say to the QuickPay team concerning the health check? 18. What is the proper way for Paul Harris to remove Evelyn Williams from the project?

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

1 Customary Practice Its generally advisable to have representation from all key stakeholders in quarterly review meetings to ensure alignment and transparency However the absence of SoftSmarts repres... View the full answer