Project Management Case Study 35% Purpose and Introduction Lessons learned are a part of project management best practice, and we can also use them to consolidate our learning and understanding of project management, particularly by the use of counterfactual thinking. In this assignment, you will, individually, prepare a final paper that explores a significant project failure or delay, providing at least three actionable recommendations to resolve the situation. The latter component requires counterfactual thinking, which is designed to stimulate a fulsome understanding of project management tools and techniques. Case Study Identify a public-facing project that has been either significantly delayed, failed, or has experienced significant issues (e.g., City of Calgary Green Line LRT project, City of Calgary 14 St BRT, City of Edmonton Valley Line LRT project. Grand Prairie Regional Hospital, etc.) For the purposes of this case study, you may not use a project that you have participated in as a project team member, client, or mentor. This avoids any ethical concerns regarding consent to participate in this case study or use of non-public information. Using publicly-available sources and information. you will summarize the project, identifythe presenting issue(s) of the project, and identify at least three recommendations which may have averted the issue(s) (i.e., avoidance, contingency plan(s), transference, or mitigation). Assignment Requirements 1. This project is worth 35% of your course grade. This is an individual assignment, and collaboration is as; permitted. The case study should be formatted according to APA requirements. httsz/libguides.sait.ca/apa Submission for this case study is Turnitin enabled. Due date for this case study is Sunday December 10I 2023 @ 2359 hrs. Late submission will have a 10% deduction applied per 24-hour day or portion thereof (including weekends). to a maximum of 30%. No late submissions will be accepted more than 72 hours past the deadline, and a grade of zero will be assigned. PPS-*3!\" Case Study Rubric - Exceeds Expectations Meets Expectations Does Not Meet Expectations Grade Identifies an appropriate case study with justification for status issues. Summarizes 4 Ws (5 Ws less \"why") effectively. (8 - 10 marks) Identification Case as delayed, failed. or affected by Identifies an appropriate case study without fulljustification for status as delayed, failed, or affected by issues. Summarizes 4 Ws (5 Ws less "why") effectively. (5 - 7 marks} Does not identify an appropriate case study andior does not summarize 4 Ws effectively. (0 - 4 marks) Clearly identies cause(s) leading up to recommendation. appropriate action that could be taken to address the cause(s) identified. Identifies impact on project triangle (cost, time, scope), and quality. (16 20 marks) Recommendation 1 Clearly identies cause(s) leading up to recommendation. appropriate action that could be taken to address the cause(s) identified. Identifies impact on project triangle (cost, time, scope), and quality. (16 20 marks) Recommendation 2 Clearly identies cause(s) leading up to recommendation. appropriate action that could be taken to address the cause(s) identified. Identifies impact on project triangle (cost, time, scope), and quality. (16 20 marks) Recommendation 3 Identifies a distinct, contextually- ldentilies a distinct, contextually- ldentifies a distinct, contextually- Less clearly identifies cause(s) leading up to recommendation. Identifies a less distinct, or less contextually-appropriate action that could be taken to address the cause[s) identified. Identifies impact on project triangle (cost, time. scope). and quality. (10 15 marks) Less clearly identifies cause(s) leading up to recommendation. Identifies a less distinct, or less contextually-appropriate action that could be taken to address the cause[s} identified. Identifies impact on project triangle (cost, time. scope). and quality. (10 15 marks) Less clearly identifies cause(s) leading up to recommendation. Identifies a less distinct, or less contextually-appropriate action that could be taken to address the cause(s) identified. Identifies impact on project triangle (cost, time, scope), and quality. {10 15 marks) Cause(s) leading up to recommendation are not well-defined. Action is not distinct or contextually- appropriate, or does not adequately address the cause(s) identified. May identifiy impact on project triangle (cost. time, scope}, and quality. (0 - 9 marks) Cause(s) leading up to recommendation are not well-defined. Action is not distinct or contextually- appropriate, or does not adequately address the causels) identified. May identifiy impact on project triangle (cost. time, scope}, and quality. (CI - 9 marks} Cause(s) leading up to recommendation are not well-defined. Action is not distinct or contextually- appropriate, or does not adequately address the causels) identified. May identifiy impact on project triangle (cost. time, scope), and quality. (0 - 9 marks]