Question 3 [20] Case study: Flexible benefits system implementation at Good Life Medical Centre Senior management of Good Life Medical Centre decided to procure and implement a new system that would reduce the cost and improve the service of its employee benefits coverage. The new system would have to meet four goals: improved responsiveness to employee needs, added benefits flexibility, better cost management, and greater coordination of human resource objectives with business strategies. A multifunctional team of 13 members was formed with representatives from four departments - Human Resources (HR), Financial Systems (FS), and Information Services (IS) - and six technical experts from the consulting firm of Bruce Kent Software (BKS). Early in the project a workshop was held with participants from Good Life and BKS to clarify and finalise project objectives and develop a project plan, milestones, and schedule. Project completion was set at 10 months. In that time BKS had to develop and supply all hardware and software for the new system; the system had to be brought on-line, tested, and approved; HR had to be trained to operate the system and load existing employee data; all Good Life employees had to be educated about and enrolled in the new benefits process; and the enrolment data had to be entered in the system. The director of FS was chosen to oversee the project. She had the technical background and had previously worked in the IS group in implementing Good Life's patient care information system; everyone on the team approved of her appointment as project leader. She selected two team leaders to assist her, one each from HR and IS. The HR leader's task was to ensure that the new system met HR requirements and the needs of Good Life employees. The IS leader's task was to ensure that the new software interfaced with other Good Life systems. Members of the GoodLife team worked on the project on a part-time basis, spending roughly half their time on the project and the other half on their normal daily duties. The project manager and team leaders also worked part-time on the project, although each gave the project priority. Good Life's senior management had made it clear that meeting project requirements and time deadlines was imperative. The project manager was given authority over functional managers and project team members for all project-related decisions. Source Adapted from Nicholas, J.M. & Steyn, H. 2017 Project management for engineering, business and technology, 5th edition New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis 3.1 What form of project management (basic or programme) does this case mostly resemble? Give a detailed argument. (5) 3.2 The project manager is also the director of FS, one of several departments that will be affected by the new benefits system. In your opinion, is this a good idea? What are the pros and cons of selecting her? Comment on the team members' part-time assignment to the project and the expectation that they give the project top priority, (5) (5) 3.3 3.4 Much of the success of the project depends on the performance of team members who are not employed by GoodLife, namely BKS consultants. They must develop the entire hardware/software system. Why was an outside firm likely chosen for such an important part of the project? What difficulties might this pose for the project manager in meeting project goals