1 of 17

Harvest city

The Intelligent Procurement System

Group 2

Divya Lalwani

Divya Chaudhary

Vyom Dalal

Jyoti Gupta

Deepanshu Agrawal

2 of 17

Executive Summary

​

​

​

​

  • Construct a modern, prestigious and price-competitive convention center.​

​

  • Create a luxurious gathering place for residents​.

​

  • Promote the city as global business destination.

​

  • Phase 1 will include hotel, convention center and parking garage.

​

  • IoT based procurement system needs to be implemented for a luxurious and unique experience.

​

  • The procurement system would integrate customer service, bookings, operations and building management systems at Harvest city. 

​

​

​

3 of 17

  • An intelligent building system that integrates mechanical, electrical and security systems with a reliability of more than 80%.
  • Streamline hotel routine operations and promptly address on-demand customer needs for a unique experience.
  • Reduce complex operational costs by 30% while increasing service flexibility by 18%.

​

​

​

​

  • Need cloud-based procurement system which will track  and deliver direct and indirect items efficiently and affordably.
  • Have IoT procurement system integrated with booking and property management system.
  • Total budget is $26 million and to be completed by Nov 1, 2016.

​

Business Requirements

4 of 17

Solution Requirements

IoT Project Plan with approvals from Harvest City, Venso and the project management team

Modified contract for intelligent system enabled units with Phase 1 tenants

IoT Procurement System design framework

IoT Procurement System cloud integration

Sensor and actuator installation

Sensor logic programming

IoT system software tools and dashboard

Successful testing of the integrated building system

5 of 17

Work Breakdown Structure

Milestones​

Date Completed​

Project Management Plan Completed​

04/10/2022​

IoT System Design Completed​

07/10/2022​

Hardware Setup Completed​

11/10/2022​

Software Setup Completed​

01/10/2023​

Testing Completed​

03/10/2023​

Deployment Completed​

04/10/2023​

6 of 17

Scope Change Control Plan

7 of 17

Scope change control

A change tracker can be used to request, track, deliberate and decide changes to the project scope

​

​

​

​

Request Date

Change Initiator

Change Requested

Reason for Change

Impact on Deliverables

Impact on Timeline

Impact on Cost

Impact on Quality

Approvers

Decision Status

26 Jan 2022

Venso

Upgrade Wi-Fi bandwidth to 100G 

Kitchen sensor requires low latency

None

None

+$40k annually

Moderate

Harvest City

Approved

04 Feb 2022

Elevator Vendor

New keypad panels

IoT-friendly panels required

None

+2 weeks

+$10k one-time cost

High

Project Manager

Pending

8 of 17

Scope change analysis

Change Requested

Reason for Change

Effort Rating

Risk Rating

Cost Rating

Value Rating

RCVE Category

Upgrade W-iFi bandwidth to 100G 

Kitchen sensor requires low latency

Low

Low

Medium

High

Prioritize

New keypad panels

IoT-friendly panels required

Low

Low

Low

Medium

Consider

The impact analysis for the scope change can be done using a RCVE matrix

9 of 17

Out-of-Scope

Procurement system will not be built for tenants in phase 1

Managing marketing campaigns and public relations is excluded

Procurement system will not be implemented for any device not included in the contract

Legal proceedings involving Venso or tenants are not included

10 of 17

Project� Constraints

  • To implement and deliver all the features listed in the contract.
  • All building systems should function properly along with the integration of IoT procurement.

Scope

  • The time to build the maintenance system is 5 months.
  • In 12 months, phase-2 tenants should have their IoT system integrated and tested.

Schedule

  • The IoT procurement system should meet all the contract's quality standards and requirements.

Quality

  • The project's budget is limited to $1.5 million.
  • The reconstruction costs to accommodate the procurement system changes is $500,000.

Cost

11 of 17

Risk Assessment

  • Qualitative risk analysis using Risk assessment matrix
  • Risk score = Probability × Severity
  • Risks above 10 are high risk events

​

​

​

​

Risk

Probability

Potential Impact

Risk score

Schedule risk

4

3

12

Conflicting requirements

3

5

15

Scope creep

4

3

12

Management risk

3

3

9

Technical risk

2

2

4

Communication risk

3

3

9

Post-implementation changes

2

4

8

Complexity

4

4

16

12 of 17

Scope Trade-off Analysis

Limiting support infrastructure cost to $500k by reducing the number of IoT enabled units 

Adding additional team members to supplement Venso's team for IoT installation

Increasing the timeline for the IoT system development by 2 more months

Case 1

Case 2

Case 3

Trade-off Analysis

Cost

Time

Scope

Case 1

​

​

​

Case 2

​

​

​

Case 3

​

​

​

  • A scope tradeoff analysis can help us recommend a particular tradeoff to the sponsors

​

  • Since Scope > Cost > Time for this project, we recommend  adoption of tradeoff Case 3 to Harvest City

13 of 17

Importance of Project Scope Management

Budget Estimation

Schedule Estimation

Resource Estimation and Management

Communication with the Stakeholders 

Quality of the Deliverables

Risk Assessment

14 of 17

Top 3 Important Processes, Tools and Techniques

Work Breakdown Structure (WBS)

Change Control Process

MoSCoW

15 of 17

Lessons Learned

    • Helpful in scope definition and scope management since it represents 100% of the work to be done for the project.
    • Critical for phases throughout the project like setting project baseline, scheduling and staffing and project execution.

Work Breakdown Structure (WBS)

    • Crucial for allowing a formal process for requesting change in project scope, thus preventing scope creep and potential failure of the project.

Change Control Process

    • It is a versatile tool used in collecting requirements, defining scope and prioritizing features by listing them into four categories namely must have, should have, could have and won't have.

MoSCoW

16 of 17

References

Norman, E. S., Brotherton, S. A., & Fried, R. T. (2008). Work breakdown structures: the foundation for project management excellence. John Wiley & Sons.

Raz, T., & Michael, E. (2001). Use and benefits of tools for project risk management. International journal of project management, 19(1), 9-17.

Applegate, Lynda M., & Ramiro Montealegre. (2018). Harvest City: The Intelligent Procurement System Project. Harvard Business School Brief Case 918-507.

Khan, A. (2006). Project scope management. Cost engineering, 48(6), 12-16.

Wang, W. T., & Ko, N. Y. (2012). Knowledge sharing practices of project teams when encountering changes in project scope: A contingency approach. Journal of Information Science, 38(5), 423-441.

PMP, M. S. D. (2004). The triple constraints in project management. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

​

17 of 17

Thank you

  • Group 2

20XX

Divya Lalwani

Divya Chaudhary

Vyom Dalal

Jyoti Gupta

Deepanshu Agarwal

​