Theme Park Project: Course Project Part 3
Background �
In the first two parts of our Course Project you have been taking your own selected project and
documenting the effort (the Scope Statement), creating your initial WBS/Schedule, and then augmenting
your schedule with additional information like durations, task dependencies, and estimated costs. �Then
you have been justifying your schedule and budget estimates.�
In Course Project Part-3 (CP3) we will be starting afresh with a brand new project effort which you will all
tackle, the creation of a theme park. �The thinking here is, given the wide variety of projects selected by
students, using a common project problem would expose the class to a uniform level of challenge in this
most complex part of the course project (using EVA and developing a set of corrective actions for a
project in execution).�
Overview�
At a high level you will be building fully populated project schedule in Microsoft Project for the theme park
effort to include:�
- Defining tasks�
- Defining task hierarchies�
- Defining task durations�
- Defining task dependencies�
- Defining task constraints�
- Defining resources�
- Assigning resources to tasks�
- Assigning variable and fixed costs�
- Establishing a Project baseline�
- Establishing a percentage complete �
- Defining a reporting period�
- Determining our EVA values (actually pulling those out of MSP which will do the calculations for
you!)�
- Determining your project status given all the data�
- Developing corrective actions to get us back on track�
- Documenting what you found and what we plan to do about it�
Executive Summary
THEME PARK PROJECT 2
The use of project management tools such as Microsoft Project (MSP) Program is
without any doubts one of the vital methods of ensuring that project implementation is under
control, particularly based on Earned Value Analysis (EVA) indices and/or indicators. This is
attributed to the fact that, if the obtained EVA indices and/or indicators are not favorable the
project manager and his/her team embarks on developing a set of corrective actions for a project
in execution. Through the analysis, the Earned Value Analysis (EVA) indices and/or indicators
for the theme park project implementation are outlined in Table 1 shown below:
Theme Park Project Earned Value Analysis (EVA)
Earned Value
Planned
Value–P
V
(BCWS)
Earned
Value–EV
(BCWP)
Actual
Cost– AC
(ACWP)
Schedule
Variance-
SV
Cost
Variance –
CV
BAC EAC VAC
$1,651,86
6.67
$1,086,640
.60
$1,230,68
3.00
$565,226.0
7
–
$144,042.4
0
$4,449,92
0.00
$5,039,822.
14
–
$589,9
02.14
Earned Value Cost indicators
Planned
Value – PV
(BCWS)
Earned
Value – EV
(BCWP)
Cost
Variance –
CV
CV
%
CPI BAC EAC VAC TC
$1,651,866
.67
$1,086,640.
60
–
$144,042.40
13%
0.8
8
$4,449,920.
00
$5,039,82
2.14
-$589,9
02.14
1.04
Earned Value Schedule indicators
Planned
Value – PV
(BCWS)
Earned
Value – EV
(BCWP)
Schedule
Variance –
SV
SV % SPI
$1,651,866
.67
$1,086,640.
60
-$565,226.07 -34% 0.66
Based on the obtained EVA indices and/or indicators, the project as it now stands is at
risk primarily with regards to cost and schedule. This is because a review of the project’s Critical
Path; it is evident that some tasks, especially those with later start dates will pose a time
THEME PARK PROJECT 3
constraint on project completion within the intended date. This can be addressed by rescheduling
the tasks to ensure that tasks which can be executed with other simultaneously are pushed
forward. A review of current EVA values and the current forecasting numbers such as EAC and
VAC show that the project is currently running over-budget and behind schedule and also
estimated to be completed over-budget and behind schedule. The corrective actions to address
these issues include revisiting the planning process in order to update the project management
plan including rescheduling of tasks and resources so that the project can be brought back in line
with constraints and objectives.
THEME PARK PROJECT 4
Detailed Analysis and Corrective Plan Essay
Regular observation and measurement of project implementation against the project plan
is imperative in ensuring that the project is completed within acceptable variances of schedule,
scope and schedule, and to ensure issues and risks are monitored continuously and the necessary
corrective actions taken (Hamilton, 2004). However, out of the three key determiners of success
in a project namely schedule, budget, and customer satisfaction or scope, the most difficult to
achieve successfully is usually the project budget (Hamilton, 2004). According to Hamilton
(2004) the project tasks need to proactively monitor and control tasks in a project plays an
important role in the identification of issues ahead of time in order to enable the appropriate
corrective actions to be taken.
Based on the obtained EVA indices and/or indicators, the project as it now stands is at
risk primarily with regards to cost and schedule. For instance, all the current (baseline +40%)
EVA numbers indicate that the project is currently behind schedule and over budget. In
particular, the Earned Value (EV) of $1,086,640.60 against a Planned Value (PV) of
$1,086,640.60 is not a good indicator of the project progress based on the difference. However,
from the perspective of the Actual Cost (AC) of $1,230,683.00, this is an indication that upon
appropriate corrective action the project can be completed within the budgeted cost and
scheduled time or slightly off the estimates. A consideration of the EVA indicators of –
$565,226.07 and -$144,042.40 for Schedule Variance (SV) and Cost Variance (CV) respectively
further indicates that the project is currently behind schedule and over budget since both are
negative. Furthermore, SPI of 0.66 and CPI of 0.88 are further indication that the project is
currently behind schedule and over budget since both are below 1.
THEME PARK PROJECT 5
In addition, the current forecasting numbers such as Estimate cost at Completion (EAC)
and Variance at Completion (VAC) can be used to estimate cost of project completion and cost
variance at completion respectively. The formula used to calculate EAC is AC + ETC; while the
formula to calculate VAC is BAC-EAC. From the analysis, the values of EAC and VAC are
$5,039,822.14 and -$589,902.14 respectively (Philipson & Antvik, 2009). However, despite the
VAC, a TC of 1.04 indicates that the project can still be completed within the budgeted cost
(Devaux, 2014).
Moreover, from the review of the project’s Critical Path; it is evident that some tasks,
especially those with later start dates will pose a time constraint on project completion within the
intended date. The necessary corrective action to address this is by rescheduling the tasks to
ensure that tasks which can be executed with other simultaneously are pushed forward (Philipson
& Antvik, 2009). Furthermore, since a review of current EVA values and the current forecasting
numbers such as EAC and VAC show that the project is currently running over-budget and
behind schedule and also estimated to be completed over-budget and behind schedule
(Humphreys, 2011).
The corrective actions to address these issues include revisiting the planning process in
order to update the project management plan so that the project can be brought back in line with
constraints and objectives. This is mainly because these corrective actions are conceptualized
after thoroughly evaluating the possible threats or detriments likely to affect the budget cost and
allocated time to complete the project (Philipson & Antvik, 2009). The purpose of the corrective
action is to ensure that that projects risks are reduced or lessened, which potentially have adverse
impacts prior to any significant delay and/or over spending can occur. Thus, it is possible to push
the project completion date to 12/19/08 by rescheduling critical path tasks and allocation of more
THEME PARK PROJECT 6
resources which would undoubtedly require some budget compromises attributed to allocation of
more workers or working overtime.
THEME PARK PROJECT 7
References
Devaux, S. A. (2014). Managing Projects as Investments: Earned Value to Business Value.
London, UK: CRC Press.
Hamilton, A. (2004). Handbook of Project Management Procedures. New York, NY: TTL
Publishing, Ltd.
Humphreys, G. (2011). Project Management Using Earned Value. Newtown Square, PA:
Humphreys and Associates.
Philipson, E., & Antvik, S. (2009). Earned Value Management: An introduction. New York, NY:
Philipson Biz.
