The Home Page ·  The Integral Worm ·  My Resume ·  My Show Car ·  My White Papers ·  Organizations I Belong To

Contact Me ·  FAQ ·  Useful Links

My Information Systems Papers and Projects

Human Computer Interaction (IFSM303) ·  Web Information Architecture (IFSM387) ·  Database Project Overview (IFSM420) ·  Expert System Project (IFSM425)

Artificial Intelligence (IFSM427) ·  Information Systems and Security (IFSM430) ·  Information System Design (IFSM436)

Legal Aspects of Information Systems (IFSM474) ·  Enterprise Network Design Project (IFSM498)

"Playground Development Project for University of Maryland, Baltimore County Day Care"

(A Project Management Group Project-IFSM438)

The Project Proposal ·  The Project Charter/Letter of Agreement ·  The Communication Plan ·  The Stakeholder Analysis ·  The Sponsor Interview ·  The SWOT Analysis

The Cost/Benefit Analysis ·  Weighted Scoring and Net Present Value Analysis ·  Work Breakdown Structure ·  Lessons Learned Report ·  Project Management Final Report

Project Management Group Project Presentation: Playground Skit ·  Project Management Group Project Presentation Slide Show

Risk Analysis/Management

The Orange Zone Construction Company decided to err on the side of caution and adopted a risk mitigation plan for this project. The primary reason for adopting this risk-adverse position is that due to the fact that this is a brand new start-up company, we could not afford to be more economically aggressive in this project. The Child Care Center of UMBC also had a limited state-funded budget with which to work, so their tolerance for risk was also low.>/p>

To reduce risk on this project the following plans were in place:

• In the event a member of the group withdrew from the course, the other seven members would have to “take up the slack” of completing the project.
• In the event that one of the two group co-leaders withdrew, we had another co-leader who would have taken his place.
• In the event that both group co-leaders withdrew, a new group leader would be decided upon at the next group meeting.
• To protect the documents as they were produced, each member maintained a backup copy of his or her work.
• The editor maintained a hard-copy backup, plus three digital backups. Two of the digital backup copies were maintained on floppy disk- one copy at the home of the editor, one copy in a locker at UMBC, and the third copy on the editor's UMBC account on campus. This ensured that there was a copy somewhere in the event of some catastrophe, and in the event of a system crash, UMBC systems on campus could be used to continue the project.
• As “final” versions of each document were produced, each co-leader received a copy of the document. The two co-leaders had final approval on each document, and if an edit was made to a “final” version, each co-leader ensured that the other received this updated version for review.