Question 1: Crashing, Please Respond To The Following Based

Question 1crashing Please Respond To The Followingbased On The Sce

Question 1 “Crashing.” Please respond to the following: Based on the scenario given in Exercise 7 at the end of Chapter 8 in the textbook, calculate the crash cost per week for each activity. Decide the sequence of crashing decisions you would make to compress the project most cost effectively and calculate the total cost (remember to include the penalty incurred for weeks past the end of September and to consider the bonus). Formulate a plan for presenting the options to the Ketchum City Council. SAMPLE ATTACHED

Paper For Above instruction

Project crashing is a strategic process used to reduce the duration of a project by accelerating certain activities at additional costs, aiming to meet desired completion dates while minimizing expenses. In this context, the goal is to analyze the scenario provided in Exercise 7 at the end of Chapter 8 in the textbook, to determine an optimal crashing plan that balances cost, time, penalties, and bonuses, and to effectively communicate this plan to the Ketchum City Council.

Given the scenario, the first step involves calculating the crash cost per week for each activity. This metric helps in identifying which activities are most cost-effective to crash, based on their cost per unit time reduction. The crash cost per week is determined by dividing the additional cost incurred to crash an activity by the number of weeks it can be shortened. Formally, it is calculated as:

Crash Cost per Week = (Crash Cost - Normal Cost) / (Normal Duration - Crashed Duration)

Once the crash costs per week are computed for all activities, the next step is to prioritize crashing activities starting from the least expensive per week to the most expensive, ensuring the project is compressed as efficiently as possible. This involves analyzing how crashing each activity affects the overall project duration and identifying the activities that directly impact the critical path.

The sequence of crashing decisions should follow a logical pattern: crashing activities that are on the critical path, starting with those that have the lowest crash cost per week, to minimize additional expenses. It is essential to consider the interdependencies among activities, as crashing one activity might affect others, or might not lead to a reduction in overall project duration if it is not on the critical path.

In addition to cost considerations, it’s critical to account for the penalties associated with completing the project past the end of September, as well as any bonuses for early completion. The penalty needs to be factored as an additional cost that increases if the project extends beyond the deadline, thereby affecting the overall total project cost. Conversely, any bonus for early completion might offset some of the crashing costs if applicable.

To develop a comprehensive plan, a cost-benefit analysis should be performed for each crashing option, calculating the total projected cost of the project under different scenarios. This includes summing the baseline project cost, added crashing costs, penalties, and subtracting the bonus, if applicable. The optimal crashing sequence minimizes this total cost while satisfying the project deadline.

Finally, the plan for presenting options to the Ketchum City Council involves clear, visual, and straightforward communication. This could include presenting a detailed Gantt chart illustrating potential crash schedules, cost tables showing the incremental costs associated with crashing each activity, and a summary of the total projected costs for each scenario. Emphasizing the trade-offs between cost, time, penalties, and bonus incentives will facilitate informed decision-making by the council.

In summary, the key steps are: calculate crash costs per week, prioritize activities to crash based on cost-effectiveness, incorporate penalty and bonus considerations, model various crashing scenarios, and prepare a presentation that clearly illustrates the implications and recommendations for project compression.

References

  • Kerzner, H. (2017). Project Management: A systems approach to planning, scheduling, and controlling. John Wiley & Sons.
  • PMI. (2017). A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide) (6th ed.). Project Management Institute.
  • Larson, E. W., & Gray, C. F. (2017). Project Management: The managerial process. McGraw-Hill Education.
  • Meredith, J. R., & Mantel Jr, S. J. (2014). Project management: A managerial approach. John Wiley & Sons.
  • Chapman, C., & Ward, S. (2011). How to manage project risk and uncertainty. John Wiley & Sons.
  • Cheng, M. Y., & Wang, W. (2013). Budget compression and acceleration for project management. International Journal of Project Management, 31(2), 333–345.
  • Zwikael, O., & Smyrk, J. (2011). Evaluation of project planning and strategy. Springer.
  • Heagney, J. (2016). Fundamentals of project management. AMACOM.
  • Harrison, F., & Lock, D. (2017). Advanced project management: A structured approach. Gower Publishing.
  • Heldman, K. (2018). Project management jumpstart. Sybex.

Related Assignments