City of Philadelphia Pole and Pole Attachment Geodatabase Design Project Plan

Loren PfauGEOG 584 – Lesson 9

22 March 2011

1

Overview: The City of Philadelphia Department of Streets wishes to engage XYZ GIS, LLC to provide services

to develop a Geodatabase Design for poles and pole attachments. XYZ, a geospatial consulting

firm, will conduct the activities required to develop and deliver a Personal Geodatabase to

manage the City’s GIS information on poles and pole attachments. Over the course of the project

XYZ will analyze the City’s existing ArcView/dBase GIS system; develop a Geodatabase design;

migrate data from the existing system to the Geodatabase; and provide documentation and

training on the new system to City personnel.

Project ScopeThe activities conducted as a part of this project will be organized around the four Tasks defined in the City’s Scope of Work in the RFP:

1. Analyze the existing shapefile database structurea. Review current shapefile database structure and documentationb. Document data table relationships and domain constraints

2. Attend two on-site working meetings to discuss and finalize business logica. Meeting 1: Review findings of Task 1b. Meeting 2: Finalize future design requirementsc. Document meeting outcomes

3. Design a Personal Geodatabasea. Develop Visio Enterprise UML diagramsb. Render Personal Geodatabase schema using ArcCatalog Case Toolsc. Conduct Department of Streets GIS staff design sessions and training

i. Train staff on Geodatabase design processii. Document comments and concerns on business logic

iii. Create final Visio UML drawings and a test personal Geodatabase4. Migrate Pole Shapefile into a Personal Geodatabase

a. Develop VBA scripts to migrate from shapefile to Geodatabaseb. Provide support to the City in employing the VBA scripts to migrate datac. Troubleshoot problems and validate final results (onsite if necessary)

Project Organization:XYZ will assign a Project Sponsor, Project Manager and individuals with GIS technical expertise to

conduct the project. They will work with individuals identified by the City as the client contacts that will

2

participate in the Geodatabase development and training activities. The project sponsor and manager

are identified below.

Project Sponsor:

Mi Reganam, 303-370-8939, mreganam@xyzgisllc.com

Project Manager:

Loren Pfau, 720-244-4365, lpfau@xyzgisllc.com

Stakeholder Roles and Responsibilities:

The roles and responsibilities of the project stakeholders are depicted in the following responsibility matrix. The signature of each is required to provide approval and to initiate formal project activities.

Name Organization Title Role SignatureJoe Exchange

Philadelphia Department of Streets

Director, IT Systems

Primary city contact (the customer)

Jane Roads

Philadelphia Department of Streets

GIS Group Head

Primary user of final system; source of information on existing system

Mi Reganam

XYZ GIS, LLC Client Engagement Manager

XYZ Sponsor

Loren Pfau

XYZ GIS, LLC Senior Consultant

Project Manager

Sue Tuple XYZ GIS, LLC Sr. GIS Analyst

Geodatabase design and scripting; training

Les Bits XYZ GIS, LLC GIS Analyst Data Migration Lead; training

Management Approach:A team consisting of XYZ GIS personnel has been formed to conduct this project. Loren Pfau, an

experienced project management professional (PMP) will be the Project Manager and he will be

3

responsible for successful completion. Mr. Pfau will be supported by Sue Tuple, a Sr. GIS Analyst

who will lead GIS design, scripting and training activities; and Les Bits, and a GIS Analyst who will

assist Ms. Tuple and who will troubleshoot any data migration issues encountered by the City’s

use of the scripting tools. Mi Reganam, the Project Sponsor, will provide XYZ senior management

oversight of the project.

The City of Philadelphia will designate two individuals within the Department of Streets that will

be the project team’s business owner and technical contacts within the Department. These

individuals may delegate tasks to their subordinates or peers during the project, but they will

provide final review and approval of all project deliverables on behalf of the City.

Project Schedule:XYZ will use Microsoft Project to manage the Geodatabase project schedule. We anticipate the project

starting on 7 March, the contract award date, and completion on 13 June, a total of 71 working days.

Progress will be monitored and assessed against the project baseline on a weekly basis, or more

frequently during weeks when key deliverables are due. The figure below depicts the major activities of

the baseline schedule.

4

Project Budget: The project budget was developed in conjunction with the project schedule, with resources and

durations assigned to each individual task that was identified. Throughout the project XYZ will employ

the well-established Earned Value methodology to assess cost and schedule performance. The Project

Manager will incorporate financial and schedule performance metrics into the bi-weekly reporting.

As depicted in the table below the baseline budget for the project is $78,660. The bulk of the budget is

billable hours by the project principals. Only local travel to the City’s offices is anticipated and was

budgeted at $50 per person per trip, for a total of $500 for travel.

Personnel Hours Rate/Hr TotalProject Manager 180 $ 84 $ 15,120Sr. GIS Analyst 434 $ 80 $ 37,720GIS Analyst 472 $ 60 $ 28,320Total 906 $ 78,160Travel Costs $ 500Project Total $ 78,660

This next table depicts the estimated costs of the project broken out by summary tasks at WBS level 2.

Task Name Duration Start Finish Baseline CostGeodatabase Design of Poles and Pole Attachments 71 days Mon 3/7/11 Mon 6/13/11 $78,660.00 Contract Award 0 days Mon 3/7/11 Mon 3/7/11 $0.00 Prepare Final Project Plan 3 days Mon 3/7/11 Wed 3/9/11 $2,016.00 Bi-weekly Reviews and Reporting 60.5 days Fri 3/18/11 Fri 6/10/11 $2,352.00 Collect and Review Current Data and Data Models 11 days Tue 3/8/11 Tue 3/22/11 $12,224.00 Define Business Logic Rules 16 days Mon 3/21/11 Mon 4/11/11 $20,568.00 Design a Personal Geodatabase 30 days Fri 4/8/11 Thu 5/19/11 $27,646.00 Migrate Pole Shapefile into a Personal Geodatabase 16 days Fri 5/20/11 Fri 6/10/11 $10,750.00 Project Close-out 3 days Thu 6/9/11 Mon 6/13/11 $3,104.00

Quality Plan:In order to assure the delivery of the final Geodatabase that meets or exceeds the City’s expectations

we will conduct two major quality-related activities. The first will be a quantitative assessment of the

accuracy of the data transferred from the shapefile source files. The second will be a qualitative

assessment of the fitness of use of the new system.

Accuracy of Results of Data Migration

5

Several steps will be taken during the project to improve accuracy. As part of the quality planning

process we will work with the City to develop quantitative acceptance criteria for positional and

attribute accuracy. We will build a draft Geodatabase and write Python scripts that will load the data

from the shapefile into the Geodatabase. The scripts will also flag records that were not migrated due

to incomplete attributes or invalid attributes. These scripts will be tested on small portions of data to

make sure that the scripts work as planned.

Finally, the scripts will be used to migrate the shapefile data to the Geodatabase. These newly added

Geodatabase files will be compared to the original data. The automated review will consist of a

statistical sample of 384 of the migrated pole and/or pole attachment features. The records, their

attributes, and domains will be compared to the original records based on spatial location and joined

tables. This statistical sample will yield a confidence level of 95% that meets time and cost constraints

for our company while still offering high quality assurance to the client.

Fitness of Use

Assessment of fitness for use will ask the questions:

(1) Is the end system free from defects and deficiencies, and,

(2) Do the product features meet the user's needs?

The answer to question 1 will draw heavily upon the results of the data quality assurance process. By

establishing that the data elements have been properly transferred from the existing system to the new

system, we can ensure the integrity of the underlying data.

Staff will collect information from city end users during the two meetings scheduled to develop the

business logic. Questions concerning likes, dislikes, issues, and desires will be incorporated in our

discussions on business logic. A Pareto Analysis will be conducted on the problem areas identified by

city staff. This chart will show frequency and cumulative percentages. Pareto Analysis will also be used

in reverse, to identify what is working in the current system and elements that city staff would like to

see.

By analyzing these three focus areas, (problems, what works well, and enhanced functionality), staff can

focus development on eliminating bothersome issues, keeping positive elements, and adding desired

functions to the Geodatabase.

6

Risk Management Plan:Our risk management strategy has identified a suite of potential issues that could impact the project

schedule, cost, and deliverables. For each identified risk, we have evaluated likely causes, triggers,

potential responses, probability of occurrence, and magnitude of impact.

To identify risks we used a qualitative analysis method wherein each team member commented and

ranked the probabilities and impacts of each risk event in a risk register. Following this exercise, each

possible risk was compiled into the probability/impact matrix below.

The five risks with the highest combined probability and impacts, plus brief comments on mitigation

strategies are as follows:

Funding Cuts: A very real risk in the current economic climate as Federal, state and local government

budgets all pose very real reduced or full funding cuts.

A payment schedule and guarantee clause using deliverables as the payment metric will be negotiated

with the City for inclusion in the final contract. We will require 50% of the budgeted costs for a

deliverable before beginning work on that stage of the project. The remaining 50% will be required

once delivered and accepted by the City.

7

We will document the tasks we are performing via our Earned Value methodology and bi-weekly. If the

City should terminate the contract before the entire project is complete this documentation will help us

recover costs for work authorized and performed prior to the termination notice.

Scope Creep: Scope creep is a real and potentially high impact risk within the pole migration project. It

will be important for initial written scope verification to be agreed upon by the City of Philadelphia and

our Project Manager. Subsequent changes to scope may be necessary to ensure the best product for

the established budget, but these changes need to be evaluated and processed systematically. Changes

to scope will be approved through the change control process outlined in this Plan.

Communications: Clear, effective communication will be essential in all steps of the project. Without

proper communication, the client may not effectively convey users’ needs and be disappointed when

the final Geodatabase does not perform as expected. Meeting documentation and client sign-off on

deliverables will play an important role in mitigating this risk.

Sponsor Involvement: Client involvement will be a critical component of the overall project. City

personnel will need to provide access to the existing system, define requirements for the new system

and actively participate in the training activity deliverables. We will take several steps to mitigate this

risk item. First, we will actively engage the project sponsor to stress the importance of City personnel

attending and participating in meetings and training sessions. Second, we will prepare meeting minutes

in which we will document the personnel in attendance as well as any that may have departed prior to

the conclusion of the meeting. Third, we will cancel and reschedule any meetings that do not meet the

level and type of attendance required to complete necessary objectives. Finally, we will maintain a

verbal and written dialog with the project sponsor in order to identify, document and deal with any

participation issues as they arise.

Working Meeting Time Management: Business meetings of any kind are easily derailed. With so much

of our project timeline dependent on the working meetings we set up for visits to Philadelphia, it is

important than that these are kept on-topic, focused, and organized. To allay this risk, we will draft an

agenda for each working meeting and send it to the Department of Streets five days prior to these

dates. We will stick to the timelines detailed in the agenda during our conduct of the meeting.

Client Delays: Delays caused by the client are risks that may occur at several key milestones during the

project. These might be delays in providing necessary information in a timely manner, delays in

reviewing draft deliverables, or even delays in responding to communications.

8

We seek to minimize delays by maintaining open communications with the City personnel and frequent

status updates on task status and budget. Issues causing delays that cannot be resolved in a timely

manner with the project team will be documented and escalated to the primary City representative.

Communications Plan:Both formal and informal communications will be used for the duration of the project. The Project

Manager will meet formally weekly with the project team to assess progress, and as-needed to deal with

any issues or concerns. The Project Manager will conduct bi-weekly progress calls with City personnel

on a bi-weekly basis. Prior to the bi-weekly calls the Project Manager will prepare and deliver a report

documenting project status; performance against budget; issues or problems encountered and

corresponding corrective actions; and a summary of planned activities to be completed within the next

reporting period. The Project Manager will be the primary point of contact for project information both

internal to XYZ and external with the client.

Change Management Plan:The scope of the project is as depicted in the Scope section of this Plan. If the project team receives a

request for a change of scope from City personnel no work will be conducted on the request until an

assessment of the impact of the change has been conducted. A Change Control Board consisting of the

Project Manager, Sr. GIS Analyst and the Project Sponsor will review and assess change requests. The

results of the assessment of each change request will be presented to the City for consideration. All

approved changes will be formally documented and any change that results in increased costs will

require the negotiation of a contract modification to allow XYZ to bill for the additional costs.

Deliverables:Per the City Statement of Work and the negotiated contract and project plan XYZ will deliver the

following to the City over the course of the project:

1. A Personal Geodatabase design rendered in Visio as a UML diagram2. A Personal Geodatabase schema from the UML diagram using ArcCatalog’s Case tools3. Scripts to migrate data from the shapefile to the new Geodatabase4. Knowledge transfer to support development and maintenance of the new data model in

the form of training of City personnel on the use of UML, Case tools, scripts and the new Geodatabase

9

5. A Personal Geodatabase loaded with the City’s existing pole and pole attachment data6. Bi-weekly project reports

Summary:The City of Philadelphia Pole and Pole Attachment Geodatabase project plan reflects XYZ’s current view

of the project lifecycle. In preparing our approach to this important project we have selected a team of

individuals talented in both GIS and project management. We have developed a 71 working day

schedule and a $78,660 budget that we believe are realistic and achievable given the scope and

objectives of the project.

We have developed Risk, Quality, Change Management and Communications plans to help us anticipate,

manage and mitigate the challenges we are likely to encounter during the conduct of this engagement.

We believe that this project will deliver to the City of Philadelphia the desired Geodatabase and

associated training envisioned in the City’s RFP, and which will provide the City with a much-improved

system for managing poles and pole attachments than the existing shapefile-based system.

10

Attachments – Peer Review Response Memo’s:

14 March 2011

To: Bill Hodge

From: Loren Pfau

Subject: Memo on Incorporating Charter Comments into Final Project Plan

Bill:

This memo is to provide a response to my handling of the comments you raised in your review of the Philadelphia Pole Attachment Geodatabase Project Charter on 15 February. I appreciate your insights and comments as a way to improve on what we deliver to the City.

Your main concerns were regarding my inclusion of the ROI and NPV calculation as well as Payback in the Charter. I had done this as a means of reinforcing the financial benefits of undertaking the project but your points on it being unnecessary in the document was well taken. These metrics are best left in our marketing and proposal efforts going forward, not in documentation of project that we’ve been awarded. What I do think would be of use to us and the City is if we can collect the true financial measures of this project so that we can include it in our portfolio of prior experience in future business development efforts.

I also wanted you to know that I am not going to include the Payback commentary and graphic in the final Project Plan for the City. While I felt it was useful when we were bidding on the project and as a nice reminder in the Charter I don’t think that it plays a useful role in the final Project Plan. The Plan should cover only items of relevance to the Geodatabase project, so our average Payback on other projects is not an appropriate piece of content.

We will provide the City ongoing financial metrics in the form of Earned Value reporting throughout the project lifecycle. That information is more useful for both the City and our company in assessing progress.

Best regards,

Loren Pfau

11

14 March 2011

To: Pat Kennelly

From: Loren Pfau

Subject: WBS and Cost Peer Review and Final Project

Pat:

This memo is to provide a response to my handling of the comments you raised in your review of the Philadelphia Pole Attachment Geodatabase Project Work Breakdown Structure and Cost estimate.

The first concern you raised was in regards to how I arrived at and documented the costs for personnel attending meetings with City Personnel. I assumed we would use local personnel on the project so the only expenses to cover would be local transportation (mileage, public transit, parking, tolls, etc.) and meals. I estimated that $50 per person per meeting would cover these costs.

In MS Project there are two ways to attach fixed costs to a task. The first is to insert a fixed cost at the task level. The other is to create resources that have a unit cost and add them along with personnel resources in the Task Information pop-up. The results are functionally the same and I elected to use the latter method as it makes task resource entry a bit quicker as the trips could be entered along with the personnel supporting the meetings. I did this by creating two unit cost resources, Trip1 and Trip2, with refer to a trip by 1 person and a trip by 2 people, respectively.

You do make a good point, though, in that I did not document this in MS Project itself. I have corrected that by inserting the following into the Task table:

12

I will also document this approach in the complete project plan.

The second concern you raised was the need to update the WBS to take into account the items from the Risk and Quality Management plans. Point noted and I am incorporating the Team’s plans into the project schedule.

Thank you for your feedback as these items will improve the overall quality and thoroughness of the final project plan.

13

Date: 14 March 2011

To: Bryce Batchman

From: Loren Pfau

Subject: Risk Plan Review Comments and Final Project Plan

Bryce,

This memo is to provide a response to my handling of the comments you raised in your review of the Philadelphia Pole Attachment Geodatabase Project Risk Management Plan on 11 March. I appreciate your insights and comments as a way to improve on what we deliver to the City. You raise several very good points and I’d like to address each below.

The risk of budget cuts is, unfortunately, very real as local governments everywhere look to reduce all non-essential expenditures due to reduced tax and fee revenues. You are likely correct that we won’t be able to secure the 50% down payment but we’ve asked our legal and finance teams to explore the concept.

What we can do is monitor and report very closely on the tasks we are performing and we intend to do so via our Earned Value methodology. While the City may terminate the contract before the entire project is complete they will have to compensate us for work authorized and performed prior to the termination notice. It is incumbent upon us to document what we have done for the City should we get a termination notice in order to ensure we are properly compensated for work performed to date. That should provide us with reasonable protection against the risk of performing work that we won’t be paid for.

You also raise good points about the sponsor involvement. First of all let me apologize if the intent on cancelling meetings was not clear. We will only cancel meetings before we are onsite – that is if we send out meeting requests and cannot get a significant number of the critical participants to commit to join us. We would then cancel and reschedule the meeting at a more convenient time.

However, if we are onsite and not all of the invitees show up we will conduct the meeting regardless and then schedule another meeting with those that were unable to attend. We will never cancel a meeting when we are in a room with City personnel.

Thank you for the feedback. I’ll work to clarify the above points in the final project plan.

Regards,

Loren

14

TO: Brent Baumhardt

FROM: Loren Pfau

DATE: 15 March 2011

SUBJECT: Quality Assurance Plan - Philadelphia Pole and Pole Attachment Geodatabase

Brent,

Thank you for your review of the QA Plan for the Philadelphia Geodatabase project. I wanted you to know that your comments are well-received and will be incorporated into the final, overall project plan that we deliver to the City. I also wanted to specifically address several of the concerns that you have raised.

Your comment about the “valid field values from the client” is good and we need to be clear about the intent. The concept here is that we would review the domain values of the fields in the Geodatabase with the client to ensure we have not only captured the values that exist with the old shapefile but also capture any new values during the design sessions so that they may be built into the new system.

With respect to the sampling it is our intent to do this in an automated process. We will develop scripts in VBA or Python to select records from the shapefile, locate corresponding records in the Geodatabase, and then make comparisons of field values to flag any differences. You are correct that doing this comparison manually would be a labor-intensive effort.

You also raise a valid concern about the Fitness of Use aspect of the QA Plan. Our intention with the Fitness study is to first help us identify improvements we can make to the processes as we are designing the Geodatabase, and then to confirm those improvements take place. Our Scope will remain what was negotiated with the City in our SOW. If we do identify needs that the City wants addressed after the Geodatabase has been implemented that would need to be conducted under either a negotiated change of scope to this project, or as an entirely new project.

Best regards,

Loren

15

Attribution:

This document is published in fulfillment of an assignment by a student enrolled in an educational offering of The Pennsylvania State University. The student, named above, retains all rights to the document and responsibility for its accuracy and originality.

Please note that the Sections on Risk and Quality Management contain excerpts from documents created collaboratively by the students that comprised Team 2, including this student.

16