Course Overview

Business requirements elicitation (i.e. the initial phase of product scope definition) is underdeveloped in today’s project management science with the exception of IT and software development sectors, where scope definition (aka business analysis) is although relatively advanced, but excluded from the project manager’s domain of responsibilities.

As a result, most industries have a very prominent knowledge gap in project scope planning. A gap that starts some time after the Project Charter has been completed and approved and ends somewhere around the point when the work commences based on the detailed blueprints, technical drawings and bills of materials.

And yet, scope definition remains the key ingredient in the success of any project. After all, as one of my clients used to say, “If one does not understand completely what he or she is going to build, what is the point of engaging in scheduling or budgeting?”

This workshop is dedicated to the requirements elicitation, analysis, documentation and planning on the engineering, product, IT, software development and enterprise projects.

Why You Should Attend?

Recent studies indicate that only 32% of our projects can be considered successful, while 44% are challenged (i.e. grossly over the budget and/or late) and 24% are outright failures (i.e. cancelled by the customers before they are even completed). Further research shows that the lion’s share of this lack of success can be attributed to poor requirements elicitation, insufficient planning and inadequate project control.

This course will demonstrate to the participants how to perform these tasks properly and efficiently by teaching them skills, tools, techniques and economic principles that transcend various company structures, environments and project management philosophies.

Benefits of the Course

Every course participant is expected to understand how to improve the quality of the products delivered on their projects, decrease project durations and budgets and improve both internal and external stakeholder satisfaction levels by learning the following techniques:

The major problem that both armies had to deal with was a heavy fog that covered the entire battlefield thus making any kind of monitoring or communications with their units somewhat problematic.

Medieval battles have never been known for their orderliness and organization; however because of the heavy fog, the confusion that existed on the field on that particular day dwarfed anything that was seen in military campaigns before and since that memorable day. In this mayhem at one point of time John de Vere's forces ended up behind their allies, a part of Lancastrian force led by Warwick's younger brother John Neville. Neville's regiments for reasons to be explained a bit later mistook their comrades-in-arms for enemies - Edward's reserve forces - and unleashed a volley of arrows on them. De Vere, in his turn quite logically assumed treachery and attacked Neville's troops ... The cries of treason quickly spread throughout the entire battlefield and as the fog started to dissipate, Edward saw the Lancastrian centre in disarray and sent in his reserves, hastening its collapse. One by one, first John Neville, then de Vere and finally Warwick were killed by Yorkists.

Some historians claim that as many as 6,500 Lancastrians perished in that engagement - a mind-boggling number of casualties by the 15^th century standards. As for Edward, he retained his crown and ruled England for the next twelve years.

M 247 "Sergeant York" story

In late seventies the US Department of Defense (DOD) outsourced the development of the self-propelled anti-aircraft (AA) weapon which featured twin radar-directed 40 mm rapid-fire guns to Ford Aerospace. The project was assigned the name of ”Sergeant York”, after the World War I US army hero, who undoubtedly would not have appreciated this dubious honor had he been alive in 1979. The weapon was intended to replace the M163 Vulcan Air Defense System and fight alongside the M1 Abrams and M2 Bradley fighting vehicles in the U.S. Army, and was similar in concept to successful Soviet and European systems such as the ZSU-23-4 and Gepard

In essence it was an air defense weapon mounted on the surplus M48 Patton tank chassis, provided by the Army, which were held in large quantities in their depots. The main job of the weapon was to sit on the front lines and automatically target and shoot down enemy aircraft, especially helicopters. As a result it was designed to hone in on metal parts rotating in the air (i.e. propeller blades).

The final test of the AA gun involved a demonstration involving a prototype weapon shooting down a hovering helicopter on one of the US DOD proving grounds somewhere in the desert in the southern part of the United States. The cost of the project at that time was approximately US $1 billion.

According to the legend cultivated in the aerospace and defense industries there was a portable toilet installed not far away from the testing grounds. Because of the hot climate, the toilet cabin had a small electric fan in it …

You probably managed to guess the rest – the billion dollar piece of equipment “decided” to ignore the much larger target – the helicopter – and targeted the unique signature of the “port-a-potty’s” electric fan!

Further tests revealed that the AA gun had the following deficiencies:

• The radar could not track low flying targets due to excessive ground clutter
• The radar could not distinguish a hovering helicopter from a clump of trees
• Turret traverse was too slow to track a fast crossing target
• The radar can be jammed very easily

As a result, the project that began in 1975 was finally cancelled by then Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger in 1985.