Great Deal! Get Instant $10 FREE in Account on First Order + 10% Cashback on Every Order Order Now

*The project: Search for a real project. You can choose a project that was completed successfully or one that was not completed successfully. Please note that we strongly encourage the selection of...

2 answer below »

*The project:

Search for a real project. You can choose a project that was completed successfully or one that was not completed successfully. Please note that we strongly encourage the selection of projects related to your field of

Version 1 (31 July XXXXXXXXXX

study (i.e Health, Art, IT, Management, etc). However, you are free to choose any completed project.

Instructions:

You are encouraged to search the Web for the selected project and to collect any type of information about the project, making sure to cover different viewpoints. This could include newspapers, project management magazine and journals. As this project is a real case you are required to expand the information presented in the references (i.e. source).

Write a report that critically analyses how the project was planned and performed. The report should include:

1. Executive Summary
2. Brief introduction to the project.
(Please give an overview of your project. This should explain what the project was and the context in which the project occurred. Provide clear identification of the objective(s) and scope of the project).
3. A project stakeholder analysis(who were the key stakeholders; what were their respective interests; how well were they managed).
4. A brief description of how the project was initiated and planned(eg. strategy, key events, tools used etc).
5. Describe the implementation phase of the project.In particular, explain whether the project ran to plan – in which case explain the benefits of careful planning to the project manager. Alternatively, if the project deviated from plan, why did this occur and what was the impact of these deviations for the project?
6. A critical analysis of the project outcome(i.e. identify the critical factors that made this project a success or a failure).
7. Concludeby reflecting on the project, and what did you learn? What good practices will you, as a manager, take from this to future projects, and what activities would you not do in the future and why?
8. Recommendation/sfor future project managers for improving the project work based on deficiencies of the analysed project.
9. The report should be fully referenced.A minimum of 15 references drawn from the project management literature is required, of which a minimum of 5 must be from the course e-Readings. A Reference List is required that shows all sources cited in your assignment (a bibliography is NOT required).
10. Appendices:Appendices as appropriate.

The report shouldnotexceed 2500 words (excluding the references) and should be formatted using 1.5 line spacing and a font size of 12pt (Times New Roman). The word limit is counted from the first word of the introduction to the last word of the conclusion/recommendations.

Assessment criteria

The assignment will be assessed on the following criteria:

Content (50% component weighting)

-Background knowledge and context of the project issue
-Demonstrated application of project management concepts in appropriate setting -Demonstrated ability to define the project management issues
-Answers are well supported by logical reasoning and appropriate data/information evidence -Clear focus of the strategic issues and/or ramifications relevant to the project problem

Research/Analysis (30% of component weighting)

-Evidence of depth of research of the identified project
-Evidence of scholarship that supports appropriate theoretical concepts applied
-Demonstrated ability of critical analysis. Clarity in methodology in analysing and evaluating the project

Report Organisation (20% of the component weighting)

-Clarity in describing and documenting the report, including clear headings, themes and conceptual flow. Accurate spelling and grammar to clearly convey the message and meaning.
-Referencing (Harvard author-date system, thoroughly and correctly used); minimum 15 references from the project management literature, of which 5 are from the course e-Readings

Answered Same Day Aug 21, 2021

Solution

Abhishek answered on Sep 18 2021
145 Votes
PROJECT AURA- A FAILURE TO HANDLE COVID-19 CRISIS
Table of Contents
1. Executive Summary    3
2. Introduction    4
3. Analysis of the Project Stakeholders    4
4. Description of Project Initiation and Planning    6
5. Implementation Phase of the Project    7
6. Critical Analysis of the Project Outcome    9
Risk Assessment and Risk Related Discussion    10
Analysis of the Risk Factors in Project Aura that Caused its Failure    10
7. A Reflection on the Project    12
8. Recommendations    12
9. References    14
1. Executive Summary
The COVID-19 pandemic is one of the most disastrous one that the world has ever faced and according to the WHO guidelines, all the countries are indulging themselves in this preparation to eradicate the COVID-19 pandemic and for the welfare of the people. The United States had initiated project Aura, thirteen years back which if had been successful would have resulted in production of a new class of economic, easy-to-use ventilators which would have been a great support system to the world in case of activating emergency medical facilities while hospitalisation due to COVID-19.
The Project Aura initiated by the healthcare officials supported by the US federal government was initially given to Newport, a small company in Costa Mesa, California in order to market the ventilators at a price of $3,000 each only, which is much lower than the then market price of the ventilators. The project was initiated in 2010 after the H1N1 out
eak. The joint effort by the federal officials and the company employees apparently seemed to be a success until April 2012 and they were about to market the products within another year until the disaster took over. After a month, the company Newport was taken over by a larger medical company, Covidean whose was more interested in profit making than public welfare.
The project ultimately had to stop in 2014 when there were no ventilators marketed and the company demanded to be freed from the assigned project by the government. In response to the Ebola out
eak in 2014, the project had to be sanctioned to the Dutch company Philips, who promised to make the desired outcome by mid-2020-s. Hence, in the critical stage of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, the required number of ventilators could not be produced, leading to the failure of the project, which created a huge global loss.
2. Introduction
In response to the out
eak of the COVID-19 pandemic, the World Health Organization had refe
ed the cu
ent severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic as the “defining health crisis of our time” and their main purpose was to provide proper safety to all the people globally. Even before the pandemic had begun, there was an initial warning by the WHO scientists regarding the onset of any such devastating pandemic in any country at any time and kill millions of people, as they are vulnerable, as an outcome of not being prepared regarding the same in their global summit in 12th January 2018 from before.
After the first cases of undiagnosed pneumonia had occu
ed in Wuhan, China, the WHO had informed the world and immediately activated their emergency management team. Their highest level of alert was activated after China had confirmed the human-to-human transmission of the novel coronavirus, as supported by She et al. (2020) and the WHO was concerned regarding the ways, in which the virus can be prevented from spreading further.
The international community was made to act regarding the same so that all possible measures could be taken to prevent the virus from spreading. After this had been considered as a pandemic in 11th March 2020, the WHO insisted that all measures including sanitization, quarantine, social distancing and public testing needs to be enforced in all places dealing with COVID-19 cases till the time vaccines are prepared. Most of the deaths due to COVID-19 have been due to lack of Oxygen and people dying during ventilation stage.
The United States had initiated a project thirteen years back with a plan to discourse what they regarded as one of the medical system’s crucial vulnerabilities, which is a scarcity of the ventilators to support in case of activating emergency medical facilities by a group of U.S. public health officials. The details of the project code-named Aura, have been discussed here, which failed miserably and how it could have supported the world in the ongoing situation of COVID-19 better (Kulish, Kliff & Silver-Greenberg, 2020).
3. Analysis of the Project Stakeholders
As opined by Derakhshan, Turner and Mancini (2019), the stakeholders are the people who support the project by directly or indirectly investing it in any type or participating it its success. As informed by Kulish, Kliff and Silver-Greenberg (2020), the project was initiated by a group of U.S. public health officials. It was addressed as one of the crucial facilities to handle any kind of emergency situation as the ventilators which were being used at that time, were likely to be huge, costly and inadequate, in number for any emergency situation.
For Project Aura, the key stakeholders were these groups of health officials who had initiated the project at the beginning by proposing its design and outcome. As it was a complete healthcare project, the key stakeholders included patients, doctors and surgeons, healthcare employers, manufacturing companies, insurance companies and the government. The insurance companies played their role in propagating the healthcare plans to the patients, making them aware of the emergencies and support them during the same. According to Burns et al. (2016), to plan the first trial design of the project, it depended a lot on the visitors of the patients who were surveyed about the preferences for outcomes and treatment options during halting from mechanical ventilation of the patients in the critically ill conditions.
This stakeholder involvement was done in order to provide unique insights to the project and make the research investments regarding the same more liable and clear ensuring that the outcome will be beneficial for the patients and their family members (Miles & Pandis, 2020). The outcome of this study was that the respondents acknowledged the most important outcome to the patients, which could be favourable to support them at ICU admission, during the ICU stay, finally at the time of ICU discharge.
The next stakeholders were the investors in the project, which was sanctioned by the US federal government to a California company, Newport that had been appointed to design these new proposed type of ventilators accordingly. As supported by Kulish, Kliff and Silver-Greenberg (2020), the small California company, Newport who was appointed for making the ventilators was later on bought by a multibillion-dollar maker of medical devices, Covidien, which was a publicly traded company with sales of $12 billion that year.
As supported by Wu et al. (2019), the respective interests of the stakeholders such as patients, doctors, surgeons and the US federal government were to think for the public welfare, as the people are vulnerable. This was only exceptional for the manufacturing company in California to which the order for supplying the respective amount of ventilators were sanctioned, as a result of not being prepared for any sudden onset of a pandemic and make the country prepared for such crisis. Nevertheless, the interest of the manufacturing company in California was initially working for the federal government.
For the nation, it saw the bigger profit making by coming under a multibillion-dollar maker of medical devices. Covidien was not going for the immediate supply of the ventilators as per the demand of the federal government. There was ultimately no production of the ventilators. The situation could not be managed properly and it led to an overall delay in the supply of the ventilators by more than five years. This deprived the hospitals, states and the federal government of the proper supply of the ventilators required to be present in the stocks of the hospitals and the healthcare department.
4. Description of Project Initiation and Planning
The plan of the project by the healthcare officials in the beginning and the US government who sanctioned Project Aura was to build a large fleet of inexpensive portable devices or the ventilators in order to enhance the emergency medical facilities along with vaccines, medicines and other to deploy in a flu pandemic or another crisis. As opined by Kulish, Kliff and Silver-Greenberg (2020), the ventilators, which the government had demanded for keeping in the stock, were at a much less expensive price of around $3,000 each.
On the other hand, the then market price for the ventilators were $10,000 each and for this reason, the US federal government had given the manufacturing and supplying responsibility of the project to Newport, a small company in Costa Mesa, California which was owned by a Japanese medical device company at that time and they only made ventilators. It was initially...
SOLUTION.PDF

Answer To This Question Is Available To Download

Related Questions & Answers

More Questions »

Submit New Assignment

Copy and Paste Your Assignment Here