Cambio climático y uso eficiente del agua

The design of QPLAN is based on five main components, including: 1. QPEM: to evaluate the quality of planning

2. NTCP diamond model: to classify the project according to its characteristics (Shenhar and Dvir, 2007)

3. expanded Karnaugh map: to identify the strengths and weaknesses (Sedoglavich, 2008) of planning

4. lessons learnt: to identify the project’s good and poor practices

5. knowledge base: to register the project experience and help the current planning through data from past projects developed by the organisation. These components are used by QPLAN for enhancing the success of software development projects at the beginning of planning, at the end of planning and at the end of the project. This is described further in Section 5.4.

5.3.1 QPEM

As described in Chapter 4, QPEM evaluates the quality of planning through two measures: QPM, which has a top–down approach (Section 4.3), and QCM, which has a bottom–up approach (Section 4.4).

In QPLAN, the QPEM is used in Step 4 (Section 5.4.4), Step 5 (Section 5.4.5), Step 6 (Section 5.4.6) and Step 11 (Section 5.4.11) (see Figure 5.2).

5.3.2 NTCP Diamond Model

The NTCP is a model developed by Shenhar et al. (2001) for project classification. Based on contingency theory (Burns and Stalker, 1961), this is a free-of-context model that helps the project manager to plan the project according to its characteristics. However, if the project is classified incorrectly, it could negatively affect the project because of an increase in risks and resource allocation (Sauser et al., 2009). The NTCP diamond model has four dimensions: novelty, technology, complexity and pace.

 Novelty: the uncertainty of requirements. The scale is composed of derivative (extensions or improvements in currents products), platform (new generation of current product) and breakthrough (new product).

 Technology: the uncertainty of know-how. The scale is composed of low- tech, medium-tech, high-tech and super high-tech, which are technologies that did not previously exist; for example, the memristor developed by HP (Williams, 2008).

 Complexity: the number and diversity of elements in the system. The scale is composed of assembly (performs a single function), system (set of subsystems in a product) and array (dispersed set of systems interconnected).

 Pace: the urgency and available timeframe and effects in time management activities and team autonomy. The scale is composed of

regular (delays not critical), fast-competitive (time is important), time-critical (crucial) and blitz (need immediate solution).

In QPLAN, the NTCP diamond model is used in Step 3 (Section 5.4.3) and Step 10 (Section 5.4.10).

5.3.3 Expanded Karnaugh Map

The Karnaugh map is a method from the electronics literature that was developed by Karnaugh (1953) to simplify real-world logic requirements. In summary, rather than the use of extensive calculations, Karnaugh maps make use of the human brain's pattern-matching capability to get the simplest expression.

This method is mostly used in the electronics industry; however, there are creative exceptions. In 2008 for example, Sedoglavich (2008) expanded the original Karnaugh map to firm’s status into three discrete zones (low, medium and high) for identifying strengths and weakness of New Zealand high-tech small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in the agro-technology sector.

5.3.4 Lessons Learnt

Lessons learnt are a critical factor of knowledge management and may come from current or past projects. The analysis of lessons learnt allows estimates to be obtained in the preliminary phases of the projects close to reality, support process improvement and for communicating with senior managers (Garon, 2006). In addition, the learning effect of this analysis may contribute to avoiding potential problems in future projects (Jørgensen and Gruschke, 2009). As lessons learnt are usually not effectively captured (Garon, 2006), in QPLAN, the lessons learnt are performed in three steps:

 Step 9 has a qualitative approach (Section 5.4.9) for getting the story behind a participant’s experiences (Rossman and Rallis, 2003).

 Step 10 uses the NTCP diamond model (Section 5.4.10) for analysing the differences between project classification in the planning and at the end of project that will confirm whether the project management approach adopted was appropriate or not (this is a similar approach to that of Sauser et al., 2009, used to analyse NASA’s Mars Climate Orbiter failures).

 Step 11 evaluates factors at the end of the project (Section 5.4.11). For example: during planning, the project manager may determine that the level of confidence that the senior manager will have in supporting the project is high (captured in question #22 as ‘Agree’ in Questionnaire 1, Appendix A). However, the senior manager may not have actually supported the project

as expected (captured in question #10 as ‘Disagree’ in Questionnaire 5, Appendix A). The project manager should then discuss this issue with the senior managers for the sake of future projects.

5.3.5 Knowledge Base

Knowledge management is the process of gathering, building, sharing and effectively using the knowledge, such as a set of techniques and methodologies (Sharma et al., 2007), within an organisation (Irani et al., 2009).

In QPLAN, the technology used for knowledge management in the organisation is a knowledge base, which is available during the entire project lifecycle. It is a database comprising qualitative and quantitative data formed from data from past projects developed by the participating organisation (i.e., the experience of the organisation in the development of software projects). It serves as a reference to the project manager to check whether the evaluation of a factor that affects the quality of planning, a planning process or even the final quality of planning, is being overestimated or underestimated. For example, the quality of planning calculated by QPLAN for a particular project is 0.32 (out of 1.0—see Tables 4.1 and 4.2). However, the average of past projects developed by the organisation is only 0.56. This should lead to reflection to determine why there is so much difference. This may lead to reworking of the project planning.