Answer all the 4 questions and the case. Assignment 1: write 3 pages Q. 1 Compare and contrast the four project management maturity models shown in Table 1.3 (page 42 Chap. 1) – page 22. What strengths and weaknesses do you perceive in each of the models? Give examples Q. 2 Discuss the concept of emotional intelligence as it relates to the duties of project managers. Why are the five elements of emotional intelligence critical to successful project management? Q. 3 In evaluating projects across industries, it is sometimes possible to detect patterns in terms of the more common types of risks they routinely face. Consider the development of a new software product and compare it to coordinating an event, such as a school dance. What likely forms of risk would your project team face in either of these circumstances? Give examples Q. 4 Of the seven elements in project closeout management, which do you view as being most important? Why? Give examples Assignment 2: write 3-4 pages Case Study 5.1: Boeing’s Virtual Fence (pp. 192 – 193) – page 172 The Virtual Fence project, cancelled in early 2011 by the Federal government, is a true story of a project that sounded better than it could ever be due to technical problems, unreasonable or overly-optimistic projections, and a general lack of understanding of the sheer size of the required effort. Boeing was given carte blanche to run the project, with governmental oversight notably absent from the decisions regarding vendor selection, technical requirements, and first phase development. In short, the Federal government signed a blank check to Boeing for initial development and then discovered that real costs were projected to be much higher. The project was cancelled when Boeing began failing technical capability tests on initial sections of the virtual fence. Questions: 1) What problems do you see emerging from a project such as SBInet where the government allows the contractor to determine scope, manage all contractor relations, and decide how to share project status information with oversight bodies? 2) Consider the following two arguments: “The failure of SBInet was due to poor scope management,” versus “SBInet failed because of poor oversight and project controls.” Take one side or the other in this argument, and justify your response.
Foundation: Anterior shoulder separations and subluxations are regular in youthful competitors. The system for the first or essential shoulder disengagement may include a crash or a fall regularly with the arm in a stole and remotely turned position. Physical games, for example, rugby and ice hockey, give visit chances to this damage to happen. Shoulder disengagements can happen after significantly less injury in patients with past separations. Regardless of a time of immobilization and restoration following awful disengagements, repetitive precariousness regularly results and can prompt noteworthy incapacity. To limit the requirement for careful mediation, successful physical recovery programs are required. Reason: The point of this examination was to plan a physical recovery program utilizing flexible band and resistive exercise to enhance joint quality and scope of movement in people determined to have a first-time bear disengagement. Strategy: Twelve physically dynamic guys with a first-time intense shoulder disengagement were requested to volunteer. Members started a physical restoration program two weeks after the shoulder separation, which was affirmed by an alluding doctor. The recovery program was a month and a half in span and required the members to take part in dynamic resistive burdens/term utilizing flexible groups and weights five days out of every week. Pretest and posttest estimates included shoulder quality and scope of movement. All result measures were thought about between the harmed and healthy shoulder, which filled in as the control condition in this investigation. Results: There were factually critical contrasts between the harmed and healthy shoulder for proportions of solidarity and scope of movement amid pretests (p < 0.01) yet not posttests (p < 0.53). The extents of contrasts amid pretests were regularly more prominent than half. At long last, there were no contrasts between shoulders with respect to the volume measure recommending that any adjustments in muscle decay or swelling were not distinguished. Ends: The physical restoration program proposed in this investigation was powerful at enhancing quality and scope of movement in the harmed shoulder as prove by the likeness in posttest esteems between the harmed and unharmed shoulder. These outcomes are empowering and recommend the physical recovery program proposed in this investigation may help lessen the requirement for careful intercession in sound youthful guys who encounter an essential shoulder disengagement. Presentation: The shoulder is the most much of the time disengaged joint in the human body, foremost separation being the most widely recognized wounds in our day by day life, particularly for youngsters (Rumian, et al., 2011; Liu, et al., 2014). It was evaluated that the frequency rate of shoulder separation as 23.9 per 100,000 people per year (Owens, et al., 2009). Foremost shoulder separations and subluxations are regular wounds in youthful competitors (Kaplan, et al., 2005; Malhotra, et al., 2012). The divergence between the expansive humeral head and the little glenoid depression enables the joint to be harmed (Brukner, 2012; Brandt, et al., 2013) Moreover, the anteriorly separated humeral head causes a labrum tear of the front and second rate labrum, Bankart damage (UG, et al., 2014; Porcellini, et al., 2009), and an ordinary impression break (Hovelius, et al., 2008; Kim, et al., 2003). The component of the principal separations happens after a mighty immediate injury or a fall ordinarily with the arm in a kidnapped and remotely pivoted or outstretched arm (Owens, et al., 2010; Rolf, 2007). In this way, in the dominant part of cases, the arm is snatched and the shoulder is remotely pivoted (Hardy, et al., 2010; Patel, et al., 2010). This is basic in rugby, hockey, Handball, Football, riding, and cycling. In patients with careless shoulders or past separations, disengagement can happen after significantly less injury (Badr and Gaballah, 2015; Kelly and Terry, 2001; Brooks, et al., 2005). As of late, the most widely recognized administration of treatment for essential foremost glenohumeral unsteadiness is nonoperative administration (Gibson, et al., 2004; Zacchilli and Owens , 2010) Rehabilitation and counteractive action of this damage were beneficial of research since carelessness of restoration the first-run through disengagement shoulder may prompt repetitive insecurity of the glenohumeral joint (Rumian, et al., 2011; Provencher, et al., 2010). Besides, there is a collection of reports proposing that more youthful competitors for the most part and physical games especially most influenced with the flimsiness chance after an essential foremost shoulder disengagement. (Zacchilli and Owens , 2010; Handoll, et al., 2006). This danger of the repeat disengagement revealed in youthful competitors with first-time front separation as stature as 90-95% (Gibson, et al., 2016). Be that as it may, the competitors with front shoulder disengagement which coming back to exercises with in season after need recovery have shown high rates of repetitive separation from 37% to 90%. (Watson, et al., 2016; Castagna, et al., 2007). The objective of the essential recovery for the intense foremost shoulder is to avoid long haul unsteadiness for the shoulder joint (Leroux, et al., 2014). In any case, patients with intermittent shoulder shakiness frequently need to careful intercession or arthroscopic treatment. (Malhotra, et al., 2012; Provencher, et al., 2010; Porcellini, et al., 2009). In reality, a few modalities utilized traditionalist treatment for the intense separation bear (Liu, et al., 2014; Yamamoto, et al., 2010; Liavaag, et al., 2011) and infusions (Nagata, et al., 2016). A few methodologies have been directed physical recovery programs for first-time disengagement bear (Gibson, et al., 2004; Karatsolis and Athanasopoulos, 2006; Salamh and Speer, 2013). Other utilized the flexible obstruction practice which ended up one of the prominent instruments in physical recovery. (Andersen, et al., 2010; Camci, et al., 2013; Brandt, et al., 2013) The real motivation to utilize the versatile band that they have exhibited amazing legitimacy and unwavering quality with shoulder muscle testing (Andersen, et al., 2016). Eventually, the point of this examination was to plan a physical recovery program utilizing a versatile band and resistive exercise to enhance joint quality in people determined to have a first-time bear disengagement. Strategy: Subjects Physically dynamic guys who introduced at the Mansoura college healing facilities and the showing clinic in Damietta, Egypt with intense foremost separation bear damage between September 2012 and February 2015 were haphazardly enrolled as research members. The attractive reverberation imaging (MRI) were led to decide the damage review for 17 competitors. We prohibited patients with intermittent disengagement bear or had a background marked by damage in a similar joint. Twelve physically dynamic guys (age 18.6 Â± 1.32y, mass 74.48â±3.22 Kg, tallness 178.4â±3.21 cm and aggressive experience 9.6â±2.67 y) with a first-time intense shoulder separation were considered as research members. The members started a physical recovery program two weeks after the shoulder disengagement, which was affirmed by an alluding doctor.>