代写BUS9203 Project Management Assignment 2 - Project Report代写数据结构语言程序
- 首页 >> WebBUS9203 Project Management
Assignment 2 - Project Report
Albany EV Fast-Charging Deployment: PMBOK-Aligned Project Report
Introduction
This project delivers an EV fast-charging network in Albany, Auckland. We will deploy 8–10 DC fast chargers rated 75–150 kW. We will complete the work in 6–7 months. The aim is to support EV uptake, reduce emissions, and provide reliable public charging.
The scope covers design, procurement, civil and electrical works, commissioning, and handover. It includes OCPP back-end, payment and billing, monitoring/EMS, signage, wayfinding, and as-built records. It excludes private home charging and wider grid upgrades outside our service offers.
The business case is strong. The capital cost is in the range of NZD 2.5–3.0 million. Our planning baseline is NZD 2.75 million. Expected operating costs are NZD 150–200k per year. Forecast revenue is NZD 700–900k per year. The expected payback is about 3 years, assuming conservative utilisation and standard tariffs. These figures guide our baseline and control plan.
Key objectives:
• Provide safe, accessible, and reliable DC charging at priority sites.
• Achieve ≥98% uptime and strong first-month customer support.
• Meet schedule and budget baselines with clear quality criteria.
• Build a repeatable rollout model for future sites.
Stakeholders include the sponsor/CEO, project team, site hosts (retail, university, parking), charger vendor and contractors, the lines company, council and inspectors, operations and call centre, and end users. We tailor communication for each group and use a single source of truth (status report and dashboard).
We follow PMBOK® (7th ed.). We use a deliverable-based WBS, a network schedule with CPM, and a Gantt baseline. We manage cost with a cost baseline and EVM. We manage risk with a live risk register and named owners. We control changes through Perform. Integrated Change Control. Governance is set through stage gates and clear decision rights.
Assumptions and constraints are explicit. Permits and utility outage windows can limit work timing. Long-lead hardware can affect float. To protect the deadline, we plan safe overlaps, early service offers, and frame. pricing. We keep contingency for known-unknowns and apply fast-tracking or crashing only when risk is acceptable.
Success means the network is installed, energised, and used. Users can pay easily. Data flows to the back-end. Uptime targets are met. The system is handed over with SOPs, spares, and warranties. Benefits and lessons are captured for the next rollout.
Work Breakdown Structure (WBS)
The Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) is a scope management tool in the PMBOK framework (Project Management Body of Knowledge). It ensures that all deliverables are clearly defined and structured so nothing is overlooked. This WBS aligns the work to PMBOK concepts so the scope can be planned, controlled, and reported in a consistent way.
The WBS breaks the project into smaller, manageable parts, organised around the main deliverables. It shows the full scope so nothing is missed. For this project, we created a deliverable-based WBS that divides the work into phases, major outputs, and key tasks. This makes it easier to see what is included, who is responsible, and how time and costs will be planned. Below is the WBS for the EV Fast-Charging Network Deployment project (PMI, 2021; PMI, 2019; Kerzner, 2017).
EV Fast-Charging Network Deployment Project (Albany, Auckland)
1. Initiation & Planning
1.1. Project charter development and approval
1.2. Stakeholder register and engagement plan (site hosts, council, lines company, community)
1.3. Integrated project management plan (scope, schedule, cost, risk, quality, H&S, sustainability)
2. System Design & Development
2.1. Requirements elicitation (host needs, grid capacity checks, H&S constraints, accessibility)
2.2. System architecture (DC chargers 75–150 kW, switchgear, cabling, communications, EMS, payment platform, optional PV/BESS)
2.3. Site survey and layout design (traffic flow, bays, bollards, signage, lighting, stormwater)
2.4. Platform. configuration and data integration (OCPP, billing, monitoring, demand response)
2.5. Verification and validation plan (IEC 61851, ISO 15118 where applicable, local electrical codes)
3. Procurement & Assembly
3.1. Vendor selection and contracting (chargers, civil works, electrical contractor, network provider)
3.2. Logistics and receiving (import/customs if needed, inspection, storage)
3.3. Bench testing and staging (FAT), configuration, and calibration
4. Pilot Implementation (Installation)
4.1. Site preparation and H&S briefing (traffic management, permits, dig-safe checks)
4.2. Equipment installation and commissioning of chargers and switchgear
4.3. Electrical integration with supply (transformer or service upgrade if required) and communications
4.4. Calibration, safety tests, and acceptance testing (SAT, OCPP connectivity, payment flow)
5. Monitoring & Evaluation
5.1. Data collection and quality assurance (uptime, sessions, kWh delivered)
5.2. Performance analysis (utilisation, demand charges, revenue, emissions avoided)
5.3. Interim evaluation report
6. Full Deployment & Handover
6.1. User training and operating procedures (ops team, field service, call centre)
6.2. Transition to operations and support model (SLA, preventive maintenance, spares)
6.3. Benefits realisation plan (KPIs: ≥98% uptime, utilisation targets, customer satisfaction)
7. Project Closure
7.1. Final acceptance and sign-off
7.2. Lessons learned workshop
Figure 1:Work Breakdown Structure (WBS
Table 1: Integrated Project Plan (PMI, 2021; PMI, 2019; Kerzner, 2017)
The above WBS guides our schedule and resource allocation planning for the EV fast-charging rollout. It will also serve as a structured reference for scope change control. By organising the work in this way, we give clear visibility to the team and stakeholders about what is and is not part of the project deliverable (Kotter, 2012).
RACI Chart (Responsibility Assignment Matrix)
The RACI Chart is a key tool in PMBOK’s Resource Management and Stakeholder Management areas. It shows who does what. It links each task to one owner and the right support. This keeps work clear and controlled in the plan (Pinto, 2016).
Codes:
• R = Responsible (who executes the work)
• A = Accountable (who owns the outcome or decision)
• C = Consulted (who provides input and expertise)
• I = Informed (who is updated on progress)
We build the RACI in the Planning process group. We update it during Monitoring and Controlling when scope, design, or suppliers change. This avoids overlap, closes gaps, and improves cross-team communication.
Project roles: Project Manager (Pengfei Li) • Site Engineer/Technical Lead (Cynthia) • Installation Lead/Contractor • Finance & Data Lead (Lexi) • Marketing Lead • Legal & Compliance Officer
Table 2: RACI for key project deliverables and tasks (PMI, 2021; Kerzner, 2017)
One “A” per task. “R” shows who executes the work. This matrix is reviewed with the team and sponsor at baseline and updated when roles or scope change. It keeps ownership clear, removes gaps, and supports timely decisions and communication.
In this project, the Site Engineer/Technical Lead (Cynthia) is responsible for the system design and accountable for its technical accuracy. This includes single-line diagrams, charger ratings (75–150 kW), switchgear, cabling, communications, EMS, and OCPP/payment integration. The Project Manager (Pengfei Li) is consulted on design choices and ensures stakeholder needs are captured, but does not do the design work (Bourne, 2015).
The Installation Lead/Contractor is accountable for a safe and successful site build and commissioning. They coordinate civil works, electrical works, utility tie-in, inspections, and SAT including OCPP connectivity and payment flow. The Technical Lead, the utility, and council inspectors are consulted during this work.
The Finance & Data Lead (Lexi) is accountable for budget control and performance analysis. This covers CapEx and OpEx, vendor contracts, subsidies or grants, and post-launch metrics such as utilisation, uptime, energy delivered, demand charges, revenue, and emissions avoided. The PM is informed on progress and variances.
The Marketing Lead is responsible for host and user communication before and after launch. This includes site branding, wayfinding, launch promotion, and customer feedback channels. They are accountable for the communication plan and for reporting on customer satisfaction targets.
The Legal & Compliance Officer is accountable for permits, contracts, and compliance. This includes council approvals, utility agreements, H&S duties, and electrical standards (e.g., AS/NZS requirements; IEC 61851; ISO 15118 where applicable). The Technical Lead is consulted on technical clauses and test criteria.
This RACI was reviewed with the team and the sponsor before baseline. Each deliverable has one “A” and clear “R/C/I” tags. During execution we update the matrix when roles change or new tasks are added, for example if a transformer upgrade is required, if BESS is added, or if a vendor is replaced. The result is faster decisions, better coordination, and clean accountability across design, permits, procurement, installation, handover, and closure.
Project Schedule
This schedule follows PMBOK Schedule Management. We Define Activities, Sequence Activities, Estimate Durations, Develop the Schedule, and Control the Schedule. The plan maps all major tasks, durations, sequences, and dependencies over a 6–7 month timeline. It aligns to the WBS and to the phase plan in our proposal (Meredith et al., 2017).
This project is constrained by permits, utility works, equipment lead times, and safe work windows. Civil works need traffic management and inspections. Electrical works need outage bookings and utility approval. Charger supply can be long-lead. Good planning keeps the plan realistic and reduces rework ((PMI, 2019; PMI, 2021).
Tools and Techniques
• Gantt Chart. Shows activities, durations, overlaps, and the baseline. Stakeholders can track progress by phase and site.
• Activity-on-Node (AoN) with CPM. Shows finish-to-start links and the critical path. We add buffers and time reserves around utility approvals and long-lead items.
Schedule Overview (Phases aligned to WBS)
• Months 1–2: Initiation, Planning, and Design. Charter, stakeholder register, PM plan, site surveys, utility capacity checks, single-line and layout drawings, V&V plan. Design freeze at end of Month 2.
• Months 2–4: Procurement & Staging. Vendor contracts, ordering DC chargers (75–150 kW), switchgear, comms. Logistics, receiving, FAT and configuration images.
• Months 2–5: Installation & Commissioning. Civil works (trenches, foundations, bollards), electrical install, utility tie-in, comms, SAT, OCPP/payment tests, as-builts.
• Months 6–7: Launch, Early Monitoring & Handover. Go-live, uptime tracking, utilisation review, customer feedback, training, SOPs, SLAs, spares.
• Month 7: Project Closure. Final acceptance, lessons learned, archive, release resources.
These windows overlap by design so we can meet the 6–7 month target. Design closes before major purchasing. Procurement overlaps with early civils. Commissioning completes before launch.
Key Milestones (Control Points)
• M1 Month 1: Project kickoff and stakeholder plan approved.
• M2 Month 2: Design freeze; sponsor review; permits lodged; utility service offer received.
• M3 Month 4: Procurement complete; FAT passed; equipment staged.
• M4 Month 5: Installation and commissioning complete; SAT passed; payment flow verified.
• M5 Month 6: Launch; first month performance review.
• M6 Month 7: Handover to operations; benefits plan signed.
• M7 Month 7: Final acceptance and closure report.
Table 3: Key Milestones
Each milestone is a stage gate. At M5, the interim evaluation is the go/no-go point for scaling and marketing spend. If variance appears, corrective actions are agreed before the next phase proceeds (Shenhar & Dvir, 2007).
Figure 2: Gantt chart
Schedule Management – EV Fast-Charging Deployment Project
Activity-on-Node (AoN) Network Diagram shows finish-to-start dependencies among the major activities for this project (PMI, 2019; PMI, 2021).
1. Initiation & Planning
2. System Design & Development
3. Procurement & Staging
4. Installation & Commissioning
5. Launch & Early Monitoring
6. Handover & Operations
7. Project Closure
Table 4: Activity-on-Node (AoN) Dependencies
Figure 3: AoN network diagram
In our AoN diagram, each box is a major task. Arrows show the order of work (finish-to-start). We follow PMBOK’s Develop Schedule process. Most work runs in sequence. Design must finish and be frozen before major purchasing. Procurement must finish before site installation and commissioning. This creates a clear critical path. A delay on any critical task will push the whole project (Pinto,2016).
To cut risk, some work overlaps where it is safe. While contracts are being signed, logistics planning and staging begin. Civil works can start as long as design is frozen and permits are in place. Training materials and SOPs are drafted during commissioning so handover is faster after go-live (Moder et al., 1983).
We use resource levelling so key staff are not overloaded. When the Site Engineer is supervising electrical installation, the Finance & Data Lead sets up OCPP/billing, dashboards, and tariff rules. The Installation Lead manages crews and inspections. The Marketing Lead prepares launch comms and wayfinding. If a conflict appears, we resequence non-critical tasks or add short-term support.
Schedule control is weekly. We check progress against the Gantt baseline and update the network logic if approved changes occur. We track Schedule Performance Index (SPI) and set variance thresholds for early action. If we see delay on or near the critical path, we apply schedule compression:
• Fast-tracking: place long-lead charger orders once key design elements are frozen, while final site details are finishing.
• Crashing: add crews or extend shifts for trenching, foundations, or wiring to recover float.
The critical path typically runs: design freeze → procurement and FAT → site prep → electrical install → SAT/payment flow → launch → interim evaluation → training and transition → final acceptance. Buffers sit around utility outage windows, inspections, and shipping.
This approach keeps the plan realistic and under control. With the current baseline and buffers, the project is planned to finish in Month 7, aligned with our 6–7-month target, subject to permit and utility risks being managed.
Budget of the Project
In line with PMBOK’s Cost Management processes, we prepared a detailed budget for the EV fast-charging deployment in Albany. This budget has two main purposes: (1) secure funding approval, and (2) set a cost baseline for control. Costs are grouped by major work packages so the budget links directly to the WBS and schedule (Fleming & Koppelman, 2010).
The capital need for 8–10 DC fast chargers (75–150 kW), site works, electrical infrastructure, signage, and payment/monitoring systems is estimated at NZD 2.5–3.0 million. We use NZD 2.75 million as the baseline for planning. Expected annual operating costs are NZD 150,000–200,000, with total annual revenue of NZD 700,000–900,000 from charging fees, incentives, and partnerships. The expected payback period is about 3 years under conservative adoption.
Table 5: Budget Breakdown (CapEx baseline NZD 2,750,000)
The baseline sits inside the proposal’s NZD 2.5–3.0 million range for capital investment, covering chargers, site preparation, electrical works, and integration of payment systems.
Regarding estimating method and assumptions:
• Primary inputs: supplier quotes and analogous estimates from similar DC fast-charging builds; allocations reflect hardware share, grid works, and civil works typical for urban sites.
• Contingency: 8% at baseline for known-unknowns (shipping, minor redesign, outage windows). Risk-based reserves can be drawn down with approved change requests.
We control costs monthly using Earned Value Management (EVM). We track CPI and cost variances by work package; any variance beyond ±10% triggers escalation, re-forecast, and (if needed) change control. Procurement contracts will include fixed rates where practical to limit exposure.
Annual operating costs of NZD 150,000–200,000 include electricity, maintenance, security/support, and marketing. Revenue is expected from user fees, government incentives, and site partnerships, totaling NZD 700,000–900,000 per year. This supports a ~3-year payback and a strong business case to scale across Auckland once performance is confirmed.
This budget forms the cost baseline, integrates with risk reserves, and supports Estimate Costs, Determine Budget, and Control Costs. It provides financial discipline and a clear line of sight from funding to value delivery.
Project Progress Reporting
Effective progress reporting keeps control strong and stakeholders calm (PMI, 2021). We use two methods, together, in line with PMBOK.
1. Regular Status Reports and Milestone Tracking (clear story and decisions).
2. Earned Value Management (EVM) (numbers for schedule and cost health). This mix gives a full view of project health and supports the performance measurement baseline.
1) Status Reports and Milestone Tracking
Cadence
• Weekly update for team and sponsor. One page. What we finished, what we will do next week, top risks, and help needed.
• Monthly status report for sponsor and key stakeholders. Full package with charts and stage-gate status.
Content of each report
• Work completed vs plan (by WBS work package).
• Work planned for the next period.
• Variances in schedule, scope, or cost, with root cause and action.
• New or rising risks/issues, owner, and due date.
• Key approvals/decisions needed before the next gate.
• Change requests raised, approved, or rejected.
Traffic-light rules
• Green: within baseline or variance ≤ 5%.
• Amber: variance 5–10% or risk needs mitigation.
• Red: variance > 10% or risk/event blocks critical path.
Sample dashboard (Month 5 — Apr 2026) below matches our 6–7 month plan and current progress:
Table 6: Traffic-Light Dashboard
2) Earned Value Management (EVM)
EVM links scope, schedule, and cost into one set of numbers, key metrics we track (Anbari, 2003):
• PV Planned Value
• EV Earned Value
• AC Actual Cost
• SPI = EV ÷ PV (schedule efficiency)
• CPI = EV ÷ AC (cost efficiency)
Baseline (BAC) for CapEx: NZD 2,750,000.
Table 7: EVM snapshot (Month 4 — Feb 2026)
Formulas used and our results
• CV = EV − AC = 1,080,000 − 1,020,000 = +60,000
• SV = EV − PV = 1,080,000 − 1,200,000 = −120,000
• EAC (BAC ÷ CPI) = 2,750,000 ÷ 1.06 ≈ 2,594,340
• EAC (AC + (BAC − EV)) = 1,020,000 + (2,750,000 − 1,080,000) = 2,690,000
• EAC (AC + (BAC − EV) ÷ CPI) ≈ 2,595,472
• ETC = EAC − AC (using EAC_CPI) ≈ 1,574,340
• VAC = BAC − EAC (using EAC_CPI) ≈ +155,660
• TCPI to meet BAC = (BAC − EV) ÷ (BAC − AC) = 1,670,000 ÷ 1,730,000 ≈ 0.97
• TCPI to meet EAC_CPI = (EAC − EV) ÷ (EAC − AC) ≈ 0.96
This means, for our EV rollout:
• We are slightly behind schedule (SPI 0.90) due to inspection and outage booking windows.
• We are under budget (CPI 1.06) thanks to negotiated charger pricing and bundled civil works.
• Forecast EAC is at or below the baseline (positive VAC on CPI-based estimate).
• TCPI < 1 shows it is realistic to finish within BAC if we hold current cost efficiency.
Control actions we use (Fleming & Koppelman, 2010):
• Weekly check vs Gantt baseline. Update logic if change requests are approved.
• Watch the critical path: design freeze → procurement/FAT → site prep → electrical install → SAT/payment flow → launch.
• If SPI stays < 1 for two checks:
– Fast-tracking: place long-lead charger orders once key design items are frozen.
– Crashing: add a civil crew or extend shifts for trenching/foundations for one week.
• Escalate any work package with ±10% cost variance. Apply EAC re-forecast and update the cost baseline only through approved change control.
Alignment with PMBOK
• Transparency & Tailoring: reports sized to each audience.
• Stakeholder Engagement: regular, proactive communication builds trust.
• Performance Measurement Baselines: qualitative status plus quantitative EVM.
• Value Delivery & Governance: clear signals for go/no-go at each gate.
This reporting approach detects deviations early, drives fast corrective action, and gives sponsors confidence that the EV fast-charging project will finish in Month 7 as planned, unless material external risks occur.
Project Risk Management
From project start, risk management was a core focus. This rollout uses high-power DC chargers, new back-end links (OCPP, billing), and relies on outside parties: council, the lines company, site hosts, and vendors. Using PMBOK Risk Management, we follow a simple loop: identify, assess, plan responses, implement, and monitor through the whole project.
We keep a living Risk Register with the risk description, likelihood, impact, owner, and the chosen response. Ratings use Low / Medium / High. Responses follow PMBOK: avoid, mitigate, transfer, or accept. The register links to the WBS so each risk maps to a work package and a milestone (PMI, 2021; McCarthy et al., 2013).
Owners are taken from your team register: Project Manager Pengfei Li, Site Engineer/Technical Lead Cynthia, Finance Lead Lexi, Marketing Lead Pengfei Li, Legal Officer Cynthia.
Table 8: Risk Register
Review cadence: update this register in the weekly project meeting; confirm status at each stage gate. Owners above are accountable; supporting roles are consulted as needed.
How we apply PMBOK steps
Identify Risks. Workshops and expert input flagged the main exposure areas: utility capacity and outage booking, council permits, long-lead hardware, civil surprises, H&S, payment/OCPP integration, vandalism, and post-launch utilisation. Triggers are defined for each risk (for example: missed inspection slot, failed FAT test, or slip in shipment ETA).
Analyse Risks. We rate likelihood and impact. High impact items include utility upgrade delays, safety incidents, and payment failures. Medium impact items include ground conditions and small design changes. A simple probability-impact matrix sets escalation thresholds.
Plan Responses. Examples in our register:
Mitigate R1 technical failure with FAT/SAT, spare kits, and a vendor SLA ≥ 98% uptime (owner: Cynthia).
Mitigate R2 utility delay with early capacity studies, service offer in Month 1, and booked outage windows (owner: Pengfei Li).
Mitigate/Transfer R4 procurement risk by frame. pricing, dual sourcing, and contract clauses for delivery (owners: Lexi with Cynthia).
Mitigate R6 budget risk with monthly EVM reviews, load management to lower demand charges, and strict change control (owner: Lexi).
Mitigate R7 low utilisation with site selection, pricing/promotions, wayfinding, and partner channels (owner: Pengfei Li).
Avoid H&S incidents (R8) with permits to work, toolbox talks, and qualified electricians (owner: Cynthia).
Mitigate R10 back-end/payment failure with sandbox tests, conformance checks, and fallback tap-to-pay (owners: Cynthia and Lexi).
Implement Responses. Each risk has a named owner who tracks actions and due dates. Open actions sit on the weekly agenda until closed.
Monitor Risks. We review the register weekly and at each stage gate. New risks are added. Closed risks move to the lessons log. We plot a simple risk burndown to show trend over time.
Current risk status
Procurement delay (R4). Early order placed and shipping tracked. Backup supplier lined up for switchgear. Status: controlled.
Utility upgrade timing (R2). Service offer received; outage window booked; float adjusted. Status: watch.
Payment/OCPP integration (R10). Sandbox tests passed; SAT script. finalised; fallback tap-to-pay ready. Status: controlled.
Civil surprises (R5). Trial pits done; no major conflicts found. Status: low.
Utilisation after launch (R7). Marketing plan ready; wayfinding and host promos scheduled for go-live month. Status: watch.
Overall, the project’s inherent risk profile is medium-high. With controls in place, residual risk is medium. Contingency is set in the budget and schedule. If a risk crosses a threshold (for example schedule slip on the critical path or cost variance over ±10%), we escalate, raise or update a change request, and adjust EAC and schedule forecasts.
This process follows PMBOK good practice: clear ownership, simple ratings, defined responses, and frequent review. It keeps the team focused on the real threats and opportunities and supports fast, evidence-based decisions as we move from design to procurement, installation, launch, and closure.
Project Change Management
Managing changes to scope, time, or cost needs discipline. We follow PMBOK’s Perform. Integrated Change Control. Only approved changes enter the plan. This prevents scope creep and protects schedule and budget.
Process and controls
Change Request Form. (CRF). Any team member or stakeholder can raise a CRF. The form. records: requestor, description, reason, expected benefit, affected WBS items, and impacts on scope, schedule, cost, quality, risk, resources. Each CRF gets an ID (PMI, 2021).
Change Log (CID Log). All CRFs sit in one log with status: Submitted / In Review / Approved / Rejected / Deferred. The log shows decision date and next actions. It is referenced in weekly status and at each stage gate.
Review and approval.
• Initial screen: Project Manager Pengfei Li checks completeness and quick impact.
• Minor change (≤ NZD 25,000 cost, ≤ 3 working days schedule, no scope expansion, within contingency): PM may approve. Sponsor is notified.
• Major change (> NZD 25,000, or any scope expansion, or critical-path impact): goes to the Change Control Board (CCB).
• CCB membership: Sponsor, Pengfei Li (PM), Lexi (Finance & Data), Cynthia (Technical Lead/Legal & Compliance), and site host rep if location-specific.
Impact analysis. For each CRF we update: WBS link, schedule logic (AoN), revised EAC/ETC, risk delta, quality checks, and resource plan. If approved, we baseline updates to the scope, schedule, and cost and version-control all artefacts.
Communication. Approved changes are shared with the team and stakeholders. Rejected or deferred items include the reason and any follow-up. The change log and the monthly report show the net effect on CPI, SPI, and milestone dates.
Tailoring (small vs major). Minor field adjustments (for example, shifting a charger pedestal within the same bay, swapping a conduit route on-site) are logged as issues, resolved by Cynthia on the day, and noted in as-builts.
Table 9: Change Request Summary
In result, with this process, we take both adaptability and control into properly consideration, we make responses against the real needs after we are sure on the impacts and secure, as well, the baselines stay clean. Decisions are traceable, the rollout stays on time and on budget.
Communication with Project Stakeholders
Effective communication is central to this project’s success. In line with PMBOK Stakeholder Engagement, Team, and Value Delivery, we use a Communication Plan to get the right information to the right people at the right time. Our stakeholders include the sponsor/CEO, project team, site hosts (parking owners, retail, university), charger vendor and contractors, the lines company (utility), council/permitting bodies, operations and call centre, and end users. We use different methods (meetings, emails, calls, reports, dashboards) to match each group’s needs.
Communication is two-way. We follow PMBOK Collaboration and Stakeholder Engagement. We ask for feedback and act on it. Site hosts give practical input that improves layout, traffic flow, and safety. Executives receive short, decision-ready updates. Engineers see design and test detail. The public gets clear go-live information and support contacts (Drewry et al., 2019; Fielke & Srinivasan, 2018).
Principles
• Clear message, single source of truth (status report and dashboard).
• Regular cadence tied to milestones and stage gates.
• Simple language, visual summaries, and action logs.
• Named owner for every message. Escalation paths are defined.
• Records kept (minutes, action items, decision log, change log).
Table 10: Communication Matrix
Channels: meetings (online/in-person), email summaries, shared dashboard, action log. Owners: PM issues executive comms; Technical Lead confirms technical facts; Finance & Data provides cost/EVM; Marketing leads public messages; Compliance validates permits and H&S notes.
Feedback and escalation:
• Feedback is captured in minutes and the action log with an owner and due date.
• Issues that affect scope, cost, or schedule are escalated to the PM within 24 hours and, if needed, raised to the Steering Committee at the next gate.
• Approved changes are communicated with updated scope, WBS, schedule, and budget references.
Tailored, regular, and open communication builds trust, reduces rework, and speeds decisions. It aligns with PMBOK Leadership and Tailoring. Engineers get technical detail; executives get concise summaries; the public gets clear service info. This keeps stakeholders engaged and supports value-focused delivery throughout design, procurement, installation, launch, and handover.
Project Opportunities and Issues in Managing the Project Team
This section lists key opportunities and issues in managing the team for the EV Fast-Charging Deployment. It applies PMBOK ideas across communication, negotiation, motivation, time management, meetings, leadership, team performance, decision-making, and conflict resolution. The aim is simple: clear roles, fast decisions, safe work, and steady value delivery (PMI, 2021; Kerzner, 2017).
Table 11: Opportunities and Issues (with PMBOK principles)
With structured communication, in the project, where clear roles and leadership is defined, we can turn opportunities into results. However, there do exist risks, for example, tight utility windows or vendor lead times, also, we cannot ignore the chance of miscommunication across technical and executive audiences. Hence, using tailored updates, firm agendas, visible recognition, and a strict escalation path to build team cohesion are suggested, which aim at protecting schedule and budget. (Pinto, 2016).
We will close the EV Fast-Charging Deployment in a structured way. The goal is simple: all work finished, objectives met, and stakeholders satisfied. Closure is not just admin. It locks in long-term success, captures lessons, and hands the system to operations. The approach follows PMBOK best practice: accountability, stakeholder engagement, and knowledge transfer (PMI, 2021; Kerzner, 2017).
Key Closure Activities
1) Deliverables & Acceptance
• Verify all outputs against requirements: installed DC chargers (75–150 kW), switchgear, civil works, wayfinding, OCPP backend, billing/payment, monitoring/EMS, as-builts.
• Run final Site Acceptance Test (SAT) including payment flow and telemetry.
• Acceptance sign-off by Sponsor and Site Host; technical sign-off by Cynthia (Technical Lead); project sign-off by Pengfei Li (PM).
2) Transition to Operations
• Handover ownership, asset tags, warranties, and credentials.
• Activate SLA, spares list, and preventive maintenance in CMMS.
• Deliver runbooks, SOPs, emergency contacts, and vendor escalation paths.
• Confirm monitoring dashboards and alarms; define the hypercare window.
• Finance and operations confirm tariff setup and settlement.
3) Administrative Closure
• Close contracts and variations; reconcile invoices; release retentions/bonds.
• Finalise forecast vs baseline (EAC, ETC) and record actuals.
• Release project resources; freeze versions of drawings and configs.
• Archive all documents: charter, PM plan, RACI, WBS, schedule, risk log, change log, test reports, as-builts, training records.
4) Lessons Learned
• Hold a closure workshop with team, vendors, utility, and site hosts.
• Record “what worked / what to change” (e.g., early utility booking, frame. pricing, inspection timing, trenching sequencing).
• Publish a Closure Report and store it in the knowledge base.
• Feed approved improvements into the rollout playbook for the next sites.
5) Stakeholder Satisfaction
• Gather feedback from Sponsor/CEO, site hosts, utility, council, and vendor.
• Capture customer signals from launch month (NPS, uptime, sessions, first-contact resolution).
• Confirm expectations met; obtain formal closure sign-off.
6) Team Recognition
• Thank-you notes and a brief celebration.
• Individual acknowledgements for key contributions (Cynthia, Lexi, contractors).
• Update CVs/skills matrix and internal profiles with new competencies.
Closure deliverables produced: Acceptance Certificate, Handover Pack (SOPs, runbooks, warranty pack, credentials), Asset Register, Final Financials, Lessons Learned log, Closure Report.
Table 12: Closure Checklist
Conclusion
This closure approach ensures deliverables are accepted, operations are ready, and knowledge is captured. It supports PMBOK’s guidance and protects value after the project ends. The result is a stable network, clear accountability, and reusable lessons for the next deployment.
References list
Anbari, F. T. (2003). Earned value project management method and extensions. Project Management Journal, 34(4), 12–23.
Bourne, L. (2015). Stakeholder relationship management: A maturity model for organizational implementation (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Fleming, Q. W., & Koppelman, J. M. (2010). Earned value project management (4th ed.). Project Management Institute.
Kerzner, H. (2017). Project management: A systems approach to planning, scheduling, and controlling (12th ed.). Wiley.
Kotter, J. P. (2012). Leading change. Harvard Business Review Press.
Meredith, J. R., Shafer, S. M., & Mantel, S. J. (2017). Project management: A managerial approach (9th ed.). Wiley.
Moder, J. J., Phillips, C. R., & Davis, E. W. (1983). Project management with CPM, PERT, and precedence diagramming (3rd ed.). Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Project Management Institute. (2013). Managing change in organizations: A practice guide. Project Management Institute.
Project Management Institute. (2019). Practice standard for scheduling (3rd ed.). Project Management Institute.
Project Management Institute. (2019). Practice standard for work breakdown structures (3rd ed.). Project Management Institute.
Project Management Institute. (2019). The standard for risk management in portfolios, programs, and projects. Project Management Institute.
Project Management Institute. (2021). A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK® Guide) and the Standard for Project Management (7th ed.). Project Management Institute.
Pinto, J. K. (2016). Project management: Achieving competitive advantage (4th ed.). Pearson.
Shenhar, A. J., & Dvir, D. (2007). Reinventing project management: The diamond approach to successful growth and innovation. Harvard Business School Press.