The Importance of Performing Close Out Activities Before Essay Example for Free

The Importance of Performing Close Out Activities Before Essay The importance of performing close out activities before closing the project and the business risks associated with skipping these activities John Constance MSc in Project Management, University of Liverpool Week 5 Discussion Question Abstract Most projects are initiated, planned, executed and monitored and controlled with the full cognizant of executives and clients. However, once the project has been considered an overall success, a part from preparing and conducting opening event with ribbon cutting and extensive speeches, little attention is paid to formal close out documentation. This often leads to incomplete information for use by facility operations and maintenance team or the next project team to implement a similar project. According to Ed Naughton, Director General, Institute of Project Management Ireland (www. projectmanagement. e, 2011) â€Å"without a project close out plan it will is difficult to know if the project was completed as planned, and how this information can assist the team in the next project as there will be no information on lessons learned therefore providing no assurance that past mistakes will not be repeated in another future project†. Introduction In my nine years of project management I have learned that to start a project is difficult; but to close a project is both difficult and at times seemingly impossible. In order to close a project smoothly without undergoing stress even at celebration ceremonies, it is very important a plan is initiated during the planning phase. The key activities, processes and procedures, and acceptance conditions and documentation must be agreed and documented and this plan tracked and updated during execution and executed during closure, meeting not only the project team expectation but also the acceptance of the client. If this does not happen the project runs the risk of not being completed on schedule, within budget and targeted quality, also making future operations and maintenance difficult. Experts View Robert K. Wysocki (Wysocki: pp 283-288) explained how â€Å"an effective project close out plan gets client to accept or reject deliverables through several applied approaches; it records all changes made in the life of the project; it keeps project records that can assist in estimating duration and cost of future projects; the lessons learned and best practices from past projects can be used to provide training for new project managers and project team; and the performance evaluation reports from functional managers can also be used as a guide for the next project†. Wysocki also explained how â€Å"end of project impact or post-implementation audit helps the team and client determine if project goals and activity were achieved as planned, budgeted, scheduled and according to quality targets, specifications and client satisfaction† (Wysocki: pp 289). Other experts that support the importance of preparing close out plan before the project closure include, Robert P. Walsh (2004, pp. 1) who wrote that â€Å"the close-out phase includes final testing and cleaning, occupancy approval from local authorities, punch list walk through, staff training, turnover of final documents, and move-in of furniture, fixtures, and equipment; thereby making planning ahead and outlining the close-out requirements at the onset of the project certain of a smooth start to occupying the new workplace†. Dimitrios Litsikakis (The Importance of Project Closeout and Review in Project Management, 2007) said â€Å"projects managed with no close out plan continue to fail on new projects because management forgets to records past actions as they did not have the time to think and conduct a post implementation review to determine what went wrong and what should be fixed next time†. Conclusion The risk of skipping planned project activities as listed by Robert Wysocki (2009, pp. 83-288) is a big threat for the likelihood of future problems. This is the case with 2 projects in South Sudan. The first had close out problems because client condition of satisfaction for deliverables was not documented at the start of the project, nor was it tracked, updated, discussed and agreed. During close out, senior management from the client and contractor blamed each other for not having a plan making close out a war of words to be settled by an Arbitrator. Also, another project, although with a documented close out plan that was reviewed and updated on a monthly basis, did not include an agreement as to who would be the receptor of project asset. This brought chaos during closure when government claimed all assets should be turn over to them and the donor refused, simply because there was no indication of this in the close out document.

a christian nation Essay -- essays research papers

There are many different opinions regarding the idea that the United States is a Christian nation. After reading the Church book, however, I believe it is obvious that our country was not in fact founded on Christianity. Even though many religious right groups insist our laws should enforce the doctrines of Protestant Christianity. The documents written by our founding fathers say otherwise. The U.S. Constitution has no mention of Christianity or Jesus Christ, and is evidence within itself that our country was not founded as a Christian nation. The men who founded the legislature of our country had seen first hand the difficulties that church and state partnerships could create in Europe. The consequences of this partnership are the main reason a secular government was created in the United States. During the colonial period, alliances between religion and government produced oppression and tyranny on our own shores. Many colonies, for example, had laws limiting public office positions to Trinitarian Protestants. While some colonies had officially established churches and taxed all citizens to support them. Dissenters faced many obstacles of persecution. Many people began looking for an end to religious testing. They argued that true faith did not need or want the support of the government. These protestors were not anti-religious. In fact they believed that by allowing people their right to freedom from religion, they would eventually find themselves true Christians. P...

Does the UK have a Prime Ministerial government?

The Prime Minister is very much a staple of British politics today and it can be seen in the last thirty years that there has been a power shift in UK politics very much in favour of the Prime Minister. Traditionally, the UK government operated under a theoretical system known as cabinet government which is basically the idea that all members of the cabinet should have an equal say in policy making with the Prime Minister being ‘first among equals' in the cabinet. However, in recent times it can be seen that the UK government has moved to a system known as Prime Ministerial government which is when a prime minister uses its powers and influence to dominate all areas of government including the dictation of government policy. It can be seen that the powers of patronage the Prime Minister has, the control and bypass of the cabinet by the PM and the fact that the PM is in appearance the head of the country, all of which suggest a move towards a prime ministerial government in recent years. However, it can be argued that whilst the PM appears to be all dominant in fact the PM still relies on the support of its cabinet, its party and the strength of its party in parliament or in other words the success of the PM. One way in which in recent years, the UK has moved towards PM government is through the control and bypassing of the cabinet by various Prime Ministers.Government Regulation on Media in America In recent years, there has been a bypassing of cabinet government and an increase in the use of bilateral meetings (which is essentially a gathering of the PMs most trusted ministers from the cabinet and deciding what to do on certain policies before the cabinet meeting) which allows the pm to have more power over policy and also takes power usually reserved for the cabinet. An example of this is Blair's ‘kitchen cabinet' of which brown was the only ever present member whom he discussed policy with an example of this being the privatisation of the control of interest rates in the bank of England which was very much Blair's own personal policy. Another way there has been a move from cabinet government is that the prime minister has become able to push their own policy forward with little or no support from their parties for example Thatcher pushed through the poll tax bill even though the party was more or less united in opposition to the idea. In addition to this in recent years we have seen a dramatic increase in the number of personal advisors to the PM in comparison to previous years where the PM had barely any personal advisors and the now established PM's office which consists of advisors to the PM thereby limiting the need for cabinet consultation. These moves clearly show a bypassing and control of the government supporting the idea the UK has moved to a PM government rather than cabinet government. One restraint on the powers of the prime minister is the strength a majority in parliament. It could be argued that there is a correlation between the power of the prime minister and the parties size of majority in parliament for example Blair initially was a very strong prime minister operating under a strong majority in parliament going undefeated in parliament until after the 2005 election but, after significant lessening of the majority in the next election he wasn't as strong as he didn't have as much public support for him to justify himself and his policies to his party thereby lessening his/her power. This lessens or has a restraint on the Prime Ministers power as it ensures that they are very much under the power of the public opinion and that defines how powerful they are. For example, Brown was very much a weak Prime Minister in the sense of dictating policy as he simply didn't have enough public support or a large enough majority to make his own personal policy which was shown in the defeat he suffered over the gurka bill in 2008 which once again shows the restraint that public support and parliamentary majority has on a Prime Ministers power. Which shows the PM not to be an all dominant figure in government and very much accountable to its own party thereby suggesting that we do not operate under a PM government as the PM is still held accountable and therefore any dominance over the government the PM has is in fact sustained by parliament and when the support from parliament wanes it can be seen that the PM is not able to dictate policy for too long. Another way in which it could be seen that we operate under a PM government is appearance of the prime minister as a supposed head of the country. In recent years there has been an increased media focus on the PM (even leading to puppet parodies which can be seen to represent the national mood at the time) making them the focal point or at least seem to be of British politics, the increased media focus has also led to many voters voting for the prime minister candidate rather than the party they represent which also leads to more power as it shows the PM to be instantly recognisable and important so it commands respect. An example of the Media focus on the prime minister which made him more powerful as they would be seen as the figure head of the government is Blair coming out of the G8 meeting to address the nation and to drive to downing street to sort it out after 7/7 which made him more powerful as he was seen to care and be able to take action. Another way the PM appears to be the head of the country is in foreign policy, Prime ministers can be seen to be the head of foreign policy in terms of conflicts diplomacy and such for example, Blair is often seen as the man who made the decision to invade Iraq and Afghanistan which gives him the appearance of being the head of the country, but it also shows him to be able to dictate policy at least in that area and this can be seen with a variety of PMs in recent years such as Thatcher being known as the Iron Lady after the Falkland's war, Cameron's presiding over the conflict in Libya and the subsequent military operations there and Major over the first gulf war. This showed the PM's to be supposed heads of the country and gave certainly the appearance of a PM government and substance behind the appearance is perhaps shown by such decisive decision making during the conflict. Another way the PM's powers are under restraint is by their own party in terms of support (or lack thereof) . A Prime Ministerial government relies on its party for backing and allowance for the PM to dictate policy but they are also a restraint from the party in the sense that a lack of support would stop the PM from being able to do those things and usually ends in a new leadership election, there are numerous examples of this in recent history and Whilst it's certainly true that recent history has shown there to be at least two very strong Prime ministers namely Thatcher and Blair, both of these were both in some way in debt to their parties in the sense that they needed the party support to be such strong prime ministers for example for Blair to carry out his reforms he needed substantial support from his party, for Thatcher to carry out her new right policy's she needed substantial support from her party. This reliance can lead to the Prime Ministers downfall however; as it is very much the case the Party is very much happy for the PM to be powerful as long as they are successful in winning the next election so when this becomes under threat the Prime Minister is usually forced out, Thatcher was forced out after she forced through an extremely un popular poll tax bill for example. In other cases it can be seen because of a lack of a large party support some PM's never get the chance to be powerful and all PM's are restricted nearing the end of their Premiership e. g. Brown never really had the same power Blair had and at the end faced a leadership challenged which though he survived really signalled an end to any chance he had of being a powerful PM, in a similar situation with Major's premiership It could be seen that his leadership was very much affected due to the spectre of the previous conservative leader (thatcher) and also powerful opponents in the cabinet such as Howard and Portillo. This shows that a Prime Minister really relies on its party for power and influence thereby making a PM government entirely reliant on its party which more or less challenges the whole idea of a PM government. Another way it can be seen that the UK operates under a PM government is the Prime Ministers power of patronage which allows the PM to control policy through the threat or use of his power of dismissal and can use this to dominate Cabinet and on extension it's party. The PM chooses all of the ministers and junior ministers and all who sit in cabinet so whether the MPs progress in their political career relies on the favour to the PM thereby ensuring support of the PM from the lower down MPs and if they do not support the PM they are forced to resign for example MP John Hutton was forced to resign after saying Labour under Brown would be a ‘****ing disaster*' which shows that whilst people may argue that PMs need support from its ministers it can be seen equally or more so that ministers need the support of a PM which shows a move to PM government as it show the PM making the decisions and also controlling its party. In conclusion, it seems that there has indeed been a move towards PM government in recent years especially considering both Thatcher and Blairs premierships and whilst it may be said that the style of government depends on the personality of the Prime Minister traits of a PM government still remained in the premierships of the likes of Brown and Major so overall its clear to certain extent that there has been a move to a Prime Ministerial government. However it does seem that this is facilitated by the party and the cabinet so one may argue that whilst indeed it is a Prime Ministerial government it is supported and facilitated by the government it is perceived to dominate.

How to Talk About Fractions in Chinese

Know that you know your whole numbers in Chinese, you can talk about rational numbers in decimals, fractions, and percents with the addition of a few more vocabulary words. Of course, you can read and write numbers—like 4/3 or 3.75 or 15%—using the universal numerical system in Chinese-speaking regions. However, when it comes to reading those numbers out loud, youll need to know these new Mandarin Chinese terms. Parts of a Whole Fractions can be expressed either as parts of a whole (half, quarter, etc.) or as decimal fractions. In English, parts of a whole are stated as â€Å"XX parts of YY,† with XX being the parts of the whole and YY being the whole. An example of this is saying two parts of three, which also means two-thirds.   However, the phrase construction is the opposite in Chinese. Parts of a whole  are stated as YY 分ä ¹â€¹ XX. The pinyin of 分ä ¹â€¹ is fÄ“n zhÄ «, and is written the same in both traditional and simplified Chinese.  Note that the number representing the whole comes at the beginning of the phrase.   One-half can be stated as either ä ¸â‚¬Ã¥ Å  (yÄ « bà  n)  or using the phrase construction mentioned above:  Ã¤ ºÅ'分ä ¹â€¹Ã¤ ¸â‚¬ (à ¨r fÄ“n zhÄ « yÄ «). There is no Chinese equivalent to the term one-quarter besides  Ã¥â€ºâ€ºÃ¥Ë†â€ Ã¤ ¹â€¹Ã¤ ¸â‚¬ (s à ¬ fÄ“n zhÄ « yÄ «). Examples of Parts of a Whole three-quarterssà ¬ fÄ“n zhÄ « sÄ n四分ä ¹â€¹Ã¤ ¸â€°eleven-sixteenthsshà ­ lià ¹ fÄ“n zhÄ « shà ­ yÄ «Ã¥  Ã¥â€¦ ­Ã¥Ë†â€ Ã¤ ¹â€¹Ã¥  Ã¤ ¸â‚¬ Decimals Fractions can also be stated as decimals. The word for decimal point in Mandarin Chinese is written as é »Å¾ in traditional form and ç‚ ¹ in simplified form. The character is pronounced as diÇŽn.   If a number begins with the decimal point, it can optionally be prefaced with é› ¶ (là ­ng), which means zero. Each digit of the decimal fraction is stated individually just like a whole number. Examples of Decimal Fractions 1.3yÄ « diÇŽn sÄ nä ¸â‚¬Ã© »Å¾Ã¤ ¸â€° (trad)ä ¸â‚¬Ã§â€š ¹Ã¤ ¸â€° (simp)0.5674ling diÇŽn wÇ” lià ¹ qÄ « sà ¬Ã©â€º ¶Ã© »Å¾Ã¤ ºâ€Ã¥â€¦ ­Ã¤ ¸Æ'å›› (trad)é› ¶Ã§â€š ¹Ã¤ ºâ€Ã¥â€¦ ­Ã¤ ¸Æ'å›› (simp) Percents The same phrase construction used in expressing parts of a whole is also used when talking about percentages. Except for when talking about percents in Chinese, the whole is always 100. Thus, XX% will follow this template: ç™ ¾Ã¥Ë†â€ Ã¤ ¹â€¹ (bÇŽi fÄ“n zhÄ «) XX.   Examples of Percents 20%bÇŽi fÄ“n zhÄ « à ¨r shà ­Ã§â„¢ ¾Ã¥Ë†â€ Ã¤ ¹â€¹Ã¤ ºÅ'Ã¥  5%bÇŽi fÄ“n zhÄ « wÇ”ç™ ¾Ã¥Ë†â€ Ã¤ ¹â€¹Ã¤ ºâ€