1. In their paper on “Understanding the Role of ‘Vision’ in Project Success, Christenson and Walker (2004, p. 39) argue that “project vision is a significant contributing factor to project success, and, the communication and maintenance of a project vision will impact project outcomes”. a. How do Christenson and Walker (2004) define project vision? What distinguishes project vision from a mission statement? Christenson & Walker (2004, p. 39-40) define project vision as the ability of a leader to get teams to work towards common team goals.
This involves the communication of credible but reasonable goals in a way that is easy to understand, and compelling to follow. A successful project manager will be able to inspire teammates so that they “buy” a project and meet the objective. A project vision differs from a mission in that a project vision relates to overall goals or “ends” to be achieved while a mission concerns the means to that end. A mission relates to the tasks needed to meet carry out the vision, many times outlined in a mission statement.
A project vision answers the question “why or what? while a mission would answer the question “how? ” Visions are also more related to overall culture of a project. b. In the last paragraph of the NJHoF case study, Mr. Rutland is contemplating what to do in order to make his dream a reality. What was Mr. Rutland’s project vision from the time beginning of the case study thru the end of the case where he is reviewing the recommendations of the consultant? Mr. Rutland’s project vision was to save Paramount Theatre, a local landmark, by establishing a National Jazz Hall of Fame that could be used as a museum and performance center.
The board of Directors determined that to save the Paramount Theatre a minimum of $600,000 would be needed, which caused the plan to unravel. However, to support their passion and love for jazz, they continued their efforts to establish the NJHoF in Charlottesville, VA. Mr. Rutland selected a consultant to review the project outcomes, and based upon the consultant’s recommendations, concluded they needed a mail campaign to generate funds, a better team a dedicated director to monitor project activity, and the use of strategic locations around Charlottesville to promote NJHoF.
Thus, the vision focus changed from “Historic Renewal of Paramount Theatre” to “Establishing National Jazz Hall of Fame”. c. If you were Mr. Rutland, using the four characteristics of a good project vision developed by Christenson and Walker (2004), prepare a project vision statement for the case study and present your argument as to why it meets the 4 characteristics of a good project vision statement. According to Christenson and Walker (2004, p. 42), a good project vision should be thoroughly understood, motivational, credible, demanding, and challenging.
According to the Group 3 project vision statement, the project should establish the National Jazz Hall of Fame in Charlottesville, VA and make awareness of the hall of fame on a national scale. The Group 3 vision captures the core purpose while keeping objectives in mind. Evaluating available resources and funding, it is credible undertaking. The group members have agreed to participate in this project because for their love and passion for Jazz culture. It is easy to motivate when there is passion to accomplish the vision. d. How did Mr. Rutland communicate his project vision?
Explain why you think he was or was not effective in communicating and explaining his project vision? Explain your position. Mr. Rutland’s plans for the NJHoF included: •to establish and maintain a museum •create archives and a concert center in Charlottesville
•sponsor Jazz festivals, workshops, and scholarships •promote activities remembering great Jazz artists •serve Jazz enthusiasts and educate the public on the importance of Jazz in American culture and history Mr. Rutland communicated his project vision well. Although his initial vision o save Paramount Theatre was not attainable due to the high initial cost, but his passion for Jazz and the opportunity to take NJHoF to a national scale was deemed worthy. He was able to communicate his vision to the project board members and sponsors, and inspire them to take up the challenge to accomplish the goals. Not only motivational, he clearly stated his goals and communicated well to the board members. He took the appropriate steps of seeking the services of a consultant, and presented the challenging project in a positive way. He was able to plot more focus strategies after consultant’s suggestions.
The plan had been modified on a larger scale but it was more focused at the end. 2. A consultant was hired to conduct a national survey and about 100 tourists who were interviewed in the Charlottesville area. Using the survey results in exhibits 2 and 3, prepare a Pareto-like histogram noting the differences between the weighted percentages and the raw percentages. Exhibit II: Exhibit III: a. Explain why you do or do not concur with the analysis made by the consultant of the survey results presented in the section titled “The National Survey”.
Based on the context provided in The National Survey section we agree with the analysis provided by the consultant based on the fact that only 12% of the surveys were returned. The consultant picked out a very specific group of people from the information provided from the Smithsonian Institute and we feel he based the final recommendations on only getting back the limited response. b. Explain why you do or do not agree with the recommendations made by the consultant. The consultant’s recommendation was to send out mailings to 100,000 people of he same Smithsonian Institute mailing list he conducted his survey on. Figuring he only received 12% back on the study he calculated that when asking for a donation only 2% would send money back but an average contribution would be $25. 00. Given this information we agree with the consultant recommendation.
He figured that a smaller group of people would reply with a donation with the average indicating $25. 00 only 2% would be needed to get the jazz hall on the road to being open. c. Using the internet and any other resource, conduct a search to determine what eventually became of the NJHoF. . What eventually became of the NJHoF? The NJHoF was disbanded in 1988 according to “A Guide to the Papers of the National Jazz Hall of Fame, 1974-1988”, http://ead. lib. virginia. edu/vivaxtf/view? docID=uva-sc/viu01690. xml. ii. Given that the National Football League Hall of Fame, located in Canton, Ohio, is a success, explain why it was or was not reasonable for Mr. Rutland to pursue a NJHoF in Charlottesville, VA. We think that it was perfectly feasible idea for Mr. Rutland to want to open the National Jazz Hall of Fame in Charlottesville as compared to other cities.
With the Paramount Theatre’s history it would have been able to bring in famous jazz artists such as Louis Armstrong and having the theatre as the backdrop would create an environment that other jazz halls were lacking. We believe the ultimate downfall was poor execution based on the consultant’s recommendation. Mr. Rutland’s objective was transformed from wanting to simply revive the theatre to becoming a manager for a much bigger project which he may have been unqualified for. Although this was a failure, perhaps he brought attention to the theatre.
And in 1992, the non-profit paramount theatre bought it, and renovations began. (“The Paramount. ” http://www. theparamount. net/theater-info/history-mission/) 3. The PMBOK (Chapter 2) contains a definition of stakeholders that considers internal and external stakeholders as well as those who are positively and negatively affected by a project. a. Prepare a list of stakeholders and classify them in a table as internal/external and if they are positively or negatively affected by the project. Stakeholder’s NamePositionLocationRoleMajor Requirements & ExpectationsLifecycle Phase PMBOK Ed 4Internal or
External to ProjectSupportive Neutral Cautious Resistant Power (1 – low to 5 – high)Interest (1 – low to 5 – high)Key Stakeholder (Yes or No) Mr. Robert RutlandFounder Sponsor InternalSupportive4. 55Yes Charlottesville, VA Influencers (ex. city officials, local merchants) ExternalCautious43. 5No Charlottesville, VA Community Members ExternalSupportive2. 53No NJHoF Board of DirectorsDirectors Review Board InternalSupportive55Yes Jazz Entertainers (musicians, singers, composers) ExternalCautious2. 55No Educational centers (ex.
University of VA and area high schools) ExternalNeutral23No “The Consultant”Consultant Subject Matter Expert InternalNeutral1. 54. 5No West Virginia Visitors Center ExternalNeutral12No Other Jazz Halls of Fame (ex. Harlem YMCA Jazz Hall of Fame) ExternalResistant15No National Association of Jazz Educators ExternalNeutral33No Jazz Enthusiasts (ex. listeners, supporters) ExternalSupportive42. 5Yes VA Office of Tourism ExternalNeutral13No b. Using the sample Power-Interest grid (provided as an Excel document) taken from Figure 10-4, PMBOK (p 249), prepare a Power-Interest grid for the stakeholders in the NJHoF.
Using the sample Power-Interest grid (provided as an Excel document) taken from Figure 10-4, PMBOK (p 249), prepare a Power-Interest grid for the stakeholders in the NJHoF. According to the PMBOK (pg. 248), “Key stakeholders… include anyone in a decision-making or management role who is impacted by the project outcome, such as the sponsor, the project manager, and the primary customer. ” Therefore, as shown in the stakeholder table above, Mr. Robert Rutland, NJHoF Board of Directors and Jazz Enthusiasts are the key stakeholders in this project. 4.
Meredith and Mantel (2009, Section 3. 2) list seven (7) special demands on the project manager. Prepare a table with all seven (7) demands and discuss which demands are applicable to this project, what was done to address those demands, and your opinion as to how well Mr. Rutland addressed them (Hint- make a landscape formatted table with a column for each of the topics to discuss and format it so it fits on 1 page width but as many pages as needed). Specific DemandApplicable to NJHOF Project? What was done to address the demand? How well did Mr. Rutland address the demand?
Acquiring adequate resourcesYesIn what was essentially a start-up “not for profit” organization, money and a base of operations were the most critical resources required. This is where Mr. Rutland focused his early efforts. In this area Mr. Rutland had uneven results, both wins and losses. In an effort to raise money several local Jazz concerts were staged, but the concerts resulted in a monetary loss. On a positive note, fundraisers were held that did generate profits, and a consultant was commissioned to establish potential revenue streams for the project.
Based upon the consultant’s conclusions it was determined that the NJHoF would be a viable and self-sustaining effort. Acquiring and motivating personnelYesIn an effort to build support for the project Mr. Rutland shared his ideas with several local friends, who ultimately became the initial NJHoF Board of Directors. It is not stated what the background of the Board of Directors entailed, but the selection of this group of team members appears to have been a wise choice. With little in terms of monetary rewards Mr.
Rutland was able to solicit a work effort from the group based purely on the collective “love of Jazz”. Dealing with obstaclesYesWhen it was determined that funding support from traditional sources was unavailable to the project, alternate means of funding the effort were required to proceed with the project. In addition a determination had to be made whether the NJHOF project was suited to Charlottesville, and if the existence of other Halls of Fame would impact this project. Mr. Rutland did an excellent job in dealing with identified project obstacles.
When it became apparent that funding from Philanthropic organizations and the National Endowment of the Arts would not be available, the project proceeded with support from the contributions of jazz enthusiasts who had learned of the project via print media. While Charlottesville may not have been a logical home for the NJHoF, Mr. Rutland proposed to leverage the large number of tourists drawn to other local attractions. Making project goal trade-offsYesWorking with a limited budget required setting smaller attainable goals to build on versus more lofty goals that would have required more finances.
With the realization of less than expected funding for the NJHoF project, Mr. Rutland did an effective job of managing the project scope to match the actual budget. As the project received increased funding the scope was expanded to implement additional project deliverables. Maintaining a balanced outlookYesDealing with early project funding setbacks, but keeping an eye on the long term overall goal allowed the project to proceed and move on beyond the rocky start. Although early setbacks occurred that prevented the project from beginning in a faster or grander scale, Mr.
Rutland was able to gain buy-in of the key stakeholders, and most importantly maintain focus on the excepted end results. Determining breadth of communicationYesDetermining the core group of supporters for this project, and then reaching out to the group was critical to making the NJHOF a viable project. Targeted marketing to the identified group of jazz enthusiasts allowed the most effective means of communicating to potential supporters, as well as allowing a maximum return on the limited available funding.
This was a good strategy and probably contributed to the success of the project. NegotiatingYesWith little to no beginning budget, negotiation to get the project off the ground was essential. Negotiation may have been the strongest of Mr. Rutland’s skills as the Project Manager for the NJHoF. Some of the critical negotiations in this project include: #1 – maintaining support for the project even as the deliverable shifted from an effort to save the Paramount Theater to stablishing the NJHoF, and #2 – adding prominent jazz performers to the NJHoF Advisory Board, which lent support and credibility to the project. 5. Christenson and Walker (2004, p. 42) discuss vision and transformational leadership. a. In your group’s opinion, does the NJHoF fall in the realm of transformational leadership? Explain your answer. Christenson and Walker (2004, p. 42) reference Bass & Avolios (Bass & Avolio, 1994, p. 2; Avolio, 1996, p. 5) “Four I’s” when referring to transformational leadership.
The four I’s refer to leaders stimulating others’ individual consideration, generating intellectual stimulation in the team or organization, developing idealized influence in colleagues and followers, and providing inspirational motivation to same colleagues and followers. Christenson and Walker further refer to a transformational approach as appealing to a “more intrinsic motivational energy that transcends self-interest, and thus is better placed to be an effective vehicle for delivering outcomes for multiple stakeholders”.
They also believe managing projects requires a strong cohesive team focused on the desired outcomes. Given the above information, we believe the NJHoF falls into this realm of transformational leadership, particularly since Mr. Rutland, his board of directors, and the NJHoF National Advisory Board all shared his enthusiasm and desire to form the NJHoF and save the Paramount Theatre. They had the vision, were intrinsically motivated, intellectually stimulated, and were providing inspirational motivation to other jazz lovers and jazz interest groups. . Assuming this project (NJHoF) falls in the realm of transformational projects, discuss the four I’s and how Mr. Rutland’s leadership style did or did not address these. The four I’s were mentioned in the previous question above and we believe Mr. Rutland’s leadership style did address these, at least with the NJHoF portion of the project. The four I’s are centered on a person’s ability to stimulate interest that will inspire others’ intrinsic motivation to want to help the project succeed. Mr.
Rutland’s original intention was simply to save the Paramount Theatre by using the space to establish a Jazz Hall of Fame museum. It is doubtful his leadership style would have addressed the four I’s had he simply wanted to save the theatre, due to the grassroots nature of this particular project. However, by incorporating the Jazz Hall of Fame into the scope, he was able to find other people outside Charlottesville who were passionate and intrinsically interested to help establish the hall of fame.
Without the involvement of these people, who certainly provided additional leadership for the project, it is doubtful the hall of fame would have gotten as far as it did. c. Based on your discussion, was Mr. Rutland the right leader for the project (NJHoF)? Yes or No? Discuss why you believe Mr. Rutland is or is not right for this project. Mr. Rutland was able to find others with a similar interest in establishing a Jazz Hall of Fame, not necessarily in saving the Paramount.
He did the right things by approaching the National Association of Jazz Educators, hosted performance programs, hired an independent consultant, visited most of the other halls of fame, and approached prominent jazz professionals. For these things, he was the right leader. However, given that the consultant recommended he appoint a full-time executive director, with prior experience, to organize and coordinate fundraising activities, it is unlikely Mr. Rutland would have had the appropriate skills to lead the effort going forward.
Cite this National Hall of Jazz Fame
National Hall of Jazz Fame. (2016, Oct 01). Retrieved from https://graduateway.com/national-hall-of-jazz-fame/