Final Assessment – Professional Practice Development
Assessment 4 Project management plan
Weighting 40%
Individual / team Individual
Word count / duration 2400 words (+/-10%) means till 2600 words, remember that tables and Gantt Charts Are not counted within the words limit.
Learning Outcomes 1,2,3,4,5,6
Hurdle Yes
Remember, Gantt charts and tables are not counted within the word limits as well as the references.________________________________________
Assessment overview
This assessment task requires you to develop a project management plan for a public health project of your choice.
________________________________________
Learning Outcomes
The purpose of this assessment task is for you to:
1. Critically evaluate issues related to professional practice in public health
2. Implement a teamwork approach to reviewing and presenting a public health problem
3. Apply project management theories to public health practice
4. Analyse , summarise and explain issues related to public health to stakeholders
5. Apply professionalism and teamwork skills in workplace contexts.
6. Analyse and apply project management principles and processes to a public health project
________________________________________
Assessment details
Requirements
In Assessment 3: Public health announcement video and media release, you chose a public health issue topic (listed in the assessment information book). You can use the same topic for this assessment.
In developing your project management plan for a public health project of your choice, it will ideally be a real public health project that you are or will be involved with. If you are not currently or not planning to be involved with an identified project, then you can choose and develop a hypothetical project.
Your project management plan should include:
• project background and context
• project plan and logic
• project stakeholder analysis
• budget and resourcing
• implementation and evaluation plan.
You must cite all of your sources using the Vancouver referencing style. If your contribution to the conversation includes the intellectual property (authored material) of others (including books, journal articles, grey literature, magazines, news articles, websites, social media, etc.) they must be given appropriate attribution.
Assessment criteria and rubric
Assessment criteria
Your work will be graded according to the following criteria:
1. Project background and context
2. Project plan and logic
3. Project stakeholder analysis
4. Budget and resourcing
5. Implementation and evaluation plan
6. Structure and presentation
7. Referencing
Marking Paper Writing Service – Topic Examples – Rubric
You will need to apply all concepts of the learning materials and don’t forget your objectives must be in SMART method. You will need to use Gantt Charts to demonstrate the project. Also, you must demonstrate sustainability, monitoring and evaluation aspects for the project.
This final Assessment requires you to read all the learning materials and apply every concept mentioned in them to the final assessment which is developing a project management plan for a public health project.
I encourage you to use Tables and Gantt. charts whenever it is allowable because it is not counted within the word limit.
The number of references is up to you, I have chosen Hypothetically 20 to 30 references.
Project Management Plan for a Public Health Project
Introduction
Causes of food borne illnesses include disruption of the distribution of food products and the overall vulnerability of supply chains in the food industry. The implementation of the project will seek to reduce prevalence rates of food borne illnesses. The health department will need to implement various project strategies in a proactive manner, including scheduling of food safety prevention programs, placing of food safety requirements in compliance with operational protocols, and dissemination of information on food safety practices in the society. The short-term impact of food safety programs will include increase of awareness about food borne illnesses and understanding of advantages of programs.1It is also relevant to promote monitoring of the food safety programs in an effective way. The project implementation phase will include hiring and training of food safety team, preparation of design process flow diagrams, hazard analysis, monitoring systems, training of the monitoring personnel, organization of facilities and equipment, verification of project implementation, and conduct of monitoring and regulations review.2 Therefore, the project management plan is keen on explaining the nature of food borne illnesses and various project tasks and approaches in order to enhance food safety programs.
Project Background and Context
Over the recent years, the number of food borne illnesses in Australia has been alarming. The risk of getting food borne illnesses remains high. The project will evaluate relevant health care intervention and activities to be used in reducing the risk of food borne illnesses in Australia.3 For example, in Melbourne city the prevalence of food borne illnesses remains and it has doubled due to salmonella poisoning. Some of the key causes of food borne illnesses in Australia is the vulnerability of supply chains and the complexity of food distribution mechanisms.4The use of food trucks has contributed to an increase in the level of food borne illnesses as most food trucks do not meet relevant health standards.
The prevalence of food borne diseases was reported to be 13% in 2010. The rate of infections were also expected to increase by 24%. The estimated increase in the prevalence of the food borne diseases raises concerns in the public health department in Australia. The mortality associated with the food borne diseases also increased slightly by 8,400 cases in 2010. The implementation of relevant health care strategies and interventions would help in reducing the mortality rates. The mortality rates and prevalence of the food borne disease is a serious public health concern. The Quality Adjusted Life years worsened in 2010 and it shows the importance of selecting the project to improve food safety that improves the quality of life. The reason of selecting the project is because the food borne diseases affects a large population in Australia as indicated by the prevalence rates and the mortality rates. Therefore, the analysis of the project management efforts towards reducing food borne diseases infections will be critical for the society.
Food borne illnesses constitute a serious public health issue in Australia. The public health project will require the input of the National Public Health officials in Australia to protect and enhance the health of affected persons. The context of the project is to identify food borne illnesses, as well as design and proper implementation of health interventions in Australia. The core focus of the public health agencies is to improve health in a sustainable way while effectively integrating relevant public health services.5Therefore, the aim of the project is to develop a project management approach with the relevant strategies and interventions to manage the food borne illnesses that impacts on the overall public health in Australia.
Fig.1: Project Plan and Logic
Project Plan and Logic
The Australian Health Department is keen on developing evidence-based programs and ensuring ongoing evaluation of the existing programs. The project plan and logic will be created to support the health staff in the creation of program logic to improve food safety programs.6 The logic will be critical in design of the population health planning, its implementation, and project evaluation. The program logic model usually supports the integrated approach to promote program planning, implementation, and evaluation.7 The logic framework will evaluate the programs through the identification of project areas where the project evaluation will inform relevant development of meaningful evaluation aspects. The program logic is a useful approach for engaging stakeholders in planning and evaluation and proper communication with stakeholder audience on the program concepts.
The goal of the program is to reduce the prevalence of food borne illnesses among populations in Australia. The health department will be able to reduce the alarming rate of food borne illnesses in Australia. To achieve this goal, it will be critical to improve the food safety prevention programs, as well as expanding the food regulations.8 For example, updating the food safety regulations is effective and relevant in order to reduce prevalence rates of food borne illnesses.
The key inputs of the project include updating of food safety programs, funding of food borne diseases prevention programs, and partnership with food distributors. The updating of the food safety programs will seek to ensure that quality of food items are maintained. The three inputs will be critical in promoting the nature of food safety in the hospitality industry. Thus, the key inputs of the project consist in assisting with effectively improving the level of food borne prevention.
Most importantly, the project activities that will process the inputs include creation and distribution of information through social media, development of operational protocols, holding of regular meetings with food distributors, purchase of food safety tools and equipment, as well as hiring of food safety experts.9 The project outputs that are useful in reducing the food borne illnesses include persons who disseminate information on food safety practices, food requirements supported by the food distributors, scheduling of food safety prevention, food safety requirements installed among all food distributors in accordance with operational controls, and conduct of quality assurance audits.
The outputs and activities of the project will have both short-term and intermediate impacts on project objectives and goals. The project will be able to increase overall awareness of food borne illnesses in Australia and advantages of the prevention programs10. It is because the public and food distributors would get more information on how to deal with food safety problems. The project would increase the level of food safety prevention programs among food distributors and consumers.11 It would also increase monitoring and evaluation of food safety effectively. Following the design of the project logic model, the outcome is to reduce the prevalence of food borne illnesses and improve the health of the society.
Fig.2: Project Logic
Project Goal: To reduce the prevalence of food borne illnesses among populations in Australia.
Objectives To improve the food safety programs by 50% in the next 12 months To increase funding for food borne diseases prevention programs by 100% in 6 months
To expand the partnership with influential food distributors by 50% in the next 12 months
Strategies 1.Purchase of food safety tools and equipment for food producers
2.Creation and distribution of information through the social media networks
3.Updating of food safety regulations and requirements
1.Hiring of food safety experts
2.Development of operational protocols
3. Seeking of funds from the private sector through grants 1.Holding of regular official meetings with food distributors
2. Regular conferences and forums with private food distributors
3. Working with food distributors in reviewing existing food safety requirements
The food safety prevention project is keen on reducing the prevalence of food borne illnesses in Australia. The three main objectives is to improve food safety programs by 50% in the next 12 months, increase funding for food borne diseases prevention programs by 100% in 6 months, and expand the partnership with food distributors by 50% in the next 12 months. To improve food safety programs, the strategy to be implemented includes the purchase of food safety tools and equipment for food producers, creation and dissemination of information using social media, and updating of the food safety requirements.12Increase of funding for food borne diseases prevention programs includes development of operational protocols, hiring of food safety experts, and obtaining of financing from the private sector through grants.13 To improve partnership with key food distributors, the project team will conduct regular meetings with food distributors, attend regular conferences and forums with private food distributors, and work with food distributors to review the food safety requirements and guidelines.
Project Stakeholder Analysis
Various stakeholders involved in the project include the food distributors union, Victoria Department of Health, food safety advocacy group, the government, and consumers. As indicated in the table below, the food distributors union is critical in maintaining a safe food environment and identifying relevant programs to implement and improve food safety. Victoria Department of Health will assist in creating and enforcing the food safety regulations and requirements, as well as supporting reform efforts to expand the food safety requirements and guidelines.14 Food safety advocacy group will help in engaging with various stakeholders to improve food safety. It will also work on maximizing the quality of foods for consumers.
The government is a key entity in the efforts to implement the project activities and strategies. The government is involved in the passage of relevant laws and regulations that control the food safety requirements and work with various stakeholders to regulate the food industry.15Consumers would give feedback on quality and safety of the food products. Regular feedback from consumers through surveys will inform the food distributors on the need to improve the food safety. Each stakeholder will have either direct or indirect impact on the efforts to improve public health in Australia through reducing the prevalence of food borne illnesses.
Fig.3: Stakeholder Analysis
Stakeholder Name Contact Person Impact Influence What is important to the stakeholder? How could the stakeholder support to the project How could the stakeholder block the project Strategy for engaging the stakeholder
Food distributors union Nico Davis
Nicodavis@run@org High High Maintaining food safety environment for the production process Agree with all food distributors to implement the relevant food safety reforms Stopping the distribution of food products Regular formal meetings
Victoria Department of Health Navarro
Phone: 361-578-6281 High High Developing and enforcing food safety requirements and regulations Support the efforts to reform food safety requirements and guidelines Blocking food distributors who do not meet the food safety requirements Monthly formal meetings
Food safety advocacy group Kin Wallace
Kinwallance@au.org. High Medium Maximizing the quality of foods for the customers Communicating with other stakeholders to support food safety improvements Making complaints on food safety after the reports Information meetings after 6 months
Government Albert Kim
Albertkim@au.gov. High High Passing regulations and laws to oversee the food safety requirements Working with key stakeholders to regulate the food industry Banning and issuing fines to food producers violating key laws Formal meetings after 6 months
Consumers Jim Lanley
Jimlan@gmail.com High High Giving feedback on the safety and quality of foods. Providing regular customer feedback through surveys Stopping to purchase unhealthy food products Informal email and social media communication
strengths and drawbacks of the budget scheme as well as express personal judgment.
Based on the stakeholder analysis, all the stakeholders are expected to work together to improve effective implementation of the project. For example, the government will collaborate with the food distributors union and respond to any complaints from consumers to achieve the objective of reducing the risks of food borne illnesses.16 The project will engage and communicate with the stakeholders using the various appropriate strategies. The sharing of ideas and information through formal meetings will help in engaging with the stakeholders effective. Also, the creation of teams that will communicate directly with each stakeholder will improve the overall stakeholder management and engagement. The use of online discussion forums and databases will be critical in improving the overall team collaboration. Other relevant stakeholder engagement approaches will include the use of questionnaires, polls, documentations, and the notifications through email communications. Documentation of the role and impacts of all stakeholders is relevant in improving the food safety improvement and outcomes.
The strengths of selecting the stakeholders includes the diverse stakeholders who will improve collaboration to come up with relevant solutions and outcomes for the projects. The diverse stakeholders will provide diverse skills and experiences that will assist in the implementation of the stakeholders. The selection of the stakeholders is also easy and direct as the food industry is well structured and developed. However, the drawbacks of the stakeholder selection for the project is the ignoring of some stakeholders who might help in understanding the food borne diseases. For example, health care professionals were not included as they indirect stakeholders to the project management process. Personally, I think the selected stakeholders are adequate and they will assist in understanding the public health problem related with food borne diseases in Australia.
Budget and Resourcing
The project budget and resourcing are important in ensuring that the project team has adequate financial and non-financial resources to implement the public health project. The public health project on reducing the prevalence of food borne illnesses will require significant funding from both the government and private organizations.17 The funding will help in implementing the food safety project effectively.
Fig.4: Budget
Task Name Man Days Internal Labor Rate Total Internal Labor Rate External Labor Rate Total External Non-Labor Costs Total Cost
Phase 1
Distributing information through social media 65 $35 $25,700 $25,700
Developing operational protocols 70 $50 $30,500 $30,500
Regular meetings with food distributors 250 $60 $25,400 $150,800 $176,200
Purchase of food safety equipment and tools 20 $55 $80,500 $80,500
Hiring of food safety experts 500 $50 $140,500 $270,200 $410,700
Phase 11
Changing the food safety requirements 170 $45 $75,800 $75,800
Training 70 $60 55,000 $70 25,400 $80,400
Monitoring compliance 55 $120 $75,300 75,300
Project Management 250 $100 $200,500 $200,500
Contingency $20,500 $20,500 35,500 $76,500
Totals $729,700 $45,900 $456,500 $1,232,100
The overall project budget is $ 1,232,100. The food safety improvement and reduction of food borne diseases will be implemented through two phases. During both phases, both financial and non-financial resources will be used to ensure proper implementation of the food safety program. The contingency expenditures are critical and covers potential uncertainties that could emerge during the project implementation process. The project team will need to gather additional resources from the health department, including hiring of additional health experts who will assist with improving food safety effectively.18 Thus, the implementation of food safety program will be able to promote reduction in volume of the food borne illness conditions.
The strengths of the budget scheme includes the ability to allocate adequate resources to all project tasks. In both phases, the budget allocates the funding effectively and thus, making the implementation process more effective. The budget also includes contingency aspect that will cover for potential uncertainties during the project implementation phase. However, the drawbacks of the budget scheme is that the overall budget cost is too high for the health department. The two phases of the budget allocation would also create confusion while sourcing for funds. A single phase of budget would have been more effective in enhancing the sourcing for resources. I think the budget scheme is comprehensive is detailed and structured well as it allows financial resources to each project activity and deliverable.
Implementation and Evaluation Plan
Implementation of the project to reduce the food borne illnesses in Australia. The hiring and training of the food safety experts are important and will take a substantial time to do that effectively. Setting up of relevant monitoring systems is relevant. The monitoring systems involve checking of the ability of the project team to improve food safety through implementing proposed strategies.19 In addition, the set-up of critical equipment and facilities would help to improve food safety effectively. The equipment and facilities include training facilities for the food safety team and health care experts. Performing comprehensive audits to verify implementation of the key tasks is also important. The last task is to conduct regular monitoring and review of the food safety regulations. Continuous monitoring will assist in improving the food safety guidelines and requirements. The project activities are strongly linked to the project deliverables as it integrates the two phases of implementation process.
Fig.5: Gantt Chart
The strengths of the implementation plan is the ability to two integrate the two phases of managing the food safety project. The ability to continuously monitor compliance is critical in promoting successful review of the project strategies and schedules. The drawbacks includes the lack of additional project activities to enhance the management of the project. The implementation program has short deadlines assigned to each activity that could be limiting to the effective implementation of the activities. I think the implementation of the project activities will be possible through the effective structure of the project tasks in the schedule.
Evaluation Plan
Evaluation of the project tasks and activities will be done on a regular basis. The key evaluation metric includes tracking of data for upgrading project data obtained through customer release forms and project tracking data. The tracking of data allows for specific upgrades of project to assist in improving food safety in an effective way. The use of customer surveys in the form of the customer release form will provide utility data to assist in improving food safety outcomes. The continuous collection of data will make it possible to review data and customer surveys to achieve program objectives. The tracking of the project data will be able to determine achievement of the project outcomes and tasks. Prevalence rates of food borne illnesses will be compared over the next few months to determine whether the implementation of the project has been able to improve the situation. The recording of the data will make it possible to understand the input and outcomes related to the efforts aimed at decreasing the food borne illness rate.20
Conduct of post-interviews and documenting of the outcome process would assist in understanding subsequent outcomes. Relevant interviews and documentation of the intervention programs will be able to assess the program aimed at improving food safety in Australia. The strengths of the evaluation approach is the efficiency and effectiveness of use the tracking of the project data. The tracking of the project data is critical in understanding and identifying the project outcomes and tasks effectively. However, the drawbacks of the evaluation plan is the inability to evaluate the project outcomes on real-time basis. The evaluation might be incorrect due to the use of estimates. I feel the use of the different evaluation methods will help in getting more reliable measures on the performance of the project.
Conclusion
In summary, food borne illnesses pose a public health problem in Australia and proper measures should be implemented to reduce the food borne illnesses. Reduction in the prevalence rate of food borne illnesses will help in improving the overall health of Australia. The government’s health department will work to implement the project strategies and tasks through scheduling of food safety protection measures, introduction of stricter food safety requirements in line with the key operational protocols, and creation of awareness about the importance of food safety practices and programs. All phases of the project will be implemented effectively in a proactive manner. Continuous monitoring of the food safety initiatives is critical in improving long-term food safety efforts in the society. Some of the limitations of the project includes the high cost of budget scheme due to the costly budgetary allocations, the challenging for managing the diverse stakeholders, and the use of estimates for the evaluation approaches that might lead to incorrect outcomes. The positive impacts of the project includes the ability to increase awareness about the food borne illnesses and understand the input of the food safety programs and monitoring of the food safety programs. The actual implementation of the food safety improvement actions will involve first choosing a quality food safety team of professionals, planning, organizing the process flow diagrams, designing hazard analysis, setting up the monitoring system, training monitoring employees, structuring facilities and equipment, verifying the implementation process of the projects, and performing comprehensive monitoring of the regulations.
References List
1. Ahern T, Leavy B, Byrne PJ. Complex project management as complex problem solving: A distributed knowledge management perspective. Intern Journal of Project Management. 2014 Nov 1;32(8):1371-81.
2. Svejvig P, Andersen P. Rethinking project management: A structured literature review with a critical look at the brave new world. International Journal of Project Management. 2015 Feb 1;33(2):278-90.
3. Strugnell C, Millar L, Churchill A, Jacka F, Bell C, Malakellis M, et al. Healthy together Victoria and childhood obesity—a methodology for measuring changes in childhood obesity in response to a community-based, whole of system cluster randomized control trial. Archives of Public Health. 2016 Dec;74(1):16.
4. Too EG, Weaver P. The management of project management: A conceptual framework for project governance. International Journal of Project Management. 2014 Nov 1;32(8):1382-94.
5. Slomka J, Quill B, desVignes-Kendrick M, Lloyd LE. Professionalism and ethics in the public health curriculum. Public Health Reports. 2008 May;123(2_suppl):27-35.
6. Tulchinsky T, Jennings B, Viehbeck S. Integrating ethics in public health education: the process of developing case studies. Public Health Reviews. 2015 Dec;36(1):4.
7. Alias Z, Zawawi EM, Yusof K, Aris NM. Determining critical success factors of project management practice: A conceptual framework. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2014 Oct 16;153:61-9.
8. Schoenherr T, Narasimhan R, Bandyopadhyay P. The assurance of food safety in supply chains via relational networking: a social network perspective. International Journal of Operations & Production Management. 2015 Dec 7;35(12):1662-87.
9. Tzamalis PG, Panagiotakos DB, Drosinos EH. A ‘best practice score’for the assessment of food quality and safety management systems in fresh-cut produce sector. Food Control. 2016 May 1;63:179-86.
10. Popescu GH, Predescu V. The role of leadership in public health. American Journal of Medical Research. 2016;3(1):273.
11. Bell J. Doing Your Research Project: A guide for first-time researchers. McGraw-Hill Education (UK); 2014 Aug 1.
12. Van Dooren W, Bouckaert G, Halligan J. Performance management in the public sector. Routledge; 2015 Feb 19.
13. Lam S, Unger F, Barot M, Nguyen-Viet H. Changes in researcher capacity in assessing food safety risks and value chains: insights from PigRisk team. ILRI (aka ILCA and ILRAD); 2016 Mar 31.
14. Watt AM, Hiller JE, Braunack-Mayer AJ, Moss JR, Buchan H, Wale J, Riitano DE, Hodgetts K, Street JM, Elshaug AG. The ASTUTE Health study protocol: deliberative stakeholder engagements to inform implementation approaches to healthcare disinvestment. Implementation Science. 2012 Dec;7(1):101.
15. Langbein L. Public program evaluation: A statistical guide. Routledge; 2014 Dec 18.
16. Wilkins P, Phillimore J, Gilchrist D. Public Sector Collaboration: Are we doing it well and could we do it better?. Australian Journal of Public Administration. 2016 Sep;75(3):318-30.
17. Larson EW, Gray CF, Danlin U, Honig B, Bacarini D. Project management: the managerial process. Grandview Heights, OH: McGraw-Hill Education; 2014.
18. Liu Y, Han W, Zhang Y, Li L, Wang J, Zheng L. An Internet-of-Things solution for food safety and quality control: a pilot project in 论文帮助/论文写作服务/负担得起我及时提交我最好的质量 – China. Journal of Industrial Information Integration. 2016 Sep 1;3:1-7.
19. MacLean S, Berends L, Hunter B, Roberts B, Mugavin J. Factors that enable and hinder the implementation of projects in the alcohol and other drug field. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health. 2012 Feb;36(1):61-8.
20. Nilsen P. Making sense of implementation theories, models and frameworks. Implementation Science. 2015 Dec;10(1):53.
