• E-mail
• Print
• Comment
• Font Size
• Digg
• del.icio.us
• Discuss article

Project-Management Tools for Libraries: A Planning and Implementation Model Using Microsoft Project 2000

Posted on: Sunday, 18 September 2005, 03:00 CDT

This paper discusses how Microsoft Project 2000 was utilized at the University of Central Florida Libraries to manage an e- reference implementation project. As libraries today adopt more information technologies, efficiently managing projects can be challenging. The authors' experience in the implementation of QuestionPoint e-reference software in October 2003 is described. Their conclusion illustrates that project-management tools, such as Microsoft Project 2000, offer practical workflow-management techniques for libraries. This article represents the first attempt to discuss the use of Microsoft Project 2000 to manage a library project.

The University of Central Florida (UCF) is a Research II metropolitan university with an enrollment of approximately forty- two thousand students. The university's main campus is located in Orlando, Florida, with twenty-one regional campuses located throughout the central Florida area. Providing equitable research assistance to distributed-learning students at all UCF campuses is one of the top priorities of the university and one of the greatest challenges that the libraries face.

To meet the increasing demand for research assistance from distributed-learning students, the main library expanded its existing e-reference service in January 2002 by adding an online chat component. During the period of January 2002 through January 2003, the number of online chats steadily increased, and by July 2003 a decision was made to evaluate new software applications that offered enhanced features. QuestionPoint was ultimately selected because it met the overall criteria, which included integrated features for chat and e-mail, statistical tracking, and access for multiple operators. QuestionPoint also offered the advantages of participation in national and regional consortia services with other academic libraries.

Why a Project-Management Tool?

To efficiently manage the implementation of QuestionPoint and enhance communication during the project, it was decided to use Microsoft Project 2000 (MSP 2000), a project-management software tool. There are several project-management software programs on the market, and the decision to use MSP 2000 was mainly based on convenience: members of the implementation team had previously used MSP 2000 and the UCF library owned a copy.

Project-management or workflow-management software programs are widely used in the computer industry and information-technology sectors. As libraries today adopt additional technologies to meet the demands for information access, project-management tools offer practical methods for efficiently managing projects. Generally, these tools enable project managers to define a project's scope and manage requirements for resources, time, and costs throughout a project's lifecycle. Schachter points out in a recent article in Information Outlook that librarians are frequently called upon to take on the role of project managers-"We don't often call ourselves project managers, but the fact that we do so much project management as part of our regular positions is increasingly being acknowledged and promoted as a core skill set of librarianship."1

The implementation of QuestionPoint e-reference at the UCF library was a relatively small project compared to typical technology projects. However, the objectives that typify the key functions of project management were applicable. They include the ability to assess the overall requirements for the project, track tasks, allocate resources, and share information with such stakeholders as the library administration, reference department head, and Ask-A-Librarian staff. The evaluation phase prior to the selection of QuestionPoint lasted for more than five months and involved several staff members. Tasks were assigned largely with an ad-hoc approach and communication relied primarily on e-mail messages since meetings were difficult to arrange. Inevitably, some efforts were duplicated or missed, and it became clear that a more coordinated effort would be needed for the implementation phase. Consequently, to coordinate the QuestionPoint implementation phase, it was decided that a project-management tool offered a practical solution.

Overview of MSP 2000 Features

The first step in building a project plan is defining the project, which involves outlining the scope or lifecycle of the project.2 The lifecycle of UFC library's QuestionPoint implementation included three phases-Preplanning, the QuestionPoint Profile, and the Interface Customization.3 A key objective in developing the project plan was to outline each task required to complete the project. Since task information was primarily outlined in the OCLC/QuestionPoint-implementation materials, this was easy to accomplish. However, creating a project plan enabled the authors to assemble all of the task information in a core file with estimated completion dates and additional task-related information. This improved the ability to manage tasks, track deadlines, schedule staff, and share up-to-date information with stakeholders.

The QuestionPoint project plan was developed using a top-down planning method. The highest level or Summary tasks were identified, followed by a breakdown of the related subtasks. Figure 1 shows the QuestionPoint project plan in the Gantt Chart view, which is Microsoft Project's default view. This displays an outline of the project information and data fields. It includes (from left to right) task identification numbers, indicators (related information), task names, task durations, task start and finish dates, task relationships, and a list of the staff members assigned to tasks. Although the fields in the project plan look similar to those used in Microsoft Excel, MSP 2000 functions more like a database than a spreadsheet program. Data in the project fields are used to calculate task durations, resource schedules, costs, and the project's critical path, which is the series of all tasks that dictates the finish date of the project.

In addition to the Gantt Chart view, MSP 2000 provides several other options for viewing project plans.4 The Tracking-Gantt view shown in figure 2 displays the same fields as the Gantt Chart in the left side of the window. In the right side of the window, the Tracking-Gantt view displays task durations, assigned resources, and Summary tasks, which are plotted with bar graphs. This graphical view can be useful to quickly scan the status of tasks.

The Task-ID field contains the number assigned by MSP 2000 to individual tasks. Indicator icons, displayed in the Indicators field, represent additional task information. Check marks in the Indicators field (figure 2) represent 100-percent task completion.

MSP 2000 provides options to add other related information, such as hyperlinks, in the Indicators field. Using hyperlinks as indicators for tasks 25 and 26 enabled the authors to link directly from the project plan to chat and e-mail setup information on the QuestionPoint.org Web site.5 As shown in figure 2, placing the mouse over the hyperlink icon displays a pop-up note with additional information about the indicator. Notes can be added in the Indicators field also, which is a practical way to include follow- up information or task details.

Bolded headings in the Task-Name fields are called Summary tasks and identify the major phases of the project. The indented subtasks identify the steps for completion of each phase. Information in the Duration, Start, and Finish fields was identified from fixed deadlines for specific tasks, estimates based on the QuestionPoint implementation materials, estimates from previous software- implementation projects, and the task estimates calculated by MSP 2000.

As is often the case, certain tasks have to be completed in a specific order. The Predecessor field is used to set dependency relationships and establish the sequence in which tasks should be completed. This requires that "relationship linking" be set to indicate task dependency. As shown in figure 2, tasks 7-9 and 15-19 identify task-dependency relationships assigned in the Predecessors field. A common dependency control is the finish-to-start dependency in which the finish date of the predecessor task determines the start date of the successor task. However, MSP 2000 has other dependency options such as the start-to-start dependency, which is used for tasks that occur simultaneously when the start date of the predecessor task determines the start date of the successor task.

Figure 1. Gantt Chart

In the Resource-Names field, the initials of each staff member assigned to a task are displayed. Staff assignments are also displayed in the Tracking-Gantt bar graph beside the assignment durations. Resource information is recorded and linked from a separate project resource sheet. Resource Sheets are easy to set up and offer advantages for managing project assignments and calculating costs. Tracking task-assignment durations and resource allocations are animportant focus of project management. MSP 2000 uses effort-driven scheduling as the default option for these calculations. The basic idea of effort-driven scheduling is that if two people (resources) are assigned to a task, the task duration is cut in half. However, this formula is not suitable for every task, which was the case in this project. Some task durations were calculated using effort-driven scheduling and for some tasks, it was turned off.

Milestones identify significant events or markers in a project and are displayed using diamond-shaped icons in the Tracking-Gantt chart. Task 20 in figure 1, (OCLC Institution-Profile approval) is identified as a milestone in the authors' project plan because continuing on to the second phase of the project was contingent upon completion of this task. Since Milestones represent a significant point in the project plan and are not normally associated with a defined work-related task, they are shown with a zero-duration in the project plan. As mentioned previously, the project lifecycle included three phases: Preplanning;theQuestionPointProfile; and the Interface Customization. The Summary task bars shown in figure 2 represent the duration of each of the phases and may be changed only if individual task durations are adjusted.

Unlike the Gantt Chart, which shows a timescale view, the Network Diagram view shown in figure 3 displays project activities in a flowchart diagram. This view is useful to convey the relationships between tasks, rather than focusing on task durations. As is the case with other project views, it is possible to control which fields are displayed in the Network Diagram with filters.

Reports

MSP 2000 report options can be used to generate basic reports using templates or customized reports that make use of filters to select specific criteria. The report options are designed so that reports can be viewed and printed from the Print-Preview window only. This means that in order to view reports before printing, it is necessary to use the print-preview option as shown in the Task- Usage Report in figure 4.

Another printing suggestion is to always use the Print-Preview option before printing a project view such as the Tracking-Gantt chart shown. Project information displayed in the project-plan windows is usually only a small portion of the full project view that will be printed. This means that even relatively small projects can print several pages as shown in the print-preview Tracking- Gantt view in figure 5.

Problems and Successes

MSP 2000 has a moderate learning curve and is not highly intuitive. Depending on the project-management software an organization chooses and the level of experience staff possesses, considerable lead-time may be required to learn how to use such a software program. As with all other software programs, it is usually necessary to purchase a site license for multiple users. Another factor to be considered is the risk of being locked-in to an expensive program that may not serve future purposes.6 Finally, there are the cost considerations of purchasing software.7 For small projects, learning a project-management program does not necessarily offer huge advantages. Instead it may be more practical and efficient to create an Excel spreadsheet to manage a small project.

Figure 2. Tracking-Gantt Chart

Figure 3. Network Diagram

For the authors, one hurdle in using MSP 2000 had to do with setting the right formula to calculate the work or task durations in relation to the number of people (resources) assigned to a task. As mentioned previously, MSP 2000 uses effort-driven scheduling as a default formula to calculate work (task durations). The formula is: Duration x Units = Work. The program calculates the duration of tasks contingent upon the number of units (resources) allocated to complete it. With effort-driven scheduling turned on, task durations are automatically calculated and entered into the project plan. In some instances this worked well, but in other instances this formula skewed task-completion times and caused resources to be assigned an overallocated or underallocated status. To solve this problem, it was necessary to assign some resources with effort-driven scheduling turned off, allowing the assignment of multiple resources to tasks while maintaining accurate task durations. (The effort-driven option is displayed in the tools section in the lower right pane of the Task-Entry form in figure 6.)

Although using a project plan for the QuestionPoint implementation was not required, it was believed to be beneficial. Using MSP 2000 offered options to manage tasks efficiently from a core file that served as a reliable source for up-to-date information. The project plan also provided the authors with a way to evaluate the project at each stage and allowed for adjustment in deadlines when necessary.

The time invested in setting up the project plan provided substantial benefits when the project began. In a relatively short time, a comprehensive timeline for the project was drawn up, from which completion dates for individual tasks and the entire project could be approximated. Overall, using the project plan made it possible to manage deadlines, control actual and planned tasks, and communicate with stakeholders throughout the project. It also provided a means to evaluate the progress of the project after its completion. The authors believe the advantages of using MSP 2000 for the project outweighed the disadvantages.

Conclusion

Before deciding to use MSP 2000 or another project-management tool, it is suggested that issues such as the size of the project, experience with a project-management program, and the availability of project-management software be considered. Project-management tools offer the potential for streamlining the management of library projects and enhancing the level of planning and communication-all of which are beneficial to the success and ontime completion of projects. The authors' experience illustrates that using programs such as MSP 2000 can provide a practical approach to planning detailed projects and function as powerful workflow-management tools to implement library technologies.

There have been several philosophical and theoretical discussions on project management in libraries.8 In fact, it has been suggested that project management can be applied to electronic resources, reconfiguring libraries to accommodate twenty-first-century learning styles, and to integrate academic-library projects with projects in other areas of the university.9 In this paper's literature review, the authors did not discover any previous articles written about the use of MSP 2000 or other project-management applications in libraries. This discussion merely describes the basic features of MSP 2000, and is not intended to provide an in-depth or exhaustive example of the program.

Figure 4. Task Usage Report

Figure 5. Tracking-Gantt Print Preview

Figure 6. Task Entry

References and Notes

1. Debbie Schachter, "Managing Your Library's Technology Projects," Information Outlook (Special Libraries Association) 8, no. 2 (2004): 10-12.

2. Carl S. Chatfield and Timothy D. Johnson, Microsoft Project 2000 Step by Step (Redmond, Wash: Microsoft Press, 2000).

3. OCLC, Administrator of a QuestionPoint Full Subscriber with Standard Communications (Nov. 20, 2003). Accessed Sept. 20, 2004, www.questionpoint.org/ support/documentation/ck_ws/ig_ck_ instadmin_locglb.pdf.

4. Elaine J. Marmel, Microsoft Project 2000 Bible (Foster City, Calif.: IDG Books Worldwide, 2000).

5. OCLC, QuestionPoint Cooperative Virtual Reference (2003). Accessed Nov. 22, 2003, http://questionpoint.org/support/ implementation.html.

6. George M. Marakas, System Analysis and Design: an Active Approach (Upper Saddle River, NJ. : Prentice Hall, 2001).

7. Project-Management Institute (2004). Accessed Jan. 10, 2004, www.pmi.org.

8. Edwin M. Cortez, Sanjay K. Dutta, and Edward John Kazlauskas, "What the Library and Information Professional Can Learn from the Information Technology and Project-Management Knowledge Areas," Portal: Libraries and the Academy 4, no. 1 (2004): 131-44.

9. Tracey Stanley, "Library Project Management in a Collaborative Web-based Working Environment," The New Review of Academic Librarianship 10 (2003): 70-83.

Ying Zhang (yzhang@mail.ucf.edu) is Coordinator of Information Source and Associate Librarian, and Corinne Bishop (cbishop@mail.ucf.ed) is a recent MLIS graduate and Ask-A-Librarian Senior Library Technical Assistant at the University of Central Florida

Copyright American Library Association Sep 2005

Source: Information Technology & Libraries

More News in this Category