4.5: Project Reckon — Applied Vendor Management Lab

Module Overview

This practicum places students in the role of C-Bay Project Manager, responsible for overseeing the fully outsourced development of Project Reckon.

ZynoxDev has been contracted to deliver:

• Architecture
• Detailed Design
• Development
• QA
• Release Preparation

Students must manage delivery risk, vendor alignment, scope integrity, and financial discipline across evolving weekly scenarios.

This module simulates the complexity of managing outsourced product development in a real enterprise environment.

It is not a crisis simulation.

It is a discipline simulation.

Learning Outcomes

By completing this practicum, students will be able to:

1. Evaluate outsourced vendor performance using structured metrics.
2. Detect early indicators of schedule, scope, and budget drift.
3. Apply disciplined change control processes.
4. Assess architectural and QA risks in distributed development.
5. Communicate executive-level project decisions professionally.
6. Escalate issues proportionally and strategically.
7. Balance vendor partnership with contractual discipline.
8. Make release readiness decisions under ambiguity.

Student Role Definition

You are the Project Manager at C-Bay.

You are responsible for:

• Delivery oversight
• Vendor coordination
• Budget and schedule monitoring
• Quality assurance oversight
• Risk identification
• Scope containment
• Executive communication

You do not manage vendor staff directly.

You manage outcomes and alignment.Simulation Structure

The module runs across multiple cycles (recommended: 8–12 weeks).

Each week includes:

1. Status email from Julie (ZynoxDev PM)
2. Data attachments
3. Structured response submission
4. Instructor feedback
5. Adaptive escalation (if required)

Weekly Submission Requirements

Each submission must include:

Executive Status Position (15 points)

• Overall health assessment
• Tolerance evaluation
• Risk posture

Schedule Analysis (15 points)

• Velocity interpretation
• Milestone alignment
• Recovery plan if needed

Budget Analysis (15 points)

• Burn rate evaluation
• Variance classification
• Financial discipline decision

Quality & Architecture Review (15 points)

• Defect trend interpretation
• QA coverage assessment
• Architectural risk evaluation

Scope & Change Control Decision (15 points)

• Clear approval or rejection
• Formal change control trigger (if required)
• Scope boundary clarity

Risk Identification & Mitigation (15 points)

• Risk classification
• Likelihood & impact
• Mitigation directive

Professional Communication Tone (10 points)

• Executive clarity
• Structured logic
• Non-emotional, non-reactive tone

Total: 100 points per scenario

Grading Rubric

Evaluation criteria for assessing decision quality, governance judgment, and professional communication throughout vendor management and execution scenarios.

Criteria	Exemplary (A)	Proficient (B)	Developing (C)	Inadequate (D/F)
Analytical Clarity	Clearly distinguishes noise vs structural risk	Identifies risk but lacks depth	Describes issue but misses structural implications	Reactive or superficial
Scope Discipline	Explicit, structured change control	Recognizes need for clarity	Hesitant in scope decision	Allows drift
Financial Awareness	Integrates burn analysis with decision	Notes variance	Mentions cost but not impact	Ignores financial dimension
Risk Identification	Multi-dimensional and proactive	Identifies major risk	Identifies obvious risk only	Misses material risk
Directive Precision	Clear actionable instructions	Some direction provided	Vague next steps	No directive
Escalation Judgment	Proportional and justified	Some escalation logic	Escalates too much or too little	Avoids decision
Tone	Executive, calm, disciplined	Mostly professional	Slightly defensive or informal	Emotional or unclear

Capstone Assessment

Final Week Deliverables:

1. Release Readiness Assessment
2. Budget Reconciliation Report
3. Risk Acceptance Statement
4. Lessons Learned Memorandum
5. Vendor Performance Evaluation Summary

Capstone is weighted 200 points.

Reflection Component

Students must submit a reflection addressing:

• What governance mistakes were most tempting?
• When did risk become visible?
• How did financial pressure influence decision-making?
• What would you do differently in a real enterprise setting?

Instructor Guide

The instructor may:

• Increase tension if responses are passive.
• Introduce new risks if scope discipline is weak.
• Escalate political pressure if communication is poor.
• Simulate executive involvement when financial oversight fails.

Adaptive escalation strengthens realism.

Suggested Scenario Distribution

• Scenarios may be selected based on instructional emphasis
  • Minimum 8 Scenarios
  • Ideal 12–15 Scenarios
  • Full Practicum: 30 Scenarios

Assessment Scaling

For shorter courses:

• Use 8 scenarios + capstone.

For full semester:

• Use 15–20 scenarios.
• Include midterm checkpoint.
• Add peer review layer.

For executive cohort:

• Use 10 high-intensity scenarios only.

Optional Enhancements

• Role rotation (CFO, Architect, PM)
• Live meeting simulation
• Timed response windows
• Vendor contract excerpts
• Architecture diagrams
• Change Request log tracking

Module Philosophy

This practicum trains students to understand:

Outsourcing does not remove accountability.

It shifts it.

The Project Manager must prevent drift before crisis.

Discipline is learned through repetition.

This module provides that repetition.