C. Translate the abstract in cursive.
D. Locate the following words in the text. Find their synonyms in a dictionary.
| 1. to merge | |
| 2. to confirm | |
| 3. to capture | |
| 4. to overlook | |
| 5. to estimate | |
| 6. to perceive | |
| 7. to review | |
| 8. to update |
| 1. disruption | |
| 2. dividend | |
| 3. method | |
| 4. success | |
| 5. arena | |
| 6. team |
E. Fill in the gaps with prepositions consulting the text and make your own sentences with the phrases.
1. to merge disparate pieces __ a system
2. to minimize the disruption __ the technical work
3. to be made __ of a list of tasks __ the time available
4. to concentrate the project team’s efforts __ the immediate tasks __ hand
5. to perceive __ a considerable danger __ the project
6. to deal __ the situation when and if it occurs
7. to shift __ controlling the project __ the established parameters
8. to keep the project __ track
9. to drift __ track due __ disputes
10. to contribute __ the success of the project
11. to guarantee a successful project __ every circumstance
f. Explain the following word combinations and terms in English:
| 1. state-of-the-art technologies | 2. wrap-up meeting |
| 3. integrated control system | 4. to mitigate |
| 5. project documentation | 6. project risk analysis |
g. Match words to make word combinations from the text:
| 1. sophisticated | a) tasks |
| 2. state-of-the-art | b) impact |
| 3. sound | c) disruption |
| 4. significant | d) dividends |
| 5. sequenced | e) assembly |
| 6. quantitative | f) system |
| 7. potential | g) scenario |
| 8. worstcase | h) technology |
| 9. established | i) obstacle |
| 10. insurmountable | j) parameters |
| 11. minimal | k) evaluation |
h. Study the pronunciation:occur
Speaking
Using the information on project management learnt from this unit and your general knowledge; try to investigate the case of the Titanic disaster from a managerial position. Make a list of mistakes made and formulate at least ten project management rules/lessons that can be derived from this situation.
Reading 2[25]
a. Before you read the text discuss the questions:
1. What is system integration in project management?
2. Is it effective? Why?
b. Read the text and answer the questions:
1. Why is it vital to have a system integrator at the start of any project?
2. How do cost issues influence a project?
3. What disciplines are involved in project design?
4. Why cannot traditional engineering disciplines alone effectively deal with project design?
5. What is a job of a system integrator?
6. What should a system integrator do if a customer chooses his/her own project design?
7. How can a system integrator meet customers’ needs?
8. What is a requirements analysis? What does it consist of?
C. Title the text
The design team makeup is crucial to project success, yet many end-customers and A&E firms do not consider system integration as one of the major disciplines included in the design process. Frequently, system integrators aren't brought into a project until the detailed design is nearly finalized and the project is moving into the construction phase. At this point in the project, the integrator is unable to positively influence a project without a significant cost impact. Altering this approach and instead involving a systems integrator early can reduce project costs and risks compared to traditional methods, especially those that include a pre-selected product vendor.
The project cost influence curve presents the influence opportunity in correlation with project expenditure throughout any project lifecycle. Once the detailed design phase has been reached, the influence opportunity rapidly declines while the cost expenditure quickly increases. Executing a project in this manner causes system integration to be treated as a commodity purchase similar to skilled tradesman and equipment purchases. As a result of the cost impact, projects are typically executed as designed, regardless of whether or not the design encompasses the best (or even feasible) solution.
Today, multidiscipline system integrators are required to properly design and integrate with various systems including communications networks, systems interoperability, and communications protocols. To add to this, the recent proliferation of information systems has increased project complexity. The expectation that information is available from any and all systems has become the norm. Even simple mechanical systems are expected to provide system-level integration capabilities.
Unfortunately, these critical data systems are typically not well understood by traditional engineering disciplines, and designers must consider and coordinate many aspects of system integration, such as protocols, security, bandwidth, scalability, information storage, and redundancy, to ensure project success. Additionally, electrical and process engineers are typically ill-equipped to generate system integration specifications, so without the involvement of a system integrator early in the conceptual design phase, the produced specifications are either too vague to procure what is required or overly specific from relying on one partial vendor, which ends up eliminating vendor competition. In both cases, the issue is having professionals perform tasks outside of their expertise.
Therefore, using a system integrator to develop the project requirements, system design, and approach during the conceptual or preliminary design phase can drastically reduce project costs and risks and increase the likelihood of a successful project. During the project design, an integrator can apply expertise by leveraging legacy systems, performing a nonbiased analysis of product and architecture offerings, selecting solutions that decrease integration effort and increase sustainability, and determining if a common-off-the-shelf (COTS) product or a custom application should be developed.
The period before the procurement phase is crucial, and due diligence during the design process helps ensure decisions are based on unbiased, vendor-neutral engineering principles instead of procurement policies. Focusing on integrating information systems using best practices and open protocols generates reliable and actionable information tailored to meet the individual customer needs. Selecting a platform that adapts to the customer's existing process and business practices has proven to be far more successful than requiring the customer to adjust business practices to match the platform.
Post-mortem project reviews reveal that unsuccessful A&E projects often possess similar characteristics, including poorly written scope documents, numerous scope changes, and undefined customer expectations. In some cases, the technical solution does not work as designed--often a direct consequence of the system integrator's lack of influence during the conceptual design phase. In extreme cases, reviews have shown that a detailed design was not completed because of a lack of system integration knowledge, coupled with time and budget constraints. Furthermore, the absence of a well-defined scope of work often leads to schedule slippage and loss of customer confidence.
In certain instances, customers select a specific product based solely on their "ownership" stake in the product company and regardless of its capability to provide a solution. As a result, it is necessary to create several workarounds and patches during the project implementation for the platform to satisfy customer requirements. This decision can result in subpar system performance with limited system expandability or planned future enhancements. However, before the platform is deployed throughout the enterprise, the system integrator can work with the customer to perform a thorough design analysis, which can result in a design change with a custom interface instead of the original COTS hardware platform. If this is the case, the customer can invest in system enhancements and upgrades, rather than in legacy software costs and platforms.
System integrators are tasked with creating a design that matches a customer's budget and requirements. To achieve this goal, it is necessary to not only evaluate the project at hand, but also analyze the customer's legacy systems and consider possible future enhancements. By leveraging an enterprise-wide viewpoint, an integrator can add more value in the overall design, delivering results that can improve the customer's profit, growth, and corporate reputation.
Requirements analysis
The requirements analysis phase enables a team to accurately determine the current and future customer requirements of the project. Tasks during this phase include:
* Current system architecture - Examine the existing network infrastructure, data pathways, and procedures
* Customer requirements - Identify the current system deficiencies and detail the customer requirements with regard to the existing system
* Interface coordination - Determine the system interfaces, including current and available hardware interfaces and protocols to the system devices
* Identify project risks - Document project integration risks with mitigation plans
* Areas to be addressed - Detail the software, hardware, fieldbus input/output, interface descriptions and approaches, data table layouts, sequence of operations, and graphical user interface concept screens.
d. Read the text and take notes of key ideas:
| Integrate design early | |
| What to expect |
e. Match synonyms:
1.
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
f. Complete the table with correct word forms:
| Verb | Noun | Adjective |
| 1. | actionable | |
| 2. | equipment | |
| 3. | specification | |
| 4. reduce | ||
| 5. | conceptual | |
| 6. | offering | |
| 7. perform |