Public Domain Art

Project Management is not exactly new. But it is a growing field in business , government, education everywhere you look you will see new opportunities in this growing field. However not all projects are completed successfully. For Example the project summarized below , was not completed successfully. And to make matters worse the press got a hold of it and now I am recycling it for my own BizSugar purposes.

  Project Case Study Summary:

The purpose of the project was to make progress in addressing the “Digital Divide” (the gap between those who have access to broadband internet and other technologies and those who may not have sufficient access to internet resources). The specific plan was to increase broadband access by installing publicly   accessible free wireless access points along specific streets and boulevards in Los Angeles. The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) sponsored the project with a 2.3-million-dollar grant, distributed among several nonprofit entities. The project was to be completed over a three-year period, beginning in 2012 and ongoing into 2015.  The project failed to accomplish its intended objective. Possible changes to project management process are suggested in final section of this tiny report.

PROJECT NAME – “Free Wi-Fi Project”.  

PROJECT SPONSORS – California Public Utilities Commission

PROJECT MANAGER/s –Manchester Community Technologies  

PROJECT GOAL – Install free wireless internet access points along busy boulevards in low income neighborhoods as a means of narrowing the gap in the digital divide.

PROJECT COST / BUDGET -2.3 Million Tax Dollars.  (Source of funds : phone bill surcharges.)

PROJECT TIME LINE – three year period Beginning in 2012 / Ending 2015

PROJECT OUTCOME (Summary)- (FAILED) The net effect of the project did not meet the needs of the stakeholders. Those who the project was intended to benefit were in large part not served by the implemented technologies. Only 2 of the 25 installed access points functioned as expected. Leaving the intended beneficiaries of the project without the intended access to resources.

PROJECT STAKEHOLDERS-

1)      Persons living in the designated implementation zones who would have benefited from a no cost internet access service.

2)      Appears to be, California Public Utilities commission as the agency charged with awarding the grants and evaluating the implementation vs the intended objective.

3)      The organizations that were awarded the grant and fell short achieving the specific project goal of providing free Wi-Fi in designated low income areas of the city.

PROJECT OUTCOME:  Failed / Partially Completed

The “Free Wi-Fi Project” began sometime in 2012 and was to be completed over a period of 3 years, ending sometime in 2015.

The project sponsors can be identified as the California Public Utilities commission. In 2013 The California Public Utilities commission, held a “kickoff” news conference, and awarded a group led by Manchester Community Technologies a 2.3 million dollar grant to install free wireless Internet along busy boulevards in designated low-income neighborhoods in Los Angeles.  

Unfortunately, the intend outcome was not achieved. Of the 25 access points that were physically installed only 2 access points actually functioned to allow free internet access. Additionally, communications generated by the project managing agency seem to suggest a

successful project completion. However independent testing by the stakeholders / sponsors (California Public Utilities Commission) contradict those findings. (See reference sources below linking to official documents)

Possible Changes that could have improved project management and outcome:

The failure suggests that on a technical level this project was not adequately considered, and may have been technically more difficult to achieve than initially expected.   Perhaps, adjustments to the scope of the project may have been required as difficulties must have become apparent during implementation. Perhaps, more forthright communication between the project managers and the project sponsors during project implementation may have averted undisclosed shortcomings at the conclusion of the project. Also, perhaps implementation of ongoing quality assurance process may have discovered correctable technical issues in time, and perhaps allowed for modification of the process of implementation, hardware or software changes. All of the afore mentioned possible mitigations to the undesirable end result are highly speculative, and without deep knowledge of the technical underpinnings it is impossible to arrive at certain conclusions. However, it is reasonable to suspect that appropriate quality control measures would have detected technical shortcomings prior to “completion” of the project and exhaustion of project resources.

Sources –NEWS ARTICLES http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-missing-wifi-20160403-story.html http://arstechnica.com/business/2016/04/government-funded-free-wi-fi-project-isnt-providing-much-wi-fi/

http://www.dailynews.com/technology/20160331/nonprofit-falls-short-of-goal-to-bring-free-wi-fi-to-la-countyspoor

Sources – Internal Documents / Communications https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2778402-CPUC-Letter-011616.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2630101-q2-2015-sbrbc-narrative.html