The Massachusetts Council of Human Service Providers, Inc (Providers’ Council) is interested in expanding its Certificate in Nonprofit Human Service
Management (HSM) program, offered in partnership with Clark University, to member and non-member organizations located in Western Massachusetts. The goal of this Capstone Project is to conduct a feasibility study to determine if Clark’s School of Professional Studies (SPS) and the Provider’s Council can establish a Western Massachusetts site for the HSM program.
1.2 Major Stakeholders
Major Stakeholders of this project include: Capstone Group Members, Ella Froggatt/ Provider’s Council, Mary Piecewicz/ Clark University, IRB Approval Board, Potential HSM Certificate Participants
1.3 Document Purpose
The purpose of this project charter is to outline the following:
o The desired end state.
o The project scope.
o Assumptions, constraints and risks.
o Communications and structure.
o Roles and responsibilities.
2 Project End State and Scope 2.1 Required End State
Current State: There is no certificate program in Western Massachusetts despite the number of nonprofits in the area.
End State: A viable and sustainable revenue stream for SPS, an extended reach for Provider’s Council, and an increase in the number of professional and
leadership development opportunities for the health and human services
workforce, having the Western Massachusetts HSM Program be a feeder into the Clark MPA Masters Program.
Objectives One: Conduct a needs assessment for a certificate program in greater Springfield/Holyoke area using Qualtrics Survey Tool
Objective Two: Construct the financial model for a yearlong program
94 Objective Three: Develop a high level feasibility plan with risks, constraints, assumptions and measures of success for launch in fall 2018
2.2 Project Scope
Financial Model Start up Costs, Instructors, Location Rental, etc.
Feasibility Plan Risks, Constraints,
Assumptions, Measures of Success
Recommendations Next Steps for Implementation
Detailed Implementation Plan
2.2.1 Change Management
3 Assumptions
Assumptions include: Each project team member will do their allotted work on time and to their highest standards. If a group member is struggling, that group member will reach out to the rest of the group for help. If the client is not
communicating with the group, the group will find alternative communication channels and/or alternative solutions. The group will get IRB approval for survey.
The group will have full participation with organizations for the survey, and will assume at least a 10% response rate. All group members will come to the meetings on time (if they cannot make it on time they will let other group members know at least a day in advance).
4 Constraints
95 Constraints include: Time within the semester for project; time constraints for group members (both to complete work and to attend group meetings); surveying a large number of nonprofits through a secondary party; meeting only once a week; other priorities conflicting with the project. Distribution of survey will be by a third party (Providers’ Council) and the team has no control of over the
response rate. Also, if there are technical issues, the respondents will notify Providers’ - hence slowing down the time that the project team can address any issues.
5 Risks
Lapses or failures to communicate (both intergroup and between group and client); not getting enough survey results from organizations to effectively analyze; not getting support from stakeholders; not completing the project.
Positive risks include that the final deliverable will be useful for project team members to include in their portfolios for job applications; and long-term networking between project team members.
6 Communication Strategy
▪ In-Group Communication: Group Text messages, Group Emails, Google Docs, Weekly Meetings; Monthly Team Status Reports (2/28 and 3/31)
▪ Client Communication: Conference Calls
▪ Organizations Participating in Research Aspect of Project: Survey (to be approved and distributed by Providers’ Council to member organizations and distributed to non-member organizations by HSM team).
7 Project Structure
Client Contact: Ella Froggatt, Providers’ Council Project Advisor: Mary M. Piecewicz
Project Manager: Liz Vittum
Project Team: Paul Campbell, Patrick Deschenes, Maria Pacheco, Bradley Paul, Elizabeth Vittum, Jing (Jenny)Zhang
8 Steering Committee and Stakeholder Commitments
8.1 Steering Committee (if applicable)
96 o Project team members
o Ella Froggatt/Providers' Council
o Mary Piecewicz/Clark University School of Professional Studies
8.2 Stakeholder Commitments
o The Providers’ Council agrees to respond and/or signoff on any requests or questions submitted by project team within three business days of submission. These will include the project charter and needs assessment survey. If it is anticipated that a signoff will not occur within three business days, than the Providers’ Council will communicate that and provide an estimate of extended time period.
o The Providers’ Council commits to distributing and collecting surveys to provider organizations in Western Massachusetts. Completed surveys will be provided to project team members within two days of receipt.
o The Providers’ Council will have a representative attend final project presentation.
o IRB will approve your survey in a timely fashion (within 2 to 3 weeks).
o The project team will deliver final paper on time for the scheduled presentation.
9 Roles & Responsibilities/RASCI Chart
Responsibility Assignment Matrix (RAM) for Team Project Deliverables:
A = Accountable I= Input
2/10 Assignment 1: Prior to First Meeting with Client
2/15 Assignment 3: Project Charter
97
2/24 - 3/10 IRB Application &
Approval Process
I I I I I A 100%
3/20 - 3/24 Survey Distribution (5 day response time);
This section of the project charter should detailed measurements that will
indicate that the project is a success. The following table provides examples of measures of success that teams can decide are appropriate for their projects.