Business Question

reassessed. Cost-time trade-offs can be considered. In some cases priorities
may be changed. See Snapshot from Practice 8.3: U.S. Forest Service
Resource Shortage.
Resource schedules provide the information needed to prepare timephased work package budgets with dates. Once established, they provide a
quick means for a project manager to gauge the impact of unforeseen events
such as turnover, equipment breakdowns, or transfer of project personnel.
Resource schedules also allow project managers to assess how much
flexibility they have over certain resources. This is useful when they receive
requests from other managers to borrow or share resources. Honoring such
requests creates goodwill and an “IOU” that can be cashed in during a time
of need.

SNAPSHOT FROM PRACTICE 8.3
U.S. Forest Service Resource Shortage
A major segment of work in managing U.S. Forest Service (USFS) forests
is selling mature timber to logging companies that harvest the timber under
contract conditions monitored by the service. The proceeds are returned to
the federal government. The budget allocated to each forest depends on
the two-year plan submitted to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Olympic Forest headquarters in Olympia, Washington, was developing a two-year
plan as a basis for funding. All of the districts in the forest submitted their timber sale
projects (numbering more than 50) to headquarters, where they were compiled and
aggregated into a project plan for the whole forest. The first computer run was reviewed
by a small group of senior managers to determine if the plan was reasonable and
“doable.” Management was pleased and relieved to note all projects appeared to be
doable in the two-year time frame until a question was raised concerning the computer
printout. “Why are all the columns in these projects labeled ‘RESOURCE’ blank?” The
response from an engineer was “We don’t use that part of the program.”
The discussion that ensued recognized the importance of resources in completing the
two-year plan and ended with a request to “try the program with resources included.” The
new output was startling. The two-year program turned into a three-and-a-half-year plan
because of the shortage of specific labor skills such as road engineer and environmental
impact specialist. Analysis showed that adding only three skilled people would allow the
two-year plan to be completed on time. In addition, further analysis showed hiring only a
few more skilled people, beyond the three, would allow an extra year of projects to also
be compressed into the two-year plan. This would result in additional revenue of more
than $3 million. The Department of Agriculture quickly approved the requested extra
dollars for additional staff to generate the extra revenue.

Darinburt/Getty Images

page 279

8.8 Assigning Project Work
LO 8-7
Identify general guidelines for assigning people to specific tasks.

When making individual assignments, project managers should match, as
best they can, the demands and requirements of specific work with the
qualifications and experience of available participants. In doing so, there is
a natural tendency to assign the best people the most difficult tasks. Project
managers need to be careful not to overdo this. Over time these people may
grow to resent the fact that they are always given the toughest assignments.
At the same time, less experienced participants may resent the fact that they
are never given the opportunity to expand their skill/knowledge base.
Project managers need to balance task performance with the need to
develop the talents of people assigned to the project.
Project managers need to decide not only who does what but also who
works with whom. A number of factors need to be considered in deciding
who should work together. First, to minimize unnecessary tension,
managers should pick people with compatible work habits and personalities
but who complement each other (i.e., one person’s weakness is the other

person’s strength). For example, one person may be brilliant at solving
complex problems but sloppy at documenting his progress. It would be wise
to pair this person with an individual who is good at paying attention to
details. Experience is another factor. Veterans should be teamed up with
new hires—not only so they can share their experience but also to help
socialize the newcomers to the customs and norms of the organization.
Finally, future needs should be considered. If managers have some people
who have never worked together before but who have to later on in the
project, they may be wise to take advantage of opportunities to have these
people work together early on so that they can become familiar with each
other. Finally, see Snapshot from Practice 8.4: Managing Geeks for some
interesting thoughts from the former CEO of Google on how to put together
teams.

SNAPSHOT FROM PRACTICE 8.4
Managing Geeks*
Eric Schmidt, after a successful career at Sun Microsystems, took over
struggling Novell, Inc., and helped turn it around within two years. Four
years later he became the CEO of Google. One of the keys to his success
is his ability to manage the technical wizards who develop the sophisticated
systems, hardware, and software that are the backbone of electronically driven
companies. He uses the term “geek” (and he can, since he is one, with a Ph.D. in
computer science) to describe this group of technologists who rule the cyberworld.
Schmidt has some interesting ideas about assigning geeks to projects. He believes
that putting geeks together in project teams with other geeks creates productive peer
pressure. Geeks care a great deal about how other geeks perceive them. They are good
at judging the quality of technical work and are quick to praise as well as criticize each
other’s work. Some geeks can be unbearably arrogant, but Schmidt claims that having
them work together on projects is the best way to control them—by letting them control
each other.
At the same time, Schmidt argues that too many geeks spoil the soup. By this he
means that when there are too many geeks on a development team, there is a tendency
for intense technical navel gazing. Members lose sight of deadlines, and delays are
inevitable. To combat this tendency, he recommends using geeks only in small groups.
He urges breaking up large projects into smaller, more manageable projects so that
small teams of geeks can be assigned to them. This keeps the project on time and
makes the teams responsible to each other.

*

Russ Mitchel, “How to Manage Geeks,” Fast Company, May 31, 1999, pp. 175–80.
page 280

8.9 Multiproject Resource Schedules
LO 8-8
Identify common problems with multiproject resource scheduling.

For clarity we have discussed key resource allocation issues within the
context of a single project. In reality resource allocation generally occurs in
a multiproject environment where the demands of one project have to be
reconciled with the needs of other projects. Organizations must develop and
manage systems for efficiently allocating and scheduling resources across
several projects with different priorities, resource requirements, sets of
activities, and risks. The system must be dynamic and capable of
accommodating new projects as well as reallocating resources once project
work is completed. While the same resource issues and principles that apply
to a single project also apply to this multiproject environment, application
and solutions are more complex, given the interdependency among projects.
The following are three of the more common problems encountered in
managing multiproject resource schedules. Note that these are macro
manifestations of single-project problems that are now magnified in a
multiproject environment.
1. Overall schedule slippage. Because projects often share resources,
delays in one project can have a ripple effect and delay other projects.
For example, work on one software development project can grind to a
halt because the coders scheduled for the next critical task are late in
completing their work on another development project.
2. Inefficient resource utilization. Because projects have different
schedules and requirements, there are peaks and valleys in overall
resource demands. For example, a firm may have a staff of 10

electricians to meet peak demands when, under normal conditions, only 5
electricians are required.
3. Resource bottlenecks. Delays and schedules are extended as a result of
shortages of critical resources that are required by multiple projects. For
example, at one Lattice Semiconductor facility, project schedules were
delayed because of competition over access to test the equipment
necessary to debug programs. Likewise, several projects at a U.S. forest
area were extended because there was only one silviculturist on the staff.
To deal with these problems, more and more companies are creating project
offices or departments to oversee the scheduling of resources across
multiple projects. One approach to multiple project resource scheduling is
to use a first come–first served rule. A project queue system is created in
which projects currently under way take precedence over new projects.
New project schedules are based on the projected availability of resources.
This queuing tends to lead to more reliable completion estimates and is
preferred on contracted projects that have stiff penalties for being late. The
disadvantages of this deceptively simple approach are that it does not
optimally utilize resources or take into account the priority of the project.
See Snapshot from Practice 8.5: Multiple Project Resource Scheduling.
Many companies utilize more elaborate processes for scheduling
resources to increase the capacity of the organization to initiate projects.
Most of these methods approach the problem by treating individual projects
as part of one big project and adapting the scheduling heuristics previously
introduced to this “mega project.” Project schedulers monitor resource
usage and provide updated schedules based on progress and resource
availability across all projects. One major improvement in project
management software in recent years is the ability to prioritize resource
allocation to specific projects. Projects can be prioritized in ascending order
(e.g., 1, 2, 3, 4, . . .), and these priorities will override scheduling heuristics
so that resources go to the project highest on the priority list. (Note: This
improvement fits perfectly with organizations that use project priority
models similar to those described in Chapter 2.) Centralized project
scheduling also makes it easier to identify resource bottlenecks that stifle
progress on projects. Once bottlenecks have been identified, their impact
page 281
can be documented and used to justify acquiring additional

What criteria should he consider? What should be the sequence for
selecting and assigning people to projects?
Case 8.3

Tham Luang Cave Rescue
On June 23, 2018, in Thailand, a group of 12 boys aged between 11 and 17
from the local football team, named the Wild Boars, and their 23-year-old
assistant coach entered the Tham Luang cave. Tham Luang is a large cave
complex in northern Thailand along the border with Myanmar. The cavern
was popular with locals and the boys had visited Tham Luang before. Tham
Luang cave is isolated—there is no GPS, Wi-Fi, or cell phone service. The
last known survey was conducted in the 1980s by a French caving society,
but many of the deeper recesses remain unmapped.
The boys had little difficulty getting fairly far into the cave, crawling
through a couple of choke points to open spaces. They did not anticipate
any problems getting back. The monsoon rains weren’t expected until the
next week, and the year before, the cave did not begin to flood until the
middle of July. The team took no food with them, because this was going to
be a brief field trip. They planned to stay for perhaps an hour, then return
home to their parents.
However, nature had different plans. Heavy monsoon rain began to fall.
The Wild Boars didn’t know about the rain at first. There was a thousand
feet of rock above them and they were more than a mile from the open
forest. Heavy rains gathered in streams that disappeared into sinks, rushing
through limestone into the cavern. Water rose suddenly and quickly, forcing
the team to retreat farther and farther into the cave. The interior of the cave
is not level but rather rises and falls as it burrows into the mountain. The
team scrambled for higher ground as the water continued to rise. Finally,
they settled on a mud slope and waited to see if the water would continue to
rise. It didn’t.

A mother of one of the boys contacted the police when her child failed
to come home. A teammate who had missed practice that day told people
that the team had planned to visit the cave after practice. Parents rushed to
the cave, only to find their children’s bikes and cleats at the entrance and
the cave flooded.
A contingent of Thai Navy SEAL divers arrived the next day and began
pushing their way into the flooded cave. This was no easy task. The Thai
frogmen were accustomed to tropical open water, not the dark, cold currents
page 304
racing through the cave. They lacked equipment, much less
expertise needed for caves, where divers cannot just rise to the
surface if something goes wrong.
The plight of the Wild Boars drew international attention overnight.
Soon skilled cave divers from around the world, including Finland, Britain,
China, Australia, and the United States, volunteered their services. At first
the foreign divers were not met with open arms by the Thai military in
charge of the rescue. Many of the SEAL divers bristled at the idea of
needing foreign assistance. The divers were not even allowed into the cave.
After much political haggling, the Thai Ministry of Foreign Affairs told the
military chiefs to let the foreign divers go.
Even the experienced cave divers found the conditions extremely
difficult. “It was like walking into a strong waterfall and feeling the water
rushing at you,” one diver said. “It was a horizontal climb against water
with every move.”
The divers painstakingly penetrated the cave, securing guidelines
needed to ensure safety. Visibility at times was negligible. “If you put your
hand in front of you, it just disappeared,” said one diver. “You couldn’t see
anything.”
Meanwhile, on the surface, policemen with sniffer dogs searched for
shaft openings that could provide an alternative entrance to the cave system.
The search was augmented by hundreds of volunteers dressed in lemonyellow shirts and sky-blue caps, searching for hidden cracks in the
limestone that might reveal an opening to the cave. Drones were also used,
but no technology existed to scan for humans deep underground. Local holy
men created a shrine at the mouth of the cave, where they chanted and
communed with the spirit of the cave, “Jao Mae Tham.” Several times the
search had to be suspended due to heavy rains.

After the team had spent 10 days of captivity without real food or water,
there was little hope among the rescuers of discovering the boys alive.
In the cave, a pair of British divers working to extend the guide ropes
popped up near a narrow ledge. First they smelled, and then they saw, 13
emaciated people perched in the dark. The Wild Boars had run out of food
and light but had survived by sipping the condensation from the cave walls.
Later it was reported that the assistant coach, a Buddhist, had led the boys
in meditation to relax and conserve energy. The ledge where they were
found was about 2.5 miles from the cave mouth.
The next day Thai SEALs ferried food, water, and blankets to the Wild
Boars. Four divers, including a doctor, would stay with them until their
rescue. Thai officials reported that the rescuers were providing health
checks, keeping the boys entertained, and none of the boys were in serious
condition.
Thai officials released a video made by the rescuers and shared to the
world. The video showed all 12 boys and their coach introducing
themselves and stating their ages. Wrapped in emergency blankets and
appearing frail, each boy said hello to the outside world, “Sawasdee khrap,”
with his palms together in wai, the traditional Thai greeting. The video went
viral. Soon all the major newscasts across the world were covering the
story. The big question then became, now that the boys had been found,
how could they be gotten out alive?
A rescue camp was set up at the cave entrance, accommodating the
volunteers and journalists in addition to the rescue workers. The camp was
divided into zones: restricted areas for the Thai Navy SEALs, other military
personnel, and civilian rescuers; an area for relatives to wait in privacy; and
areas for the press and general public.
An estimated 10,000 people contributed to the rescue effort, including
more than 100 divers, 900 police officers, 2,000 soldiers, and numerous
volunteers. Equipment included 10 police helicopters, seven ambulances,
and more than 700 diving cylinders, of which more than 500 were in the
cave at any time while another 200 were in queue to be refilled.
page 305

The plight of the Wild Boars caught the attention of Elon Musk of Tesla
and Space X fame. He tasked engineers to build a kid-size submarine that

could be used to transport the boys out of the cave. Within days an actual
submarine was sent to Tham Luang. Thai officials praised the effort but
concluded it was not practical, given the narrow passages in the cavern.
The journey through the cave to the team took six hours against current
and five hours to exit with the current. The route had several flooded
sections, some with strong currents and zero visibility, and some extremely
narrow parts, the smallest measuring only 15 by 28 inches. The boys were
perched on a ledge 400 yards from Pattaya beach chamber, named after an
above-ground beach in Thailand. Chamber 3, which was dry, would be used
as rescue base.
Pumps were brought in to remove water from the cave. Although not a
solution, efforts at draining the cave began to produce results. Crags and
outcroppings emerged from the murk. The most challenging passage, which
had taken five hours to navigate early on, could now be traversed in two
hours with the help of guide ropes.
As the crisis unfolded, rescuers considered several different methods to
save the team. The principal options included
Wait until the end of the monsoon season, with divers providing food and
water.
Find an alternative entrance to the cave that would allow for an easier
escape.
Drill a rescue shaft.
Teach the group basic diving skills and have them swim out with the
divers.
Waiting until the monsoons ended in November and the water drained was
the simplest solution. The boys could walk out on their own. However, the
logistics did not make sense. Feeding 13 people, three times a day, for even
60 days is more than 2,750 meals. Every meal would have to be ferried in
by a team of divers, flirting with death each time they went under.
This was a growing concern. Four days after the boys were found,
retired Navy SEAL diver Saman Kunan lost consciousness while returning
from dropping off three air tanks. His dive buddy attempted CPR without
success. Kunan had left his airport security job to volunteer for the rescue
mission. Before that fatality, three divers were lost for over three hours in
the dark cave, and rescue efforts had to be redirected to find them.

From the beginning hundreds of volunteers crawled over the hillside in
search of hidden openings. People knew the odds were slim to none, given
the depth of the cave, but it was worth a try.
Drilling through a couple thousand feet of rock would require extensive
infrastructure work and take too long. Besides, there was significant
uncertainty as to where to drill.
That left the fourth option. None of the boys or the coach knew how to
dive. Even if they could master the basics, cave diving is not the same as a
practice run at a resort swimming pool. A weakened child submerged in
darkness and breathing unnaturally through a regulator is likely to panic.
Yet through long stretches of the cave, he wouldn’t be able to surface and
regain his composure—he would be in a flooded tunnel.
Privately experts thought maybe half the boys would survive the
journey. But pulling it off 13 times in a row would take a miracle.
While plans were being developed, two alarming events occurred. First,
the oxygen levels in the cave began to drop faster than anticipated. This
raised fears that the boys could develop hypoxia if they remained for a
prolonged time. By July 7 the oxygen level was measured to be 15 percent.
page 306
The level needed to maintain normal functions for humans is
between 19.5 percent and 23.5 percent. Thai engineers’
attempts to install an air supply line to the boys failed.
The second development was the weather forecast. Monsoon rains were
predicted for later in the week, which could flood the cave until November.
The Thai Navy SEALs, with the support of U.S. Air Force rescue
experts, devised a plan approved by the Thai Minister of the Interior.
Rescuers initially wanted to teach the boys basic diving skills to enable
them to make the journey. Organizers even built a mockup of a tight
passage with chairs and had divers practice with local boys in a nearby
school swimming pool. Eventually it was decided that the boys were too
weak to swim, and the plan was revised to have divers bring the boys out.
On July 8 the rescue attempt was initiated. For the first part of the
mission, 18 divers were sent into the caves to retrieve the boys, with 1 diver
to accompany each boy on the dive out. The boys were dressed in a wetsuit,
a buoyancy jacket, and a harness. Instead of sticking a regulator in each
boy’s mouth, they were given a full face mask that allowed them to breathe
naturally. An oxygen cylinder was clipped to their front, a handle was

attached to their back, and they were tethered to a diver in case they were
lost in poor visibility.
Panic was a chief concern. The SEAL doctor administered an anesthetic
to the boys before the journey, rendering them unconscious to prevent them
from panicking on the escape and risking the lives of their rescuers.1 The
anesthetic lasted about 50 minutes, requiring the divers, whom the doctor
had trained, to re-sedate their bodies during the three-hour-plus journey.
There was discussion about which boy should go first—the weakest, the
youngest, the strongest—but in the end it came to a boy who volunteered.
The boys were maneuvered out by the divers holding on to their back or
chest, with each boy on the left or right depending upon the guideline. In
very narrow spots, the divers had to push the boys from behind. The divers
kept their heads higher than the boys so that in poor visibility the divers
would hit their heads first against the rocks. After a short dive to a dry
section of cave, the divers and boys were met by three divers, and the boys’
dive gear was removed. A drag stretcher was used to transport the boys up
over a 200-meter stretch of rocks and sandy hills. The dive gear was put
back on before entering the next submerged section.
After being delivered by the divers into the rescue base in chamber 3,
the boys were then passed along a “daisy chain” of hundreds of workers
stationed along the treacherous path out of the cave. The boys were
alternately carried, slid, and zip-lined over a complex network of pulleys
installed by rock climbers. The path out of the chamber contained many
areas still partially submerged, and the boys had to be transported over
slippery rocks and through muddy waters. The journey out of chamber 3
took about four to five hours initially, less later as a result of drainage.
Soon after 7 p.m. local officials announced that two boys had been
rescued. Shortly later, two more boys appeared out of the cave. On July 9,
four more boys were rescued. On July 10, the last four boys and their coach
were rescued.
The four Thai Navy SEALs, including the doctor who had stayed with
the boys the entire time, were the last to dive out. When they got to
chamber 3, a water pipe burst, and the main pump stopped working. All of a
sudden, the water began to rise rapidly. This forced the SEALs and 100 of
the rescuers still a mile inside the cave to abandon the rescue equipment and
scramble out of the cave.

page 307

Upon reaching the surface the boys were quarantined while health
workers determined whether they had caught any infectious diseases. The
boys were on a fixed rice porridge diet for the first 10 days. Parents initially
visited their children looking through a window, but once the laboratory
results proved negative, they were allowed to visit in person while wearing
a medical gown, face mask, and hair cap.
After the rescue, the boys’ families, officials, and thousands of
volunteers gathered at the cave entrance. The group gave thanks for the
lives saved and asked forgiveness from the cave goddess, “Jao Mae Tham,”
for the intrusion of pumps, ropes, and people during the rescue.
The world rejoiced with the news of the successful rescue. The head of
the rescue mission said that the cave system would eventually be turned
into a living museum to highlight how the operation unfolded. As a result of
the incident, Thailand’s Navy SEALs will include cave diving in their
training programs.
On September 7, 2018, the Royal Thai government hosted a reception
for all Thai and foreign officials and personnel involved in the rescue. His
Majesty the King granted a royal decoration, The Most Admirable Order of
the Direkgunabhorn, to those who were involved in the rescue of the
football team—114 foreigners and 74 Thais. The order is bestowed upon
those who render devotional service to the Kingdom of Thailand. The title
Direkgunabhorn roughly translates as “Noble order of abundance and
quality.”
Three months after being rescued, the entire Wild Boar team and coach
appeared on the U.S. day-time talk show Ellen. Speaking through a
translator, the team revealed that four of the boys had had birthdays while
trapped in the cave. The team and coach were stunned when their football
hero, Zlatan Ibrahimović, who now plays for the LA Galaxy, made a
surprise appearance on the show to meet them. The Swedish star high-fived
each member. “These kids, this team is braver than me and they showed
their collective teamwork and had patience, faith,” Ibrahimović said. “This
is probably the best team in the world.”
1. How did the physical environment of the cave affect the rescue plan?
2. How did the rescue team respond to the risks of the project?

3. Some have called the rescue a miracle and that luck was the decisive
factor. Do you agree?
Sources
ABC News, “It Was Utter Chaos: Inside the Thai Cave Rescue That
Nearly Didn’t Happen,” December 1, 2018. www.abc.net.au. Accessed
2/8/19.
ABC News, “Thai Cave Rescue: Elon Musk Hits Out at Mission Chief
Who Turned Down Mini-submarine Offer,” July 11, 2018.
www.abc.net.au. Accessed 2/8/19.
Beech, H., R. C. Paddock, and M. Suhartono, “Still Can’t Believe It
Worked: The Story of the Thailand Cave Rescue,” New York Times, July
12, 2018. www.nytimes.com. Accessed 2/9/2019.
Ellis-Petersen, H., “Thai Cave Rescue Boys Meet Hero Zlatan during
Ellen Interview,” The Guardian, October 17, 2018.
www.theguardian.com. Accessed 2/12/19.
Flynn, S., “Miracle at Tham Luang,” GQ, December 3, 2018.
www.gq.com. Accessed 2/10/19.
1 The Thai government provided the SEAL doctor with diplomatic immunity if something
went wrong.
page 308

Appendix 8.1
The Critical-Chain Approach
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
After reading this appendix you should be able to:

‫المملكة العربية السعودية‬
‫وزارة التعليم‬
‫الجامعة السعودية اإللكترونية‬

Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
Ministry of Education
Saudi Electronic University

College of Administrative and Financial Sciences

Assignment 3 MGT323 (1st Term 2024-2025)
Deadline: 30/11/2024 @ 23:59
(To be released to students on BB in Week 10)
Course Name: Project Management
Course Code: MGT323

Student’s Name:

Semester: 1st

CRN:

Student’s ID Number:

Academic Year: 1446 H (2024-2025)1st Term
For Instructor’s Use only
Instructor’s Name:
Students’ Grade: /10

Level of Marks: High/Middle/Low

Instructions: Please Read them carefully
•
•

This assignment is an individual assignment.
Due date for Assignment 3 is 30/11/2024.

•

The Assignment must be submitted on BB only in WORD format via allocated folder.

•

Assignments submitted through email will not be accepted.

•

Students are advised to make their work clear and well presented; marks may be reduced
for poor presentation. This includes filling your information on the cover page.

•

Students must mention question number clearly in their answer.

•

Late submission will NOT be accepted.

•

Avoid plagiarism, the work should be in your own words, copying from students or other
resources without proper referencing will result in ZERO marks. No exceptions.

•

All answered must be typed using Times New Roman (size 12, double-spaced) font. No
pictures containing text will be accepted and will be considered plagiarism).

Submissions without this cover page will NOT be accepted.

Restricted – ‫مقيد‬

Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
Ministry of Education
Saudi Electronic University

‫المملكة العربية السعودية‬
‫وزارة التعليم‬
‫الجامعة السعودية اإللكترونية‬

College of Administrative and Financial Sciences
Assignment Workload:
•
•

This Assignment comprise of a Case Study and Discussion questions.
Assignment is to be submitted by each student individually.

Assignment Purposes/Learning Outcomes:
After completion of Assignment-3 students will able to understand the
1. Defining the concepts, theories and approaches of project management. (L.O-1.1)
2. Analyze to work effectively and efficiently as a team member for project related
cases. (L.O-3.1)
3. Evaluate to monitor and control the project. (L.O-3.2)

Assignment-3: Case Study & Discussion questions
Assignment Question:

(Marks 10)

Please read the Case-8.3 “Tham Luang Cave Rescue.” from Chapter 8
“Scheduling Resources and Costs” given in your textbook – Project Management:
The Managerial Process 8th edition by Larson and Gray page no: 304-307 also refer
to specific concepts you have learned from the chapter to support your
answers. Answer the following questions for Part-1, Part-2.

Part-1: Case study questions

1. How did the physical environment of the cave affect the rescue
plan? Explain in 250 words (3 Marks).
2. How did the rescue team respond to the risks of the project?
Explain in 250 words (3 Marks).

Restricted – ‫مقيد‬

Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
Ministry of Education
Saudi Electronic University

‫المملكة العربية السعودية‬
‫وزارة التعليم‬
‫الجامعة السعودية اإللكترونية‬

College of Administrative and Financial Sciences
3. Some have called the rescue a miracle and that luck was the
decisive factor. Do you agree? Explain in 150 words (2 Marks)
Part-2: Discussion questions
Please read Chapter 8 Pg-No. 279 & 281 carefully and then give your
answers on the basis of your understanding.
4. Why would people resist a multi project resource scheduling
system? (1 Mark) (100 words)
5. What do you think would have happened if the Washington
Forest Service did not assess the impact of resources on their twoyear plan? (1 Mark) (100 words).

Answers:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Restricted – ‫مقيد‬

Purchase answer to see full
attachment