The Campus Library Management Project


The Campus Library management system was developed to enable the staff, students, and the public to access library services from remote locations on the Internet. An overview of the current system and the requirements analysis enabled the project manager to write the problem statement, scope statement, objectives, and the project plan to guide the project manager in developing the Library management system. Economic and technical feasibility reports indicated the project was feasible because the University could afford the required resources to successfully execute the project. The project manager decided to use Prince2 as the best project management methodology because it provides the project manager with clear guidelines on how to plan and execute project each phase of the project life-cycle according to the expected project milestones.

The project manager’s assumptions were based on the fact that the top-level management supported the project, the scope was properly defined, the change management was the right one to use, the shareholders were bound by a formal agreement stipulating their roles and responsibilities, and the resources were sufficient to proceed with the project. The project manager used a risk management plan to mitigate any risks that could arise using a risk identification document. The project milestones and the software development life-cycle were identified and documented during the project planning and execution stages. The project manager conducted a critical review of the development of management theories and concluded that the quantitative approach was the best because human factors were accounted for. The project was completed by providing a detailed overview of the product breakdown structure of the entire system.


Numerous project management methodologies in the context of thin and thick project development approaches for software developers exist to select from (Bhuiyan & Krishna 2010). Bhuiyan and Krishna (2010) provide a wide section of project management methodologies to select from that could be used to develop the Campus Library development project. The project manager evaluated different project management methodologies to determine the most suitable methodology from the list that consisted of Outcome Mapping, DMAIC, Six Sigma, NPI (New Product Introduction), RAD (rapid applications development), agile, NPI (New Product Introduction), Scrum, PER (packaged enable re-engineering), and PRINCE2 (Graham 2010). The project manager evaluated each methodology for fitness of purpose based on project planning, scheduling, risk management, and people management requirements.

Project plan

The project execution started by identifying Prince2 as the primary project management methodology.

Scope statement

The university’s Campus Library wants to integrate the Library operations into an Internet-based Library Management System (ILMS) that could be accessible online and available for 24 hours a day and 7 days a week as a real-time learning resource

Most suitable projects management methodology

Management factors and theories were combined to provide the knowledge that was used to evaluate the most appropriate project management methodology to use for the Campus Library project. The elements considered were those recommended by Edmonds (2010), which includes division of work, unity of direction and command, authority, scalar chain, order, equity, risk management, and initiative (Edmonds 2010). Besides, the management approach was considered to be the most crucial element that enabled the project manager to accurately measure and plan the project progress and increase the project team’s productivity.

Based on the above summary description of project management principles, the project manager determined to use the Prince2 management methodology. Prince2 was used to enable the project manager to accurately assess the problems encountered in developing the proposed library information system that is common with software projects (Graham 2010). The problems include:

  1. Underestimating resource requirements
  2. Poor software development planning
  3. Lack of an appropriate work breakdown structure
  4. Inability to identify critical paths
  5. Lack of a risk management plan
  6. Failure to meet quality assurance requirements

The project manager then mapped the problems encountered by software project managers listed above into the Campus Library project scenario to determine the most suitable project management method that could provide appropriate solutions. It was critical to ensure that the delivery date, software quality, and budgetary constraints were consistent with the expectations of the university and the user requirements. However, the delivery date and budgetary allocations were not provided, necessitating the project manager to make various assumptions to address the problem using software project management best practices.

Merits of Prince2

The abilities provided on the Prince2 platform include automation and smooth workflow, overall organizational acceptance of the methodology, proper methodology documentation, and ease of use. An analysis of the stakeholder and project development skills and recommendations showed Prince2 to be the most preferred methodology (Graham 2010).

From a technical perspective, the methodology is process-driven, provides heavy documentation, enables careful planning, provides flexibility for change management, and enabled the project manager to appropriately assign roles and responsibilities to each team member according to their skills (Graham 2010).

It was possible to execute the project in a controlled environment using Prince2 by ensuring that the project had a well-defined start, middle, endpoints, and a clear organizational structure. The project was completed within schedule, budget and deliverables were provided according to the requirements of the customers. Other benefits of using Prince2 were effective project control, quality control, effective project planning, the ability to document lessons learned, and the ability to determine new project management best practices (Graham 2010).

The results of comparing Prince2 with SCRUM show that SCRUM is an agile development methodology that could not enable the project manager to control tasks that were outside of the project team. Prince2 was more appropriate for use than SCRUM because the methodology could allow the project manager to introduce new requirements and accommodate changes in stakeholder commitments. Also, the methodology was established to be most appropriate because project team members were conversant on how to use software to perform various project development tasks.

By comparing the two methodologies, the disadvantage with SCRUM is that it provides a platform that accommodates a team of only 10 people, while Prince2 accommodates a team of more than 10 people. Prince2 was appropriate because the requirements were well understood as compared with SCRUM which is appropriate when requirements are not understood properly (Graham 2010). In conclusion, the project settled on Prince2 because it is a flexible methodology that could allow different teams to take over in case his team terminated the contract for various reasons. Also, it was possible to achieve better configuration management of the project that was consistent with the project scope and objectives.


To ensure successful delivery of the Campus Library project, the project requirements were analyzed and the following assumptions established.

  • Executive support-The University’s top-level management supported the implementation of the project by providing the required resources such as financial commitments and the required support. Through the support and involvement of the University’s top-level management, it was possible to overcome common software development problems that are caused by conflicts at the executive management level, executive and stakeholder turnover, failure of the executives to attend progress report meetings, and disruption of financial support for project implementation (Okhuysen & Bonardi, 2011).
  • Well defined scope- Strategies were in place to avoid the risk of project scope creep. The strategies included well-defined project objectives, milestones, deliverables, schedule, and contingency plans to avoid gold plating, which often inflates costs. Project dependencies were properly defined, all project activities were accurately identified, resources were accurately estimated, and errors of omission in the scope definition were identified and mitigation strategies were put in place at the earlier stages of project development.
  • Change management- Change management policies and systems were agreed upon with the executive board of directors to ensure a smooth transition in case of any new changes occurring as the project progressed. The change management policy could enable the project manager to avoid inaccurate change priorities, low-quality change requests, change request conflict management, perceptions that the project could fail because of changes, and change management overloads.
  • Stakeholders-A formal agreement assigned with the stakeholders stipulating the penalties that could be imposed on any party who violated the terms of the contract between the parties engaged in the project to ensure commitment in implementing the project to avoid stakeholder disengagement, stakeholder turnover, inaccurate expectations, conflicts, and low-quality inputs.
  • Communication-The assumptions were that a good communication plan was in place to avoid misunderstanding of project requirements and communication overheads. The communication plan ensured that individuals were informed about the project progress to achieve accurate user expectations.
  • The project manager was satisfied that the resources were sufficient, the project team members had the right skills, the system architecture was the right one for use, the design was feasible, technology components were the right ones for use, infrastructure was available and integration of the final system could be seamless. The system requirements were clearly defined, and decisions and issue resolutions could be resolved without delays. Approvals, procurement, regulatory controls, the right project management methodology, and secondary risks such as user acceptance were appropriately addressed before the commencement of the project.

Risk management

Risk is a fundamental element of any project management program. The type of risks the Campus Library Management project was vulnerable to and the project’s risk appetite was identified and a risk register developed (Meredith & Mantel Jr 2011). The risk register shows the impact of the risks on the project and the risk mitigation strategies in table 1. The risks were evaluated on a scale of negligible, minor, moderate, critical, and catastrophic levels.

Table 1. risk evaluation matrix.

Risk /scale Negligible (E) Minor (D) Moderate (C) Critical (B) Catastrophic (A)
Frequency-5 5E 5D 5C 5B 5A
Likely-4 4E 4D 4C 4B 4A
Occasional-3 3E 3D 3C 3B 3A
Seldom-2 2E 2D 2C 2B 2A
Improbable-1 1E 1D 1C 1B 1A

Table 2. Risk management matrix.

Definition Description Level
Improbable Never occurred-The risk that was remote and never occurred included financial risks 5
Seldom Had a low likelihood of occurrence or occurred and were not noticed. The risks that that seldom occurred were the lateness of some stakeholders to attend meetings to brief them on the project progress. 4
Occasional Some of the unlikely but possible risks that were occasional included skills limitations of some team members, latent system errors, and unpredictable events such as power outages and some software tools that could not support project implementation. 3
Likely Scope creep because of poorly defined project scope and objectives, stakeholders leaving the project, and management conflicts. 2
Frequent Those that occurred frequently 1

Risk identification document

Description Frequency Impact Mitigation strategy
Staff leaving the project 3 C Motivating the staff
Project management changes 1 A Ensuring project objectives and scope statement are accurately defined.
Changes to the requirements document 3 C Use the Software development life-cycle that accommodates new changes to user requirements
Delay in providing the project specifications 2 C Use a well-defined project schedule
Delay in coding 1 C Motivate the coping team and ensuring all resources are available.
Technology changes 2 B Ensure the technology being used is the latest and is compatible with other technologies.
Changes on the relevance of the product 1 A Ensure the requirements are understood properly

Table 3: Overview of the project plan. Adopted from Schwalbe (2013, p.2).

Level o Level 1 Level 2 Level 3
Project risks Project management Planning Project charter
Scope definition
Resource plan
Risk plan
Cost plan
Organizational plan
Meetings kickoff
Administration Program office
Product requirements Software Draft requirements
Review of requirements
Requirements updates
Final draft
Requirements approval
User documentation Create and review user documentation
Update and review user documentation
Hardware Create and review hardware requirements
Hardware requirements approval
Software design Initial design
Review design
Update design
Review and approve the design
System construction Initial software configuration Meetings
Review of documentation
Review of configuration
Integration and testing Software
System test plan
Test cases
Test results
Product engineering Requirements Feasibility
Design Good interfaces
Code and unit tests Feasibility
Integration test Product
Engineering specialties Security
Development environment Process Product control
Process control
Management Planning
Management experience
Management methods
Decision-making skills
Managerial methods Management by objectives
Quantitative management
Combination of leadership methods
Work environment Motivation
Program constraints Resource Staff
Program interfaces Restriction dependencies
Customer satisfaction

The project plan provides a summary of the required project development components that were necessary for the project control and execution to completion. The successful completion of the project was based on the project deliverables that were provided on time and as per the project schedule. The project summary was approved by the project manager and at the school executive management level. Customer satisfaction, who in this case are the public, the staff, students, and the librarian were critical for the successful delivery and deployment of the system.

Project initiation

According to Prince2, the project initiation consisted of creating the project charter, scope definition, determining the project objectives, outlining the problem statement, roles and responsibilities, and hardware and software requirements (Okhuysen & Bonardi 2011).

Software development life-cycle

According to Okhuysen and Bonardi (2011) a successfully developed and implemented software project must be based on logical project phases that are consistent with the Campus Library Management project goals and objectives. Besides, the main requirement was to develop a system that could be integrated with the Internet-based Library Management System (ILMS), which could allow students, staff, and the public to get access to the campus library for its services. An evaluation of existing methodologies was done and the V-model was selected as the most appropriate methodology to use. The spiral model was designated as the most appropriate project development life-cycle.


The main goal was to develop the Campus Library Management project and integrate the new system into the Internet-based Library Management System (ILMS) that already existed. The appropriateness of the model was that it is an evolutional approach that easily allowed the project manager to customize the project into the project phases. The rationale was to identify a model that could easily allow the project manager to integrate the make the project means to the team and the user community as points of reference. Also, the model is flexible and can allow changes to be introduced during the project execution and enabled the project manager to identify the project milestones, ensure verification, validation, and be able to determine the effectiveness of the model (Bhuiyan & Krishna 2010).

The proposed model was fond of useful because it enabled the project manager to overcome the problems associated with the phase-oriented process models that have very many drawbacks (Bhuiyan & Krishna 2010). The phased approaches are always oriented towards the software engineering aspects, but the spiral model provided a framework for executing primary activities that were specific to the project requirements domain. The sequential nature of the phased approach was difficult to adhere to, but the spiral model could allow requirements to be revised and changed constantly. The constantly changing requirements were necessary because it was difficult to meet all interested parties at once to provide their inputs. Besides, lack of systematic feedback and the systematic planning, requirements specification and collection, design, integration, testing, and maintenance required the use of spiral model because it could allow falling back if a problem was experienced (Bhuiyan & Krishna 2010).


The spiral model was used as a development model because it provided a framework upon which the project manager defined the project objectives, evaluated alternatives, developed the project with the project team, tested, and once satisfied, it allowed the project team to move on to the next phase (Bhuiyan & Krishna 2010). The project phases illustrated in figure 1 below fit well into the Campus Library Management Project life-cycle. It is crucial to note that the model describes the project planning, objectives formulation, risk analysis and evaluation, project testing, and execution and testing. The project manager established that the model could be modeled continuously to fit into the project requirements, further supporting the need to use the model. However, some inherent weaknesses with the model such as the high cost of the model and being highly dependent on the risks, the model were deemed appropriate because the software was produced earlier in the development process and that allowed earlier stakeholder inputs (Bhuiyan & Krishna 2010).

Spiral model.
Figure 1: Spiral model. Spiral model.

Project Charter

A comprehensive project charter was used by the project manager that defined clearly the project scope, roles, and responsibilities, objectives, stakeholders, and authority of the project manager as discussed below.

Scope definition

  • Develop a library management system that could integrate Library operations into an Internet-based Library Management System (ILMS).
  • Develop a system that provides a 24/7 (24 hours a day and 7 days a week) service as a real-time learning support resource for students, teachers, and the public
  • Support the functionality needs of the students and staff to search for books, borrow books, book for books, return, delete, review status accounts edit, and calculate fines.
  • Support the functionality needs of the librarian to issue books, impose fines, monitor books borrowed and returned, determine penalties for books that are overdue.

Project Objectives

  • Develop a system to enable the provision of library services to students and staff on the Internet platform.
  • Develop a system with well-defined input controls, informational components, login fields, navigational, and container user interface elements.
  • Develop an online and reliable database that stores student and staff book usage data.

Problem statement

The Collins University campus library uses a standalone information library management system that is complemented with a manual system that is not accessible on the Internet. Also, the system does not provide statistical data on the usage of books, the number of books overdue, and the penalties for overdue books, which are calculated manually. The processes are energy-intensive and vulnerable to serious errors.

Hardware and software requirements

  • Intel Celeron i5 processor,
  • RAM of 200 MB,
  • 30 GB hard disk
  • Any size of memory
  • Windows 7/8 Operating system
  • Java programming language, PHP
  • MySQL Backend

System analysis

The proposed system provides the following functionalities:

  • Online access to the library database
  • A friendly user interface
  • High data storage capacity
  • Ability to book for books, not in the database
  • Email alerts when a book is overdue
  • A look and feel the environment

The technical and economic feasibility studies showed that the University was ready to invest in the development and implementation of the library management information system.

Proposed system

The proposed system has the following modules:

  • Database
  • User interface
  • Login/logout
  • Statistical
  • Search

Quality assurance

Validation plan-The students/staff could validate the system by inputting data, searching for books, monitoring the usage of the system on an Online platform (Futrell, Shafer & Shafer 2001).

The librarian would monitor the usage statistics, delete/add/update/penalize books and users, and be able to delete/disable/enable an account (Kerzner 2013).

Configuration management-The system could be installed, run, and integrated into other platforms to make its online presence.

Maintenance-The system developer will train the librarian and the University It administrator on system maintenance.

Project milestones

Milestones Deliverables Due date
Problems statement Problem justification document Feb 20, 2015
Plan System plan document Feb 24, 2015
Scope statement Scope statement document Feb 24, 2015
Project charter Project charter/people management document Feb 24, 2015
Requirements analysis Requirements document March 3, 2015
Project schedule Work breakdown structure March 3, 2015
Risk management Risk management plan March 3, 2015
Product breakdown structure Product breakdown structure document April 12, 2015
Quality assurance plan Validation document April 16, 2015
Configuration management document
Maintenance document
System design System testing May 12, 2015
Integration testing
Unit testing
Code testing

Project Roles and Responsibilities

Sponsor: Direct the project. Responsibilities include: Approving the project charter, seek for financial and human resources, get involved in planning the project charter, evaluate and confirm that the project goals and objectives are consistent with the major project activities.
Name Email / Phone
Universal Libraries
Project Manager: Plan, control, and organize project tasks. Manage project scope. Responsibilities include: developing the project plan; identifying project deliverables; identifying project risks and developing a risk management plan; directing the project resources (team members).
Define the scope, controlling any change management initiatives.
Ensure quality deliverables, manage the project development process, ensure documentation is in safe custody, report and project progress and status, ensure issues are resolved amicably, and communicate project progress to the stakeholders.
Name Email / Phone
Team Members: Collect user requirements, analyze the user requirements, and convert high-level user requirements into functional requirements.
Writing the source code for the database, user interface design, design system security features, and coordinate the team members.
Create system documentation, the project plan, and the entity-relationship diagram.
Name Email / Phone
Users: Provide user requirements and take project ownership
Name Email / Phone
Name Email / Phone

Work breakdown structure

Task Feb March- April May- July October-December
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
Project plan X X
Scope definition X
Problem statement X
Stakeholder meetings X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Risk management plan X
Requirements analysis X X X X X X X X X X X
Project schedule X X
Product breakdown structure X
Quality assurance plan X

Requirements document

The library management information system is an online information system that provides basic features, which include enabling registration/login features for students/staff/public members, add/delete/update books, insert/delete penalties, enable/disable the account, and track user and books status (Schwalbe 2013).

Project execution

The project phases on planning, risk management, and people management (under the project charter) were executed as per the schedule under the supervision and direction of the project manager and no major problems were experienced.

Critical review of the development of management theories and future

The pioneers of management theories viewed management to be a universal and a specialized discipline that required best practices to ensure successful planning, directing, and controlling of workers to achieve better levels of productivity (Miller & Tsang 2011). Miller and Tsang (2011) argue that the industrial revolution was the beginning of new management theories because of the need to organize people to work in environments that were highly centralized, concentrated, synchronized, standardized, and specialized. Management theorists such as Robert Owen and Charles Babbage among others broadly classified the schools of management into the classical, quantitative, and behavioral approaches (Pohl 2010).

Evolution of the theories

Miller and Tsang (2011) maintain that management theories started to evolve when existing theories were thought to be insufficient in explaining emerging trends and challenges that were happening in the working environment. For example, the classical or universal school focused on the use of management being central to the leadership of an organization, which emphasized a clear division between the lines of management and staff, delegation of tasks as an important management function with a clearly defined span of control. According to Meredith and Mantel Jr (2011), Henri Fayorol, the pioneer of the classical theories of management emphasized teamwork, initiatives, unity of direction, discipline, remuneration, and equity and justice. The management strategies proposed by Henri Fayorol were based on the common management functions of planning, controlling, and organizing that is still recognized by many present-day theorists.

It is clear from the study that the classical theories of management emphasized more on how managers could use the workers to manipulate the resources to achieve economic success. Organizational managers viewed workers as a means to an end were treated as passive resources under the control of the employer. Griffin and Moorhead (2011) established that workers were not required to express their emotional feelings that could interfere with the economic pursuits of a company and if necessary, management was supposed to manipulate and control the workers’ emotions for economic gains (Mogensen & Schnack 2010). The goal was to achieve economic gain regardless of the workers’ emotions or conditions of the working environment. However, because the industrial revolution was happening, the classical theory did not provide enough solutions to the new challenges that were arising.

The challenges brought about by the industrial revolution compelled the managers to classify the classical theories of management into three distinct schools that include bureaucratic, administrative, and scientific management approaches. Scientific management emphasized high utility and avoidance of waste, compensation for the work done, specialization, and performance standards.

Scientific management

Griffin and Moorhead (2011) extensively discussed the contributions made to the scientific school of management by Harrington Emerton, Henry L. Chant, Frank Gilbreth, and Lilian Gilbreth as critical in shaping the scientific management approach. Despite the rigorous contributions of the theorists, scientific management was heavily criticized as an approach that emphasized individualism, discouraged workers from broadly specializing in additional task areas, and ignored the average worker. Because workers were required to specialize in certain tasks, specialization made the work monotonous and the working anti-democratic. A project manager who does not embrace democratic principles when leading people working in a software development environment experiences conflicts that lead to lower employee productivity.

Administrative principle

In the pursuit of new and better management methods, managers developed the administrative principle, which was referred to as the processor functional approach. Lussier and Achua (2015) maintain that Fayol was the father of the approach, which received notable contributions from Mary Parker Follet who proposed that breaking the management functions into sub-functions could lead to better administration of the workers and higher productivity. The proposed management functions were classified into managerial operations, accounting operations, commercial operations, financial operations, security operations, and technical operations. Fayol focused on the management function by classifying the functions into the coordination, controlling, planning, organizing, and command functions. The approach is widely adopted and used today in many organizations and is a replica of what happens in those organizations.

According to Lussier and Achua (2015), the administrative management approach emphasized 14 management principles that are akin to formal organizations as argued by the theorist, Max Weber. The 14 principles include authority, discipline, unity of command, remuneration, the subordination of staff, scalar chain, authority and responsibility, discipline, initiative, equity, and stability of staff. The administrative approach was deficient in important elements such as employee interests because the management approach focused on the interests and economic gains of the organization and not the needs of the people.

Bureaucratic approach

As the demand for more efficient management approaches emerged, theorists came up with the bureaucratic approach. The approach was a very efficient management style compared with other management approaches (Lussier & Achua 2015). The key characteristics of the bureaucratic style included a well-defined hierarchy, division of labor, use of a system of rules, use of laid down procedures for solving work-related problems, promoting people based on their competencies, and impersonal relationships at the workplace. However, the formal nature of the approach lacked the essential ingredients that could cause emotional appeals and attachments of the people to the organization they worked for. However, it was established that the approach could not work in an environment that demanded a lot of work because it could lead workers to worry less about the organization (Lussier & Achua 2015). The main reasons were that the employees were not made to be part of the institution they were working for because the approach required the use of many rules and procedures that made the workers resistant to any new changes.

Behavioural approach

The industrialist was still at a loss to find the most appropriate management approach that could sufficiently provide solutions to emerging management challenges. Issues such as the demand for better management approaches that could be used to direct workers to increase productivity and enable them to work in an environment where their needs were understood and addressed were in demand. Many of the theorists focused their theories on how management could use the workers as a resource to make economic gains without factoring in their needs (Lussier & Achua 2015). Elton Mayo proposed, the father of the behavioral approach proposed that employee productivity could be increased by understanding the needs of the worker. Besides, the theorist proposed that employees who worked in groups were better motivated to improve their productivity than those who worked alone. However, the management approach was fiercely criticized by Maslow who proposed that people could work better if their personal needs were addressed first (Lussier & Achua 2015). The theorist concluded that the needs of individuals were critical factors that compelled them to work hard to achieve better results. However, those who were critical of the management approach argued that it was impossible to model the highly complex human behaviors to improve employee productivity (Lussier & Achua 2015).

Quantitative approach

As modernization became more complex, new management problems and challenges that required new solutions were emerging and the methods now in use were not addressing them. Management gurus settled on the quantitative approach to mathematically model and solve the problems, using quantitative tools known as operations research (Griffin & Moorhead 2011). The management techniques which include linear programming inventory modeling, regression analysis, queuing, prevention control mechanisms, competitive problem-solving game theory, and simulations provided the management with modern tools to solve modern management problems. However, the quantitative approach does not factor in the human element, which is very important for any management function in any management decisions and processes (Griffin & Moorhead 2011).

Other management schools

It can be concluded from the study that no single management approach that applies to all situations fits. However, defining a single management approach was becoming difficult as new methods and techniques emerged causing more confusion. For instance, the empirical school was based on learning from experience, the social system school focused on establishing good working relationships between workers and the management, and the socio-technical approach emphasized the relationship between men and machines (Griffin & Moorhead 2011). The decision theory focused on effective decision-making processes as the key management function, contingency theory was based on the adoption of policies, the managerial roles system which was proposed by Henry Mintzberg was based on the observations managers make, and the operational approach viewed management as a collection of different management techniques. However, because of the weaknesses that were inherent in the classical, behavioral, and quantitative approaches, a new school of taught known as the unified general theory of management emerged that could be used to address modern-day problems. However, the unified approach was not popular because it was simply a collection of already existing theories (Lussier & Achua, 2015).

However, modern approaches to management such as management by objectives are widely accepted and used today. Industrialists suggest that the approach could become more effective if top-level management gets involved, clearly articulated objectives are used, management goals are regularly revised, and people undergo management training before they are given the management roles.

However, it is possible to formulate new management theories that could be used to effectively address modern-day management problems by reviewing and integrating the key elements of past management theories and methods with the modern management approaches (Lussier & Achua, 2015).

The Product Break Down structure

The product breakdown structure is shown below consists of the project management and software development of the Campus Library project. The project management product breakdown components include:

  • The project plan-Defines the framework for achieving the project objectives and project execution framework.
  • Scope statement-Provides the Justification for the commencement of the campus library management system
  • Project methodology-The methodology that was used for project management, in this case, was Prince2
  • Risk management-The risk management matrix was decomposed to show the project risks, the potential impact of the risks on the project, and the risk mitigation strategies.
  • Project charter-Provides the scope definition, project objectives, and problem statement.
  • Software development-Defines the software development environment that consists of the analysis function. The analysis component defined the user and product requirements, the hardware and software requirements that were necessary to develop the system. The requirements document provided details of the user requirements that include the user interface design and the requirements approval document. Besides, a requirements document was prepared after the project manager and the executive board approved the user requirements.
  • The product engineering document provides a detailed description of the feasibility, reliability, stability, completeness, product code, product design interfaces, and the testability of the product.
  • Software design-Provides a detailed description of the initial design and the components that were designed to make a complete software package.
  • Software tools-Some of the software tools used in system development were obtained from external sources proprietary software was expensive.
Campus library management system.
Figure 2: Campus library management system.
  • Integration testing-The component was used to evaluate the feasibility of making the modules interoperable with the other existing system components and the Internet infrastructure.
  • The successful delivery and deployment of the system depend on user satisfaction.
  • The roll-out plan commenced after the software was successfully tested and confirmed to meet the user requirements.


Bhuiyan, M M & Krishna A 2010, Business modeling with the support of multiple notations in requirements engineering. John Wiley & Sons, New York.

Edmonds, J 2010, How training in project management can help businesses to get back on track. Industrial and commercial training, vol. 6, no. 42, pp. 314-318.

Futrell, R T, Shafer, L I & Shafer, D F 2001, Quality software project management. Prentice Hall PTR, Wahsington.

Graham, N 2010, PRINCE2 for Dummies. John Wiley & Sons, New York.

Griffin, R & Moorhead, G 2011, Organizational behavior. Cengage Learning,

Kerzner, H R 2013, Project management: a systems approach to planning, scheduling, and controlling. John Wiley & Sons, New York.

Lussier, R & Achua, C 2015, Leadership: Theory, application, & skill development. Cengage Learning, London.

Meredith, J R & Mantel Jr, S J 2011, Project management: a managerial approach. John Wiley & Sons, New York.

Miller, K D & Tsang, EW 2011, Testing management theories: critical realist philosophy and research methods. Strategic Management Journal, vol.2, no. 32, pp. 139-158.

Mogensen, F & Schnack, K 2010, The action competence approach and the ‘new’discourses of education for sustainable development, competence and quality criteria. Environmental education research, vol. 1, no. 16, pp. 59-74.

Okhuysen, G & Bonardi, J P 2011, The challenges of building theory by combining lenses. Academy of Management Review, vol. 1, no. 36, pp. 6-11.

Pohl, K 2010, Requirements engineering: fundamentals, principles, and techniques. Springer Publishing Company, New York.

Schwalbe, K 2013, Information technology project management. Cengage Learning, London.

Cite this paper

Select style


Premium Papers. (2021, July 13). The Campus Library Management Project. Retrieved from


Premium Papers. (2021, July 13). The Campus Library Management Project.

Work Cited

"The Campus Library Management Project." Premium Papers, 13 July 2021,


Premium Papers. (2021) 'The Campus Library Management Project'. 13 July.


Premium Papers. 2021. "The Campus Library Management Project." July 13, 2021.

1. Premium Papers. "The Campus Library Management Project." July 13, 2021.


Premium Papers. "The Campus Library Management Project." July 13, 2021.