BUSI 681 Week 6 Case Study: Project Model Part 1 Example

Maple Hill Lead Service Line Replacement, Phase 1: Project Proposal, Responsibility Matrix, Risk Assessment Matrix and Stakeholder Communication Plan

Orientation

Riverbend Water, a composite municipal utility serving about 160,000 people, completed its service line inventory and found 3,900 lead service lines, most of them in neighborhoods built before 1940. This model plans Phase 1 of their replacement: 420 lines in the Maple Hill neighborhood, chosen because it has the highest concentration of lead lines and the largest number of young children in the service area. The federal Lead and Copper Rule Improvements, published in October 2024, generally require systems to replace lead service lines within ten years, so Phase 1 is also the utility's test of the process it will repeat across eight more neighborhoods (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA], 2024).

1. Project Proposal Form

Purpose. The project removes every known lead service line in Maple Hill, from the water main to the meter inside each home, so residents no longer drink water that has passed through lead pipe. Gray and Larson (2018) describe the project scope statement as the definition of what the project is meant to produce for its customer, and the customer here is the household, not the utility's compliance office.

Objectives. Replace 420 lead service lines in full, both the utility-owned and the customer-owned sections, by December 17, 2027, within $5.30 million. Restore every excavated sidewalk, driveway and lawn within 14 days of the replacement. Deliver a lead-reducing pitcher filter and six months of cartridges to every household on the day of replacement, and collect a follow-up tap sample from at least 100 homes three to six months later.

Scope. Included are property owner outreach and signed access agreements, locating and excavation, full replacement using copper service pipe, meter setting relocation where needed, restoration, filter distribution, sampling and an updated inventory record for each address. Excluded are lead or galvanized plumbing inside the home beyond the meter, replacement of the water main itself and the other eight neighborhoods.

Deliverables. The project hands over signed access agreements, 420 finished replacements documented with photographs, restored yards and walks, filters in every home, a report on post-replacement sampling, a corrected inventory record for each address and a closing report that states the unit cost achieved and what Phase 2 should do differently.

Success criteria. All 420 lines replaced in full, with no partial replacements; cost per line no more than $11,500 for construction and restoration; no lost-time injuries; and post-replacement sampling showing lead below the action level of 10 micrograms per liter in at least 95 percent of samples.

Assumptions and constraints. The plan assumes that at least 95 percent of owners will sign access agreements and that the contractor can complete eight replacements a day across two crews. Construction stops for frozen ground and cannot take a main out of service during the summer peak.

2. Responsibility Matrix

In the chart, R marks the role that performs a package, A the single role that signs it off, C a role whose advice is sought and I a role kept up to date.

The matrix settles three decisions that caused trouble on earlier capital projects. First, customer outreach, not the contractor, owns access agreements, because residents trust the utility's own staff more than a crew at the door. Second, the water quality lab is accountable for its own sampling results, so the project manager cannot be seen to influence them. Third, finance owns funding draws, since the state loan requires documentation that only finance prepares. Gray and Larson (2018) recommend building the responsibility matrix with the people named in it, and each lead reviewed this chart before it was final.

3. Risk Assessment Matrix

Likelihood (L) and impact (I) are rated from 1 (very low) to 5 (very high); the score is their product.

The scores rank risks for attention; they do not measure them. Cox (2008) showed that risk matrices can rate quantitatively different risks the same and can even give a higher rating to a smaller risk, so the team uses the scores to decide where to look first and then discusses each high-impact risk separately. For this reason the crew injury risk, which scores only 10, has an avoidance response and a stop-work contingency. A trench collapse is unacceptable at any likelihood, whatever its score in the matrix. Gray and Larson (2018) describe the contingency plan and its trigger point as the part of risk management that turns a list into a decision rule, and every row above has one.

4. Stakeholder Communication Plan

The household message was shaped by research on partial replacements. Trueman et al. (2016) found that full replacement reduced lead levels within days and lowered them throughout the sample profile within a month, while cutting out only part of a line left the first liters drawn from the tap carrying over twice as much lead in the weeks that followed. Deshommes et al. (2017) observed erratic spikes in particulate lead for up to 18 months after partial replacements. For that reason, the letters explain plainly why the utility needs to replace the owner's portion of the line and why the flushing instructions and filter matter in the first months. Pieper et al. (2017) traced how lead release at one Flint home rose after corrosion control was interrupted, a reminder that residents in older neighborhoods have good reason to want straight answers about their water. Eskerod et al. (2015) describe stakeholder management in projects as an ongoing relationship, not a single notice, which is why the plan schedules contact before, during and after each replacement.

5. Carrying the Model into Part 2

Part 2 will rebuild this project in Microsoft Project, so the documents above were written to translate directly. The ten work packages in the responsibility matrix become summary tasks, and the roles in its columns become the resource sheet, with the contractor's two crews entered as a work resource paid by the line rather than by the hour. The $5.30 million budget will be loaded as costs on those tasks, with the contingency reserve of roughly $364,000 held outside the baseline so that it can be drawn only with the sponsor's approval. Each risk's trigger date becomes a milestone, so the schedule itself warns the team when a contingency decision is due. Finally, the communication plan's letters, door hangers and meetings will appear as tasks tied to the replacement sequence, because notices sent late would break the promise made to residents in this plan.

References

Cox, L. A., Jr. (2008). What's wrong with risk matrices? Risk Analysis, 28(2), 497-512. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01030.x

Deshommes, E., Laroche, L., Deveau, D., Nour, S., & Prévost, M. (2017). Short- and long-term lead release after partial lead service line replacements in a metropolitan water distribution system. Environmental Science & Technology, 51(17), 9507-9515. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b01720

Eskerod, P., Huemann, M., & Savage, G. (2015). Project stakeholder management: Past and present. Project Management Journal, 46(6), 6-14. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmj.21555

Gray, C. F., & Larson, E. W. (2018). Project management: The managerial process (7th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.

Pieper, K. J., Tang, M., & Edwards, M. A. (2017). Flint water crisis caused by interrupted corrosion control: Investigating "ground zero" home. Environmental Science & Technology, 51(4), 2007-2014. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b04034

Trueman, B. F., Camara, E., & Gagnon, G. A. (2016). Evaluating the effects of full and partial lead service line replacement on lead levels in drinking water. Environmental Science & Technology, 50(14), 7389-7396. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b01912

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2024). National primary drinking water regulations for lead and copper: Improvements (LCRI) (89 FR 86418). Federal Register. https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2024-23549