GM593 Unit 8 Issue Log and Escalation Matrix Example

Seventeen Open, Three Sent Up: A Unit 8 Issue Log and Escalation Paper for a Lab Relocation

[Student Name]

Purdue University Global

GM593: Project Execution With Monitoring and Control

Unit 8 Issue Log and Escalation

[Instructor Name]

[Date]

The university, its relocation project, its staff and every issue are composite and illustrative; the methods cited are real.

How the Log Is Built

Each issue in the Hollis Hall relocation log carries an identifier, the date raised, a description, the work it blocks, a severity of high, medium or low, an owner, its age in working days, the next action and its status. The log is sorted by what each issue blocks, with deadline-critical work first, because an issue's importance depends on what it stops, not on how loudly it was raised. The Project Management Institute describes an issue log as the record of current problems with owners and due dates, distinct from the risk register, which holds problems that have not yet happened (Project Management Institute, 2021).

The Seventeen Issues, Sorted by What They Block

Blocking deadline-critical work. I-04, tissue culture hoods in the Life Sciences Building intermittently failing face velocity checks, which keeps every biological lab from moving; high; mechanical contractor; 12 working days. I-09, consent outstanding for 212 items of equipment on loan from two companies and a national laboratory, whose agreements require written consent before relocation; high; research office; 9 days. I-13, a container of picric acid found dried out in a back cabinet in room 214, a shock-sensitive explosive hazard; high; EHS; raised today. I-02, the manifest queue at EHS, now falling under the corrective action plan; medium; EHS director; 41 days. I-07, two permanent ultra-low freezers that failed temperature qualification; medium; vendor; 6 days.

Blocking other move work. I-01, loading dock booking conflicts with deliveries for another building, medium. I-05, three labs whose verification delegates have not been named, medium. I-08, a damaged cart lift on the new building's freight elevator, medium. I-11, mislabeled room numbers on six crates, low. I-12, a principal investigator requesting a later move date, medium.

Blocking fit-out or closeout. I-03, casework punch items on the third floor, low. I-06, a wipe test awaiting results in a vacated Hollis lab, low. I-10, missing keys for two cold rooms, low. I-14, network ports not live in four offices, low. I-15, signage delayed, low. I-16, a disputed invoice from the movers for idle hours, medium. I-17, a cracked bench top delivered damaged, low.

Fourteen of the seventeen issues have an owner who can close them; three need a decision or authority that the project team does not have.

The Three Escalations

I-04, fume hood face velocity, escalated to the associate vice president for facilities, response within two working days. Hoods in the tissue culture suite read between 70 and 140 feet per minute on repeated checks, against a requirement of 100 plus or minus 20. Until they hold steady, no biological work can move, because those labs need certified hoods on arrival. The issue has aged twelve working days with the mechanical contractor, who blames the building automation programming, while the controls contractor blames the exhaust fans. Only the associate vice president, who holds both contracts, can direct them to a joint test and settle responsibility.

I-09, consent for loaned equipment, escalated to the vice president for research, letters within five working days. The 212 items include two microscopes and a mass spectrometer whose loan agreements require the lender's written consent before relocation. Only the vice president for research has signature authority for the university under those agreements. Without the letters, three labs cannot move on their scheduled dates.

I-13, dried picric acid, escalated to the EHS director the same day, with campus police notified. Dried picric acid can detonate if disturbed. The room has been closed, and the EHS director will arrange removal by a specialist contractor. The project has no authority over hazardous material emergencies, so this goes to EHS immediately, whatever its effect on the schedule.

The Escalation Matrix

The matrix sets who receives an escalated issue and how quickly, based on severity and what is needed. A high-severity safety issue goes to the EHS director the same day. A high-severity issue blocking deadline-critical work that needs a contract decision goes to the associate vice president for facilities within two working days. An issue needing a signature or agreement on the university's behalf goes to the vice president for research within five working days. Any high-severity issue that has aged ten working days without movement is put on the agenda of the steering group's following session. Medium issues that age more than fifteen working days go to the department chair. Writing the matrix down matters because it removes the judgment call that keeps people quiet. Research on troubled software projects shows staff often withhold bad news when they are unsure whether raising it is their place or whether anyone will act (Smith & Keil, 2003). A matrix with named recipients and clocks answers both questions in advance.

Issues Kept at Project Level

The other fourteen stay with their owners. I-02, the EHS queue, is falling under the corrective action plan and needs no new decision. I-07, the freezer qualifications, is with the vendor and has a rented freezer as a workaround. Harold Kerzner warns that escalating too many issues teaches senior managers to ignore escalations, while escalating too few leaves decisions unmade (Kerzner, 2022). Three escalations out of seventeen open issues keeps the senior managers' attention on decisions only they can make.

References

Kerzner, H. (2022). Project management: A systems approach to planning, scheduling, and controlling (13th ed.). Wiley.

Project Management Institute. (2021). A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK guide) (7th ed.).

Smith, H. J., & Keil, M. (2003). The reluctance to report bad news on troubled software projects: A theoretical model. Information Systems Journal, 13(1), 69-95. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2575.2003.00139.x