Data quality
Duplicate learner records and inconsistent transcript fields reduced migration throughput.
Project recovery case study · Portfolio simulation
Recovering an at-risk LMS migration.
A simulated LMS migration reached Week 8 three weeks behind schedule, with testing delayed and the forecast moving beyond the approved budget. I developed a recovery plan that addressed schedule, budget, scope, resource constraints, and the leadership decisions required to protect the core launch date.
RoleProject manager
Project typeLMS migration recovery
Timeline16 weeks · assessed at Week 8
Scope120 courses
Original budget$420,000
DeliverablesControl workbook · Executive brief
01 · Project overview
Diagnose the system, then recover the launch.
Northbridge Technologies was completing a fictional 16-week migration to a new learning management system. By the end of Week 8, content migration, data validation, testing, and launch readiness had fallen behind plan. The forecast had increased from $420,000 to $482,000, and the projected launch had moved from April 26 to May 17.
I approached the scenario as the project manager responsible for diagnosing the delivery problems, evaluating recovery options, resetting the critical path, and presenting leadership with a clear recommendation.
Schedule position3 weeks behindAt the Week 8 assessment
Recommended go-liveApril 26Core launch protected
Recovery EAC$456,0008.6% above baseline
Avoided overrun$26,000Below the no-action forecast
02 · Diagnosis
The delay was interconnected.
The project was not experiencing one isolated problem. Data quality, vendor responsiveness, SME capacity, scope growth, and decision latency were reinforcing one another across the critical path.
Vendor defects
Configuration issues remained unresolved beyond the agreed response window, delaying testing.
SME capacity
Business experts were balancing project responsibilities with ongoing operational work.
Scope growth
Advanced analytics and expanded single sign-on entered the launch scope after planning.
Decision delays
Cross-functional questions remained open because ownership and escalation deadlines were unclear.
Week 8 status
Planned progress versus actual progress
Content migration
Data validation
Administrator UAT
Training readiness
Launch readiness
03 · My approach
Focus recovery effort on the critical path.
I evaluated the schedule, cost forecast, scope changes, dependencies, stakeholder responsibilities, and pending leadership decisions. The strategy added capacity only where it relieved the launch path and deferred work that did not protect core learning operations.
Reduce launch scope
Move advanced analytics, expanded SSO, and lower-use electives to Phase 2 while preserving compliance reporting and core learning workflows.
Add targeted capacity
Use a temporary data migration specialist, parallel UAT groups, and operational backfill where capacity directly relieves the critical path.
Tighten delivery controls
Introduce daily data and vendor triage, defect response expectations, objective test exit criteria, and defined severity thresholds.
Accelerate decisions
Assign an owner and deadline to each launch, budget, security, and defect decision, then escalate unresolved items through the sponsor.
The recovery plan
Overlap work without removing the controls that protect launch quality.
The revised schedule overlaps selected workstreams while preserving the decisions and quality gates required for launch. Data cleansing, course mapping, configuration remediation, integration testing, and user acceptance testing become the primary critical-path activities.
ScheduleApril 26Core launch restored
Budget$456KRecovery estimate at completion
Avoided overrun$26KBelow no-action forecast
04 · Scope and budget
Make the tradeoffs visible.
The recommendation combines targeted investment with deliberate scope reduction. Additional spending is limited to resources that improve the critical path, while noncritical features move to a controlled second phase.
The recovery plan still requires a $36,000 increase over the original budget. The recommendation makes that tradeoff visible rather than presenting the recovered schedule as cost neutral.
| Decision | Cost impact | Schedule impact | Purpose |
|---|---|---|---|
| Data specialist | +$15,000 | 5 days recovered | Increase data cleansing throughput |
| Parallel UAT groups | +$6,000 | 7 days recovered | Test workstreams concurrently |
| Move analytics to Phase 2 | -$22,000 | 10 days recovered | Remove noncritical launch scope |
| Three-year transcript window | -$8,000 | 4 days recovered | Reduce initial migration volume |
Schedule impacts overlap; recovered days are not additive.
05 · Leadership governance
Recovery depends on decision speed.
I created a decision log that assigns ownership and due dates to final go-live authorization, residual defect acceptance, Phase 2 funding, and other decisions affecting launch readiness.
Delivery triage
Vendor defects and data quality.
Steering decisions
Open decisions and operational readiness.
Executive outlook
Forecast, risks, and launch readiness.
Act before recovery erodes
Escalate if the forecast exceeds $456,000, the launch date slips, a critical security defect remains open, or a readiness measure misses target.
06 · Project artifacts
Analysis for the team. Clarity for leadership.
The workbook proves the analysis and control logic. The executive brief shows how I translated that working model into a concise recommendation for leadership.
Eight-slide leadership presentation
Summarizes the project baseline, root causes, recovery strategy, revised critical path, budget tradeoffs, and decisions required before launch.
Editable project control system
Contains the executive dashboard, recovery schedule, budget forecast, change log, decision log, stakeholder plan, and project assumptions.
Skills demonstrated
- Project recovery planning
- Critical-path analysis
- Schedule management
- Budget forecasting
- Scope control
- Change management
- Risk and dependency management
- Executive communication
- Decision governance
- Stakeholder planning
- LMS implementation
- Learning operations
Evidence standard
This is a portfolio simulation. Dates, organization details, project data, and modeled recovery outcomes are fictional and are presented to demonstrate project management judgment, analysis, controls, and executive communication.