Case Study: Project Simulation — Kosisochukwu Gene Okeke

Flagship Case Study · Project Management · Self-Directed Simulation

Running Full Project Governance on an 8-Week Product Launch

Enterprise Web Application Delivery Simulation

Role

Project Manager (Self-Directed)

Duration

8 weeks · 40 working days

Team

9-person cross-functional team

Budget

$74,470 (incl. 10% contingency)

01 · Situation

Planned and governed an end-to-end enterprise web application launch over eight weeks using industry-standard project management practices.

This self-directed simulation was created to demonstrate end-to-end project management capability using original governance documentation, project planning artefacts, and reporting dashboards developed independently.

02 · Challenge / Success Criteria

What "done" had to mean

Schedule Success
Launch by Week 8 with a maximum approved schedule variance of two days.

Quality Standards
Zero critical defects, Lighthouse score ≥90, and WCAG 2.1 AA compliance.

Security & Governance
Zero critical penetration-test findings and formal stakeholder sign-off before release.

Operational Acceptance
UAT ≥4.0/5, delivery within the approved $74,470 budget, and 99.9% uptime target.

03 · My Role & Governance Built Before Work Started

Six milestone gates, not just a schedule

Project Manager - Governance, Scheduling & Risk

Authored the charter, RACI matrix, 25-item risk register, and quality bar before any task began, then ran weekly gate reviews against them.

Week 1

Kickoff Complete

Charter signed, requirements documented, Asana live with all 36 tasks.

Wk 2–3

Wireframes Approved

Feedback within 48-hr SLA; no structural changes after sign-off.

Wk 3–5

Design Handoff Complete

Hi-fi designs done, 5-user usability test, annotated dev handoff.

Wk 3–6

Feature Complete

Staging deployed, code freeze, QA phase begins.

Wk 6–7

UAT Sign-off

Zero critical defects, pen test passed, go/no-go granted.

Week 8

Launch Day

Production live, monitoring verified, checklist complete.

04 · Executive Dashboard

Project Health - Week 5 of 8

Project Health - Real Simulation Data

Actual figures from the workbook

Overall Progress

42%

15.05 / 36 tasks

Weighted completion of all 36 Asana tasks against their estimated effort.

Milestones Hit

2 / 6

M1, M2 complete

Milestone gates formally signed off against their exit criteria.

Tasks On Hold

T12, T13 — blocked on T11

Tasks whose dependency has not yet cleared, tracked directly in the Gantt.

Total Budget Ceiling

$74,470

incl. $6,770 contingency

Sum of all task-level cost estimates plus a 10% contingency reserve.

Risks Identified

3 rated Critical

Total entries in the risk register, scored by likelihood × impact.

Team Size

cross-functional roles

Distinct roles assigned an owner in the RACI matrix.

RACI Activities

fully assigned

Activities in the RACI matrix with a Responsible and Accountable party named.

Stakeholders Tracked

tiered by influence

Stakeholders mapped by influence and interest in the communication plan.

Discovery

100%

Design

54%

Development

32%

QA & Testing

12%

Launch Prep

Launch

05 · Timeline - Gantt View

Weeks 1 - 8 at a glance

W1W2W3W4W5W6W7W8

Discovery

Design

— Mobile UI (hold)

Development

QA & Testing

Launch Prep & Launch

06 · Mid-Project: Managing a Real Dependency Stall

Week 5 - a downstream chain paused, not the whole project

Desktop design (T11) ran behind at 65%. The two tasks depending on it were correctly held rather than started against an unfinished input.

Design Phase — Week 5 Snapshot

Live Gantt

T11

Hi-fi desktop UI design

Tunde Fashola

65% Active

T12

Hi-fi mobile/tablet design

Tunde Fashola

On Hold

T13

Usability testing (5 users)

Amaka Chukwu

On Hold

T18

Frontend design system

Yemi Coker

40% Active

07 · Artifact - Risk Register Excerpt

6 of 25 identified risks, real data

risk_register.xlsx

ID	Risk	Level	Owner
R01	Scope creep after approval	Critical	Product Manager
R02	Late stakeholder approvals	Critical	Project Manager
R22	Inadequate testing coverage	Critical	QA Engineer
R04	Fragile codebase under time pressure	High	Tech Lead
R07	Security weaknesses near launch	High	Tech Lead
R18	Team fatigue reduces quality	High	Project Manager

Pulled directly from the 25-risk register — no redaction needed, this is self-authored simulation data

08 · Quality Gates

No gate passed unless every criterion below was met

Performance

≥90

Lighthouse score

Development

≥80%

Test coverage

Accessibility

WCAG 2.1 AA failures

Security

Open pen-test findings

09 · Stakeholder Governance

Who had influence, and who needed to stay informed

Project Sponsor / CEO

Executive

High Inf.High Int.

CTO

Technology

High Inf.High Int.

CMO

Marketing

High Inf.High Int.

Beta User Panel

External / UAT

Low Inf.High Int.

10 · Governance Outcomes

What changed

📋

Governance Established

Built a complete project governance framework before execution, including the Project Charter, RACI matrix, RAID log, communication plan, quality gates, and stakeholder register, providing clear ownership and decision-making throughout the project.

📅

Structured Delivery

Implemented milestone-based governance with six formal stage gates, ensuring each project phase met predefined quality and approval criteria before progressing.

⚠

Proactive Risk Management

Created and actively maintained a comprehensive risk register, allowing project risks, assumptions, issues, and dependencies to be identified, monitored, and managed throughout delivery.

🤝

Stronger Stakeholder Alignment

Established structured communication and approval checkpoints that kept stakeholders informed, clarified expectations, and supported timely decision-making.

📊

Improved Project Visibility

Developed executive dashboards and progress reporting that provided a real-time view of project health, schedule performance, risks, milestones, and delivery status.

🚀

Delivery Readiness

Defined measurable success criteria covering schedule, budget, quality, security, accessibility, and user acceptance, ensuring the project was ready for release before launch approval.

11 · Lessons Learned

What running this simulation actually taught me

What Worked

Governance gates prevented uncontrolled scope changes.

Weekly stakeholder reporting improved decision-making.

Early risk identification reduced downstream disruption.

What Could Be Improved

Design phase was under-resourced relative to its dependency load, one designer, two blocking tasks

QA planning (T26) started early but had no dedicated owner until Week 3

Earlier UX validation would have reduced redesign effort.

Going Forward

Introduce RAID reviews from Week 1.

Validate dependencies before design approval.

Automate project health reporting.

Running Full Project Governance on an 8-Week Product Launch

Planned and governed an end-to-end enterprise web application launch over eight weeks using industry-standard project management practices.

What "done" had to mean

Six milestone gates, not just a schedule

Project Health - Week 5 of 8

Weeks 1 - 8 at a glance

Week 5 - a downstream chain paused, not the whole project

6 of 25 identified risks, real data

No gate passed unless every criterion below was met

Who had influence, and who needed to stay informed

What changed

What running this simulation actually taught me

Download the Full Workbook