Overview of the Projects and Project Characteristics
The project mainly focusses on the negotiation as well as conflict report, which is considered as one of the communication tool that is utilized for managing negotiation as well as for identifying various types of conflict within the Queensland health that mainly occurs due to the development of new payroll system within the organization. It is identified that generic negotiation model is used in the project in order to identify five basic elements including project, participants, negotiation interaction process, collaborative negotiation methodology as well as outcome in order to create the report effectively.
The project characteristics of project 1 are dependent on Turner and Cochrane Four quadrant perspective.
The justifications for these characteristics are that this perspective is very much helpful in the forward strategy for payroll system as it generally have poorly developed methodology but have well developed project goals. This perspective is suitable as it is used in most of the engineering projects. (Beriker et al. 2018).The perspective will be helpful in creating positive implication of the payroll system and thus it generally assists in deploying its various operational activities. In addition to this, it is found that inclusion of product analysis is generally based for development of various business related operations within the organizations.
The project characteristics of project 2 are from an organizational learning process perspective.
The justifications for these characteristics are that organizational learning perspective is generally required by the project team members in order to work together so that the organizational objectives as well as goals can be achieved successfully (Moore 2014). In this perspective, all the team members work together for achieving a proper common goal by co-creating new knowledge and by resolving issues as well as challenges associated with project. In addition to this, organizational learning perspective is also utilized in order to make proper decisions for the project and for governing the project so that the outcome of the project will be positive.
The project characteristics of project 3 are from the perspective of project identity.
The justifications for these characteristics are that identity perspective is considered as one of the best strategy for the organizational change and as identity is present within both culture as well as people of the organization, this perspective is mainly utilized for determining the culture of different project stakeholders who are mainly involved with the project of Queensland payroll system. This perspective is suitable as it also shares core values as well as assumptions that are helpful in shaping the organizational culture for inspiring loyalty as well as contempt among the stakeholders.
Negotiating Positions and Conflicts in Relationships
The project characteristics of project 4 are projects from “complex product service perspectives”.
The justifications for these characteristics are that it is quite suitable for funding ad as a result it helps in finding out the benefit of the project along with intangible value of the project requirement (Lloyd-Walker and Walker 2015). This perspective helps in giving proper idea about the funding concept so that it can be utilized successfully within the project. In addition to this, it is found that this perspective helps in suggesting appropriate tools that are very much useful in analysing underlying mechanism as well as for supporting various negotiated interests.
This section generally illustrates the project group who are mainly involved with the Queensland Health and payroll program. The participants who are mainly involved with the project are generally provided with proper negotiating position. It is identified that the participants of the project mainly includes designer, owner as well as project contractor.
For Project 1 the negotiating position and conflicts in relationships of the participants of this project are described below. It is found that the persons who are mainly involved with the payroll system of the Queensland health are generally the person who are mainly involved with the Queensland Health and Payroll program (Kerzner 2013). The participants of the project are the owner, designers as well as project contractors.
The negotiating position of the owner will be high in Queensland health organization as the project owners are the person who have the power of either approving the project or rejecting it.
The potential conflicts in relationships that the owner may have are due to not meeting the expectation of the client (Mahmoud et al. 2015). If the decision that is made by the project owner does not meets the expectations as well as demands of other stakeholders of the project then there will be a chance of potential conflicts.
The negotiating position of the designers will be high as design of the entire payroll system generally plays a significant role in making the entire project successful.
The potential conflicts in relationships that the designers may have are due to number of issues as well as challenges that are related with inappropriate design of the system, improper design feasibility as well as improper design implications on the project.
The negotiating position of the contractors will be low they are the persons who are not involved in decision-making process for the project.
Project 1 – Turner and Cochrane Four Quadrant Perspective
The potential conflicts in relationships that the contractors may have are due to delivery or quality related issues (Abbasi, Gul and Senin 2017). If the contractor is not capable of delivering the project on the assumed time then there will be a high chance of potential conflict occurrence.
For Project 2 the negotiating position and conflicts in relationships of the participants of this project are described below.
The negotiating position of the owner will be high as the project owner are the person who have the right to make proper decisions for the success of the project. Additionally, they also hold the power of project governance.
The potential conflicts in relationships that the owner may have are due to rejection of significant decisions or due to standards violation (Elliott and Kaufman 2016). If the project management standards are generally violated by the organization then it can generate a situation where potential conflicts in relationship can occur.
The negotiating position of the designers will be low as designers are the project stakeholders who are mainly involved in creating the design of the system as per the organizational demands as well as demands rather involving themselves within the decisions that is made for the organization.
The potential conflicts in relationships that the designers may have are due to absence of acceptability of project designs (Bourdeaux et al. 2015) Unacceptability of design generally occur when the designers does not able to fulfil the demands as well as needs of the organization with the help of the created designs.
The negotiating position of the contractors will be low as contractors are the individuals who generally does not involve themselves within the process of decision-making. They are generally provided with the opportunity of completing the entire project within the estimated time as well as budget.
The potential conflicts in relationships that the contractors may have are due to organizational change alignment or generally because of number of obligations within the organizational processes.
For Project 3 the negotiating position and conflicts in relationships of the participants of this project are described below.
The negotiating position of the owner will be high as the owner of the project are generally responsible of keeping the project stakeholder aligned towards the project in order to bring positive outcome within the project. Additionally they also permits changes within the project.
The potential conflicts in relationships that the owner may have are due to conflict with the project stakeholders (Kerzner 2017). If the project stakeholders faces challenges in aligning themselves towards the project then potential conflict may occur within the organization.
Project 2 – Organizational Learning Process Perspective
The negotiating position of the designers will be low as the designers are the individuals who are generally involved with designing the system rather involving themselves within people or change management strategies.
The potential conflicts in relationships that the designers may have are due to operational changes or due to changes within the design that is created (Schwalbe 2015). If the designers are not capable of designing the system properly due to any operational issue or other challenges then potential conflict within their relationship with other stakeholders of the project occurs.
The negotiating position of the contractors will be medium as the payment that is provided to the contractors generally assists in affecting the project funds.
The potential conflicts in relationships that the contractors may have are due to quality as well as payment related issues (Kerzner and Saladis 2017). If appropriate strategies of communication are not utilized then appropriate information related with the project are not provided project contractors and as a result they may face lot of conflicts.
For Project 4 the negotiating position and conflicts in relationships of the participants of this project are described below.
The negotiating position of the owner will be high as the project owner are the persons who are mainly responsible of approving the project funds.
The potential conflicts in relationships that the owner may have are due to improper utilization of project funds (Joslin and Muller 2015). It is found that if the project manager are new and they does not face proper experience then they cannot able to complete the project within the provided fund due to misuse of various project resources. It is found that misuse of project resources can create potential conflict within the relationship.
The negotiating position of the designers will be low as the designers are the individuals who are generally involved in developing the project design and they are not generally included involved in making decisions that are associated with project funds.
The potential conflicts in relationships that the designers may have are due to problem is timely payment or due to umber of quality related issues. If the designers are not paid for the service on time then the chances of conflict occurrence is too high (Stepanova 2015). Furthermore, if the designers are not able to provide appropriate quality based design then also relationship related conflict could occur within the project.
The negotiating position of the contractors will be medium as any payment related issues with the contractor generally affects the quality of the project.
Project 3 – Project Identity Perspective
The potential conflicts in relationships that the contractors may have are due to quality as well as payment related challenges (Lee, Huh and Reigeluth 2015). If the contactors are not able to provide proper quality project then potential conflict can occur within the organization. In addition to this, inappropriate payment to the contractor can also create potential conflict in context to the relationship of the contractors.
For Project 1 the negotiating position recommended should be behavioural approach in order to mitigate project related challenges and for developing proper value of the project so that with the help of communication, proper project related decisions can be made within the organization (Elfenbein 2015).
For Project 2 the negotiating position recommended should be structural approach in order to make proper decisions related with the project. This approach is also helpful in governing the project appropriately in order to complete the project successfully within the assumed time and budget.
For Project 3 the negotiating position recommended should be concessional exchange approach, which reflects on number of behaviours, which is mainly related with various concession making behaviours (Alonso 2016). It also elaborates stakeholder’s engagement along with change management for supporting various changes within the business processes of the organization.
For Project 4 the negotiating position recommended should be integrative approach. This approach mainly focusses in order to resolve number of issues as well as challenges and helps in generating appropriate value of the project so that with the help of communication with the project stakeholders, proper funding related decisions can be made quite effectively as well as easily.
For Project 1 the negotiating method recommended should be integrative. It mainly consists of appropriate trade off prioritization, proper realistic expectations as well as proper idea about various items, which are mainly required by the different stakeholders of the project for completing the entire project successfully (Pinto 2015).
For Project 2 the negotiating method recommended should be integrative. It is defined as of the strategy of negotiation that generally collaborates for getting developing proper strategy that helps in resolving disputes as well as problems within the project.
For Project 3 the negotiating method recommended should be concessional exchange approach. It generally comprises of team members honesty in the project so that the entire project can be successfully completed. In addition to this, it also reflects on concessional behaviour making along with proper procedures of negotiations (Lloyd-Walker and Walker 2015).
Project 4 – Complex Product Service Perspectives
For Project 4 the negotiating method recommended should be integrative. It generally reflects on mitigating various types of challenges that are mainly related with the project for developing proper value of the project such that the payroll system will be successfully implemented by creating appropriate communication strategy with the various project team members of the organization.
The preferred form of procurement as an outcome from the negotiation process for Project 1 is focussed on the integrated design of the Queensland health payroll system (Lee, Huh and Reigeluth 2015). It generally reflects on delivery of various types of procurement arrangement in order to emphasize appropriate project control as well as planning.
The preferred form of procurement as an outcome from the negotiation process for Project 2 is focusses on integrated project team members for emphasizing co-ordination and collaboration. Proper partnership strategy is necessary in order to govern as well as for making decisions that are related within the project.
The preferred form of procurement as an outcome from the negotiation process for Project 3 is mainly focussed on integrated project team members that generally emphasizes co-ordination as well as collaboration within the project. For managing people as well as change within the project, it is necessary to have contractor so that the various framework arrangements can be done quite easily (Elliott and Kaufman 2016). It is found that appropriate adoption of the framework mainly causes integration of design as well as collaboration for the system.
The preferred form of procurement as an outcome from the negotiation process for Project 4 is focussed on integrated delivery procurement as well as design. It is very much necessary to integrate SCM, manage contracts as well as design the PM methodologies for the project funding.
References
Abbasi, B.A., Gul, A. and Senin, A.A., 2017. Negotiation Styles: A Comparative Study of Pakistani and Chinese Officials Working in Neelum–Jhelum Hydroelectric Project (NJHEP). Journal of Creating Value, p.2394964316684239.
Alonso, E., 2016. Conflict, opacity and mistrust in the digital management of professional translation projects. Translation & Interpreting, 8(1), pp.19-29.
Beriker, N., Allen, S., Larson, M.J. and Wagner, L., 2018. Innovations in Doing Conflict Research: The Legacy of Daniel Druckman. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 11(1), pp.72-87.
Bourdeaux, M., Kerry, V., Haggenmiller, C. and Nickel, K., 2015. A cross-case comparative analysis of international security forces’ impacts on health systems in conflict-affected and fragile states. Conflict and health, 9(1), p.14.
Elfenbein, H.A., 2015. Individual differences in negotiation: A nearly abandoned pursuit revived. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(2), pp.131-136.
Elliott, M.L. and Kaufman, S., 2016. Enhancing Environmental Quality and Sustainability through Negotiation and Conflict Management: Research into Systems, Dynamics, and Practices. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 9(3), pp.199-219.
Heagney, J., 2016. Fundamentals of project management. AMACOM Div American Mgmt Assn.
Joslin, R. and Müller, R., 2015. Relationships between a project management methodology and project success in different project governance contexts. International Journal of Project Management, 33(6), pp.1377-1392.
Kerzner, H. and Saladis, F.P., 2017. Project management workbook and PMP/CAPM exam study guide. John Wiley & Sons.
Kerzner, H., 2013. Project management: a systems approach to planning, scheduling, and controlling. John Wiley & Sons.
Kerzner, H., 2017. Project Management Methodologies. Project Management Case Studies, pp.1-27.
Lee, D., Huh, Y. and Reigeluth, C.M., 2015. Collaboration, intragroup conflict, and social skills in project-based learning. Instructional Science, 43(5), pp.561-590.
Lloyd-Walker, B. and Walker, D., 2015, April. Collaborative project procurement arrangements. Project Management Institute.
Mahmoud, M.A., Ahmad, M.S., Yusoff, M.Z.M. and Idrus, A., 2015. Automated multi-agent negotiation framework for the construction domain. In Distributed Computing and Artificial Intelligence, 12th International Conference (pp. 203-210). Springer, Cham.
Moore, C.W., 2014. The mediation process: Practical strategies for resolving conflict. John Wiley & Sons.
Pinto, J.K., 2015. Project management: achieving competitive advantage. Prentice Hall.
Schwalbe, K., 2015. Information technology project management. Cengage Learning.
Stepanova, O., 2015. Conflict resolution in coastal resource management: Comparative analysis of case studies from four European countries. Ocean & Coastal Management, 103, pp.109-122.
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
