Characteristics of Four Different Projects
This section generally elaborates the characteristics of four different projects that are mainly involved within the Queensland Health. It is identified that proper knowledge of the project characteristics are needed in order to properly understand the project aim. The new payroll system within the Queensland health mainly comprises of two interfacing of SAP as well as Workbrain. The paper mainly focusses on the project conflict as well as negotiation that generally occur within the Queensland health due to the new payroll system. The paper illustrates proper information that are very much helpful in resolving the conflicts. According to Breckler and Wiggins (1992), negotiations can be defined as the exchanges of information where the managers of the project reaches to a certain point of agreement.
The project characteristics of project 1 are NTCP that mainly elaborates Novelty, Complexity, and technology as well as pace framework for elaborating different project management perspectives.
The justifications for these characteristics are that both complexity as well as novelty are considered breakthrough, derivative as well as system. It is stated by Darling and Mumpower (1990) that breakthrough is one of the paradigm that generally shifts beyond the innovation for reframing the way in which an individual’s looks at a certain problem or challenges. Within the forward strategy of the payroll system, both complexity as well as novelty characteristics are mainly utilized for properly developing the payroll project and for developing appropriate way that helps in resolving the issues as well as challenges. Complexity helps in measuring the array and assembly of the entire payroll system. It is found that technology is generally utilized for implementing as well as developing proper features within the system (Du and Chen 2007). Technology is mainly utilized within the project in order to list cost, schedule that are mainly associated with the project. In addition to this, with the help of the technology, the risks that are associated with the project are analysed. It is found that when there is urgency for the work then, pace is mainly utilized. The project sponsor generally identifies the project context and then matches with the various project risks in order to identify the value of the generated project inputs.
The project characteristics of project 2 are project from an organizational learning process perspective.
The justifications for these characteristics are that both decision-making as well as governance is needed within the project for discussing about the issues as well as challenges that are related with the project groups (Hanoch and Levy1970). Based on the organizational learning perspective, the team come together for achieving the objectives as well as goals of the organization.
Negotiating Positions in Project 1
The project characteristics of project 3 are “Projects from an identity perspective”.
The justifications for these characteristics are that identity perspective is one of the best for organizational change as well as for the people and as identity lies in both culture as well as people, this characteristics is mainly utilized in order to identify the various culture of the stakeholders and for determining the changes within the project.
The project characteristics of project 4 are “Projects from complex product services perspectives”.
The justifications for these characteristics are that it is very much suitable as it generally helps in determining the intangible value of the project requirements in addition with the benefit (Mumpower 1991). It generally assists in providing proper as well as clear idea about the concept of project funding.
This section generally elaborates the group of people who are generally involved into the program of Queensland Health and payroll. For each of the projects, the participants are generally provided with possible negotiating position along with appropriate potential conflicts in relationship. The participants who are generally involved with the project are designer, owner as well as contractors.
For Project 1 the negotiating position and conflicts in relationships of the participants of this project are described below. It is identified that the person who are involved with the implementation of the payroll system are generally associated with the program (Kirkwood 1997). The participants who are found to be associated with the project includes owner, designer as well as project contractor.
The negotiating position of the owner will be high in Queensland health as the owner of the project have the power either to reject or to approve the project.
The potential conflicts in relationships that the owner may have are due to change in operation of the system as well due to not meeting their demand as well as expectation. In addition to this, it is identified that the conflict may occur due to documentation, communication, identification along with future payroll operations.
The negotiating position of the designers will be high as the design of the entire payroll system is considered as one of the important factor in completion of the project.
The potential conflicts in relationships that the designers may have mainly due to the issues that generally occurs because of the improper design, inappropriate feasibility of the created design as well as inappropriate implications of the design on the project (Omoto, Kobayashi and Onishi 2002).
Negotiating Positions in Project 2
The negotiating position of the contractors will be low, as they are not generally needed for any type of crucial or important project activity.
The potential conflicts in relationships that the contractors may have are quality as well as delivery issues (Zeleznikow et al. 2007). It is identified that if contractors are not able to deliver the entire project on proper time with appropriate quality then number of potential conflicts will generally occur.
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 is the person who have proper right to make appropriate decisions related with the project. In addition to this, project governance power also lies under the department of the project owner.
The potential conflicts in relationships that the owner may have are because of rejection of decisions as due to violation of the standards (Zuhair, Taylor and Kramer 1992). If the owner of the project violates any of the significant standards of the project or rejects any important decisions that is for creating positive outcome within the project then number of potential conflicts can occur.
The negotiating position of the designers will be low, as the designers are only required in order to design the system however; they are not involved within the project for taking any crucial decision.
The potential conflicts in relationships that the designers may have are due to unacceptability of designs of the system that is designed by the designer. This issue may occur if the designer is not experienced or they are not capable of making appropriate design of the system as per the needs as well as requirements of the client (Bartholomew 1998). Then, potential conflicts generally occurs.
The negotiating position of the contractors will be low as the contractors are not involved within the decision making process of the organization. They are only provided the contract for developing the project within the estimated budget as well as time.
The potential conflicts in relationships that the contractors may have are due to change alignment issues as well as due to number of obligations within the 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 it is the responsibility of the project owner is to keep the project stakeholder aligned to the project. In addition to this, they also have the responsibility to allow the changes within the project.
Negotiating Positions in Project 3
The potential conflicts in relationships that the owner may have are due to conflict among the various stakeholders as well as because of attrition among the people of the organization (Bonine 1994). If the stakeholders of the project does not have proper alignment towards the project then the chances of conflict are also high.
The negotiating position of the designers will be low as the designers are only responsible of designing the needed system but they are not involved within the people management or change management strategies of the organization.
The potential conflicts in relationships that the designers may have are due to changes within the design as well as because of operational changes. It is found that if the designers are not able to design the system as per the prototype then they face number of potential conflicts (Daigle and Touran 1998). Operational changes within the organization can also create negative impact on the design of the system and as a result, the designers can face potential conflicts.
The negotiating position of the contractors will be low as the contractors are not responsible of people as well as change management.
The potential conflicts in relationships that the contractors may have are due to improper communication, changes in project or due to problems in project deliverables. It is identified that is proper communication strategies are not used then proper information about the project is not provided to the contractors and as a result, they may face number of potential 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 owner of the project will approve the funds for the project.
The potential conflicts in relationships that the owner may have are due to misuse of project funds (Darling and Mumpower 1990). If the project team members does not uses the project funds properly for completing the project and misuse budget in unnecessary project resources then there is high chance of potential conflict with the owner of the project.
The negotiating position of the designers will be low as the project designers are only needed in order to develop proper design for the project but they are generally not involved within the project funding.
The potential conflicts in relationships that the designers may have are due to payment issues as well as quality related problems. If the designers are not paid on time then there is a chance of potential conflicts. In addition to this, quality related challenges can also create issues as well as potential conflicts.
Negotiating Positions in Project 4
The negotiating position of the contractors will be medium as the payment to the contractors helps in affecting the funds of the project.
The potential conflicts in relationships that the contractors may have are due to payment as well as quality issues (Thompson, Crane and Sanders 1996). If proper payment is not provided, then they will not start developing the project, which would obstruct the completion of project on time, and therefore there will be high chance of occurring potential conflicts.
For Project 1 the negotiating position recommended should be behavioural approach for resolving the challenges of the project and for creating appropriate project
Governance and decision-making
For Project 3 the negotiating position recommended should be concessional exchange approach that mainly focusses on various behaviours that is generally related with the concession making behaviours in addition to various positions. It mainly focusses on engagement of the stakeholders along with changes into management in order to support changes within the processes of business.
For Project 4 the negotiating position recommended should be integrative approach (Daigle and Touran 1998). It generally focusses on resolving number of problems and for generating proper project value by communicating successfully with the various project stakeholders in order to make proper project related decisions.
For Project 1 the negotiating method recommended should be integrative. It generally comprises of proper prioritization of trade off, proper realistic expectations as well as appropriate idea about the different items that are needed by the project stakeholders in order to complete the project (Kirkwood 1997).
For Project 2 the negotiating method recommended should be integrative. It is considered as of the negotiation strategy that mainly collaborates in order to find proper win-to-win solutions for the disputes that are generally identified.
For Project 3 the negotiating method recommended should be concessional exchange approach. It mainly consists of honesty of the project team members for the project work in order to support the various team members of the project. It generally focusses on concessional making behaviour along with appropriate processes of negotiations (Du and Chen 2007).
For Project 4 the negotiating method recommended should be integrative. It mainly focusses on resolving number of project related challenges in order to create appropriate project value so that the payroll process will be implemented successfully by having proper communication with the project team members.
The preferred form of procurement as an outcome from the negotiation process for Project 1 is focussed on integrated design of the payroll system for the Queensland health. It mainly reflects on delivery of procurement arrangements that mainly emphasizes on project planning as well as control (Hanoch and Levy 1970).
The preferred form of procurement as an outcome from the negotiation process for Project 2 is focussed on integrated project team members in order to emphasize properly on project co-ordination as well as collaboration. It is identified that proper project partnership is needed in governance as well as project decision making.
The preferred form of procurement as an outcome from the negotiation process for Project 3 is “focus on integrated project team members- emphasizing collaboration and coordination” with the various project stakeholders as well as project team members (Bartholomew 1998). It is identified that into people and change, the involvement of contractor is generally needed for arrangements of various frameworks. It is identified that proper adoption of the framework causes collaboration as well as integration of design for the payroll system.
The preferred form of procurement as an outcome from the negotiation process for Project 4 is focus on integrated design as well as on delivery procurement. It is found that for funding, integrated SCM, management contracting as well as proper design of project management methodologies are needed for planning as well as scheduling.
References
Bartholomew, S. (1998). Construction contracting: Business and Legal principles, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, N.J.
Bonine, L. (1994). ‘‘Partnering the central artery/tunnel.’’ Am. Bar Assn. J., Clough, R., and Sears, G. (1994). Construction contracting, Wiley, New York.
Breckler, S. J., and Wiggins, E. C. 1992. “On defining attitude and attitude theory: Once more with feeling.” Attitude structure and function, A. R. Pratkanis, S. J. Breckler, and A. G. Greenwald, eds., Erlbaum, Hillsdale, N.J., 407–427
Daigle, M., and Touran, A. (1998). ‘‘Partnering and its implementation on the central artery/tunnel project.’’ Civ. Engrg. Pract., 13(1), 49– 62.
Darling, T., and Mumpower, J. L. 1990. “Modeling cognitive influences on the dynamics of negotiations.” Proc., 23rd Annual Int. Conf. on Sys. Sci., IEEE, Piscataway, N.J., 22–30
Darling, T., and Mumpower, J. (1990). ‘‘Modeling cognitive influences on the dynamics of negotiations.’’ Proc., Annu. Int. Conf. on Sys. Sci. IEEE Computing Society Press, New York
Du, T. C., and Chen, H. L. 2007. “Building a multiple-criteria negotiation support system.” IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng., 19 (6), 804– 817.
Hanoch, G., and Levy, H. 1970. “Efficient portfolio selection with quadratic and cubic utility.” J. Bus., 43, 181–189.
Kirkwood, C. W. 1997. Notes on attitude towards risk taking and exponential utility function, Dept. of Management, Arizona State Univ., Tempe, Ariz.
Mumpower, J. L. 1991. “The judgment policies of negotiators and the structure of negotiation problems.” Manage. Sci., 37 (10), 1304–1324.
Omoto, T., Kobayashi, K., and Onishi, M. 2002. “Bargaining model of JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2010 / 121 construction dispute resolution.” IEEE—Systems man and cybernetic, Vol. 7, IEEE, Piscataway, N.J., 6–17.
Susskind, L., and Cruikshank, J. (1987). Breaking the impasse, Basic Books, New York.
Thompson, P., Crane, T., and Sanders, S. (1996). ‘‘The partnering process—its benefits, implementation and measurement.’’ CII Res. Rep. 102-11, Prepared for Construction Industry Institute, University of Texas at Austin,
Zeleznikow, J., Bellucci, E., Schild, U. J., and MacKenzie, G. 2007. “Bargaining in the shadow of the law–Using utility functions to support legal negotiation.” Proc. Int. Conf. on 11th Artificial Intelligence and Law, Stanford Law School, Stanford, Calif., 237–246.
Zuhair, S. M. M., Taylor, D. B., and Kramer, R. A. 1992. “Choice of utility function form: Its effect on classification of risk preferences and the prediction of farmer decisions.” Agric. Econ., 6, 333–344
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
