Digital Management Of Professional Projects: Essay On Characteristics And Participants.

Forward strategy for payroll system

Discuss About The Digital Management Of Professional Projects.

This section of the project mainly focusses on the characteristics of four different projects, which are very much helpful in understanding the main aim of the project. It is identified that the project mainly reflects on the new payroll system that is developed for the Queensland healthcare organization. The report is based on project conflict as well as negotiation, which generally shares and discusses significant information to the stakeholders in order to resolve the conflicts.

The project characteristics of project 1 are NCTP that generally reflects on Novelty, complexity, technology as well as pace framework in order to illustrate the various project management perspectives.

The justifications for these characteristics are that both complexity as well as novelty is considered derivative that break through the system. According to Elfenbein (2015), breakthrough is defined as a paradigm shift that is beyond the innovation in order to reframe the way in which an individual generally looks at problems.  It is found that in the forward strategy of the Queensland health payroll system, both novelty as well as complexity is used for developing payroll system and for mitigating the challenges as well as issues. Technology generally assists in implementing various types of new features within the system for listing cost as well as timeline of the project and for analysing the risks that are mainly related with the outcome of the project.

The project characteristics of project 2 are “Projects from the perspective of organizational learning process”.

The justifications for these characteristics are both the decision making as well as governance is generally needed within the project for discussing various types of issues with the project team (Abbasi, Gul and Senin 2017). Based on the perspective of organizational learning process, the project team generally work together in order to achieve the goals as well as objectives of the organization.

The project characteristics of project 3 are project from identity perspective.

The justifications for these characteristics are that the perspective of identity is best for both people and change as identity generally lies in both people as well as culture. This characteristic is mainly utilized in order to identify the stakeholder’s culture as well as changes within the project.

The project characteristics of project 4 are “project from a complex product service perspective”.

The justifications for these characteristics are that it is quite suitable as they are generally helpful in identifying benefit along with proper intangible project value requirement. It generally helps in providing proper idea about the project funding (Elliott and Kaufman 2016).

Governance and decision-making

 This section generally reflects on the people who are mainly involved with the project of Queensland health payroll program. It is identified that for all the four projects it generally helps in providing proper possible negotiating position of the participants along with potential conflicts in their relationships (Alonso 2016). The identified participants include owner, designer as well as contractors.

The negotiating position of the owner will be in the Queensland health.

The potential conflicts in relationships that the owner may have are documentation, identification as well as communication with the various future payroll operations in addition to the various service models that are used within the Queensland health.

The negotiating position of the designers will be stakeholders across the Queensland Government chief information officer.

The potential conflicts in relationships that the designers may have is due to the challenges that occurs into Workbrain as well as because of the infrastructure changes into the entire payroll system (Heagney 2016). It is identified that due to the changes within the system as well as infrastructure it generally creates an impact on the performance of the system.

The negotiating position of the contractors will be stakeholders across Queensland Government Chief Information officer.

The potential conflicts in relationships that the contractors may have are due to assessing effectiveness of managing challenges as well as issues in Queensland payroll program because of the implementation of two-payroll system (Bourdeaux et al. 2015). It is found that an agreement is present between the contractor as well as clients for covering pre-implementation of the payroll system.

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 in Queensland health (QH)

The potential conflicts in relationships that the owner may have are due to accessing program effectiveness in order to resolve the project related issues along with proper activities of management (Elliott and Kaufman 2016).

The negotiating position of the designers will be in Queensland audit office

The potential conflicts in relationships that the designers may have are generally due to the adoption of various types of enterprise frameworks for the entire program governance.

The negotiating position of the contractors will be in Queensland audit office.

The potential conflicts in relationships that the contractors may have are due to accessing the effectiveness of payroll program in order to manage the project related benefits that are mainly associated with the implementation of two-payroll system (Joslin and Muller 2015).

People and change

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 in Queensland health (QH)

The potential conflicts in relationships that the owner may have are due to gaining trust into the entire payroll process for measuring the performance of the business (Kerzner 2013). It generally helps in demonstrating tangible benefits to both the line managers as well as staffs for the changes within the entire business payroll process.

The negotiating position of the designers will be stakeholders of QH payroll

The potential conflicts in relationships that the designers may have are due to the way in which the designing team mainly shares their decisions as well as understandings for designing procedures.

The negotiating position of the contractors will be inn Queensland Health (QH)

The potential conflicts in relationships that the contractors may have are due to creation of faith among the various clients so that they can properly invest within the implementation of the payroll system (Lloyd-Walker and Walker2015).

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 in Queensland Health (QH)

The potential conflicts in relationships that the owner may have are because business as usual (BAU) related costs are generally used in order to deliver the minimum requirements that are mainly related with the production of the payroll program for Queensland health (Kerzner and Saladis 2017). In addition to this, the system maintenance, defects rectification as well as enhancement of the payroll are generally associated.

The negotiating position of the designers will be as project stakeholders

The potential conflicts in relationships that the designers may have are because the project stakeholders are mainly getting the benefit from the visibility of various funding deficits (Mahmoud et al. 2015).There are number of funding allocations that generally helps in determining the priority of future spending along with the value of money assessments.

The negotiating position of the contractors will be in Queensland health

The potential conflicts in relationships that the contractors may have are because Business as Usual (BAU) costs are generally used in order to deliver the minimum needs that are mainly associated with the production of the entire payroll system.

For Project 1 the negotiating position recommended should be considered integrative as it generally focusses on resolving the issues as well as challenges that are associated with project and in creating value of the project so that the project stakeholders can take proper decisions (Pinto 2015).

Funding

For Project 2 the negotiating position recommended should be integrative in order to resolve the challenges related with the payroll system so that the Australian government can be able to take proper decisions for creating proper value so that the entire project can be completed successfully on time.

For Project 3 the negotiating position recommended should be   on concessional exchange approaches. It generally focusses on the concept of stakeholder engagement for supporting various types of changes within the business of Queensland health (Stepanova 2015).

For Project 4 the negotiating position recommended should be integrative. It generally focusses on resolving the challenges, in creating proper project value as well as in making proper communication with the project stakeholders for taking proper project related decisions.

For Project 1 the negotiating method recommended should be integrative. It generally consists of trade off prioritization by not providing proper unrealistic expectations and for creating appropriate idea about the various types of items that are needed by the project stakeholders (Heagney 2016).

For Project 2 the negotiating method recommended should be integrative. It is generally considered as win-win bargaining. It is one of the negotiation strategy that is used for finding out proper solutions for the disputes. This specific strategy mainly focusses on the development of various types of beneficial agreements that are dependent on the interests of disputants.

For Project 3 the negotiating method recommended should be concessional exchange approach. This method mainly consists of honesty of the project team members for the entire project work in order to recover it or for negotiating the needed sponsorship as well as for supporting the stakeholders of the project (Lee, Huh and Reigeluth 2015).

For Project 4 the negotiating method recommended should be integrative. This method generally focusses on resolving various types of project related issues and generally creates proper value of the project in order to implement the payroll process.

The preferred form of procurement as an outcome from the negotiation process for Project 1 is  mainly focussed on the integrated design of the Queensland Health payroll system (Moore 2014). It also focusses on delivery procurement arrangements in order to emphasize project planning as well as control. The forward strategy that is associated with payroll system is mainly integrated with the supply chain management.

The preferred form of procurement as an outcome from the negotiation process for Project 2 is mainly focussed on integrated team members of the project by emphasizing proper collaboration as well as co-ordination. It is identified that proper project partnership is generally needed in order to make proper decisions within the project.

The Participants

The preferred form of procurement as an outcome from the negotiation process for Project 3 is focus on integrated team members of the project by emphasizing coordination as collaboration with the various stakeholders of the project (Bourdeaux et al. 2015). It is found that proper involvement of contractor as well as framework agreement is generally needed for the change within the organization.

The preferred form of procurement as an outcome from the negotiation process for Project 4 is focussed on integrated design as well as procurement arrangements. It is identified that for funding, proper management contracting, project management plans as well as schedule plans are generally required.

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.