Project Characteristics
The project characteristics of project 1 are NCTP are aligned for the implication of the forward strategy for payroll system.
The justifications for these characteristics are aligned with the alignment of the operations and implication of the effective development model. The characteristics of the complexity, pace, and technology are helpful for the forward strategy implication in payroll system.
The projects characteristics of project 2 are Organizational Learning Process are aligned for the implication of the operations.
The justifications for these characteristics are aligned for the increment of the improved development operations and the use of organizational learning process for the deployment.
The project characteristics of project 3 are Organizational Learning Process is aligned for the operations and the modification of the operations.
The justifications for these characteristics are aligned with the development of the operations would help in forming the development of the operations. The alignment of the development model would result in forming the probability development in attenuation of development.
The project characteristics of project 4 are dependent on the alignment of the effective alignment of the Identity Perspective.
The justifications for these characteristics are alignment of the improved operations and it would form the analysis would form the development would align with the analysis.
For Project 1 the negotiating position and conflicts in relationships of the participants of this project are described below.
The negotiating position of the owner will be medium because the owner would ultimately approve or reject the project.
The potential conflicts in relationships that the owner may have are final deliverable rejection, change request for the operations, and changes procurement.
The negotiating position of the designers will be high as the development of the operations is aligned for the implementation of the operations.
The potential conflicts in relationships that the designers may have are incompatible design and forging of designs.
The negotiating position of the contractors will be medium as the decisions taken for the project benefits are supported by the contractors.
The potential conflicts in relationships that the contractors may have are aligned with the development of the integrated operation development and it would be aligned for the development.
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 aligned for the operation deployment and alignment and the owner would have to align for the deployment of the operations would form the deployment.
Negotiation Positions and Potential Conflicts
The potential conflicts in relationships that the owner may have are changes in development and design unacceptance.
The negotiating position of the designers will be low as the development of the final design would not affect the governance and decision making.
The potential conflicts in relationships that the designers may have are design issues and incompatibility.
The negotiating position of the contractors will be medium as the supply of materials play a significant role for developing of successive operations for decision making.
The potential conflicts in relationships that the contractors may have are change implication and quality issues.
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 management of the people and the decision for change implication would be the responsibility of the project owner.
The potential conflicts in relationships that the owner may have are issues in implication of the changes and conflicts among the people.
The negotiating position of the designers will be low as the development of the final design would not affect the people and change.
The potential conflicts in relationships that the designers may have are complexity and feasibility issues.
The negotiating position of the contractors will be medium as the supply of materials play a significant role for developing of successive operations for
The potential conflicts in relationships that the contractors may have are communication gap and integration issues.
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 aligned with the development of the operations and it would be high as the funding operation would be largely supported by the project owner.
The potential conflicts in relationships that the owner may have are aligned with the development of operations such as shortage and rejection of funds.
The negotiating position of the designers will be low as the development of the final design would not affect the funding.
The potential conflicts in relationships that the designers may have are design implementation issues and delay in payment.
The negotiating position of the contractors will be medium as the supply of materials play a significant role in determination of the cost estimation.
The potential conflicts in relationships that the contractors may have are quality issues and surge in rates of materials.
Recommended Negotiating Approaches
For Project 1 the negotiating position recommended should be structural in approach as it would tend to form the major development of the forward strategy for the alignment of the activities.
For Project 2 the negotiating position recommended should be strategic approach and it would help in forming the strategic alliance with the governance and decision making.
For Project 3 the negotiating position recommended should be behavioural as it would result in forming the indefinite analysis of the change implementation and people behavioural analysis.
For Project 4 the negotiating position recommended should be integrative as it would allow the alignment of the funding in a complete package solution.
For Project 1 the negotiating method recommended should be Staged Negotiation as the alignment of the forward strategy must be developed sequentially.
For Project 2 the negotiating method recommended should be Fixed Pie as it would help in developing successful alignment of the operations on a fixed basis for the deployment of the decisions and governance.
For Project 3 the negotiating method recommended should be Integrated Negotiation as it would help in forming the improvement of the people and change by integrating the function development.
For Project 4 the negotiating method recommended should be Integrative Negotiation as it would allow the consideration of all the factors before aligning the negotiation of funding
The preferred form of procurement as an outcome from the negotiation process for Project 1 is Cost Reimbursement.
The preferred form of procurement as an outcome from the negotiation process for Project 2 is Build Own Operate Transfer.
The preferred form of procurement as an outcome from the negotiation process for Project 3 is Partnership Philosophies.
The preferred form of procurement as an outcome from the negotiation process for Project 4 is Framework Agreements.
References
Bordone, R.C. and Viscomi, R.A., 2015. The wicked problem of rethinking negotiation teaching. Negotiation Journal, 31(1), pp.65-81.
Chaves, M.S., Araújo, C.D., Teixeira, L., Rosa, D., Júnior, I. and Nogueira, C., 2016. A new approach to managing Lessons Learned in PMBoK process groups: the Ballistic 2.0 Model. International Journal of Information Systems and Project Management, 4(1), pp.27-45.
Erlingsdóttir, G. and Lindholm, C., 2015. When patient empowerment encounters professional autonomy: The conflict and negotiation process of inscribing an eHealth service. Scandinavian journal of public administration, 19(2), pp.27-48.
Idrus, A., Mahmoud, M.A., Ahmad, M.S., Yahya, A. and Husen, H., 2017. A Solution Generator Algorithm for Decision Making based Automated Negotiation in the Construction Domain. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Multimedia.
Kerzner, H. and Kerzner, H.R., 2017. Project management: a systems approach to planning, scheduling, and controlling. John Wiley & Sons.
Kerzner, H., 2018. Project management best practices: Achieving global excellence. John Wiley & Sons
Li, C.C., Wu, L., Li, C. and Tang, J., 2017. Exploring meaning negotiation patterns in synchronous audio and video conferencing English classes in China. CALL in a climate of change: adapting to turbulent global conditions–short papers from EUROCALL 2017, p.194.
Rodriguez Rodriguez, A. and Zhu, Y., 2015. Factors in the negotiation of the project plan: A recipe for success.
Snyder, C.S., 2014. A guide to the project management body of knowledge: PMBOK (®) guide. Project Management Institute: Newtown Square, PA, USA.
Tomanek, M. and Juricek, J., 2015. Project risk management model based on PRINCE2 and SCRUM frameworks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1502.03595.
Wang, Q., Kilgour, D.M. and Hipel, K.W., 2015. Facilitating risky project negotiation: An integrated approach using fuzzy real options, multicriteria analysis, and conflict analysis. Information Sciences, 295, pp.544-557.
