Characteristics Of Projects And Negotiation Strategies

Discuss About The Synchronous Audio And Video Conferencing.

The project characteristics of project 1 are faster data processing, invoice printing, payroll management, and employee information retention.

The justifications for these characteristics are,

Faster Data Processing: The payroll system of Queensland Health Department would require management of the faster processing of data for calculating the payroll output.

Invoice Printing: The printing of the invoice would be helpful for providing the memo to the staff for the payment made to them. 

Payroll management: The management of the payroll would help in easing the record keeping for the employee of the Queensland health organization

Employee Information Retention: The retention of the information would be helpful for the development of the payment cycle for the employees.

The project characteristics of project 2 are definable purpose, familiarity, and goal achievement.

The justifications for these characteristics are,

Definable Purpose: The definable purpose would be helpful for the alignment of the operations and the integration of the activities. The deployment of the operations would be helpful for listing the project final goals and operations.

Familiarity: The familiarity to the various situation demands of the project would help in easing the development of the effective decision making.

Goal Achievement: The effective decision making would help in developing faster alignment of the achievement of the project goals.

The project characteristics of project 3 are diverse persons, skilled workers, and innovative thinking.

The justifications for these characteristics are,

Diverse Persons: The inclusion of the diverse person would be helpful for the deployment of the improved operations and development. Many people would help in easing the operations of the project.

Skilled Workers: The inclusion of the skilled workers is aligned with the deployment of the effective operation development. The inclusion of the skilled workers would be helpful for the deployment of the operations.

Innovative Thinking: The innovative thinking would help in forming the development of improved operations for the project. The innovative thinking would align with the management of the activities.

The project characteristics of project 4 are sufficient amount, easily accessible, and tangible.

The justifications for these characteristics are

Sufficient Amount: The funding for the project must be sufficient for project as the activities of the project and resources required are dependent on the funding amount.

Easily Accessible: The funds must be easily accessible as it would help in easing the development of the operations at any time even at urgent conditions.

Project 2 Characteristics

Tangible: The tangible funding can be utilized according to the needs of the project and with the progress of the project the amount would be easily utilized.

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 high as the approval of the payroll project’s final output is dependent on the approval by the owner.

The potential conflicts in relationships that the owner may have are disagreement on the final deliverable of the project, changes in the operations, and operational change implication. The final deliverable of the project would tend to be dependent on the owner of the project.

The negotiating position of the designers will be medium as they are only required for the design of the payroll system.

The potential conflicts in relationships that the designers may have are feasibility issue in the design developed or changes in the design of the payroll system.

The negotiating position of the contractors will be low as he is in charge of the external supply of materials and have no role in the main activities of the payroll project.

The potential conflicts in relationships that the contractors may have are delay in supply of materials, payment issue, or contract violation.

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 very high as they are the key decision makers of the payroll project and in charge of the project governance.

The potential conflicts in relationships that the owner may have are change in decision or unacceptable decisions.

The negotiating position of the designers will be low as they would not be consulted for decision taking activities of payroll project.

The potential conflicts in relationships that the designers may have are related to the design of the payroll system.

The negotiating position of the contractors will be medium as the supply of the materials would play a crucial role in the decision making of payroll project.

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 medium as they are not responsible for the management of the people involved in the payroll project.

The potential conflicts in relationships that the owner may have are removal of the person, unable to align project objectives, and issues in deployment of the operations.

Project 3 Characteristics

The negotiating position of the designers will be high as they are one of the major people attached to the payroll project and the changes in design would be adjusted by him/her.

The potential conflicts in relationships that the designers may have are denial to accept the changes and complex user interface development.

The negotiating position of the contractors will be medium as they are also one of the major people involved in the payroll project.

The potential conflicts in relationships that the contractors may have are non association and miscommunication of the deliverable.

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 agreed sum of the money would be the funding requirements for the payroll project.

The negotiating position of the designers will be low as they do not have major role in funding of the payroll project.

The potential conflicts in relationships that the designers may have are increment in the payment and non feasible design development.

The negotiating position of the contractors will be medium as they would intake a considerable sum of money for supplying the materials required for the payroll project.

The potential conflicts in relationships that the contractors may have are negating the desired quality of products and hike in the supplied materials.

For Project 1 the negotiating position recommended should be Interest based bargaining in nature as the development of the payroll system would be dependent on all the team members.

For Project 2 the negotiating position recommended should be Positional Bargaining as the project owner/investor should be given the power of taking the decisions.

For Project 3 the negotiating position recommended should be Positional Bargaining as the implication of the changes should be done step by step so that the people involved with the system can adjust with it.

For Project 4 the negotiating position recommended should be Interest based bargaining as implication of the funding would require the deployment of the activities.

For Project 1 the negotiating method recommended should be ‘Distributive Negotiation’ or ‘Fixed Pie Negotiation’ as the development of the payroll system would be dependent on all the team members.

For Project 2 the negotiating method recommended should be ‘Integrated Negotiation’ as the project owner/investor should be given the power of taking the decisions.

For Project 3 the negotiating method recommended should be ‘Staged Negotiation’ as the implication of the changes should be done step by step so that the people involved with the system can adjust with it.

For Project 4 the negotiating method recommended should be ‘Integrative Negotiation’ as implication of the funding would require the deployment of the activities. The Outcome

The preferred form of procurement as an outcome from the negotiation process for Project 1 is Request for Proposals.

The preferred form of procurement as an outcome from the negotiation process for Project 2 is Two Staged Tendering.

The preferred form of procurement as an outcome from the negotiation process for Project 3 is Single Source Tendering.

The preferred form of procurement as an outcome from the negotiation process for Project 4 is Restricted Tendering.

References

Dorochoff, N., 2016. Negotiation Basics for Cultural Resource Managers. Routledge.

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.

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.

Lu, W. and Liu, J., 2014. Research into the moderating effects of progress and quality performance in project dispute negotiation. International Journal of Project Management, 32(4), pp.654-662.

Lu, W., Li, Z. and Wang, S., 2017. The role of justice for cooperation and contract’s moderating effect in construction dispute negotiation. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 24(1), pp.133-153.

Powell, K.E. and Bartlett, L., 2016. Bridging the Gap: A Joint Negotiation Project Crossing Legal Disciplines.

Raby, R., 2018. Using the International Negotiation Modules Project (INMP) to Build a Learning Community. In Student Engagement and Participation: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications (pp. 652-666). IGI Global.

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.