The project characteristics of project 1 are,
The primary characteristic of the project of the implementation of the Queensland Payroll system is that it is an IT project. The IT project nature of health payroll system makes it technical in approach and the system implication would form the influenced processes.
Software development is another crucial feature of the implementation of the operations and it would involve the deployment of the effective completion of the project. The health payroll system of Queensland would form the development of the operations and it would involve the development of the operations.
The project would involve the operations of the scheduling and the smart development process that estimates the cost and coverage for the project. The project operations would involve the development of the improved database for forming the effective support to the organization
The justifications for these characteristics are,
The project characteristics of project 2 are,
The justifications for these characteristics are,
The project characteristics of project 3 are deployed for the implementation of the change management and it would involve the development of the improved operations at the project development. The Information Technology development would be helpful for the development of the sufficient payroll system activities of the organization. The people and the change implementation ate very crucial for the project inclusion statements.
The justifications for these characteristics are that change management is very important for considering the development of the active control strategies for the project. The change in the project scope statement would be managed for the development of the statement implementation and the scope development. The project activities include the changes and people deployment for the successful completion of the project. The appropriate deployment of the activities would result in forming the development of the operations for the project processes.
The project characteristics of project 4 are
The justifications for these characteristics are that these characteristics would be helpful for the appropriate collection, allocation, and management of the resources. The IT project of implementing the Queensland health payroll system for the organization would require the use of effective and impactful tools and processes. The exhaustion of the resources would form the convergence of the accumulated funding and the deployment of the project.
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 required for the financial and budget estimation for the allocation of the resources is project manager. The involvement of the negotiation position of the owner would help in forming the cost estimation using appropriate techniques and management of the flow of resource exhaustion.
The potential conflicts in relationships that the owner may have would include the insufficient utilization and exhaustion of the resources, unable to meet the expected quality of the operations, unable to complete the project in estimated time duration (Alfredson and Cungu 2008). These issues would result in forming the major inconvenience for the deployment of the activities.
The negotiating position of the designers will be used for the payroll system designing and it would result in forming the basic development of the operations in the organization. The adaptive use of designing concepts and processes would develop the outcomes of the project.
The potential conflicts in relationships that the designers may have are some security flaws that would form the major hindrances in the operations of the project of implementing the Queensland payroll system (Antia, Zheng and Frazier 2013). Apart from this designing issues would also serve the major flaw in the deployment of the Queensland payroll system. The issues would form the delay in deployment of the Australian Queensland payroll system.
The negotiating position of the contractors will be for the effective formation of the services and operations that would be linked to the formation of the contracts and documents before the formation of the project initialization.
The potential conflicts in relationships that the contractors may have are systematic lack of the resources and materials as required for the completion of the project (Alfredson and Cungu 2008). The delay in operations due to the worker issues, technical issues, and other issues would also form the conflict for the deployment of the Queensland payroll system. Moreover the disagreement o the contracts with the project manager or owner would also form the major hindrance for the project activities of the contractors.
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 provided with the IT governance team and the state government. It would be implied for the forming the governance of the project of Queensland payroll system and the deployment of the improved processes would form the effective integration of the project.
The potential conflicts in relationships that the owner may have are increased complexity of the operations, delay in completion, and wrong decision taken (Antia, Zheng and Frazier 2013). These issues would form the major conflict for the development of the operations and it would help in detecting the causing the delay for the operations. The aligning of the operations would be halted due to these issues of the project. The development of the processes could form the infliction of the system operation and the processing of the operations.
The negotiating position of the designers will be high in the process of the management of the IT structure and governance processes. The high involvement of the development of the processes would comprise the supplement implementation of the Queensland payroll system.
The potential conflicts in relationships that the designers may have are failure of the including the approved design methodology for the designing process. The major impact on the development of the project of the Queensland payroll system implementation is formed for sorting the existence of the development model (Bi et al. 2017). The minute and minor flaws of the design would form the major issue in the execution of the project of the operational development for Queensland payroll system. The flaws in design or platform dependencies might be a major issue for contributing to the development of the operations.
The negotiating position of the contractors will be for integrating the scheduled operations and forming the appropriate solution to the application of the resources and scheduled operations. The position of the contractor in development is formed for the integration of the existing tools and processes of the project of Queensland payroll system.
The potential conflicts in relationships that the contractors may have are improper decisions for the development of the system developed operations and processes (Brown 2014). The result would form issues in developing the system development for the formation of the existing facilities of the operations. The improper and complex decision making process and the formation of the compatibility issues would result in overall decrease of the efficiency of the operations.
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 low as the major stakeholder is the government that would play the most decisive role for the project of the Queensland payroll system. The government would be in charge of the development of the system inbuilt processes and operations (Chesterman 2013). The change management is completely deployed by the client’s or the project’s requirements and hence the government would not be able to form the modification of the operations.
The potential conflicts in relationships that the owner may have are growing needs of the change and its impact on the project of Queensland payroll system (Eden and Sedera 2014). The change deployment would not be easily handled by the operational team of Queensland payroll system project. The change management is completely deployed by the client’s or the project’s requirements and hence the government would not be able to form the modification of the operations. Moreover the formation of the improved operations would cause the successive formation of the issues and flaws.
The negotiating position of the designers will be low for the project of Queensland payroll system. The government would be in charge of the development of the system inbuilt processes and operations. The designer would only manage the changes in the design as per the requirements of the project and it implication tools.
The potential conflicts in relationships that the designers may have are insecure operations and technical flaws are the major conflicts and flaws (Fujita, Ito and Klein 2017). These flaws are technical based on the designing activities of the project. The more systematic deployment of the project of Queensland payroll system would be based on the design. The major factors that had formed the issues in the operations of the project consist of design issues too.
The negotiating position of the contractors will be high as they would be required for forming the basic structure of the development of Queensland payroll system (Glass 2013). It would be high as they would be responsible for the formation of the system implementation configuration infrastructure.
The potential conflicts in relationships that the contractors may have are are violation of the contracts of the Queensland payroll system. It is possible that the contractors might not be in agreement with the terms and conditions of the contract. The contract disagreement might tend to result in forming the delay of the operations of the project (Homberger and Fink 2017). The inclusion of the existing facilities would form the supply for the formation of the operations and its successive deployment of the operations.
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 would be in charge of the funding the operations of the project of Queensland payroll system. The responsible functions for the funding process would be developed for forming the interaction of the process.
The potential conflicts in relationships that the owner may have are dependent factor for forming the investment of the inclusion of the potentially low class processes and operations. The potential improvement of the operations would include the deployment of the active processes and development.
The negotiating position of the designers will be low as the designers have no major role in the activity of the funding.
The potential conflicts in relationships that the designers may have are shortage of resources and the lack of time for the completion of the project of Queensland payroll system.
The negotiating position of the contractors will be high for the project.
The potential conflicts in relationships that the contractors may have are on the clauses made between the beneficiary and the benefactors and violation of the benefit promised in the contract and client satisfaction from the services not met.
For Project 1 the negotiating position recommended should be the project manager. This is because a project manager is responsible for ensuring and managing the proper planning and execution of a project. Moreover, a project manager has the clear idea of the scope and requirements of the project. Hence, the forward strategy for payroll system should necessarily be the negotiation position.
For Project 2 the negotiating position recommended should be the project owner along with the project manager. Project owner is responsible for taking critical decisions related to a project and hence the project owner should necessarily be in the negotiating position (Kerzner 2013). Apart from project owner, the project manager can also be considered in the negotiating position of governance and decision-making. The views of the business analyst appointed for the project can also take part in decision-making.
For Project 3 the negotiating position recommended should be the HR of the organisation. The HR generally has a clear idea about the payroll system and the therefore, the views and suggestions of the HR should be considered in developing the new payroll system (Kennewell and Baker 2016). The employees can also be included in the negotiating position as they are the ones who will be using the new payroll system and hence they are recommended for negotiating position.
For Project 4 the negotiating position recommended should be the project sponsors and stakeholders. Sponsors are the ones will be providing the money for the project and hence they are most recommended for the funding position (Kim 2017). The budget approval from the sponsors and the project stakeholders is necessary before planning and progressing with the project and therefore, they hold an important position in a project and its implementation. Hence, they are the most suitable persons for the negotiating position of this project.
For Project 1 the negotiating method recommended should be the structural approach of negotiation. This method of negotiation considers the previous negotiated outcomes in building the structural characteristics of the current negotiation. Structural method also considers features such as the number of people and issues involved in the current negotiation (Lu and Liu 2014). This approach of negotiation aims in defining the negotiation on basis of conflict scenarios for different cases. Thus, this strategy helps in forwarding the strategy of the payroll system effectively. However, this method largely depends on the power; the negotiator has over the subject or the project (Lloyd-Walker and Walker 2015). Since the primary negotiator identified for this project 1 is project manager, therefore this method of negotiation is highly recommended in this particular case.
For Project 2 the negotiating method recommended should be the strategic method of negotiation. This method of negotiation has roots in mathematics and decision theory and thus it would be the best negotiating method for project 2. Moreover, in this approach, the negotiators are considered as an important decision maker as well (Ojo and Osah 2017). They have the power of making choices guided by mathematical calculations and determine which option will maximize the output of the project. The best among the proposed alternatives are chosen following this negotiating method. Strategic negotiation method is normative in nature as it focuses on selecting the best alternatives among the options present. This approach is the foundation of other negotiation theories as well. Therefore, strategic negotiation method is strongly recommended for project 2.
For Project 3 the negotiating method recommended should be the behavioural approach. This method of negotiation emphasizes on the characteristics of the individuals in determining the result of an agreement (Pena-Mora and Tamaki 2001). This approach is derived from the psychological and experimental traditions and largely depends of the people involved in the negotiation. In this approach the objectives of the negotiation has to be significant and thus it contribute positively in the project. Therefore, the behavioural approach of negotiation is strongly recommended for the project under consideration.
For Project 4 the negotiating method recommended should be the concession exchange or the processual approach. This method includes features of both strategic and structural approach. In this method, both the parties involved in negotiation are allowed to put forward their views and this is essential for deciding and obtaining proper funding of the project (Philip 2015). It also involves a series of concession, which mark the different stages of negotiation, which is mainly used by the parties to put forward their intentions and suggestions. The project funding is a complex part of the project and requires proper negation. This method thus is most suitable and highly recommended for project 4.
The preferred form of procurement as an outcome from the negotiation process for Project 1 is the traditional form of procurement. Since the negotiation process of project 1 is dealing with the forward strategy of the payroll system, it is essential to follow the traditional form of procurement. In this form, the client does not want the tender prices for the project work until the final design of the project is completed. The client depends on the lead negotiator in seeking information about the time, cost and design of the project. This procurement method is important as it separates the planning and design of the project from its implementation and execution (Powelson 2015). The advantage of traditional procurement is that it ensures a high quality work. Moreover, this method is easier in adopting. Therefore, the preferred procurement method for project 1 is the traditional procurement method.
The preferred form of procurement as an outcome from the negotiation process for Project 2 is an integrated design and delivery procurement. For effective decision making and governance of a project, knowing the product features is very important. This procurement approach helps in gaining the price certainty of a project and this helps in effective governance and decision-making (Thite and Sandhu 2014). The sub form of the procurement associated with this project is the BOOT or Build Own Operate Transfer procurement. This will help in effective decision-making and governance of the project.
The preferred form of procurement as an outcome from the negotiation process for Project 3 is focus on the integrated project team. This method is chosen because it emphasises the collaboration and coordination of the project team members and the people affected by the project (Tursunbayeva et al. 2016). The design and built sub form of this procurement deals with designing a project that would be simple and easy to be used by the people that is the staffs of the organization. Design and construct sub form ensures that the project design is made on basis of the requirements and specifications of the project. The integrated supply chain sub-form under this procurement ensures the proper steady progress and proper maintenance of the system. Therefore, the focus on the integrated project team approach is the recommended outcome form the negotiation process.
The preferred form of procurement as an outcome from the negotiation process for Project 4 is the traditional procurement approach. The traditional approach method includes a different design and delivery procurement approach (Zeng 2014). This would be beneficial for obtaining a proper funding of the project. A separate estimate for the design and the development phase will help in achieving a proper funding of the project as well. The sub form associated with this procurement is early contractor Involvement or ECI. ECI will ensure a proper estimation of the project. Since the design and development part is segregated in this approach, seeking a proper funding of the project becomes easier. This procurement is often termed as ‘design bid build’ procurement and is the most commonly used procurement approach (Wolff and Yakinthou 2013). The sub form frame work agreements in involved with this project as funding will be obtained after the frameworks of the project is agreed upon.
References
Alfredson, T. and Cungu, A., 2008. Negotiation Theory and Practice, A Review of the Literature. Prepared for the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, FAO.
Antia, K.D., Zheng, X. and Frazier, G.L., 2013. Conflict management and outcomes in franchise relationships: the role of regulation. Journal of Marketing Research, 50(5), pp.577-589.
Bi, H.L., Jia, X., Lu, F.Q. and Huang, M., 2017. Schedule Risk Management of IT Outsourcing Project Using Negotiation Mechanism. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management 2016 (pp. 29-33). Atlantis Press, Paris.
Brown, D.R.B., 2014. An exploration of the role of ethics in leadership decision-making in change initiatives in Queensland government owned corporations (Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern Queensland).
Chesterman, R.N., 2013. Queensland Health Payroll System Commission of Inquiry. Retrieved, 20(04), p.2014.
Eden, R. and Sedera, D., 2014. The largest admitted IT project failure in the Southern Hemisphere: a teaching case. In Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Information Systems: Building a Better World Through Information Systems. AISeL.
Fujita, K., Ito, T. and Klein, M., 2017, June. Enabling Large Scale Deliberation Using Ideation and Negotiation-Support Agents. In Distributed Computing Systems Workshops (ICDCSW), 2017 IEEE 37th International Conference on(pp. 360-363). IEEE.
Glass, R.L., 2013. The Queensland Health Payroll Debacle. Information Systems Management, 30(1), pp.89-90.
Homberger, J. and Fink, A., 2017. Generic negotiation mechanisms with side payments–Design, analysis and application for decentralized resource-constrained multi-project scheduling problems. European Journal of Operational Research, 261(3), pp.1001-1012.
Kennewell, S. and Baker, L., 2016. Benefits and risks of shared services in healthcare. Journal of health organization and management, 30(3), pp.441-456.
Kerzner, H., 2013. Project management: a systems approach to planning, scheduling, and controlling. John Wiley & Sons.
Kim, R., 2017. Nonnative Accents and Conflict Management: The Mediating Roles of Stereotype Threat, Regulatory Focus, and Conflict Behaviors on Conflict Outcomes.
Lloyd-Walker, B. and Walker, D., 2015, April. Collaborative project procurement arrangements. Project Management Institute.
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.
Ojo, O. and Osah, G., 2017. Capacity Building in the Art and Science of Negotiation: A Panacea to Building Sustainable Peace and Development in Nigeria. Covenant University Journal of Politics and International Affairs, 5(1).
Peña-Mora, F. and Tamaki, T., 2001. Effect of delivery systems on collaborative negotiations for large-scale infrastructure projects. Journal of Management in Engineering, 17(2), pp.105-121.
Philip, K., 2015. Allied health: untapped potential in the Australian health system. Australian Health Review, 39(3), pp.244-247.
Powelson, J.P., 2015. The Institutions of Economic Growth: A Theory of Conflict Management in Developing Countries. Princeton University Press.
Thite, M. and Sandhu, K., 2014. Where is My Pay? Critical Success Factors of a Payroll System–A System Life Cycle Approach. Australasian Journal of Information Systems, 18(2).
Thite, M. and Sandhu, K., 2014. Where is My Pay? Critical Success Factors of a Payroll System–A System Life Cycle Approach. Australasian Journal of Information Systems, 18(2).
Tursunbayeva, A., Bunduchi, R., Franco, M. and Pagliari, C., 2016. Human resource information systems in health care: a systematic evidence review. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 24(3), pp.633-654.
Tursunbayeva, A., Bunduchi, R., Franco, M. and Pagliari, C., 2016. Human resource information systems in health care: a systematic evidence review. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 24(3), pp.633-654.
Wolff, S. and Yakinthou, C. eds., 2013. Conflict management in divided societies: theories and practice. Routledge.
Zeng, W., 2014. The game study of negotiation after bidding between purchasing agent and supplier for pharmaceutical equipments in China. BioTechnology: An Indian Journal, 10(9).
Essay Writing Service Features
Our Experience
No matter how complex your assignment is, we can find the right professional for your specific task. Contact Essay is an essay writing company that hires only the smartest minds to help you with your projects. Our expertise allows us to provide students with high-quality academic writing, editing & proofreading services.
Free Features
Free revision policy
$10Free bibliography & reference
$8Free title page
$8Free formatting
$8How Our Essay Writing Service Works
First, you will need to complete an order form. It's not difficult but, in case there is anything you find not to be clear, you may always call us so that we can guide you through it. On the order form, you will need to include some basic information concerning your order: subject, topic, number of pages, etc. We also encourage our clients to upload any relevant information or sources that will help.
Complete the order form
Once we have all the information and instructions that we need, we select the most suitable writer for your assignment. While everything seems to be clear, the writer, who has complete knowledge of the subject, may need clarification from you. It is at that point that you would receive a call or email from us.
Writer’s assignment
As soon as the writer has finished, it will be delivered both to the website and to your email address so that you will not miss it. If your deadline is close at hand, we will place a call to you to make sure that you receive the paper on time.
Completing the order and download