Discuss about the Collaborative project procurement arrangements.
This section provides the project characterises of the 4 projects which is helpful to understand the main aim of those projects. The projects are mainly based on the new payroll system of Queensland Health which comprised of two interfacing systems such as Workbrain and SAP. It is observed that Workbrain is award interpretation while SAP is considered as the payroll system. The report is based on project negotiation and conflict which discusses as well as shares the information with the stakeholders about conflict requirements to solve the conflicts. There is prioritization of the options like risk, context of business as well as project constraints. Peia-Mora and Tamaki (2001) stated that negotiations are exchanges where the managers are reached agreement on dealing. It is used for making of acquisitions, building of supplier relationships, development of the employee relations along with resolving of the disputes.
The project characteristics of project 1 are NCTP which means Novelty, complexity, technology along with pace framework for illustrating the perspective of project management.
The justifications for these characteristics are that both novelty and complexity is derivative; break through as well as system. Breakthrough is the paradigm shifts beyond the innovation to reframe which develops a way to look at the problems. Into the forward strategy of the payroll system, both characteristics are used to develop payroll projects and develop the way to solve the problems (Kerzner and Saladis 2008). Complexity measures assembly as well as array of the payroll system. Technology is used for implementing of new features into the system. It is used to list the cost, schedule the project as well as analyse of risks and project benefits. Pace is used when there is urgency into the work (Lloyd-Walker and Walker 2015). The project sponsor recognizes the context of project as well as matches the risks and identity the value of the generated project inputs.
The project characteristics of project 2 are “Projects from an organizational learning process perspective”.
The justifications for these characteristics are that both governance and decision making is required in a project to discuss the issues with the project groups (Alfredson and Cungu 2008). Based on organizational learning process perspective, the project teams come together to achieve the organizational goals.
The project characteristics of project 3 are “Projects from an identity perceptive”.
The justifications for these characteristics are identity perspective is best for people and change as identity lies with both culture plus people. This characteristic is used for identification of culture of stakeholders and project changes (Kerzner 2013).
The project characteristics of project 4 are “Projects from a complex product services perspective”.
The justifications for these characteristics are that it is suitable as it identifies added value along with intangible value requirements of the project (Mahmoud et al. 2015). It provides a proper idea of project funding.
This section summarizes the group of persons those are involved into the Queensland Health Payroll Program. For each of the four identified projects, it provides the possible negotiating position of the participants into the project along with potential conflicts in relationships (Alonso 2016). Three of the participants are identified for the 4 projects such as owner, designers and contractors.
For Project 1 the negotiating position and conflicts in relationships of the participants of this project are described below. Those are the person into the program who is taking part into the implementation of the payroll system (Beriker et al. 2018). Various participants are identified for 4 projects are owner, designers and contractors.
The negotiating position of the owner will be Queensland Health (QH).
The potential conflicts in relationships that the owner may have are identification, documentation plus communication with the future payroll operations in addition to services delivery models which are used by Queensland Health (Moore 2014).
The negotiating position of the designers will be stakeholders across the government includes of “Queensland Government Chief Information Officer”.
The potential conflicts in relationships that the designers may have are that there are problems into Workbrain and there are also infrastructure changes into payroll system. Due to the system and infrastructure changes, it provides an effect into the system performance (Elfenbein 2015). The problems into Workbrain are kind of system issues which are solved by designer and they are trying to fix the problems.
The negotiating position of the contractors will be stakeholders across the government includes of “Queensland Government Chief Information Officer”.
The potential conflicts in relationships that the contractors may have are accessing of effectiveness of the Queensland payroll program to manage the problems and project benefits due to implementation of two of the payroll system (Lee, Huh and Reigeluth 2015). There is an agreement between client as well as management contractor who covers pre-implementation of the payroll system. The contractor manages the trade contracts which are being placed by client.
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 Queensland Health (QH).
The potential conflicts in relationships that the owner may have are accessing the effectiveness of the program processes to manage the project issues, benefits along with program management activities (Lloyd-Walker and Walker 2015).
The negotiating position of the designers will be Queensland audit office.
The potential conflicts in relationships that the designers may have are adoption of the enterprise frameworks for the program governance (Alfredson and Cungu 2008). There should be good link among the payroll portfolio governance as well as financial system for Queensland Health (QH).
The negotiating position of the contractors will be Queensland Health (QH).
The potential conflicts in relationships that the contractors may have are accessing of effectiveness of the Queensland payroll program to manage the problems and project benefits due to implementation of two of the payroll system (Abbasi, Gul and Senin 2017).
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 Queensland Health (QH).
The potential conflicts in relationships that the owner may have are gaining of trust into the payroll process throughout measureable improvement into business performance (Elliott and Kaufman 2016). It demonstrates tangible benefits to both staff as well as line managers throughout changes into payroll business process.
The negotiating position of the designers will be stakeholders of the QH payroll along with the government.
The potential conflicts in relationships that the designers may have are the way the designing teams come to share understanding of each decisions they are made into the design process (Stepanova 2015). The designers come with initial idea and make it solves to the designing problems.
The negotiating position of the contractors will be Queensland Health (QH).
The potential conflicts in relationships that the contractors may have are building of faith among the clients so that they can invest into implementation of the payroll systems (Bourdeaux et al. 2015). There is transparency into decision making and changes into way of working into the payroll process.
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 Queensland Health (QH).
The potential conflicts in relationships that the owner may have are “Business as usual (BAU)” cost for delivering minimum requirements which are associated with the production of the payroll for Queensland Health each pay period. There is also maintenance of system, rectification of the defects in addition to enhancement of the payroll system (Joslin and Muller 2015).
The negotiating position of the designers will be project stakeholders.
The potential conflicts in relationships that the designers may have are stakeholders those are benefited from visibility of funding deficits (Kerzner 2017). There are funding allocations for assisting to determine priority of future spends along with value of the money assessments.
The negotiating position of the contractors will be Queensland Health (QH).
The potential conflicts in relationships that the contractors may have are “Business as usual (BAU)” cost for delivering minimum requirements which are associated with production of the payroll system (Kerzner and Saladis 2017).
The process of negotiation interaction is occurred by interacting between two of the project parties for providing the proper payroll system solutions to the customers (Joslin and Muller 2015). During the processes, the negotiators form the objectives for the entire Queensland Health. There are various approaches into the negotiation interaction processes such as structural approach, strategic approach, behavioural approach, concessional exchange approach and integrative approach (Peia-Mora and Tamaki 2001). Based on the four projects, there are identification of the negotiating position and providing of justifications of those negotiating position.
For Project 1 the negotiating position recommended should be integrative. It is mainly focused on solving the project related problems, creating of project value and communicating with the stakeholders to take decisions. There are adoptions of stronger business benefits due to adoption of payroll system and providing the stakeholders with the funding status of the payroll program to determine the future spend furthermore value of the assessment of money (Lloyd-Walker and Walker 2015). The project manager should review the current system and their related issues.
For Project 2 the negotiating position recommended should be integrative. In order to solve the project issues related to payroll system, the Australian government with help of the project stakeholders take decisions to create a value so that they should be successful completion of the project work on time (Pinto 2015).
For Project 3 the negotiating position recommended should be concessional exchange approaches (Schwalbe 2015). It is focused on concession making behaviours in addition to positions. It is focused on stakeholder engagement along with changes into management for supporting changes into the business processes of Queensland Health.
For Project 4 the negotiating position recommended should be integrative. It is focused on solving of the problems, creating of project value and communicating with the stakeholders to take the proper project related decisions. They should be also win-win solutions for the negotiation processes (Heagney 2016). They are establishment of stronger position as the starting point for project negotiation.
Based on the four projects, there are identification of the negotiating methods and providing of justifications of those negotiating methods.
For Project 1 the negotiating method recommended should be integrative. It consists of prioritization of the trade off, not providing of unrealistic expectations and having proper idea about the items required by the project stakeholders such as time and cost schedule of the project (Stepanova 2015). It is based on solving of the project related problems and communicating with the stakeholders.
For Project 2 the negotiating method recommended should be integrative. It is also defined as win-win bargaining. It is a negotiation strategy that collaborates to find the win-win solutions for the dispute (Alfredson and Cungu 2008). This particular strategy is focused on development of beneficial agreements based on interests of disputants.
For Project 3 the negotiating method recommended should be concessional exchange approach. It consists of honesty of the project team members towards the project work in belief for the recovery, negotiation required for sponsorship as well as support of project stakeholders. It is focused on concession making behaviours along with positions into the negotiation processes (Lloyd-Walker and Walker 2015). Concessional strategies are required as plan of goals and positions to underlie interests into the project work.
For Project 4 the negotiating method recommended should be integrative. It is focused on solving of the project issues, creating a proper project value for implementing the payroll processes and communicating with the team members (Lee, Huh and Reigeluth 2015).
The final outcomes of the four projects from the negotiation process are varied. There are three procurement approaches such as “Traditional—Segregated Design and Delivery Procurement Forms, Focus on Integrated Design and Delivery Procurement Arrangements—Emphasising Planning and Control and Focus on Integrated Project Teams—Emphasizing Collaboration and Coordination” (Peia-Mora and Tamaki 2001).
The preferred form of procurement as an outcome from the negotiation process for Project 1 is focused on the integrated design of the payroll system (Elliott and Kaufman 2016). It is also focused on delivery procurement arrangements, emphasising of the planning as well as project control. Into the forward strategy of the payroll system, integrated supply chain management (SCM) and management contracting are key significant requirements of the project 1. Integrated SCM are at strategic and operational level decision making which optimizes the performance of supply chain. The SCM system coordinates with revision of the plan ad schedule across the functions of supply chain (Bourdeaux et al. 2015). Management contract is arrangement under which the operational control of Queensland Health is being vested by contract which performs of managerial functions in return for fee.
The preferred form of procurement as an outcome from the negotiation process for Project 2 is focused on integrated project team members, by emphasizing on collaboration as well as coordination. Into governance and decision making, project partnership is required (Lee, Huh and Reigeluth 2015). Partnership is arrangement of people cooperate to advance the mutual interests into the project work.
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 project team members and project stakeholders. Into people and change, there is requirement of early contractor involvement and framework agreements (Joslin and Muller 2015). The reason for adoption of this framework is collaboration, integration of design of payroll system and value for money.
The preferred form of procurement as an outcome from the negotiation process for Project 4 is “focus on integrated design and delivery procurement arrangements- emphasizing planning and control”. For the funding, integrated SCM, management contracting, design of the project management plans such as schedule plan, cost plan are required (Kerzner and Saladis 2017). Management contract are the agreement among the investors along with project owners hired to coordinate as well as oversee of the contract.
References
Lloyd-Walker, B. and Walker, D., 2015, April. Collaborative project procurement arrangements. Project Management Institute.
Peña-Mora F. and Tamaki T., 2001. Effect of Delivery Systems on Collaborative Negotiations for Large -Scale Infrastructure Projects.
Alfredson T., and Cungu A., 2008. Negotiation Theory and Practice.
Kerzner, H., 2013. Project management: a systems approach to planning, scheduling, and controlling. John Wiley & Sons.
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.
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.
Moore, C.W., 2014. The mediation process: Practical strategies for resolving conflict. John Wiley & Sons.
Elfenbein, H.A., 2015. Individual differences in negotiation: A nearly abandoned pursuit revived. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(2), pp.131-136.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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., 2017. Project Management Methodologies. Project Management Case Studies, pp.1-27.
Kerzner, H. and Saladis, F.P., 2017. Project management workbook and PMP/CAPM exam study guide. John Wiley & Sons.
Pinto, J.K., 2015. Project management: achieving competitive advantage. Prentice Hall.
Schwalbe, K., 2015. Information technology project management. Cengage Learning.
Heagney, J., 2016. Fundamentals of project management. AMACOM Div American Mgmt Assn.
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