Question 1 (30 points)
“Top-down approach is good for planning a complex project in a controlled
environment.” Do you agree or disagree with the statement? Why?
Planning a complex project is necessary because accomplishing tasks gives a desirable end .complex projects should be planned in a controlled environment using various approaches; however, this part of the reports assesses the viability of using the Top-down approach in accomplishing the planning target (Banks, 2017). It further evaluates the reasons that favor the use of this approach in planning complex projects in a controlled environment.
Project planning has four phases of management that start from planning to build-up, then implementation, and closeout. A top-down approach is a global approach to planning that helps in identifying the project activities and means of attaining those (Stewart et al. 2015). These are then systematically cascaded to lower strata of the organizations then get developed. Its divergent nature qualifies it to be used in planning complex projects given the different kinds of complex projects; the top-down approach will better address its issues (Mesly, 2016).
In complex planning, it requires the top management to first analyses and synthesis all the requirements and then provide the framework of the plan alongside the company’s growth (Mesly, 2016). The plan is then broken down into sub-plans, which again have their outlines for goals intended for the next levels of planning as entailed in an elaborate plan. It should be the first synthesized by the managers then shared with the employees with whom they can now explain into details.
Besides, the top-down approach will decode the process that synthesizes the methods and breaks it into phases that will entail all aspects of the project, including the financial implications, which can be first determined and exact position be defined by the top managers (Banks, 2017). Additionally, complex processes require right fit determination, and this can only be best addressed by the top-down approach given that their approach is best suited for the commencement of projects seeking a quicker vision of the results in the long-run (Cattani et al. 2011). Given that the approach provides a broader spectrum for the potentiality of revenue for firms, it will help the complex project planning in identifying the best sales waves and assist in market evaluation concerning inherent right and size. This aspect of approach will allow the planners to formulate ethical theories for creating strategies for the project execution.
Additionally, complex project planning needs what will rightly fit it. This is best offered by the top-down approach in the planning process because it will assist planners and managers in deciding the level of control. Given that the project will require control in its implementation of strategies, it will be necessary for goal achievement (Mesly, 2016). Moreover, complex project planning needs to be given that complex project planning requires some quick decision to be made in the calls for the approach of top-down since the managers are the primary decision-makers in the whole process; this makes this approach appropriate in the application. Complex projects come with a lot of risks in such a way that during planning, they need to be minimized (Cattani et al. 2011). Therefore, the top-down approach will be critical in planning since it will enable the top management to use their informed knowledge about the project they plan for. In this case, they will endeavor to reduce risks involved during the process of decision making by not involving lower employees (Stewart et al. 2015). The top-down approach will assist in planning the complex projects, given that it will enable top governance to determine the project’s best practice.
However, entirely using a top-down approach in complex project planning may not be very useful, considering that the top management is limited in creativity. Given that other skills and expertise that are possessed by the lower cadre in the firm are sometimes very critical, and this approach ignores such (Harold, 2003). Additionally, complex project planning endeavors to succeed, given that there are goals and timelines within which the project is to operate. When the employees are not part of the project decision, they perceive all the decisions made as dictatorial making this approach oppressive to the lower cadre who are not included in the decision making (Bannerman, 2008). Moreover, the use of this approach in complex planning makes the entire company respond slowly to the change the complex project comes with; should a project baseline change, it may take longer for the upper governance to get a solution.
Conclusively, therefore, the approach provides a broader spectrum for the potentiality of revenue for firms. It will help the complex project planning in identifying the best sales waves. Also, it requires the top management to first analyses and synthesis all the requirements and then provide the framework of the plan alongside the company’s growth. I agree that the pros of this approach are more than the cons, and therefore the top-down approach is practical for use in the complex project’s planning.
Question 2 (30 points)
“Project managers should resist changes to the project baseline.” Do you agree or
disagree with the statement? Why
A project baseline is the critical project target comprising the budget, deliverables scope, and the timeline. It is usually determined on the outset by the top management who partner in identifying the baseline of the project. At this point is where these projects’ information is included
The rate of projection achievement should guide project baselines, and frequent change of project baselines must be minimized as much as possible unless the projections are not realized (Bannerman, 2008). However, it is not advisable to frequently change the project baselines more so within the timeline of the operation of the project. Given that the changes that are affected in the course of a project confuse the process of a firm. Moreover, such changes are mostly chaotic that is capable of hindering the seamless project operations. Considering that change of materials requires prior explanation to all the teams in a project about its aspects such as schedule, scope, and budget (F Conforto et al. 2014). And should there be a need for such changes, they need to be indicated during the project’s baseline framing and not when it is already on course.
Moreover, they should resist the change since once the move is accepted the frits time, it will always be a routine, and from time to time, they will face it as a challenge. Besides, for the change to be effected, it needs several negotiations that the clients may find unreasonable as well as the project’s stakeholders since no change should take place without them consenting (Harold, 2003). Because of this, should the change take place, the time, scope, and cost of the project definitely changes for the worse? Moreover, managers should resist change of the project baseline since the change will destroy the project management concept, given that it will make them not to have control over the project. Basically, there will be a reason for having the PM if the scope, time, and cost are not fixed (Mesly, 2016).
Also, managers will resist project baseline change because it will be exposing the element of lack of professionalism. Given that project, baseline change means that the management for the projects is unable to deliver the requirements as expected and even surpass. Besides, such changes usually end und frustrating the teams involved in the projects since they start bracing for a task that never materializes (Oliveira, & Lumineau, 2017). This makes the project teams fail to see the light at the end of the tunnel the vendors may also fail to understand why they were contracted given that they already procured process materials and along with the ways changes take place. Notwithstanding, their payments will be delayed.
On the other hand, project managers should accept the project baseline when the project if not achieving the set objectives within the timelines. Because if the goal for which the project was started in not being realized, then it bests the logic of continuing to do something that is not feasible (Bannerman, 2008). Moreover, the project managers should accept project baseline change when the team and the whole firm are re-planning the project (Stewart et al. 2015). Baseline change may be a result of an evaluation that was preset out rightly at the onset of the planning that, at some point, there may be re-planning of the project. Therefore under such a condition, they should accept the change of the project baseline. Additionally, should there be mismanagement at any level, and then the incompetency will naturally call for the change of project baseline (Oliveira, & Lumineau, 2017). Moreover, with incompetency, there will be a loss of revenue, mistrust in the firm, a bad reputation with the customers and stakeholders.
Conclusively, therefore, I agree with the statement that Project managers should resist changes to the project baseline given the challenges that co change present, therefore necessary that the management refutes variation. This is because the advantages for resisting change are far more than the disadvantages of accepting the change, such benefits include, vendors may also fail to understand why they were contracted given that they already procured process materials. Besides, baseline change means that the management for the project is unable to deliver the requirements as expected and even surpass. Also, such changes frequently end und frustrating the teams involved in the plans. Additionally, baseline change because it will be exposing the element of lack of professionalism, and since once the change is accepted the frits time it will always be a routine, and from time to time they will face it as a challenge
References
Banks, L. (2017). “What Is a Strategic Project?”. Small Business. Houston Chronicle. Hearst Newspapers, LLC.
Bannerman, P. L. (2008). Defining project success: a multilevel framework. Paper presented at PMI® Research Conference: Defining the Future of Project Management, Warsaw, Poland. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute. Available at https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/defining-project-success-multilevel-framework-7096
Cattani, G. et al. (2011). Project-Based Organizing and Strategic Management. Advances in Strategic Management. 28. Emerald
F Conforto, E. C. et al. (2014). “Can agile project management be adopted by industries other than software development?”. Project Management Journal. 45 (3): 21–34
Harold, K. (2003). Project Management: A Systems Approach to Planning, Scheduling, and Controlling (8th ed.). Wiley
Mesly, O. (2016). Project Feasibility: Tools for Uncovering Points of Vulnerability. Systems Innovation Book Series. New York: CRC Press (published 2017). p. 52.
Oliveira, N. & Lumineau, F. ( 2017). How coordination trajectories influence the performance of inter-organizational project networks. Organization Science, 28(6), pp.1029-1060.
Stewart, G. L. et al. (2015). “Empowering Sustained Patient Safety.” Journal of Nursing Care Quality. 30 (3): 240–246.