PPMP20011 Projects Negotiation and Conflict Report †Free Samples

Question: Discuss about the PPMP20011 Projects Negotiation and Conflict Report. Answer: Program Information Program Name: Queensland Health Payroll Program Date: Date of the current Projects Negotiation and Conflict Report Project Ownership: Area responsible for the project Prepared by: Name and project position Distribution List: List of those receiving the report The Projects Project 1: Forward strategy for payroll system The project characteristics of project 1 are unique and uncertain The justifications for these characteristics are that the operating and service delivery models for the QH payroll identification, documentation, and communication is a unique activity, although aligned and consequent to previous activities, experiences, and outcomes. The tasks are dfferent with a list of prioritized payroll projects being a unique undertaking, as is changing pay date, reducing degree of retrospectivity, detrmining future business requirements, and investigating electronic rostering systems. Beacuse of the uniqueneness of task, uncertainty is introdued; it is not known, with 100% certainty, how the new changes are going to pan out Project 2: Governance and decision-making The project characteristics of project 2 are temporary and cross functional The justifications for these characteristics are that the proposed changes to make the software algned with the needs of the QH and fulfill its roles by identifying and documenting future payroll delivery systems is a form of ongoing maintenance for the existing software. It is also cross functional since it will engage people from different levels of seiority in different departments that must work together to deliver the envisaged benefits of the software Project 3: People and change The project characteristics of project 3 are cross functional and a form of change The justifications for these characteristics are that the new approaches inlcuding implmenting a stakeholder engagment program, a comprehensive change management, and defering significant payroll changes, as well as exploring opprotunities of simplifying current process arechanges being introduced. Its cross fucntional because it involves people from different business departments and seniorities that have to work cohesively to achieve the desired changes and benefits Project 4: Funding The project characteristics of project 4 are temporary and unique The justifications for these characteristics are because the proposed new funding is a continuation of past funding (budget), yet they are different from the past funding. They are also temporary because it is an ongoing process to make the software more usable and productive, within the wider scope of the QH software system The Participants : Forward strategy for payroll system Owner The negotiating position of the owner (QH) will be positional based negotation/ bargaining and active listening where they will seek a solution that helps solve the QH problems, without giving the other party much or any leverage The potential conflicts in relationships that the owner may have are that the contractors will seek to have a solution that does not require them to radically change the existing system. The conflict with designers is likely to be how to implement all the desired design aspects into the system Designers The negotiating position of the designers (KPMG) will be interest based, seeking a win/win outcome for both parties by being analytical and brainstorming options The potential conflicts in relationships that the designers may have are with the contractor as the new designs may not be feasible or practical, based on all theContractors The negotiating position of the contractors (SAP ad software providers) will be positional, where they will want to have a workable system, but without giving the designers too much leverage to change the design of the system by gathering relevant facts, addressing misunderstandings, and making decisions The potential conflicts in relationships that the contractors may have are misunderstandings with the designers negotiating financial and legal settlements Governance and decision-making Owner The negotiating position of the owner will be positional through decision making, building rapport, and planning The potential conflicts in relationships that the owner may have are getting key senior leades to support the go forward-project and making organizational and decision making changes Designers The negotiating position of the designers will be interest based, seeking a win/win situation through problem solving, tact, and writing proposals The potential conflicts in relationships that the designers may have are with the contractors when they make radical changes, such as on engaging independent third parties to undertake independent assurance activities Contractors The negotiating position of the contractors will be interest based, by being flexible, strategizing and formulating solutions The potential conflicts in relationships that the contractors may have are working with third parties on quality assurance, implementing a clear enterprise protfolio netwrok Project 3: People and change Owner The negotiating position of the owner will be interest based to ensure a win/ win situation through decision making and creativity The potential conflicts in relationships that the owner may have are with people resisting change Designers The negotiating position of the designers will be interest based, seeking a win/ win situation through creativity, empathy, and facilitatiing group discussions. The potential conflicts in relationships that the designers may have are with people resiting change based on a new enterprise framework and senior decision makers resisting some chages that will need additional funding for the system Contractors The negotiating position of the contractors will be positional, by building rapport especially with the third parties, and problem solving/ proposing solutions The potential conflicts in relationships that the contractors may have are with te designers and third parties on the kind of changes to be made and how the changes will be implemented Project 4: Funding Owner The negotiating position of the owner will be interest based, to seek consensu The potential conflicts in relationships that the owner may have are with decisojn makers for extra funding and its justification Designers The negotiating position of the designers will be interest based, to seek cnsensus and a win/win situation The potential conflicts in relationships that the designers may have are with decision makers on funding Contractors The negotiating position of the contractors will be positional, to ask probing questions The potential conflicts in relationships that the contractors may have are with the designers, owner, and decision makers on funding The Negotiation Interaction Process Project 1: Forward strategy for payroll system For Project 1 the negotiating position recommended should be a structural approach because the owner has most responsbility and needs to set the stage for further actions and changes (Hawes Fleming, 2014) Project 2: Governance and decision-making For Project 2 the negotiating position recommended should be integrative with the aim of a win/ win situation where QH gets a better system, SAP implements creative changes, and users benefit from the changes (Hawes Fleming, 2014) Project 3: People and change For Project 3 the negotiating position recommended should be behavioral; tis is because dealing with people where change is involved needs to take into consideration their behavior (Hawes Fleming, 2014) Project 4: Funding For Project 4 the negotiating position recommended should be strategic, to get them to approve the funding and business benefits and returns on changes made The Negotiation Methods Project 1: Forward strategy for payroll system For Project 1 the negotiating method recommended should be inductive where all small details must be looked into until a final position is achieved (Bajwa, Ko?szegi Vetschera, 2017) Project 2: Governance and decision-making For Project 2 the negotiating method recommended should be distributive to ensure framework for the necessary changes are firmly in place Project 3: People and change For Project 3 the negotiating method recommended should be integrative, to ensure successful change as people can be difficult to persuade to change Project 4: Funding For Project 4 the negotiating method recommended should be an inductive deductive method because they will propose a given amount of funding and the decision makers may want other options as details are worked out (Bajwa, Ko?szegi Vetschera, 2017) The Outcome Project 1: Forward strategy for payroll system The preferred form of procurement as an outcome from the negotiation process for Project 1 is framework agreements Project 2: Governance and decision-making The preferred form of procurement as an outcome from the negotiation process for Project 2 is integrated solutions; including Competitive Dialogue (CD), Integrated Project Delivery (IDP) and delivery consortia/partner philosophies Project 3: People and change The preferred form of procurement as an outcome from the negotiation process for Project 3 is framework agreements Project 4: Funding The preferred form of procurement as an outcome from the negotiation process for Project 4 is integrated solutions; including Competitive Dialogue (CD), Integrated Project Delivery (IDP) and delivery consortia/partner philosophies References Bajwa, D., Ko?szegi, S. T., Vetschera, R. (2017). Group decision and negotiation: theory, empirical evidence, and application : 16th International Conference, GDN 2016, Bellingham, WA, USA, June 20-24, 2016 : revised selected papers. Hawes, J. and Fleming, D. (2014). Recognizing Distributive or Integrative Negotiation Opportunities in Marketing Channels: The Conceptualization of Adaptive Negotiations. Journal of Marketing Channels, 21(4), pp.279-287.