Projects Negotiation and Conflict Report for Queensland Health Payroll Program

This report discusses the negotiation positions and conflicts in relationships of the participants for four projects under the Queensland Health Payroll Program. It also recommends negotiation methods and outcomes for each project. The projects are Forward strategy for payroll system, Governance and decision-making, People and change, and Funding. The report is prepared by a student project manager and is distributed to the CEO, CFO, and President of the Board. The program is owned by the Queensland Government, Australia.

PROJECTS NEGOTIATION AND CONFLICT REPORT
NAME OF PROJECT
PPMP20011 Projects Negotiation
and Conflict Report
1 PROGRAM INFORMATION
Program Name: Queensland Health Payroll Program
Date: 05/04/18
Project Ownership: Queensland Government, Australia
Prepared by: <<name of the student>>, Project Manager
Distribution List:
1. Jonathan Lane, CEO, Project Manager
2. Tony Lewis, CFO, Project Investor
3. Carry White, President, Board Member
ENTER YOUR NAME WITH STUDENT ID PAGE 1

PROJECTS NEGOTIATION AND CONFLICT REPORT
NAME OF PROJECT
2 THE PROJECTS
2.1 Project 1: Forward strategy for payroll system
The project characteristics of project 1 are NCTP are aligned for the implication
of the forward strategy for payroll system.
The justifications for these characteristics are aligned with the alignment of the
operations and implication of the effective development model. The
characteristics of the complexity, pace, and technology are helpful for the
forward strategy implication in payroll system.
2.2 Project 2: Governance and decision-making
The projects characteristics of project 2 are Organizational Learning Process are
aligned for the implication of the operations.
The justifications for these characteristics are aligned for the increment of the
improved development operations and the use of organizational learning process
for the deployment.
2.3 Project 3: People and change
The project characteristics of project 3 are Organizational Learning Process is
aligned for the operations and the modification of the operations.
The justifications for these characteristics are aligned with the development of
the operations would help in forming the development of the operations. The
alignment of the development model would result in forming the probability
development in attenuation of development.
2.4 Project 4: Funding
The project characteristics of project 4 are dependent on the alignment of the
effective alignment of the Identity Perspective.
The justifications for these characteristics are alignment of the improved
operations and it would form the analysis would form the development would
align with the analysis.
3 THE PARTICIPANTS
3.1 Project 1: Forward strategy for payroll system
For Project 1 the negotiating position and conflicts in relationships of the
participants of this project are described below.
3.1.1 Owner
The negotiating position of the owner will be medium because the owner would
ultimately approve or reject the project.
The potential conflicts in relationships that the owner may have are final
deliverable rejection, change request for the operations, and changes
procurement.
ENTER YOUR NAME WITH STUDENT ID PAGE 2

PROJECTS NEGOTIATION AND CONFLICT REPORT
NAME OF PROJECT
3.1.2 Designers
The negotiating position of the designers will be high as the development of the
operations is aligned for the implementation of the operations.
The potential conflicts in relationships that the designers may have are
incompatible design and forging of designs.
3.1.3 Contractors
The negotiating position of the contractors will be medium as the decisions taken
for the project benefits are supported by the contractors.
The potential conflicts in relationships that the contractors may have are aligned
with the development of the integrated operation development and it would be
aligned for the development.
3.2 Project 2: Governance and decision-making
For Project 2 the negotiating position and conflicts in relationships of the
participants of this project are described below.
3.2.1 Owner
The negotiating position of the owner will be aligned for the operation
deployment and alignment and the owner would have to align for the deployment
of the operations would form the deployment.
The potential conflicts in relationships that the owner may have are changes in
development and design unacceptance.
3.2.2 Designers
The negotiating position of the designers will be low as the development of the
final design would not affect the governance and decision making.
The potential conflicts in relationships that the designers may have are design
issues and incompatibility.
3.2.3 Contractors
The negotiating position of the contractors will be medium as the supply of
materials play a significant role for developing of successive operations for
decision making.
The potential conflicts in relationships that the contractors may have are change
implication and quality issues.
3.3 Project 3: People and change
For Project 3 the negotiating position and conflicts in relationships of the
participants of this project are described below.
3.3.1 Owner
The negotiating position of the owner will be high as the management of the
people and the decision for change implication would be the responsibility of the
project owner.
The potential conflicts in relationships that the owner may have are issues in
implication of the changes and conflicts among the people.
ENTER YOUR NAME WITH STUDENT ID PAGE 3

PROJECTS NEGOTIATION AND CONFLICT REPORT
NAME OF PROJECT
3.3.2 Designers
The negotiating position of the designers will be low as the development of the
final design would not affect the people and change.
The potential conflicts in relationships that the designers may have are
complexity and feasibility issues.
3.3.3 Contractors
The negotiating position of the contractors will be medium as the supply of
materials play a significant role for developing of successive operations for
The potential conflicts in relationships that the contractors may have are
communication gap and integration issues.
3.4 Project 4: Funding
For Project 4 the negotiating position and conflicts in relationships of the
participants of this project are described below.
3.4.1 Owner
The negotiating position of the owner will be aligned with the development of the
operations and it would be high as the funding operation would be largely
supported by the project owner.
The potential conflicts in relationships that the owner may have are aligned with
the development of operations such as shortage and rejection of funds.
3.4.2 Designers
The negotiating position of the designers will be low as the development of the
final design would not affect the funding.
The potential conflicts in relationships that the designers may have are design
implementation issues and delay in payment.
3.4.3 Contractors
The negotiating position of the contractors will be medium as the supply of
materials play a significant role in determination of the cost estimation.
The potential conflicts in relationships that the contractors may have are quality
issues and surge in rates of materials.
4 THE NEGOTIATION INTERACTION PROCESS
4.1 Project 1: Forward strategy for payroll system
For Project 1 the negotiating position recommended should be structural in
approach as it would tend to form the major development of the forward strategy
for the alignment of the activities.
4.2 Project 2: Governance and decision-making
For Project 2 the negotiating position recommended should be strategic
approach and it would help in forming the strategic alliance with the governance
and decision making.
ENTER YOUR NAME WITH STUDENT ID PAGE 4

PROJECTS NEGOTIATION AND CONFLICT REPORT
NAME OF PROJECT
4.3 Project 3: People and change
For Project 3 the negotiating position recommended should be behavioural as it
would result in forming the indefinite analysis of the change implementation and
people behavioural analysis.
4.4 Project 4: Funding
For Project 4 the negotiating position recommended should be integrative as it
would allow the alignment of the funding in a complete package solution.
5 THE NEGOTIATION METHODS
5.1 Project 1: Forward strategy for payroll system
For Project 1 the negotiating method recommended should be Staged
Negotiation as the alignment of the forward strategy must be developed
sequentially.
5.2 Project 2: Governance and decision-making
For Project 2 the negotiating method recommended should be Fixed Pie as it
would help in developing successful alignment of the operations on a fixed basis
for the deployment of the decisions and governance.
5.3 Project 3: People and change
For Project 3 the negotiating method recommended should be Integrated
Negotiation as it would help in forming the improvement of the people and
change by integrating the function development.
5.4 Project 4: Funding
For Project 4 the negotiating method recommended should be Integrative
Negotiation as it would allow the consideration of all the factors before aligning
the negotiation of funding
6 THE OUTCOME
6.1 Project 1: Forward strategy for payroll system
The preferred form of procurement as an outcome from the negotiation process
for Project 1 is Cost Reimbursement.
6.2 Project 2: Governance and decision-making
The preferred form of procurement as an outcome from the negotiation process
for Project 2 is Build Own Operate Transfer.
6.3 Project 3: People and change
The preferred form of procurement as an outcome from the negotiation process
for Project 3 is Partnership Philosophies.
ENTER YOUR NAME WITH STUDENT ID PAGE 5

PROJECTS NEGOTIATION AND CONFLICT REPORT
NAME OF PROJECT
6.4 Project 4: Funding
The preferred form of procurement as an outcome from the negotiation process
for Project 4 is Framework Agreements.
ENTER YOUR NAME WITH STUDENT ID PAGE 6

PROJECTS NEGOTIATION AND CONFLICT REPORT
NAME OF PROJECT
7 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bordone, R.C. and Viscomi, R.A., 2015. The wicked problem of rethinking
negotiation teaching. Negotiation Journal, 31(1), pp.65-81.
Chaves, M.S., Araújo, C.D., Teixeira, L., Rosa, D., Júnior, I. and Nogueira, C.,
2016. A new approach to managing Lessons Learned in PMBoK process groups:
the Ballistic 2.0 Model. International Journal of Information Systems and Project
Management, 4(1), pp.27-45.
Erlingsdóttir, G. and Lindholm, C., 2015. When patient empowerment encounters
professional autonomy: The conflict and negotiation process of inscribing an
eHealth service. Scandinavian journal of public administration, 19(2), pp.27-48.
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.
Kerzner, H. and Kerzner, H.R., 2017. Project management: a systems approach
to planning, scheduling, and controlling. John Wiley & Sons.
Kerzner, H., 2018. Project management best practices: Achieving global
excellence. John Wiley & Sons
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.
Rodriguez Rodriguez, A. and Zhu, Y., 2015. Factors in the negotiation of the
project plan: A recipe for success.
Snyder, C.S., 2014. A guide to the project management body of knowledge:
PMBOK (®) guide. Project Management Institute: Newtown Square, PA, USA.
Tomanek, M. and Juricek, J., 2015. Project risk management model based on
PRINCE2 and SCRUM frameworks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1502.03595.
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.
ENTER YOUR NAME WITH STUDENT ID PAGE 7