Projects Negotiation and Conflict Report for Queensland Health Payroll Program

This report discusses the characteristics of four different projects involved in the Queensland Health Payroll Program and the potential conflicts and negotiating positions of the participants. It also recommends negotiation approaches and methods for each project.

PROJECTS NEGOTIATION AND CONFLICT REPORT
NAME OF PROJECT
PPMP20011 Projects Negotiation
and Conflict Report
1 PROGRAM INFORMATION
Program Name: Queensland Health Payroll Program
Date: 4/5/2018
Project Ownership: QLD health Payroll
Prepared by: Project manager
Distribution List: Stakeholders as well as the Australian Government
2 THE PROJECTS
This section generally elaborates the characteristics of four different projects that
are mainly involved within the Queensland Health. It is identified that proper
knowledge of the project characteristics are needed in order to properly
understand the project aim. The new payroll system within the Queensland
health mainly comprises of two interfacing of SAP as well as Workbrain. The
paper mainly focusses on the project conflict as well as negotiation that generally
occur within the Queensland health due to the new payroll system. The paper
illustrates proper information that are very much helpful in resolving the conflicts.
According to Breckler and Wiggins (1992), negotiations can be defined as the
exchanges of information where the managers of the project reaches to a certain
point of agreement.
2.1 Project 1: Forward strategy for payroll system
The project characteristics of project 1 are NTCP that mainly elaborates Novelty,
Complexity, and technology as well as pace framework for elaborating different
project management perspectives.
The justifications for these characteristics are that both complexity as well as
novelty are considered breakthrough, derivative as well as system. It is stated by
Darling and Mumpower (1990) that breakthrough is one of the paradigm that
generally shifts beyond the innovation for reframing the way in which an
individual’s looks at a certain problem or challenges. Within the forward strategy
of the payroll system, both complexity as well as novelty characteristics are
mainly utilized for properly developing the payroll project and for developing
appropriate way that helps in resolving the issues as well as challenges.
Complexity helps in measuring the array and assembly of the entire payroll
system. It is found that technology is generally utilized for implementing as well
as developing proper features within the system (Du and Chen 2007).
Technology is mainly utilized within the project in order to list cost, schedule that
are mainly associated with the project. In addition to this, with the help of the
technology, the risks that are associated with the project are analysed. It is found
that when there is urgency for the work then, pace is mainly utilized. The project
sponsor generally identifies the project context and then matches with the
various project risks in order to identify the value of the generated project inputs.
ENTER YOUR NAME WITH STUDENT ID PAGE 1

PROJECTS NEGOTIATION AND CONFLICT REPORT
NAME OF PROJECT
2.2 Project 2: Governance and decision-making
The project characteristics of project 2 are project from an organizational
learning process perspective.
The justifications for these characteristics are that both decision-making as well
as governance is needed within the project for discussing about the issues as
well as challenges that are related with the project groups (Hanoch and
Levy1970). Based on the organizational learning perspective, the team come
together for achieving the objectives as well as goals of the organization.
2.3 Project 3: People and change
The project characteristics of project 3 are “Projects from an identity
perspective”.
The justifications for these characteristics are that identity perspective is one of
the best for organizational change as well as for the people and as identity lies in
both culture as well as people, this characteristics is mainly utilized in order to
identify the various culture of the stakeholders and for determining the changes
within the project.
2.4 Project 4: Funding
The project characteristics of project 4 are “Projects from complex product
services perspectives”.
The justifications for these characteristics are that it is very much suitable as it
generally helps in determining the intangible value of the project requirements in
addition with the benefit (Mumpower 1991). It generally assists in providing
proper as well as clear idea about the concept of project funding.
3 THE PARTICIPANTS
This section generally elaborates the group of people who are generally involved
into the program of Queensland Health and payroll. For each of the projects, the
participants are generally provided with possible negotiating position along with
appropriate potential conflicts in relationship. The participants who are generally
involved with the project are designer, owner as well as contractors.
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. It is identified that the person
who are involved with the implementation of the payroll system are generally
associated with the program (Kirkwood 1997). The participants who are found to
be associated with the project includes owner, designer as well as project
contractor.
3.1.1 Owner
The negotiating position of the owner will be high in Queensland health as the
owner of the project have the power either to reject or to approve the project.
ENTER YOUR NAME WITH STUDENT ID PAGE 2

PROJECTS NEGOTIATION AND CONFLICT REPORT
NAME OF PROJECT
The potential conflicts in relationships that the owner may have are due to
change in operation of the system as well due to not meeting their demand as
well as expectation. In addition to this, it is identified that the conflict may occur
due to documentation, communication, identification along with future payroll
operations.
3.1.2 Designers
The negotiating position of the designers will be high as the design of the entire
payroll system is considered as one of the important factor in completion of the
project.
The potential conflicts in relationships that the designers may have mainly due
to the issues that generally occurs because of the improper design, inappropriate
feasibility of the created design as well as inappropriate implications of the
design on the project (Omoto, Kobayashi and Onishi 2002).
3.1.3 Contractors
The negotiating position of the contractors will be low, as they are not generally
needed for any type of crucial or important project activity.
The potential conflicts in relationships that the contractors may have are quality
as well as delivery issues (Zeleznikow et al. 2007). It is identified that if
contractors are not able to deliver the entire project on proper time with
appropriate quality then number of potential conflicts will generally occur.
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 high as the project owner is the
person who have proper right to make appropriate decisions related with the
project. In addition to this, project governance power also lies under the
department of the project owner.
The potential conflicts in relationships that the owner may have are because of
rejection of decisions as due to violation of the standards (Zuhair, Taylor and
Kramer 1992). If the owner of the project violates any of the significant standards
of the project or rejects any important decisions that is for creating positive
outcome within the project then number of potential conflicts can occur.
3.2.2 Designers
The negotiating position of the designers will be low, as the designers are only
required in order to design the system however; they are not involved within the
project for taking any crucial decision.
The potential conflicts in relationships that the designers may have are due to
unacceptability of designs of the system that is designed by the designer. This
issue may occur if the designer is not experienced or they are not capable of
making appropriate design of the system as per the needs as well as
requirements of the client (Bartholomew 1998). Then, potential conflicts
generally occurs.
3.2.3 Contractors
The negotiating position of the contractors will be low as the contractors are not
involved within the decision making process of the organization. They are only
provided the contract for developing the project within the estimated budget as
well as time.
ENTER YOUR NAME WITH STUDENT ID PAGE 3

PROJECTS NEGOTIATION AND CONFLICT REPORT
NAME OF PROJECT
The potential conflicts in relationships that the contractors may have are due to
change alignment issues as well as due to number of obligations within the
processes.
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 it is the responsibility of the
project owner is to keep the project stakeholder aligned to the project. In addition
to this, they also have the responsibility to allow the changes within the project.
The potential conflicts in relationships that the owner may have are due to
conflict among the various stakeholders as well as because of attrition among
the people of the organization (Bonine 1994). If the stakeholders of the project
does not have proper alignment towards the project then the chances of conflict
are also high.
3.3.2 Designers
The negotiating position of the designers will be low as the designers are only
responsible of designing the needed system but they are not involved within the
people management or change management strategies of the organization.
The potential conflicts in relationships that the designers may have are due to
changes within the design as well as because of operational changes. It is found
that if the designers are not able to design the system as per the prototype then
they face number of potential conflicts (Daigle and Touran 1998). Operational
changes within the organization can also create negative impact on the design of
the system and as a result, the designers can face potential conflicts.
3.3.3 Contractors
The negotiating position of the contractors will be low as the contractors are not
responsible of people as well as change management.
The potential conflicts in relationships that the contractors may have are due to
improper communication, changes in project or due to problems in project
deliverables. It is identified that is proper communication strategies are not used
then proper information about the project is not provided to the contractors and
as a result, they may face number of potential conflicts.
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 high, as the owner of the project will
approve the funds for the project.
The potential conflicts in relationships that the owner may have are due to
misuse of project funds (Darling and Mumpower 1990). If the project team
members does not uses the project funds properly for completing the project and
misuse budget in unnecessary project resources then there is high chance of
potential conflict with the owner of the project.
ENTER YOUR NAME WITH STUDENT ID PAGE 4

PROJECTS NEGOTIATION AND CONFLICT REPORT
NAME OF PROJECT
3.4.2 Designers
The negotiating position of the designers will be low as the project designers are
only needed in order to develop proper design for the project but they are
generally not involved within the project funding.
The potential conflicts in relationships that the designers may have are due to
payment issues as well as quality related problems. If the designers are not paid
on time then there is a chance of potential conflicts. In addition to this, quality
related challenges can also create issues as well as potential conflicts.
3.4.3 Contractors
The negotiating position of the contractors will be medium as the payment to the
contractors helps in affecting the funds of the project.
The potential conflicts in relationships that the contractors may have are due to
payment as well as quality issues (Thompson, Crane and Sanders 1996). If
proper payment is not provided, then they will not start developing the project,
which would obstruct the completion of project on time, and therefore there will
be high chance of occurring potential conflicts.
4 THE NEGOTIATION INTERACTION PROCESS
4.1 Project 1: Forward strategy for payroll system
For Project 1 the negotiating position recommended should be behavioural
approach for resolving the challenges of the project and for creating appropriate
project value as well as for communicating properly with the various project
stakeholders in order to make appropriate decisions within the project.
4.2 Project 2: Governance and decision-making
For Project 2 the negotiating position recommended should be structural
approach for taking appropriate decisions for the project and for governing the
project appropriately in order to complete the entire project on time (Bonine
1994).
4.3 Project 3: People and change
For Project 3 the negotiating position recommended should be concessional
exchange approach that mainly focusses on various behaviours that is generally
related with the concession making behaviours in addition to various positions. It
mainly focusses on engagement of the stakeholders along with changes into
management in order to support changes within the processes of business.
4.4 Project 4: Funding
For Project 4 the negotiating position recommended should be integrative
approach (Daigle and Touran 1998). It generally focusses on resolving number
of problems and for generating proper project value by communicating
successfully with the various project stakeholders in order to make proper project
related decisions.
5 THE NEGOTIATION METHODS
ENTER YOUR NAME WITH STUDENT ID PAGE 5

PROJECTS NEGOTIATION AND CONFLICT REPORT
NAME OF PROJECT
5.1 Project 1: Forward strategy for payroll system
For Project 1 the negotiating method recommended should be integrative. It
generally comprises of proper prioritization of trade off, proper realistic
expectations as well as appropriate idea about the different items that are
needed by the project stakeholders in order to complete the project (Kirkwood
1997).
5.2 Project 2: Governance and decision-making
For Project 2 the negotiating method recommended should be integrative. It is
considered as of the negotiation strategy that mainly collaborates in order to find
proper win-to-win solutions for the disputes that are generally identified.
5.3 Project 3: People and change
For Project 3 the negotiating method recommended should be concessional
exchange approach. It mainly consists of honesty of the project team members
for the project work in order to support the various team members of the project.
It generally focusses on concessional making behaviour along with appropriate
processes of negotiations (Du and Chen 2007).
5.4 Project 4: Funding
For Project 4 the negotiating method recommended should be integrative. It
mainly focusses on resolving number of project related challenges in order to
create appropriate project value so that the payroll process will be implemented
successfully by having proper communication with the project team members.
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 focussed on integrated design of the payroll system for the
Queensland health. It mainly reflects on delivery of procurement arrangements
that mainly emphasizes on project planning as well as control (Hanoch and Levy
1970).
6.2 Project 2: Governance and decision-making
The preferred form of procurement as an outcome from the negotiation process
for Project 2 is focussed on integrated project team members in order to
emphasize properly on project co-ordination as well as collaboration. It is
identified that proper project partnership is needed in governance as well as
project decision making.
6.3 Project 3: People and change
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 various project stakeholders as well as
project team members (Bartholomew 1998). It is identified that into people and
change, the involvement of contractor is generally needed for arrangements of
various frameworks. It is identified that proper adoption of the framework causes
collaboration as well as integration of design for the payroll system.
ENTER YOUR NAME WITH STUDENT ID PAGE 6

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 focus on integrated design as well as on delivery procurement. It
is found that for funding, integrated SCM, management contracting as well as
proper design of project management methodologies are needed for planning as
well as scheduling.
ENTER YOUR NAME WITH STUDENT ID PAGE 7

PROJECTS NEGOTIATION AND CONFLICT REPORT
NAME OF PROJECT
7 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bartholomew, S. (1998). Construction contracting: Business and Legal
principles, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, N.J.
Bonine, L. (1994). ‘‘Partnering the central artery/tunnel.’’ Am. Bar Assn. J.,
Clough, R., and Sears, G. (1994). Construction contracting, Wiley, New York.
Breckler, S. J., and Wiggins, E. C. 1992. “On defining attitude and attitude
theory: Once more with feeling.” Attitude structure and function, A. R. Pratkanis,
S. J. Breckler, and A. G. Greenwald, eds., Erlbaum, Hillsdale, N.J., 407–427
Daigle, M., and Touran, A. (1998). ‘‘Partnering and its implementation on the
central artery/tunnel project.’’ Civ. Engrg. Pract., 13(1), 49– 62.
Darling, T., and Mumpower, J. L. 1990. “Modeling cognitive influences on the
dynamics of negotiations.” Proc., 23rd Annual Int. Conf. on Sys. Sci., IEEE,
Piscataway, N.J., 22–30
Darling, T., and Mumpower, J. (1990). ‘‘Modeling cognitive influences on the
dynamics of negotiations.’’ Proc., Annu. Int. Conf. on Sys. Sci. IEEE Computing
Society Press, New York
Du, T. C., and Chen, H. L. 2007. “Building a multiple-criteria negotiation support
system.” IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng., 19 (6), 804– 817.
Hanoch, G., and Levy, H. 1970. “Efficient portfolio selection with quadratic and
cubic utility.” J. Bus., 43, 181–189.
Kirkwood, C. W. 1997. Notes on attitude towards risk taking and exponential
utility function, Dept. of Management, Arizona State Univ., Tempe, Ariz.
Mumpower, J. L. 1991. “The judgment policies of negotiators and the structure
of negotiation problems.” Manage. Sci., 37 (10), 1304–1324.
Omoto, T., Kobayashi, K., and Onishi, M. 2002. “Bargaining model of JOURNAL
OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2010 / 121 construction
dispute resolution.” IEEE—Systems man and cybernetic, Vol. 7, IEEE,
Piscataway, N.J., 6–17.
Susskind, L., and Cruikshank, J. (1987). Breaking the impasse, Basic Books,
New York.
Thompson, P., Crane, T., and Sanders, S. (1996). ‘‘The partnering process—its
benefits, implementation and measurement.’’ CII Res. Rep. 102-11, Prepared for
Construction Industry Institute, University of Texas at Austin,
Zeleznikow, J., Bellucci, E., Schild, U. J., and MacKenzie, G. 2007. “Bargaining
in the shadow of the law–Using utility functions to support legal negotiation.”
Proc. Int. Conf. on 11th Artificial Intelligence and Law, Stanford Law School,
Stanford, Calif., 237–246.
Zuhair, S. M. M., Taylor, D. B., and Kramer, R. A. 1992. “Choice of utility
function form: Its effect on classification of risk preferences and the prediction of
farmer decisions.” Agric. Econ., 6, 333–344
ENTER YOUR NAME WITH STUDENT ID PAGE 8