PPMP20011: Projects Negotiation and Conflict Report Analysis

This report, titled "Projects Negotiation and Conflict Report," analyzes the Queensland Health Payroll System based on the KPMG 2012 review. It applies Peña-Mora and Tamaki's (2001) "Generic Negotiation Model" to the project, participants, negotiation processes, methods, and outcomes. The report details the project characteristics, participant roles (Owner, Designers, Contractors), negotiating positions, and potential conflicts for four projects: Forward strategy for payroll system, Governance and decision-making, People and change, and Funding. It references key publications such as Walker & Walker (2015), and provides justifications for applying specific project characteristics. The report serves as a communication tool to manage negotiations, identify conflicts, and facilitate stakeholder engagement within the context of the QLD Health Payroll System's challenges and recommendations.

PROJECTS NEGOTIATION AND CONFLICT REPORT
NAME OF PROJECT
PROJECT NEGOTIATION AND CONFLICT REPORT
By (Name)
Course
Professor’s name
University name
City, State
Date of submission
ENTER YOUR NAME WITH STUDENT ID PAGE 1

PROJECTS NEGOTIATION AND CONFLICT REPORT
NAME OF PROJECT
PPMP20011ProjectsNegotiationandConflictReport
1 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
ENTER YOUR NAME WITH STUDENT ID PAGE 2
The Projects Negotiation and Conflict Report is a communication tool that is used as the
basis for managing negotiation, identifying conflict areas and stakeholder engagement.
Peña-Mora and Tamaki (2001) provide a model (p. 106) described as a “Generic
Negotiation Model”. In their model they identify that there are five basic elements: (1)
the project; (2) the participants; (3) the negotiation interaction process; (4) the
collaborative negotiation methodology; and (5) the outcome.
These five elements have been used to create this report. You should complete each of
the sections below regarding:
1. Program Information
2. The Projects
3. The Participants
4. The Negotiation Interaction Process
5. The Negotiation Methods
6. The Outcome
This report is based on the contents of Peña-Mora F., and Tamaki T. 2001. Effect of
Delivery Systems on Collaborative Negotiations for Large -Scale Infrastructure Projects;
Alfredson T., & Cungu A. 2008. Negotiation Theory and Practice; Walker and Walker 2015
Collaborative Project Procurement Arrangements; Directing plus Managing Successful
Projects with PRINCE2 (2009); A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge

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 high-tech, system, fast and platform as per
the Shenhar et al. diamond perspective, fire and air as per the Turner and Cochrane
Four quadrant perspective, transparency as per the complex products-service
perspective, and metaphorical as per the identity perspective.
ENTER YOUR NAME WITH STUDENT ID PAGE 3
The Projects.
QLD Health implemented a payroll system in 2010. The history and impact of this
system has been reported in documents uploaded to Week 6 in the Moodle web
site:
 Case Study Files for Practical Assessments - QLD Health Payroll:
o 2012-05-31 KPMG QLD Health Payroll Implementation Review.pdf
o 2012-11-01 Secret Cabinet documents emerge - Courier Mail.pdf
o 2013-07-31 Queensland Health Payroll System Commission of Inquiry Report.pdf
o 2014-01-23 Grosser M 2014 Legal lessons - Government News.pdf
o 2014-12-14 Eden Sedera 2013 The Largest Admitted IT Project Failure in the Southern
Hemisphere.pdf
In the KPMG (2012) QLD Health Payroll Implementation Review there are a number
of recommendations and next steps made (p. 36-38):
1. Forward strategy for payroll system;
2. Governance and decision-making;
3. People and change;
4. Funding;
Each of the recommendations can be thought of as a project.
In chapter 2 of the PMI Published Research: Theory and Practice - the book
Collaborative Project Procurement Arrangements (2015) by Derek H. T. Walker and
Beverly M. Lloyd Walker, the authors present a number of project characteristics:
 The Shenhar et al. Diamond Perspective: NCTP (p. 7);
 The Turner and Cochrane Four-quadrant Perspective (p. 9);
 Projects from an Organizational Learning Process Perspective (p. 9);

PROJECTS NEGOTIATION AND CONFLICT REPORT
NAME OF PROJECT
The justifications for these characteristics are there is a project to identify and
communicate the future payroll to be used by Queensland Health, which means that
there is an aspect of novelty being applied here, as well as a transparency as can be
seen from the communication. Communication is one way of getting into the good
graces of people. From the description of novelty (Walker & Walker, 2015), it can be
deduced that the new payroll being documented draws from one that already exists.
Fire projects are those, which involve applications and software development while
air projects involve research and change such as is being proposed by the study to
determine future business requirements.
2.2 Project 2: Governance and decision-making
The project characteristics of project 2 are fire as per the four-quadrant perspective,
change process, and transparency as per complex product-service perspective.
The justifications for these characteristics are one of the projects is to engage a third
party to do an independent assessment across sections of work involved with the
payroll portfolio, a step which would indicate transparency and a desire to redeem the
company’s impression in the eyes of stakeholders (Pinto, 2010). This is like a
temporary organization, where this third party will do its duty and leave after
completion.
ENTER YOUR NAME WITH STUDENT ID PAGE 4

PROJECTS NEGOTIATION AND CONFLICT REPORT
NAME OF PROJECT
2.3 Project 3: People and change
The project characteristics of project 3 are dialogue, access, risk assessment and
transparency as per the complex product-service perspective, and intervention
branding project as per the identity perspective.
The justifications for these characteristics are the project to implement a stakeholder
engagement program to regain their trust is a public relations move (Alfredson &
Cungu, 2008). Planned changes in business approach and simplification of the award
structure, both, which affect the staff, are moves to show transparency and a
willingness to hear ideas.
2.4 Project 4: Funding
The project characteristics of project 4 are risk assessment, transparency according to
the product-service perspective and ordered known as per the Organizational Learning
Process Perspective.
The justifications for these characteristics are more focus to quantifying tangible
benefits and greater visibility of cash shortfall is emphasizing on the organization
learning to apply expertise on data management and transparency by sharing the
knowledge they have with stakeholders (Brown et al., 2008).
ENTER YOUR NAME WITH STUDENT ID PAGE 5

PROJECTS NEGOTIATION AND CONFLICT REPORT
NAME OF PROJECT
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 leader.
The potential conflicts in relationships that the owner may have are with both the
designer and the contractor over the specific roles they are to play.
3.1.2 Designers
The negotiating position of the designers will be expert.
The potential conflicts in relationships that the designers may have are with the
owners concerning privacy policies (Peña-Mora & Tamaki, 2001).
ENTER YOUR NAME WITH STUDENT ID PAGE 6
The Participants.
Peña-Mora and Tamaki (2001) state (p. 107-108) that:
 project participants’ roles, responsibilities, and relationships are used to
identify their interests, positions, and attitudes;
 …and the potential conflicts in those relationships.
For each of the four projects; identify the possible negotiating position of the
project participants, and potential conflicts in relationships that may exist.
The identification of the three participants has been taken from Peña-Mora and
Tamaki (2001), namely Owner, Designers, Contractors. However, you can
substitute names that you think are more practical from the Case Study concerning

PROJECTS NEGOTIATION AND CONFLICT REPORT
NAME OF PROJECT
3.1.3 Contractors
The negotiating position of the contractors will be observer.
The potential conflicts in relationships that the contractors may have are with the
designer over duty implementation.
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 leader.
The potential conflicts in relationships that the owner may have are with the designer
over the needs the organization has and the designers’ role in fulfilling them.
3.2.2 Designers
The negotiating position of the designers will be expert.
The potential conflicts in relationships that the designers may have are with the owner
over independence of the design process.
3.2.3 Contractors
The negotiating position of the contractors will be relater.
The potential conflicts in relationships that the contractors may have are with the
owner over their role in construction and maintenance.
ENTER YOUR NAME WITH STUDENT ID PAGE 7

PROJECTS NEGOTIATION AND CONFLICT REPORT
NAME OF PROJECT
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 leader.
The potential conflicts in relationships that the owner may have are with the designer
over design versus construction failures.
3.3.2 Designers
The negotiating position of the designers will be observer.
The potential conflicts in relationships that the designers may have are with the owner
over design versus utility.
3.3.3 Contractors
The negotiating position of the contractors will be builder.
The potential conflicts in relationships that the contractors may have are with the
designer over the economy of the designs.
3.4 Project 4: Funding
For Project 4 the negotiating position and conflicts in relationships of the participants
of this project are described below.
ENTER YOUR NAME WITH STUDENT ID PAGE 8

PROJECTS NEGOTIATION AND CONFLICT REPORT
NAME OF PROJECT
3.4.1 Owner
The negotiating position of the owner will be leader.
The potential conflicts in relationships that the owner may have are the budget
depends on the costs the contractor will ask for.
3.4.2 Designers
The negotiating position of the designers will be expert.
The potential conflicts in relationships that the designers may have are they may want
costs to be lower than the contractor can accept.
3.4.3 Contractors
The negotiating position of the contractors will be critic.
The potential conflicts in relationships that the contractors may have are the
organizations main goal will be to get services at the lowest of costs at the detriment
of the contractor.
4 THE NEGOTIATION INTERACTION PROCESS
ENTER YOUR NAME WITH STUDENT ID PAGE 9
The Negotiation Interaction Process.
Alfredson & Cungu (2008) in their paper Negotiation Theory and Practice identify
that there are a number of schools of thought regarding the approaches in
negotiation (p. 9-18):
 a structural approach;
 a strategic approach;
 a behavioural approach;
 a concessional exchange approach;
 …and an integrative approach.

PROJECTS NEGOTIATION AND CONFLICT REPORT
NAME OF PROJECT
4.1 Project 1: Forward strategy for payroll system
For Project 1 the negotiating position recommended should be integrative. It should
seek to find an answer beneficial to both parties by using an argument that expands
the opportunities so both can benefit.
4.2 Project 2: Governance and decision-making
For Project 2 the negotiating position recommended should be strategic, so that facts
can be pondered over and bargaining done in view of a goal and rational decisions
arrived at.
4.3 Project 3: People and change
For Project 3 the negotiating position recommended should be concession exchange,
so that during the negotiations, impressions can change as more arguments are
presented from the opposite party.
4.4 Project 4: Funding
For Project 4 the negotiating position recommended should be strategic and
behavioral. Negotiations involving funds should seek to convince the second party of
an end favorable to you, and should be more cooperative and altruistic since there
should be a notion of both sides being of the same mind (Alfredson & Cungu, 2008).
ENTER YOUR NAME WITH STUDENT ID PAGE 10

PROJECTS NEGOTIATION AND CONFLICT REPORT
NAME OF PROJECT
5 THE NEGOTIATION METHODS
5.1 Project 1: Forward strategy for payroll system
For Project 1 the negotiating method recommended should be cooperative. Since the
company has already incurred a huge loss, it would do them good to listen more and
have more than just their needs in mind when negotiating.
5.2 Project 2: Governance and decision-making
For Project 2 the negotiating method recommended should be collaborating, this both
with the staff and the other people who will be needed to make all the planned
projects succeed.
5.3 Project 3: People and change
For Project 3 the negotiating method recommended should be accommodating
because trust has already been eroded and any arguments should be taken in good
faith.
ENTER YOUR NAME WITH STUDENT ID PAGE 11
The Negotiation Methods.
Alfredson & Cungu (2008) in their book Negotiation Theory and Practice provide
summaries of their negotiation approaches (p. 18). Kerzner (2013) also identifies
six items to be addressed in his small section titled Negotiation Phase (p. 1164).
For each of the four projects; identify the negotiating methods you would
recommend, and the justification for those negotiating methods.
If you wish to illustrate the method through a diagram or mind map then please
insert the diagram as a JPG image in the each project below.

PROJECTS NEGOTIATION AND CONFLICT REPORT
NAME OF PROJECT
5.4 Project 4: Funding
For Project 4 the negotiating method recommended should be compromising.
Wanting funding after losing funds puts the organization at a precarious position and
if they are to be taken seriously, they need to be ready to change their own opinions.
6 THE OUTCOME
ENTER YOUR NAME WITH STUDENT ID PAGE 12
The Outcome.
The final outcome from a negotiation process may be varied; however Walker and
Walker (2015) identify three broad procurement approaches (p. 16-37).
1. Traditional—Segregated Design and Delivery Procurement Forms;
2. Focus on Integrated Design and Delivery Procurement Arrangements—
Emphasising Planning and Control;
3. Focus on Integrated Project Teams—Emphasizing Collaboration and
Coordination
With each of the approaches breaking down to a number of sub-forms:
 1A Design Bid Build (DBB) (p. 17);
 1B Cost reimbursement (Cost-Plus) (p. 18);
 2A Design and Construct (D&C) (p. 19);
 2B integrated Supply Chain Management (SCM) (p. 20+);
 2C Management Contracting (MC) (p. 21);
 2D consortia of Joint Venture (JV) contractors (p. 21+);
 2E the Build-Own-Operate-Transfer (BOOT) family (p. 23+);
 3A partnering philosophies (p. 25+);
 3B integrated solutions; including Competitive Dialogue (CD), Integrated
Project Delivery (IDP) and delivery consortia/partner philosophies (p. 27+);
 3C alliancing including Project Alliances (PA), Design Alliances (DA) and
program Service Alliances (SA) (p. 29+);