Projects Negotiation And Conflict Report

Program Information

The main characteristics of this project involve identifying as well as finalizing the required models for the purpose of enhancing the business structure of the QH. The possible ways of doing this is to prioritize the different task for the purpose of implementing the payroll project of the QH (Glass, 2013). Other than this, the initiation of the proposed structure can be viewed as one of the key characteristics of this project.

These characteristics involve extensive research regarding the market. Thus, this can help in assessing the risks beforehand. 

Decision-making is the one of the main characteristics of this project. Assigning a proper governing body with defined responsibilities, adoption of an appropriate framework for the enhancing the governance and auditing can also be considered as some of the key characteristics of this project (Eden and Sedera, 2014).

Well-defined roles will help in establishing an organized business structure for the QH.

The main project characteristics involve holding up regular sessions with the stakeholders, coping up with the unplanned changes as well as disruptions in the mid-way of the project, simplification of the current structure of the QH payroll system (Pain et al., 2015).

These characteristics will bring more transparency in the process of decision-making, will provide the employees with added advantages and can ensure to provide the QH with much stable payroll system.

The characteristics of this project comprises of estimating the budget related to the project, identifying the various cost drivers, analysing the expenditure.

These characteristics can potentially improve the existing payroll system and can prove to be beneficial for the various stakeholders of the company.

For Project 1 the negotiating position and conflicts in relationships of the participants of this project are described below.

The government officials of Queensland such as the Chief Information Officer can be regarded as the owner of this project.

In case the project requirements are not met the government official can be at a questionable position.

The various stakeholders of the QH project are the designer so the company also they can be helpful in delivering innovative ideas with respect to the project.

Conflicting situations might rise when the demands of the stakeholders are not met.

The department who is provided with the responsibility of decision making can be viewed as the constructor of the project.

There might be conflicting situation when the stakeholders or the involved officials do not agree with the imposed decision.

The Projects

For Project 2 the negotiating position and conflicts in relationships of the participants of this project are described below.

The appointed governing body can be viewed as the owner of the negotiation positing in this project.

Conflicting situations might rise when the appointed leaders could not meet the target of the project.

The decision-maker can again be regarded as the designers of the negotiation.

The decision-makers might be at conflict when the forward strategy of the project do not turns out to be productive.

The employees of the organization can be viewed as the constructor of the negotiation as they will finally work on the decisions taken up by governing body (Philip, 2015).

In case the staffs do not follow the proper specified strategies conflicting situation might crop up.

For Project 3 the negotiating position and conflicts in relationships of the participants of this project are described below.

The managerial department who will be responsible for maintaining the cordial relationship with the various stakeholders can be owner of this project.

There might be instances when the stakeholders are not provided with proper information regarding the proceeding of the project (Pruitt,  2013).

The designers will be the various stakeholders of the QH as their views will shape the proceedings of the project.

The possible conflicting situation progress of the project does not go in accordance with the stakeholders’ requirements.

The management team who would handle the disruption in the ongoing project can be regarded as the contractor of negotiation with respect to this project.

The team could be in a situation of conflict when the in case project delays or disruptions.

For Project 4 the negotiating position and conflicts in relationships of the participants of this project are described below.

The finance team for the QH project can be the owner of the negotiation in this case.

Over budget of the project can lead to a situation of conflict.

Designers of the negotiation will be the stakeholders, as their response is of utmost importance for the making key changes in the project.

In case the expenditure of the project is not calculated properly conflicting situation might crop up (Rahim, 2017).

The employees of the organization are the contractors of the negation as they will be working on the all the estimated budgets.

The staffs can be at a position of conflict if they could not complete the work within the estimated budget.

The Participants

The structural approach of negotiation can be adopted for this project. This strategy can be helpful in developing a more organized business structure for the QH. This approach is of utmost importance for the maintaining the different sectors of QH in well-structured manner (Cahn and Abigail, 2014).

Considering this project, strategic approach can be instrumental in improving the existing payroll system of the QH as this would be helpful in assessing the risks beforehand.

The behavioural approach can be recommended for the purpose of this project. The QH comprising 84,000 employees need to consider the likes and dislikes of this huge number therefore, proper research regarding the surrounding market and involved people of the organization before arriving at a point of negotiation.

The recommended negotiation approach for this project is the concessional approach. This approach will be instrumental in developing the business with respect to the payroll structure of the QH. 

Cooperative negotiation can be beneficial with respect to this project. This method of negotiation can result in best possible decision as views of all the stakeholders will be kept in mind while outlining the innovative ideas (Ting?Toomey, 2015).

Competitive negotiation can be recommended for the purpose of this project. Competitive negotiation always aims to deliver the best possible decision considering the profitability of the organization (Prenzel and Vanclay, 2014). Thus, if decisions are made based on this approach this can prove to be effective in resolving the existing issues of the QH.

In context of this project, it can be said that the negotiation approach should be based on the findings and research of the market, the employees as well as the governing bodies involved in the project.

Competitive approach is recommended for this project. The most desirable estimation can be made with the help of such negotiation. The main goal of competitive approach is to find the most profitable measure (Bala, Vij and Mukhopadhyay, 2014). Thus, this can be helpful in maintaining the expenditure in most efficient manner.

The desirable outcome of this negotiation process involve making modification in the existing payroll system of the QH as well as developing innovative ideas for the improvised business structure of QH.

The outcome of this negotiation can be managing the delays, changes and disruptions in a well-organized manner.

Maintaining healthy relationship with the various stakeholders can be desired outcome.

The outcome of this negotiation will mainly involve enhancing the profitability of the organization.

References

Bala, M.I., Vij, S. and Mukhopadhyay, D., 2014. Negotiation life cycle: an approach in e-negotiation with prediction. In ICT and Critical Infrastructure: Proceedings of the 48th Annual Convention of Computer Society of India-Vol I (pp. 505-512). Springer, Cham.

Cahn, D.D. and Abigail, R.A., 2014. Managing conflict through communication. Pearson.

Eden, R. and Sedera, D., 2014. The largest admitted IT project failure in the Southern Hemisphere: a teaching case. In Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Information Systems: Building a Better World Through Information Systems. AISeL.

Glass, R.L., 2013. The Queensland Health Payroll Debacle. Information Systems Management, 30(1), pp.89-90.

Pain, T., Plummer, D., Pighills, A. and Harvey, D., 2015. Comparison of research experience and support needs of rural versus regional allied health professionals. Australian Journal of Rural Health, 23(5), pp.277-285.

Philip, K., 2015. Allied health: untapped potential in the Australian health system. Australian Health Review, 39(3), pp.244-247.

Prenzel, P.V. and Vanclay, F., 2014. How social impact assessment can contribute to conflict management. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 45, pp.30-37.

Pruitt, D.G., 2013. Negotiation behavior. Academic Press.

Rahim, M.A., 2017. Managing conflict in organizations. Routledge.

Ting?Toomey, S., 2015. Identity negotiation theory. The international encyclopedia of interpersonal communication.