Please respond to the two students (Jeffrey and Laura) posts
below. The format should look like the request below. Again, please provide
two different responses. PLEASE MAKE SURE THERE ARE 2 DIFFERENT RESPONSES.
Jeffrey’s post:
Unfortunately, I have gathered a lot of experience with stakeholder issues in the past. With the project I currently work with has many stakeholders with varying roles and interests within the project naturally leading to conflict at times. Issues range in severity (most being small “fires”), though for this example I will use something that happened recently that has had a significant impact on the project. External stakeholders wanted to upgrade and implement a new radar technology in order to capture more data. The decision to upgrade was made and approved, however the internal team was unaware of the full scope of work leading to some friction between stakeholders and those actually implementing the technology. From this course I have learned though preplanning (and planning more, and planning more) using traditional methodologies these issues could have been not only mitigated but possibly completely avoided. The issues would not have to be “reacted to” because through early planning and a clear understanding of the scope of work by both stakeholders and internal teams, there would be no surprises, less friction, and an environment of understanding and trust. A high level of urgency could influence an organization to rush through a project, despite the challenges I strongly believe it is extremely important to stay on track and continuously plan and communicate effectively.
Laura’s post:
Not to be pessimistic, but I think that probably every project has some kind of stakeholder issue, whether it come from the client, a user, the board members, an external stakeholder, or other. Of course, many of these are minor issues that do not affect the overall result or progress of the project. I have noticed that when on larger projects with different departments involved, usually each department is advocating for their own wants or needs, which often conflicts with other areas of the project. In addition, having unclear expectations, communication, costs, or timelines, can all affect the project.
One project I was on started as a way to provide better analytics/reporting for the accountability of a sales team so that they address areas and opportunities needing improvement. The requirements of the project were properly defined, with a budget and timeline (number of hours) for completion. A key stakeholder (an executive decision-maker) put a Sales Manager in charge of the project. This manager was very good at his job, but not very task oriented or organized. He continuously asked for tasks outside of the original project scope, often with urgency. He used multiple modes of communication (email, Slack, ect.), without formal requests. He was a very nice person to work with, although his actions impacted the team and created risks for the project as it was difficult to monitor the budget and other aspects. Ultimately, the formal project requirements were done and we continued on as more of a supportive role. This is an example where a power-interest grid would have been beneficial.
The post Please respond to the two students (Jeffrey and Laura) posts
below. The format s appeared first on blitzarchive.com.