BUS9203 Project Management
Assignment 3
This report applies PMBOK principles to plan, control, and review a complex project. It links my earlier work in Assignment 1 and 2 with new tasks in Assignment 3, I will also link it to my background, that is, site engineer and multicultural team (Kiwi and Indian colleagues). The paper covers critical success factors, emotional intelligence and capability, team reflections, and organisation structure. It then analyses a defence case and develops a 3-level WBS, an AoN/CPM-based Gantt with NZ holidays, and project controls. Progress reporting uses Earned Value (SPI, CPI) and a client status template that protects quality. The aim is simple: clear scope, reliable schedule, honest costs, and safe delivery. References include PMBOK guidance and recognised project management research (PMI, 2021; Kerzner, 2017).
Question 1
1.1 CSFs for initiating, planning, executing, and closing
Initiating.
1. Clear problem statement, mission, and success criteria. These align the team to value and guide later trade-offs (PMI, 2021; Pinto & Slevin, 1987).
2. Active sponsor and governance. Clear decision rights and escalation reduce drift and delay (Fortune & White, 2006; PMI, 2021).
3. Stakeholder mapping with cultural intelligence. Identify users, approvers, vendors, and note language and culture needs to avoid misunderstanding in a mixed Kiwi–Indian setting (Moon, 2013; PMI, 2021).
Planning.
4. Integrated scope baseline (WBS + WBS Dictionary). Makes scope verifiable and controllable (PMI, 2021; Kerzner, 2017).
5. Feasible schedule baseline (AoN/CPM) with float and critical path. Ties logic to durations so control is possible (PMI, 2019; PMI, 2021).
6. Cost baseline and control accounts. Enables earned value tracking and forecast accuracy (Fleming & Koppelman, 2010; PMI, 2021).
7. Risk management plan with owners. Focuses responses on the few risks that move the needle (Zwikael & Globerson, 2006; PMI, 2021).
8. Communication plan. Two-way, tailored messages and visuals for diverse audiences (Fortune & White, 2006; PMI, 2021).
Executing.
9. Competent team and supplier readiness. Roles, skills, and materials in place; leadership style. matched to complexity (Müller, Geraldi, & Turner, 2012; PMI, 2021).
10. Quality assurance and disciplined change control. Prevents rework and scope creep (Kerzner, 2017; PMI, 2021).
11. Performance measurement using EVM. SPI/CPI show schedule and cost health; EAC supports decisions (Anbari, 2003; Fleming & Koppelman, 2010).
12. Effective communication cadence. Short stand-ups, action logs, and visual updates reduce decision latency (PMI, 2021; Standish Group, 2020).
Closing.
13. Acceptance and handover. Verify deliverables against criteria; transfer SOPs, warranties, and access (PMI, 2021).
14. Lessons learned and benefits follow-up. Capture knowledge and confirm value realisation for the organisation (PMI, 2021; Kerzner, 2017).
1.2 How I would ensure implementation at each stage as Site Engineer
Initiation.
• Draft the technical concept and constraints so the charter states what “done” means. Add measurable success criteria (e.g., uptime, safety).
• Map stakeholders with the PM and note cultural needs. Use plain English, short sentences, and diagrams. For mixed Kiwi–Indian teams, create a one-page glossary for key technical terms and agree meeting etiquette (Moon, 2013; PMI, 2021).
• Confirm sponsor availability and an escalation path in writing (Fortune & White, 2006).
Planning.
• Lead a WBS workshop. Build a WBS Dictionary so each work package has scope, owner, and acceptance criteria (PMI, 2021; Kerzner, 2017).
• Utilize the planner to create an AoN/CPM network and baseline dates. Identify long-lead items and free/total float (PMI, 2019).
• Establish the EVM cost limit and credit regulations of Finance (e.g., 0/100 for equipment delivery, 50/50 for civil works).
• Do a risk workshop. Assign owners and responses. Put the top five risks on the weekly agenda (Zwikael & Globerson, 2006).
• Comms plan publish: weekly stand-ups; fortnightly sponsor notes; visual site updates. Take minutes with action, owner, and due date (Fortune & White, 2006).
Execution.
• Check supplier readiness: drawings approved, permits obtained, materials staged.
• Run quality assurance: ITPs, inspections, FAT/SAT scripts; log defects and close them.
• Impose change control: no field modification without impact analysis on scope, time, cost, and risk.
• •Monitor EVM weekly: report SPI/CPI, CV/SV, and EAC; in case SPI < 1 on the critical path, propose fast-tracking or crashing with risk checks (Anbari, 2003; Fleming & Koppelman, 2010).
• •Short meetings. Utilize photos and check understanding with read-backs to deal with cultural subtlety (PMI, 2021; Moon, 2013).
Closing.
• Acceptance against the baseline: tests passed, documents done, and operations trained.
• Transfer SOPs, warranties, and credentials; ensure support model and contacts.
• Schedule lessons learned and deliver the Closure Report. Record any cultural or communication practices that supported the team in providing (PMI, 2021; Kerzner, 2017).
Question 2
2.1 EI dimensions I most need to develop
I use the four-factor EI model: self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, and relationship management (Goleman, 1998; Mayer & Salovey, 1997; PMI, 2021).
Self-management (emotional self-control). This matters when plans shift and pressure rises on site. In one outage-booking call, a vendor pushed for a risky late-night install. I felt defensive and almost agreed. I paused for two minutes, checked H&S rules with the PM, and rescheduled in daylight. Better control avoided rework and risk. I will use a short “pause-and-check” rule, a trigger list, and quick breathing cycles before giving commitments (Clarke, 2010; PMI, 2021).
Social awareness and cultural intelligence (empathy). Our team mixes direct Kiwi styles with more indirect Indian styles. Early in the project I read “we will try” as “yes.” Tasks slipped. I switched to paraphrasing and check-backs: “What will be done by Friday? What is blocked?” I also use visuals and short summaries. Empathy and CQ improve understanding and performance in multicultural teams (Moon, 2013; Ang & Van Dyne, 2008).
Relationship management (influence and conflict handling). As Site Engineer I often influence without authority. A scope add for extra signage appeared mid-install. I used an SBAR note (situation, background, assessment, recommendation) to show time and cost impact and offered a phase-2 option. The change was deferred. I will keep using interest-based negotiation, clean decision logs, and clear escalation paths (Müller, Geraldi, & Turner, 2012; Kerzner, 2017).
Adaptability and stress tolerance. Weather and inspection slots move. When trenching slipped in rain, I resequenced documentation and staging so crews stayed productive. I will keep 48-hour micro-plans and a “Plan B” for each critical task (PMI, 2021; Fleming & Koppelman, 2010).
To track growth, I will run a short self-assessment (e.g., WLEIS) and ask for a monthly 360 comment from the PM and vendor lead (Wong & Law, 2002).
2.2 Critical self-appraisal against a professional PM profile
I use PMBOK 7 principles and the PMI Talent Triangle: Ways of Working, Power Skills, Business Acumen (PMI, 2021), plus research on PM leadership in complex work (Müller et al., 2012; Kerzner, 2017).
Strengths.
• Ways of Working. I am strong in technical planning with WBS and AoN/CPM, and I run quality checks through ITPs, FAT/SAT. I can use EVM to report SPI, CPI, CV/SV, and a basic EAC, which helps early control (Fleming & Koppelman, 2010; PMI, 2021).
• Power Skills. I am reliable with follow-through, and my empathy/CQ has improved, Also, it is my advantage that interpreting technical notes in plain English for audiences, which could contribute to miscommunication reduction (Moon, 2013).
• Business Acumen. My accounting background helps: I understand unit rates, cash flow, and margin. I consider cost and risk impacts before agreeing to field changes (Kerzner, 2017).
Gaps.
• Advanced negotiation and commercial terms. I need stronger skill with SLAs, liquidated damages, and incentives so I can protect schedule and cost during procurement (Kerzner, 2017).
• Risk quantification. I manage a risk register but have limited practice with three-point estimates, schedule risk analysis, and Monte Carlo (PMI, 2021).
• Executive communication. I brief crews well, but my senior-level packs need a tighter story that connects data to decisions.
• Conflict under time pressure. When tired, I sometimes avoid direct conversations; this slows decisions (Clarke, 2010).
Targeted development plan.
• Commercial acumen. Shadow the PM in two vendor negotiations; summarise one contract clause per week in plain English; build a small playbook of “do/don’t” terms (Kerzner, 2017).
• Risk analytics. Pilot simple three-point duration estimates on critical activities; run a basic sensitivity check and share the chart at the next gate (PMI, 2021).
• Executive packs. Use a one-page status: top five items, SPI/CPI, cash view, top risks, and asks; rehearse a two-minute brief (Fleming & Koppelman, 2010).
• Hard conversations. Use a script. (facts → impact → request), timebox to ten minutes, and log results. Review monthly with the PM (Clarke, 2010).
• Maintain CQ habits. Paraphrase, visual summaries, and a shared glossary remain standard in our Kiwi–Indian team (Moon, 2013; Ang & Van Dyne, 2008).
The EI areas I will focus on are self-management, empathy/CQ, influence, and adaptability. With these habits, plus sharper commercial and risk skills, I will match a professional PM profile more closely while staying effective in my Site Engineer role (PMI, 2021; Müller et al., 2012).
Question 3
I use a simple reflect-and-improve loop: describe the moment, say what I did, note the result, and state the change I will keep (Gibbs, 1988; PMI, 2021).
Communications
In Assignment 1 project, I provided technical and lengthy comments. Critical information was overlooked by a few team members, especially the non-engineers. In Assignment 2, i.e., EV fast-charging, indirect wordings, like we will try, was interpreted as yes, this is cultural style. misinterpretation, which added noise. What I did. I switched to short notes with diagrams, one-page glossary, and "check-backs" at each meeting end: "What is done by Friday? What is blocked?" I used a traffic-light dashboard and checked in on owners for action. Consequently, we reduced rework loops and obtained faster approvals too, people claimed to have gotten the plan on one page. As per what we learn, it must be recalled that two-way, customized communication builds mutual understanding in multicultural teams (Moon, 2013; PMI, 2021).
Negotiation
A2 had a conflict on the window of outage utility; the vendor wanted to do an overnight high-risk install. Marketing then asked for extra signage during the middle of an install. I used principled negotiation: separate people from the problem, focus on interests, and offer options (Fisher & Ury, 2011). I framed each ask with SBAR (situation, background, assessment, recommendation) and showed schedule and cost impacts. I proposed phase-2 for the signage. Result. No unsafe work. The signage was deferred. Relationships stayed good. Learning. Interests beat positions, and culture shapes how interests are voiced (Brett, 2007). I will prepare data and one fair alternative before each negotiation.
Decision making
What happened. In A1 we debated sensor placement for days. In A2 I had to pick trenching sequence under rain risk. What I did. I anchored choices to the WBS and the AoN/CPM network. I used a simple decision log and matched style. to urgency: consultative when time allowed, directive when on the critical path (PMI, 2019; Müller, Geraldi, & Turner, 2012). Result. Clearer trade-offs, faster decisions, and visible rationale. Stakeholders could see why we chose path A over B. Learning. Fit the decision process to complexity and time. Write the decision and owner the same day.
Conflict resolution
In A2, a contractor wanted a cheaper cable route that cut across a pedestrian desire path. I pushed back; tension rose. I shifted to interests: safety, access, and cost. We sketched three options on site, ran a quick risk check, and picked a guarded route with minor cost add. I logged the reasoning to prevent relitigation. As result, conflict cooled. They worked same day. Learning. Task conflict is good if managed; relationship conflict hurts. Keep the conversation organized and it on criteria, not people (DeChurch & Marks, 2001; Kerzner, 2017).
Time management
A1 slipped since we tried to make all the diagrams ideal. A2 experienced rain and shift inspection. What I did. Adopted timeboxing for design review, a 48-hour micro-plan for the field, and EVM to track SPI/CPI on a weekly basis with the PM (Fleming & Koppelman, 2010). When SPI dropped, we sequenced preparation work and accelerated off-path activities. As result, meetings were of shorter duration. Crews stayed productive. Schedule variance stabilized. Learning result is, time control is a system: priorities, buffers, and honest progress data (Macan, 1994; PMI, 2019). I will keep micro-plans and early variance flags.
Overall reflection
Across A1 and A2 my best gains were in communication and negotiation. I still need sharper executive summaries and faster difficult conversations under pressure. The habits I will keep: pictures first, SBAR notes, decision logs, 48-hour micro-plans, and weekly SPI/CPI. These match good practice and fit our Kiwi–Indian team culture (PMI, 2021; Moon, 2013).
Question 4
4.1a. Simplified functional structure (five departments)
CEO
┌──────────┬──────────┬───────────┬────────────┬────────────┐
│ Finance │ HR │ Marketing │ Production │ Engineering│
└──────────┴──────────┴───────────┴────────────┴────────────┘
This shows the classic functional setup. Work, budgets, and people sit inside departments. Cross-team work needs handoffs.
4.1b. Why move to a project structure
• Rising complexity. Products and systems now cut across functions. Silo handoffs slow learning and create rework. A project structure brings all skills to one team with one goal. This fits complex, engineered work (Hobday, 2000; Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967).
• High-velocity markets. Tech and customer needs change fast. Slow approvals hurt. Project teams reduce decision latency and adapt quicker (Eisenhardt, 1989; Burns & Stalker, 1961).
• Time-to-market pressure. Speed is a competitive weapon. Organising around deliverables shortens cycle time more than a pure functional line can (Stalk & Hout, 1990).
• Customer-centric delivery. Clients want outcomes, not departmental outputs. Project teams align scope, cost, and schedule to the customer promise, with one accountable lead (Hobday, 2000).
• Information overload. Uncertain work needs rich, lateral communication. Project teams and PM roles improve coordination when information-processing demand is high (Galbraith, 1974).
• Proven structure performance. Evidence shows matrix/projectized forms outperform. pure functional on cross-disciplinary projects when governance is clear (Gobeli & Larson, 1987; PMI, 2021).
The external world is faster, more uncertain, and more integrated. A project structure lowers handoff cost, speeds decisions, and tightens accountability. Keep functional excellence via communities of practice and a PMO, but organise delivery by project.