Lab1

In Class Assignment 2

Group: H
Course Code: CSDD1005
Instructor Name: Krishna Kishore

Students:
Hammad Ul Hassan – 500230292
Navneet Kaur – 500226409
Muhammad Ameen Abdu Rasheed – 500225970
Rajkarn Kaur – 500226333
Mohammed Abdul Bari Waseem – 500225922
Syed Muhammad Sajjad - 500217679
1. How do we eliminate politics from gate review meetings?
To mitigate the influence of politics in gate review meetings, it’s crucial to establish clear and
objective criteria for each decision-making gate. This guarantees that evaluations are grounded in
quantifiable results rather than arbitrary judgments. By bringing in outside consultants or
auditors to provide an unbiased assessment of a project's viability, evaluations can become more
objective. In addition, changing reviewers regularly can discourage alliances that could introduce
biases and stop groupthink from setting in.

Provide an anonymous feedback method for project problems to foster an environment where
people feel comfortable sharing their true thoughts. This method permits honest feedback
without fear of repercussions. Separating the duties of project sponsors from the assessment
procedure is also crucial. This ensures sponsors don’t have a direct influence on reviews of
projects they’re invested in, reducing personal biases.

A culture of transparency is pivotal. Participants are more likely to give the company's interests
priority when meeting minutes are kept accurate and transparent since they are aware that their
contributions are being recorded. This transparent approach should be complemented with an
educational initiative that underscores the risks of allowing politics to steer decisions. Examples
from the real world, like the Quantum Telecom case, can highlight the negative effects of such
behavior.

It’s also wise to have an established escalation mechanism. This guarantees that problems
regarding decisions can be brought to the attention of an ethical committee or higher up in the
company. A foundational shift in company culture is required to view failures as learning
opportunities rather than finger-pointing events. Decision-makers who are freed from the fear of
retaliation are more likely to act in the best interests of the organization when a no-blame culture
is promoted.

Accountability cannot be overlooked. Providing thorough documentation of the reasoning behind

decisions that depart from expert advice is essential to fostering an open culture of
decision-making. Promoting differing opinions can help ensure that a variety of viewpoints are
taken into account, thus reducing uniformity. Honesty, which is frequently the victim of political
scheming, ought to be honored and rewarded. Those who base their decisions on data and
prioritize the company’s welfare over personal or political gains must be celebrated.

Lastly, regular assessments are required to guarantee the ongoing effectiveness of the review
procedure. These can reveal possible weak points for political influence, enabling prompt
remedial action. A culture where the interests of the organization are prioritized above all else
can be established by strong leadership that places a strong emphasis on integrity, transparency,
and objectivity.

2. How can we develop a methodology where termination

of a project is not viewed as a failure?
Changing how organizations perceive project termination demands a strategic shift in both
mindset and operational processes. It is crucial to change the narrative and stop linking project
termination to failure. Swap out phrases like "shut down" or "failure" for ones that show strategic
foresight, such as "strategic realignment," "resource optimization," or "portfolio adjustment." It’s
equally important to emphasize the lessons and insights extracted from every project journey,
regardless of the outcome. Honoring acquired knowledge promotes a culture of development and
flexibility. To further streamline decision-making, it’s beneficial to incorporate a robust
stage-gate process, allowing for periodic evaluation of projects. This guarantees prompt and
well-informed decision-making and makes it easier to identify possible problems early on,
allowing teams to make effective adjustments. Decisions become more open and impartial and
the possibility of personal biases is reduced by providing specific criteria for both project
continuation and termination. Importantly, fostering a culture that steers clear of blame when
projects are terminated emphasizes collective responsibility and acknowledges the multitude of
external factors that can influence such outcomes.

It can be important to frame project closure as an opportunity for better resource allocation. By
emphasizing that completing a project can free up critical resources for larger projects, the focus
shifts to the organization's overall productivity and well-being. Encouraging and upfront
communication about termination choices promotes understanding and alignment among teams
while highlighting the strategic factors that influence each choice. The concept that projects are
flexible and amenable to change based on larger organizational objectives can be further
reinforced by incorporating regular project portfolio reviews. Recognizing and rewarding teams
for tough but necessary decisions, including the halting of projects, sends a clear message that
strategic decision-making is a valued competency. When all stakeholders—from team members
to senior leadership—are informed about the process used in terminations, this positive
reinforcement gains more impact. Lastly, a feedback loop is essential after any termination.
Organizations may improve their strategy and ensure that project termination is viewed as a
strategic decision rather than a failure by obtaining feedback, examining the reasons behind it,
and making sure the lessons learned are implemented in future projects.

3. Were the wrong people assigned as sponsors?

From the information provided about Quantum Telecom’s situation, there are indications that the
project sponsors may not have been the best fit for the role. Here are some reasons why:

Their decision-making is concerning, particularly the unwillingness to abandon projects despite

group input on time and technological difficulties. It is claimed that the sponsors may have
prioritized their career advancement within the corporation over the interests of the organization
as a whole. This perspective is further underscored when they proactively shifted potential blame
onto the marketing and sales teams, rather than fostering a collaborative cross-departmental
approach. Moreover, their disdain for the technical advice provided by project managers raises
additional questions regarding their fitness. The sponsors' propensity to approve initiatives
mainly to "save face" implies that subjective judgments had a greater influence on their choices
than impartial assessments.

Even though their choices seem dubious, it's important to take the bigger picture into account.
The sponsors were working within the constraints and maybe under the influence of the
organizational culture of Quantum Telecom, which might place a strong emphasis on growth and
personal reputation. To thoroughly determine if they were indeed ill-suited as sponsors, a deeper
analysis of their historical performance, decision-making patterns, team relationships, and
expertise in the projects they managed would be necessary.

4. What options are available to a project manager when

there exists a disagreement between the sponsor and the
project manager?
Whenever a project manager and a sponsor disagree, the first thing that should always happen is
for the project manager to openly discuss the issue and get the sponsor's point of view. Often,
such conflicts arise from misunderstandings or miscommunication, and a direct, respectful
conversation can clarify the root issues. It's critical to provide facts and evidence to support
concerns or ideas to maintain objectivity throughout the discussion. If a direct conversation
doesn’t bridge the gap, it might be beneficial to involve a neutral third party to mediate the
discussion, ensuring all perspectives are considered. Including other important parties in the
conversation can also provide insightful information and help find a middle ground or consensus.
In situations where the project’s success might be at risk due to disagreement, the project
manager should document their concerns as a reference point for future decisions. In rare
circumstances, a compromise that takes into account the opinions of the management and
sponsor will also be in the best interests of the project. Escalation to senior management or a
governance board may be required if all else fails and the disagreement seriously jeopardizes the
project's outcomes. However, this should only be done as a last resort. Regular feedback loops
between the project manager and the sponsor can anticipate future conflicts by ensuring
consistent alignment. Experts or consultants from outside the company can also provide unbiased
viewpoints that support the resolution of conflicts. Project managers should periodically
self-reflect, ensuring that their stance is truly in the project’s best interest and not influenced by
personal biases. Joint workshops or training sessions with the sponsor can further strengthen the
collaborative relationship, and having clear communication channels in place can proactively
mitigate many disagreements. Approaching such conflicts with an open mind and a focus on
collaboration often leads to constructive resolutions.
5. Can your answer to the above question be outlined as
part of the project management methodology?
Incorporating steps for resolving conflicts into a project management approach ensures that a
systematic process is available when disagreements emerge. Here’s how a project management
methodology can detail the approach to disputes between project managers and sponsors:

Resolving disputes between Project Managers and Sponsors.

Communication protocol:

● Objective: Ensure transparent, regular, and consistent communication from the beginning
of the project.
● Action: Organize consistent meetings and updates between the project manager and the
sponsor to maintain alignment and avert potential disagreements.

Evidence-based decision making:

● Objective: Make sure decisions and concerns are based on concrete data and evidence.
● Action: Always support your viewpoint with data, project metrics, or solid evidence to
keep discussions fact-based and impartial.

Mediation process:

● Objective: Handle disputes that aren’t settled through straightforward dialogue.

● Action: Involve an impartial third party to mediate the conversation, making sure both
parties are listened to.

Stakeholder engagement:

● Objective: Utilize wider perspectives to address disagreements.

● Action: Engage key stakeholders in dialogue when an agreement between the project
manager and sponsor proves challenging.
Documentation protocol:

● Objective: Maintain a record of concerns and decisions.

● Action: Document key conflicts, issues, and the reasoning for decisions to offer a
reference point for future discussions or assessments.

Compromise framework:

● Objective: Find middle-ground solutions.

● Action: Create a structured process to evaluate potential compromises that can serve both
the project’s and sponsor’s interests.

Escalation pathway:

● Objective: Address severe conflicts that could harm the project.

● Action: Establish a systematic approach to assess possible compromises that align with
both the project’s and the sponsor’s objectives.

Continuous feedback loop:

● Objective: Ensure alignment and understanding.

● Action: Introduce a systematic feedback mechanism where both parties can consistently
exchange perspectives and comments.

External consultation mechanism:

● Objective: Gain impartial insights.

● Action: Seek advice from external consultants or industry specialists for an outside
viewpoint when finding in-house solutions becomes difficult.

Reflective practices:

● Objective: Make certain that decisions prioritize the project’s optimal outcomes.
 ● Action: Encourage self-assessment sessions for project managers to examine their
perspectives and inherent biases.

Collaborative training sessions:

● Objective: Strengthen the collaborative bond between project managers and sponsors.
● Action: Arrange collaborative workshops or training sessions that emphasize
cooperation, understanding, and proficient communication.

Through the incorporation of these conflict resolution measures into the project management
methodology, organizations can encourage a proactive stance toward conflicts, cultivating a
culture of teamwork and understanding.

6. What is the project constraint that has the highest

priority for the Quantum Telecom projects (i.e., Time, cost,
quality, or Scope)? Why?

Time is the most important project constraint in the context of the Quantum Telecom projects,
where technological advancements were required, deadlines were short, and market dynamics
were changing quickly. This claim is supported by several important elements that highlight how
crucial time management is to the project's success:

Rapid Technological Change: The cutting-edge technology used in the projects carried the risk
of fast becoming outdated due to the speed at which technology is advancing. The products have
a one-year life expectancy, thus any delays in development or introduction would reduce the
window of opportunity for market penetration before obsolescence.

Tight Timelines: The initiatives had strict deadlines; after approval, development and launch
into the market had to happen within a year. Seizing business opportunities and maintaining an
advantage over rivals was the driving force behind this urgency. The project's capacity to secure
market share and produce income within the restricted product lifespan would be adversely
affected by any delays.

Resource Allocation: Time restraints had an impact on the decisions made regarding the
distribution of resources, including the budget and staffing levels. Due to time constraints, there
was pressure to deploy resources effectively to meet deadlines for important project deliverables
and milestones.

Market Dynamics: Project timeframes were under additional strain due to the quickly changing
market environment. If Quantum Telecom is unable to supply the products within the allotted
time, there may be lost market possibilities, a reduction in its competitive edge, and possible
harm to its reputation.

Although scope, quality, and money are unquestionably important project limitations, time
management is intrinsically linked to them. Project execution delays have a direct financial
impact, compromise quality, and may call for reshaping the project's scope to fulfill deadlines.
Thus, giving time management top priority guarantees compliance with project goals optimizes
resource use, and reduces risks related to market instability and technology obsolescence.

So we can say that time is the most important project constraint for the Quantum Telecom
projects since it was necessary for taking advantage of market possibilities, staying one step
ahead of rivals, and guaranteeing the project's overall success. Meeting strict deadlines, making
the most use of available resources, and reducing the risks brought on by quick changes in the
market and technology all depended on effective time management.