Reflection And Discussion Forum Week 5 285793

Reflection And Discussion Forum Week 5reflection And Discussion Forum

Reflection and Discussion Forum Week 5 Reflection and Discussion Forum Week 5 Assigned Readings: Chapter 5 Estimating Project Times and Costs Initial Postings: Read and reflect on the assigned readings for the week. Then post what you thought was the most important concept(s), method(s), term(s), and/or any other thing that you felt was worthy of your understanding in each assigned textbook chapter. Your initial post should be based upon the assigned reading for the week, so the textbook should be a source listed in your reference section and cited within the body of the text. Other sources are not required but feel free to use them if they aid in your discussion. Also, provide a graduate-level response to each of the following questions: Why is it difficult to estimate mega project (i.e., costs and benefits (i.e. airports, stadiums, etc.) costs and benefits? Define what a “white elephant’ is in project management? Provide a real life example. [Your post must be substantive and demonstrate insight gained from the course material. Postings must be in your own words - do not provide quotes !] [Your initial post should be at least 450+ words and in APA format (including Times New Roman with font size 12 and double spaced). Post the actual body of your paper in the discussion thread then attach a Word version of the paper for APA review]

Paper For Above instruction

The week five discussion focuses on key concepts in project management, particularly those outlined in Chapter 5 on estimating project times and costs. A critical idea in this chapter is the importance of accurate estimation in project planning to ensure successful project completion within budget and time constraints. Effective estimates serve as the foundation for resource allocation, scheduling, risk management, and stakeholder communication. Among the methods discussed, analogous, parametric, and bottom-up estimating are especially significant; each provides a different approach suited to project complexity and available data. For instance, analogous estimating uses historical data for quick approximation, while bottom-up estimating involves detailed analysis of each component, offering higher accuracy but at increased effort.

The challenge of estimating costs and benefits for mega projects, such as airports and stadiums, stems from their inherent complexity. These projects involve numerous stakeholders, unpredictable environmental factors, and potential political influences, making accurate forecasts difficult. Moreover, the scale and duration of such projects increase the likelihood of scope creep, unforeseen conditions, and inflation, all of which can lead to significant deviations from initial estimates. For example, the Boston Big Dig encountered substantial cost overruns and delays, illustrating the difficulty in accurately projecting costs for large infrastructure projects. The high uncertainty and numerous variables demand rigorous risk management and contingency planning but still pose a significant challenge.

A “white elephant” in project management refers to projects that are exceedingly expensive to maintain and operate relative to their value or utility. Such projects often become symbols of mismanagement or misplaced priorities, culminating in underuse or abandonment. An illustrative example is the Montreal Olympic Stadium, built for the 1976 Summer Olympics. The stadium faced massive cost overruns during construction and continued financial losses, rendering it a symbol of waste and misallocation of resources. The stadium’s maintenance costs persisted long after the Olympics, exemplifying a white elephant’s characteristics—a project that drains resources without delivering commensurate benefits.

Understanding the complexities of project estimating and the potential pitfalls like white elephants highlights the importance of thorough planning, realistic forecasting, and stakeholder engagement in project management. Accurate estimation techniques, combined with proactive risk management, can mitigate some uncertainties inherent in mega projects. Recognizing projects as potential white elephants early can prevent resource wastage and promote more sustainable and beneficial investments. Ultimately, effective project management requires balancing optimism with realism, ensuring projects provide value without becoming costly burdens.

References

• Meredith, J. R., & Mantel, S. J. (2017). Project Management: A Managerial Approach (9th ed.). Wiley.
• Flyvbjerg, B. (2014). Megaproject planning and forecasting: Solution or problem? Draft chapter, Oxford University.
• Hinze, J. (2011). Construction Safety. Prentice Hall.
• Flyvbjerg, B., Bruzelius, N., & Rothengatter, W. (2003). Megaprojects and risk: An anatomy of ambition. Cambridge University Press.
• Wachs, M. (2010). Urban transportation planning in the 21st century. Journal of Planning Literature, 24(3), 281-292.
• Osei-Kyei, R., & Chan, A. P. C. (2017). Quantitative risk assessment and mitigation in mega projects. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 24(1), 70-94.
• Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services. (2014). The challenge of funding large infrastructure projects. S&P Global Ratings.
• Flyvbjerg, B. (2017). The case for case studies in megaproject management. International Journal of Project Management, 35(5), 916–927.
• National Research Council. (2009). Funding Infrastructure (Revised edition). The National Academies Press.
• Sadler, B., & Bugdahl, P. (2007). Infrastructure projects: Managing scope, costs, and schedules. International Journal of Project Management, 25(7), 628–632.