Week 1 Topics: Project Valuation Methods And Feasibility Stu

Week 1 Topicsproject Valuation Methodsfeasibility Studiesrisk Analysi

Week 1 Topics: Project Valuation Methods Feasibility Studies Risk Analysis Cost-Benefit Analysis Academic Integrity Week 1 Learning Outcomes: Demonstrate the Value and Utilization of Success Criteria beyond the Triple Constraint Analyze the viability of projects using techniques for feasibility, risk analysis and cost-benefit analysis Defend the concept “Project Management in Action is Different in 2017†(as compared to PM 20 years ago) Instructor Led- Week 1 Discussion: (First...review the Week 1 Lecture!) Project Management has been known as the "accidental profession." With the PMBOK 6 we are seeing significant changes in the profession and the expectations for a Project Manager. How would you defend the statement "Project Management in Action is Different in 2017...and in particular what has been the impact to Scope Management?"

Paper For Above instruction

Over the past two decades, the field of project management has undergone transformative changes driven by technological advancements, evolving organizational strategies, and increased stakeholder expectations. The statement that "Project Management in Action is Different in 2017" reflects these significant shifts, notably in areas such as scope management, which has become more dynamic and complex than in previous eras.

Historically, project management focused primarily on the classical constraints—scope, time, cost, and quality—often managed within rigid boundaries. This approach was largely prescriptive and linear, emphasizing detailed planning and control to meet predefined objectives. However, by 2017, the landscape had shifted markedly. The advent of complex, fast-paced projects, fueled by rapid technological change and globalization, necessitated a more flexible, adaptive approach. Agile methodologies and integrated risk and feasibility analyses have become commonplace, transforming how scope is defined, controlled, and adjusted throughout a project’s life cycle (PMI, 2017).

One of the key impacts on scope management is the increased importance of stakeholder engagement and iterative planning. Unlike traditional models where scope was set early and remained relatively static, modern project management recognizes the fluidity of stakeholder needs and market conditions. Consequently, scope must be adaptable, with continuous reassessment and refinement. This approach aligns with the shift towards incremental delivery models, such as Scrum and other Agile frameworks, which prioritize delivering value in smaller, manageable segments (Highsmith, 2010).

Furthermore, the integration of risk analysis and feasibility studies into project planning has made scope management more sophisticated. Risk analysis enables project managers to identify potential uncertainties early, allowing for scope adjustments to mitigate or exploit these risks. Feasibility studies assess the practicality of planned scope, ensuring that objectives are realistic and achievable within resource constraints. Together, these techniques foster more informed decision-making and enhance the likelihood of project success (Kerzner, 2017).

The evolution also reflects a broader recognition that project success extends beyond the traditional triple constraint. Success criteria now encompass stakeholder satisfaction, strategic alignment, and organizational benefits. This expanded perspective has influenced scope management strategies, emphasizing the alignment of project deliverables with organizational goals and the necessity of managing scope creep through rigorous change control processes (Meredith & Mantel, 2017).

In conclusion, the impact of technological innovations, methodological shifts, and changing organizational paradigms has profoundly altered project management practice, particularly in scope management. In 2017, project managers are required to be more agile, stakeholder-focused, and data-driven, enabling them to navigate complexities that would have been difficult to manage two decades ago. These changes affirm the statement that project management in action today is markedly different, demanding new skills, tools, and mindsets.

References

• Highsmith, J. (2010). Agile Project Management: Creating Innovative Products. Pearson Education.
• Kerzner, H. (2017). Project Management: A Systems Approach to Planning, Scheduling, and Controlling. Wiley.
• Meredith, J. R., & Mantel, S. J. (2017). Project Management: A Strategic Approach. Wiley.
• PMI. (2017). A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide) Sixth Edition. Project Management Institute.
• Fowler, M., & Highsmith, J. (2001). The Agile Manifesto. Software Development, 9(8), 28-35.
• Schwalbe, K. (2015). Information Technology Project Management. Cengage Learning.
• Wysocki, R. K. (2014). Effective Project Management: Traditional, Agile, Extreme. Wiley.
• Conforto, E., et al. (2016). The Agile Revolution in Project Management. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 9(2), 255-273.
• Paulk, M. C., et al. (1993). Capability Maturity Model, Version 1.1. Software Engineering Institute, SEI Technical Report.
• Project Management Institute. (2017). Practice Standard for Work Breakdown Structures. PMI Publishing.