Category: Project management

For this assignment, you will be creating a detailed Gantt Chart for your project leveraging the WBS you created in Unit 4. For this assignment, you will use the provided template.

For the Gantt Chart, you will include the following:

• Project name
• Project managers name
• All level 2 sub-deliverables from your WBS
• All level 3 sub-deliverables from your WBS
• Work package resource name
• Task start and finish dates
• Percentage complete (optional)

Just need to rewrite to beat Ai

Structuring and managing projects require a project manager to look at a project holistically to ensure the project implementation is going as planned or being adapted to what is needed. Project managers must collect data and use the performance information to analyze, evaluate, and communicate the projects success. Managing projects is not an easy task, and a project manager must be able to communicate the process behind the decisions that were made.

In this assessment, you will present your decision-making process on the methods, models, and artifacts you would use if you were to become the new project manager on a project. This assessment will challenge you to verbalize your thought process and understand how your decisions can affect the project outcome.

Assessment Prep

Review the , , and documents.

Review the continuation of the scenario:

The current project manager for the hospital project has been reassigned to a new high-priority initiative, leaving an opportunity for you to step into the role of project manager for the Food Asset Tracking Project. Having previously tailored the project charter for this initiative, you are well-acquainted with its unique requirements and challenges. The department manager has now invited you to present how you would lead and implement the project. Your presentation should outline your proposed structuring methodologies, performance tracking strategies, and overall approach to ensuring the projects success.

The Food Asset Tracking Project comes with specific challenges tied to the food industry, such as ensuring regulatory compliance, managing inventory, navigating supply chain logistics, and maintaining quality standards. As a candidate for the role of project manager, you are tasked with developing and presenting a project proposal to stakeholders. Your proposal should outline how you would effectively address these challenges while achieving the projects objectives. Additionally, it should demonstrate why you are the best choice to lead this initiative, showcasing your strategies, methodologies, and ability to deliver successful results in a complex environment.

Assessment Deliverable

Create a 10- to 12-slide presentation, with appropriate images and detailed speaker notes, that summarizes the way you would manage and implement the project if promoted to project manager.

You may use the provided . Include the following in your presentation:

• Initiating the Project and Planning:
• Outline the project structuring methodologies you would implement, such as waterfall, agile, scrum, lean, or critical path.
• Provide a detailed explanation of why these methodologies are well-suited to this project, particularly in addressing the unique challenges of the food industry. Highlight how they enable effective monitoring, control, and adaptability.
• Performance Tracking:
• Identify the critical aspects you would track to ensure project performance, such as metrics, milestones, and deliverables.
• Explain how your chosen methodology facilitates the tracking process, ensuring visibility and alignment with project goals.
• Management of Project Artifacts:
• Explain how you will manage project artifacts, including project documents, reports, and plans, to ensure they are accurate, complete, and readily available.
• Describe the processes or tools you will use to ensure timely updates and organization of artifacts throughout each phase of the project.
• Quality Management Plan:
• Describe your approach to maintaining high-quality standards for the project. Include specific techniques, processes, or tools that will ensure compliance with industry standards and project requirements.
• Explain how quality will be consistently monitored and enhanced throughout the project’s lifecycle.
• Risk Management and Mitigation Strategies:
• Discuss how you will identify, analyze, and address the risks outlined in the probability matrix.
• Propose specific mitigation strategies tailored to the food industrys context, such as managing regulatory compliance risks, inventory challenges, and supply chain vulnerabilities.

Each section should include clear, actionable strategies and demonstrate how your approach will contribute to the success of the Food Asset Tracking Project. Incorporate relevant visuals or diagrams where appropriate to enhance clarity and stakeholder engagement.

I have attached the assignment below and also a picture of the textbook I am unable to attached the textbook to complete the assignment you must use chapter 6 in the textbook if any question let me know

Graded Discussion 1

by – Wednesday, 4 February 2026, 11:04 PM

Number of replies: 0

Discussion Task 1

The scope of a project is typically determined before the initiation of the project. Project managers will determine the overall scope of a project through a Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) and then develop a baseline against which to measure the progress of the project. The Channel Tunnel project represents a classic example of a traditional scope management process. In this case, the scope of the project was controlled by a rigid baseline and by multiple large-scale government contracts between the U.K. and France (Anbari et al., 2009). In traditional scope management, any type of change to the original scope of the project would be considered an exception to the project plan and would need to be approved by a formal Change Control Board (CCB) before implementation. The CCB would assess the potential impact of the proposed change to all three elements of the triple constraint (time, cost, and quality) prior to approving the requested change (Kerzner, 2017). Traditional scope management provides a predictable and accountable method for controlling change and is well-suited to the procurement and security aspects of your digital transformation initiative. As noted by Wysocki (2019), the traditional model works best when there is a good understanding of what is being delivered. It provides a solid foundation upon which vendors and regulators can rely to ensure stability and compliance with contractual and regulatory obligations by treating the scope of a project as a firm commitment.

Agile project management, on the other hand, views the scope of a project as flexible and evolving. Scope is established by a prioritised product backlog and not by a static baseline. Since the scope of a project is continuously evolving, control is decentralised in Agile projects. The Product Owner and the development team collaborate to continually evolve the scope of the project during sprint planning based on continual feedback from stakeholders and customer value (Highsmith, 2010). Highsmith (2010) further states that Agile governance is designed to provide adaptive capacity to allow the front-end team to respond quickly to changing conditions without the administration of a CCB for each and every minor change. By providing the ability to deliver functionality in an iterative manner, Agile reduces the risk of delivering unnecessary features; however, it may also create friction with traditional governance structures that demand predictability for budgeting and higher-level milestones (Schwaber & Sutherland, 2020). Spotify is a prime example of pure Agile scope management using the concepts of “Squads” and “Tribes.” When creating new front-end features, such as the “Discover Weekly” playlist, Spotify does not have a rigid scope definition at the beginning of the development effort. Instead, Spotify uses a prioritised product backlog where requirements are developed through user feedback and A/B testing (Trzaskowska-Dmoch et al., 2025).

Hybrid project management combines elements of traditional and Agile project management. Hybrid project management seeks to address the challenges associated with managing both the governance requirements of traditional project management and the flexibility required by Agile project management. For example, Deloittes Digital Transformations utilise hybrid project management approaches (Archer & Kaufman, 2013). In this scenario, hybrid project management establishes a traditional governance wrapper around Agile delivery cycles. While the traditional controls are used to manage the overall objectives and mandatory requirements (such as your companys new compliance requirement) of the project, the tactical execution of the features is left to the discretion of the Agile team. Gemino et al. (2021) note that the difficulty with hybrid project management is establishing boundaries between the traditional and Agile aspects of the project. Informal pressure from stakeholders can often circumvent formal controls. Therefore, hybrid project governance must include clear threshold levels that define which changes should be submitted to the CCB for approval and which can be addressed by the Agile team. By doing so, hybrid project governance enables both the speed desired by the sponsor and the control required by the organisation (Project Management Institute, 2021).

Discussion Task 2

Traditional project governance is typically hierarchical and control-based with defined decision authority and a centralised Change Control Board (CCB), which reviews scope changes for approval of cost, schedule and risk (Kerzner, 2017; Turner & Mller, 2017). The primary focus of this approach is accountability and audibility through the use of formalised change management (Crawford & Pollack, 2004).

Agile governance is the opposite. It is light-weight and value-based and has decentralised decision authority, whereby the Product Owner makes decisions regarding changes to the product based on business value (Highsmith, 2010; Schwaber & Sutherland, 2020). Formal CCB’s do not exist in agile as they could significantly hinder an organisation’s ability to deliver products quickly and efficiently, and limit its ability to adapt to changing customer needs (White, 2009; Cohn, 2010).

To govern hybrid projects, intentional design is required to create governance that combines the two approaches. Decision rights need to be allocated on purpose to strike a balance between control and agility (Wang et al., 2025). As such, a CCB should remain necessary for changes that affect regulatory compliance, contracts, budgets, or enterprise-wide risk, however Agile teams should have the autonomy to make changes to their own backlogs as long as it does not exceed pre-agreed upon limits (pundak, 2014). Hybrid governance is successful when there are clear thresholds established that distinguish between “changes made at the team level” and “changes that impact the entire organisation”, allowing for speed without losing control (Project Management Institute, 2021; Kuhrmann et al., 2017).

Discussion Task 3

The change request concerning a new compliance requirement that must be added immediately will be approved. This is especially important in Hybrid Environments because the legal obligation to comply with these regulations affects an organisations legal status and its reputation. Compliance changes are mandatory and therefore have to be addressed before any other development. According to Too & Weaver (2014), implementing good governance and risk management into project decisions indicates a high level of project leadership. In this way, addressing this change will protect the Digital Transformation Initiative from serious Legal/Regulatory Risks.

Although Mandatory, the CCB must complete a formal impact assessment on this change request to ensure the project maintains a Hybrid Approach and balances the Predictability of Traditional Approaches with the delivery of Agile. Harrin (2022) states that ignoring the structured process of change control may lead to an increase in Scope Creep and Resource Strain. If managed poorly, these compliance requirements may create risks such as delayed schedules, decreased team productivity and Technical Debt. As emphasised by Highsmith (2010), External Disruptions, such as the need for a compliance change, necessitate Collaborative Replanning to maintain Quality. The Project Manager must allow for open communication between Governance Teams and Delivery Teams using Sprint Planning and possibly Vendor Timeline Renegotiation to meet the compliance requirements without impacting the long-term success of the project.

Discussion Task 4

The main concern regarding risks in the hybrid environment is that there will be governance misalignment, where Agile teams may make informal changes that are outside of the scope of traditional controls and therefore create shadow scope creep (Day & Holznienkemper, 2025). The conflict between the need for flexibility when using Agile and the need for stability when working within traditional boundaries creates unnecessary undocumented resource depletion and unanticipated schedule delays (pundak, 2014; Salum et al., 2014). One way to mitigate this is for project managers to develop decision thresholds and use them in conjunction with a RACI matrix. By clearly defining what are team level decisions (i.e., those managed by Agile teams) vs. enterprise impacting decisions (those requiring CCB approval), the project can ensure that enterprise impacting items (e.g., compliance requirements, vendor contracts) are subject to ongoing formal review and oversight while allowing Agile teams to continue delivering at a reasonable pace (Project Management Institute, 2021b; Kerzner, 2017).

The second significant risk in the hybrid environment is the potential for volatile interdependencies among different components of the project team (Too & Weaver, 2014). When an Agile team rapidly pivots away from its original plan, it can cause instability in other areas of the project that have traditionally relied upon a set of well-defined and fixed specifications for their ability to obtain regulatory approvals and build the necessary infrastructure (Boehm & Turner, 2004; Highsmith, 2010; Kuhrmann et al., 2017). One approach to mitigating this risk is to establish synchronised change windows along with established interface specifications. Establishing predictable and scheduled time frames during which no changes occur in the infrastructure area of the project and providing a similar window for integrating across multiple teams can provide the agility required to allow for iterative learning, while also ensuring that the traditional milestones of the project remain intact (Boehm & Turner, 2004).

Discussion 2

Scope Creep in Disguise: The Hybrid Project Crisis

Introduction

Scope management varies depending on the delivery model. With early requirement definition and formal baseline management, traditional projects strive for scope stability. Strong scope specification up front frequently increases schedule predictability, but it may also hinder responsiveness when demands change, as Serrador and Pinto (2015) noted. On the other hand, agile projects view scope as changing and anticipating change. Sprint planning and backlog prioritization help to improve the quality of the work. Agile teams produce value more quickly, but they still need discipline to prevent backlog overload, according to Conforto et al. (2016). These ideas are combined in hybrid projects, which allow for regulated execution flexibility while maintaining high-level commitments.

Governance and Decision-Making Structures

Governance guarantees that decisions about scope are deliberate rather than reactive. Mller et al. (2017) demonstrate that initiatives with well-defined governance responsibilities have more accountability and control. Change Control Boards (CCBs) are crucial in traditional environments because they examine the effects of changes before accepting them. Product owners are given authority by agile governance, and they are always assessing value trade-offs. Both structures must work together in hybrid situations. Too and Weaver (2018) believe that governance should match uncertainty levels, which means that large-impact changes require formal monitoring while modest improvements can be implemented through agile prioritization.

Decision on a Change Request

The request to introduce a single, minor feature ought to be postponed. Despite their seemingly innocuous appearance, small features can add up to a substantial scope expansion. In hybrid projects, Gemino et al. (2021) discovered that incremental additions frequently cause covert scope creep. Analysis of the effects on effort, integration, and vendor commitments is made possible by delaying the request. Stakeholder annoyance and perceived rigidity are the primary dangers of deferral. Transparent communication and planning the request for a future backlog review instead of instant inclusion are two ways to handle this.

Scope Risks and Mitigation in Hybrid Delivery

When informal influence takes the place of formal choices, hybrid initiatives are at risk. Stakeholder pressure can progressively broaden scope without documentation, as indicated by Wahyuni and Biesenthal (2019). Misalignment between agile teams and fixed vendor contracts is another issue that can lead to disagreements or rework. Visibility is the first step in mitigation. Predetermined approval levels make it clear which modifications require CCB review, and a shared change register guarantees that every request is tracked. Joslin and Mller (2016) show that initiatives with structured governance have higher success rates, indicating that flexibility and control may coexist provided decision criteria are clear.

Graded Discussion 1

by – Wednesday, 4 February 2026, 11:04 PM

Number of replies: 0

Discussion Task 1

The scope of a project is typically determined before the initiation of the project. Project managers will determine the overall scope of a project through a Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) and then develop a baseline against which to measure the progress of the project. The Channel Tunnel project represents a classic example of a traditional scope management process. In this case, the scope of the project was controlled by a rigid baseline and by multiple large-scale government contracts between the U.K. and France (Anbari et al., 2009). In traditional scope management, any type of change to the original scope of the project would be considered an exception to the project plan and would need to be approved by a formal Change Control Board (CCB) before implementation. The CCB would assess the potential impact of the proposed change to all three elements of the triple constraint (time, cost, and quality) prior to approving the requested change (Kerzner, 2017). Traditional scope management provides a predictable and accountable method for controlling change and is well-suited to the procurement and security aspects of your digital transformation initiative. As noted by Wysocki (2019), the traditional model works best when there is a good understanding of what is being delivered. It provides a solid foundation upon which vendors and regulators can rely to ensure stability and compliance with contractual and regulatory obligations by treating the scope of a project as a firm commitment.

Agile project management, on the other hand, views the scope of a project as flexible and evolving. Scope is established by a prioritised product backlog and not by a static baseline. Since the scope of a project is continuously evolving, control is decentralised in Agile projects. The Product Owner and the development team collaborate to continually evolve the scope of the project during sprint planning based on continual feedback from stakeholders and customer value (Highsmith, 2010). Highsmith (2010) further states that Agile governance is designed to provide adaptive capacity to allow the front-end team to respond quickly to changing conditions without the administration of a CCB for each and every minor change. By providing the ability to deliver functionality in an iterative manner, Agile reduces the risk of delivering unnecessary features; however, it may also create friction with traditional governance structures that demand predictability for budgeting and higher-level milestones (Schwaber & Sutherland, 2020). Spotify is a prime example of pure Agile scope management using the concepts of “Squads” and “Tribes.” When creating new front-end features, such as the “Discover Weekly” playlist, Spotify does not have a rigid scope definition at the beginning of the development effort. Instead, Spotify uses a prioritised product backlog where requirements are developed through user feedback and A/B testing (Trzaskowska-Dmoch et al., 2025).

Hybrid project management combines elements of traditional and Agile project management. Hybrid project management seeks to address the challenges associated with managing both the governance requirements of traditional project management and the flexibility required by Agile project management. For example, Deloittes Digital Transformations utilise hybrid project management approaches (Archer & Kaufman, 2013). In this scenario, hybrid project management establishes a traditional governance wrapper around Agile delivery cycles. While the traditional controls are used to manage the overall objectives and mandatory requirements (such as your companys new compliance requirement) of the project, the tactical execution of the features is left to the discretion of the Agile team. Gemino et al. (2021) note that the difficulty with hybrid project management is establishing boundaries between the traditional and Agile aspects of the project. Informal pressure from stakeholders can often circumvent formal controls. Therefore, hybrid project governance must include clear threshold levels that define which changes should be submitted to the CCB for approval and which can be addressed by the Agile team. By doing so, hybrid project governance enables both the speed desired by the sponsor and the control required by the organisation (Project Management Institute, 2021).

Discussion Task 2

Traditional project governance is typically hierarchical and control-based with defined decision authority and a centralised Change Control Board (CCB), which reviews scope changes for approval of cost, schedule and risk (Kerzner, 2017; Turner & Mller, 2017). The primary focus of this approach is accountability and audibility through the use of formalised change management (Crawford & Pollack, 2004).

Agile governance is the opposite. It is light-weight and value-based and has decentralised decision authority, whereby the Product Owner makes decisions regarding changes to the product based on business value (Highsmith, 2010; Schwaber & Sutherland, 2020). Formal CCB’s do not exist in agile as they could significantly hinder an organisation’s ability to deliver products quickly and efficiently, and limit its ability to adapt to changing customer needs (White, 2009; Cohn, 2010).

To govern hybrid projects, intentional design is required to create governance that combines the two approaches. Decision rights need to be allocated on purpose to strike a balance between control and agility (Wang et al., 2025). As such, a CCB should remain necessary for changes that affect regulatory compliance, contracts, budgets, or enterprise-wide risk, however Agile teams should have the autonomy to make changes to their own backlogs as long as it does not exceed pre-agreed upon limits (pundak, 2014). Hybrid governance is successful when there are clear thresholds established that distinguish between “changes made at the team level” and “changes that impact the entire organisation”, allowing for speed without losing control (Project Management Institute, 2021; Kuhrmann et al., 2017).

Discussion Task 3

The change request concerning a new compliance requirement that must be added immediately will be approved. This is especially important in Hybrid Environments because the legal obligation to comply with these regulations affects an organisations legal status and its reputation. Compliance changes are mandatory and therefore have to be addressed before any other development. According to Too & Weaver (2014), implementing good governance and risk management into project decisions indicates a high level of project leadership. In this way, addressing this change will protect the Digital Transformation Initiative from serious Legal/Regulatory Risks.

Although Mandatory, the CCB must complete a formal impact assessment on this change request to ensure the project maintains a Hybrid Approach and balances the Predictability of Traditional Approaches with the delivery of Agile. Harrin (2022) states that ignoring the structured process of change control may lead to an increase in Scope Creep and Resource Strain. If managed poorly, these compliance requirements may create risks such as delayed schedules, decreased team productivity and Technical Debt. As emphasised by Highsmith (2010), External Disruptions, such as the need for a compliance change, necessitate Collaborative Replanning to maintain Quality. The Project Manager must allow for open communication between Governance Teams and Delivery Teams using Sprint Planning and possibly Vendor Timeline Renegotiation to meet the compliance requirements without impacting the long-term success of the project.

Discussion Task 4

The main concern regarding risks in the hybrid environment is that there will be governance misalignment, where Agile teams may make informal changes that are outside of the scope of traditional controls and therefore create shadow scope creep (Day & Holznienkemper, 2025). The conflict between the need for flexibility when using Agile and the need for stability when working within traditional boundaries creates unnecessary undocumented resource depletion and unanticipated schedule delays (pundak, 2014; Salum et al., 2014). One way to mitigate this is for project managers to develop decision thresholds and use them in conjunction with a RACI matrix. By clearly defining what are team level decisions (i.e., those managed by Agile teams) vs. enterprise impacting decisions (those requiring CCB approval), the project can ensure that enterprise impacting items (e.g., compliance requirements, vendor contracts) are subject to ongoing formal review and oversight while allowing Agile teams to continue delivering at a reasonable pace (Project Management Institute, 2021b; Kerzner, 2017).

The second significant risk in the hybrid environment is the potential for volatile interdependencies among different components of the project team (Too & Weaver, 2014). When an Agile team rapidly pivots away from its original plan, it can cause instability in other areas of the project that have traditionally relied upon a set of well-defined and fixed specifications for their ability to obtain regulatory approvals and build the necessary infrastructure (Boehm & Turner, 2004; Highsmith, 2010; Kuhrmann et al., 2017). One approach to mitigating this risk is to establish synchronised change windows along with established interface specifications. Establishing predictable and scheduled time frames during which no changes occur in the infrastructure area of the project and providing a similar window for integrating across multiple teams can provide the agility required to allow for iterative learning, while also ensuring that the traditional milestones of the project remain intact (Boehm & Turner, 2004).

Discussion 2

Scope Creep in Disguise: The Hybrid Project Crisis

Introduction

Scope management varies depending on the delivery model. With early requirement definition and formal baseline management, traditional projects strive for scope stability. Strong scope specification up front frequently increases schedule predictability, but it may also hinder responsiveness when demands change, as Serrador and Pinto (2015) noted. On the other hand, agile projects view scope as changing and anticipating change. Sprint planning and backlog prioritization help to improve the quality of the work. Agile teams produce value more quickly, but they still need discipline to prevent backlog overload, according to Conforto et al. (2016). These ideas are combined in hybrid projects, which allow for regulated execution flexibility while maintaining high-level commitments.

Governance and Decision-Making Structures

Governance guarantees that decisions about scope are deliberate rather than reactive. Mller et al. (2017) demonstrate that initiatives with well-defined governance responsibilities have more accountability and control. Change Control Boards (CCBs) are crucial in traditional environments because they examine the effects of changes before accepting them. Product owners are given authority by agile governance, and they are always assessing value trade-offs. Both structures must work together in hybrid situations. Too and Weaver (2018) believe that governance should match uncertainty levels, which means that large-impact changes require formal monitoring while modest improvements can be implemented through agile prioritization.

Decision on a Change Request

The request to introduce a single, minor feature ought to be postponed. Despite their seemingly innocuous appearance, small features can add up to a substantial scope expansion. In hybrid projects, Gemino et al. (2021) discovered that incremental additions frequently cause covert scope creep. Analysis of the effects on effort, integration, and vendor commitments is made possible by delaying the request. Stakeholder annoyance and perceived rigidity are the primary dangers of deferral. Transparent communication and planning the request for a future backlog review instead of instant inclusion are two ways to handle this.

Scope Risks and Mitigation in Hybrid Delivery

When informal influence takes the place of formal choices, hybrid initiatives are at risk. Stakeholder pressure can progressively broaden scope without documentation, as indicated by Wahyuni and Biesenthal (2019). Misalignment between agile teams and fixed vendor contracts is another issue that can lead to disagreements or rework. Visibility is the first step in mitigation. Predetermined approval levels make it clear which modifications require CCB review, and a shared change register guarantees that every request is tracked. Joslin and Mller (2016) show that initiatives with structured governance have higher success rates, indicating that flexibility and control may coexist provided decision criteria are clear.

Rubric Details

• Required sections

40 possible points (40%)

• Readability, Length. Consistency

40 possible points (40%)

• Cover Page

10 possible points (10%)

• Title

10 possible points (10%

Instructions

This assignment assesses your ability to analyze leadership and management decisions using concepts related to leadership styles, authority, participation, and control covered in the course materials.

The focus is on reasoned evaluation and trade-offs, not personal preference.

Scenario

A mid-sized organization in Toronto is experiencing the following challenges:

• Missed deadlines and inconsistent performance
• Low employee engagement during team meetings
• Managers reporting frustration about a lack of control
• Employees reporting that decisions are made either too slowly or without sufficient input

Senior leadership is considering changing its leadership and management approach.

Your Task

Using leadership concepts covered in the course materials for Chapter 8, analyze the situation and provide recommendations. You must address all sections below. Use clear headings.

Required Sections

1. Leadership Styles Under Consideration

Briefly explain two leadership styles relevant to this situation (for example, participative or directive leadership).

Focus on:

• How authority is exercised
• How decisions are made
• The role of employee input
• Avoid listing textbook definitions.

2. Decision-Making and Control

Analyze the trade-offs between:

• managerial control, and
• employee participation

In your analysis, explain:

• one benefit of increased participation
• one risk or limitation of participative leadership
• Support your response with business reasoning.

3. Manager Capability and Change

Consider a manager who is accustomed to giving clear orders and maintaining tight control.

• Is it realistic to expect this manager to move toward a more participative approach?
• Identify one challenge that might arise during this transition
• Identify one support, structure, or practice that could help make the transition successful

4. Recommendation

Based on your analysis:

• Recommend one leadership approach for this organization
• Explain why it is appropriate for this situation
• Acknowledge one potential drawback or risk of your recommendation
• Your recommendation must demonstrate awareness of trade-offs.

___________________________________________________________________________________

Formatting and Submission Requirements

• Font size 12
• 1.5 line spacing
• 2.54 cm margins (top, bottom, left, right)
• Maximum two pages (excluding cover page)
• Run spell check and edit your work
• Include clear headings for each of your four required sections
• Add page numbers
• Attach a cover page
• Provide references only if applicable (lecture material is acceptable)

What This Assignment Is Not

• Not a personal reflection
• Not a list of leadership styles
• Not an opinion-only response

Submit a written paper that examines the following:

• Identify three financial measures that you will track through your simulation (note this assignment will repeat for every round that you run)
• Include a 4th financial measure of your choice that adds to your understanding of the companys performance.

Length: 1-3 pages, not including the title or reference page.

References: Include a minimum of 2 scholarly references from 2020 to present. They must be peer reviewed papers.

Differentiate between resource loading and resource leveling. Must be around 400 words with the textbook listed below as the main citation.

(S) Project Management: A Managerial Approach

Jack R. Meredith, Scott M. Shafer , 2021

Wiley Publishing

ISBN.13: 978-1-119-80383-6

Please respond to the following questions based upon these course objectives:

• CO1 – Describe the fundamental project management principles and methodologies.
• CO2 – Define the roles and responsibilities of members within a project team.
• CO3 – Describe the phases in the project lifecycle within both traditional and agile project management frameworks.
• CO4 – Describe the various methods for managing projects.
• CO5 – Create a comprehensive suite of project management documents.
• CO6 – Evaluate strategies and ethical considerations for managing project scope, time, cost, and quality.

Please answer the following questions with supporting examples and full explanations.

1. For each of the learning objectives, provide an analysis of how the course supported each objective.
2. Explain how the material learned in this course, based upon the objectives, will be applicable to the professional application.

Provide evidence (citations and references) to support your statements and opinions.

All references and citations should in APA format.