Project Networks Dangers Benefits

Within the project management domain, project networks are fundamental tools used to illustrate the sequence in which a project’s terminal components are to be completed by constructing a network representation of the cardinal project activities and their dependencies.Advertising We will write a custom essay sample on Project Networks: Dangers Benefits specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More Project networks, which are often constructed as graphs or flow charts, are important not only in understanding the types of activity dependencies and when they are utilized within the project management discourse, but also identifying the critical path in the project (Lewis, 2006). The present short paper aims at identifying and discussing some of the dangers and benefits of using project networks. Although project managers often design project networks to assist them plan for the completion of important project activities, these tools act a s a catalyst for unforeseen problems or dangers that may adversely affect project timelines (Chinowsky et al., 2011). For instance, some project networks of very large projects may be extremely complicated and confusing, with hundreds or even thousands of project activities and dependency relationships, leading to difficulties not only in highlighting the critical path in the project, but also identifying the types of constraints that create activity sequences (Soderlund, 2012). Additionally, project management literature demonstrates that project networks run the risk of prediction inaccuracies as they depend on the capacity to predict relationships and precise timeframes for a multiplicity of project activities, known as nodes. Project management scholarship reveals that this prediction of precedence relationships using arrows (arcs) may be difficult for complicated projects involving many activities and suppliers (Soderlund, 2012), and also fails to make provisions for unexpected events that may present within the lifecycle of the project (Lewis, 2006). Another danger in using project networks presents itself in the form of planning, as most models of project networks presume that all preceding project activities must be fully (100%) complete before the commencement of a new project activity.Advertising Looking for essay on business economics? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More This limitation often leads to inefficient project planning because, in practice, the sequences, interdependencies and timelines may differ, leading to a shift in the critical path (Soderlund, 2012). Moving on, it is important to explain under what circumstances project networks may be beneficial and when they may prove dangerous. Extant project management literature demonstrates that project networks may be beneficial in detailed large project planning as they assist in the identification of project activities and activity depen dencies; that is, they provide a clear graphical picture between and among project activities (Soderlund, 2012). Project networks, according to Lewis (2006), are also beneficial in circumstances where it is important for the project manager to demonstrate a visible critical path for the successful completion of the project. Many projects require that project managers demonstrate all activities that cannot in any way be delayed without negatively affecting the project completion date. In such situations, the use of project networks is essential as they not only make the critical path visible, but also predict relationships between dependencies (Lewis, 2006). Lastly, it has been demonstrated that project networks facilitate commitment and dedication of all stakeholders in meeting the timelines, cost, and performance intentions of the project. Communication and knowledge sharing are also advanced using project networks. In discussing the dangers, it is imperative to mention that projec t networks may provide a dangerous precedent when used in large complicated projects due to multitudes of dependency relationships that may lead to confusion and planning inefficiencies.Advertising We will write a custom essay sample on Project Networks: Dangers Benefits specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More Additionally, it may be dangerous to use project networks in scenarios where the owners of the project demand strict interpretation of project activities and their interrelationships because these tools have weaknesses in making accurate predictions about relationships and precise timelines (Chinowsky et al., 2011). These tools also do not account for unexpected events that may affect the project, either positively or negatively. References Chinowsky, P., Taylor, J.E., Di Marco, M. (2011). Project network interdependency alignment: New approach to assessing project effectiveness. Journal of Management Engineering, 27(3), 170-178 . Lewis, J.P. (2006). Fundamentals of project management (3rd ed.). New York, NY: AMACOM. Soderlund, J. (2012). Project management, interdependencies, and time insights from managing larger systems by Sayles and Chandler. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 5(4), 617-633. This essay on Project Networks: Dangers Benefits was written and submitted by user Jaxon E. to help you with your own studies. You are free to use it for research and reference purposes in order to write your own paper; however, you must cite it accordingly. You can donate your paper here.

Latan and Darleys cognitive model Essays

Latan and Darleys cognitive model Essays Latan and Darleys cognitive model Paper Latan and Darleys cognitive model Paper According to Piliavin, there are two major influences on Bystander intervention, the first is arousal, the response to the need or distress of others; this is the basic motivational construct. This component suggests that the bystander feels discomfort and seeks to reduce this by intervention. This component differs from Latanà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½ and Darleys model as it moves away from cognitive processes. The second component, cost-reward, is similar to the decision model as it introduces cognition. In this section the Bystander determines the costs and rewards of intervening or remaining uninvolved. This is similar to stage 3 in the decision model whereby the Bystander decides whether to assume personal responsibility. The idea that the Bystander will choose the response that most rapidly reduces the discomfort produced by arousal is supported by Dovidio et al. 1991. (Gross 2001) Another factor in explaining why bystanders choose not to intervene that can be applied to both theories is the cost of time. This was shown in a content analysis of answers given in response to five written traffic accident scenarios (Bierhoff et al. 1987) (Montada Bierhoff 1991). People who have demanding lives find waiting frustrating, this is why the willingness to sacrifice time for a person in need can be seen as generous (time is money: Bierhoff Klein, 1988) (Gross 2001). The most frequently mentioned motives for helping were; enhancement of self esteem and moral obligation. These motives are clearly demonstrated in Piliavins model within the cost-reward component. One fundamental difference between Piliavin et al.s (1969, 1981) Arousal-Cost-Reward model and Latanà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½ and Darleys (1970) Cognitive model is the structure. Latanà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½ and Darley focused on a stage-by-stage procedure to determine whether help would be given; this model suggests that bystander intervention would not occur unless all five stages are completed. However, Piliavin et al. focused specifically on two main components to explain bystander behaviour. A similarity between the structures is the cause and effect relationship, in both the cognitive and the arousal-cost-reward model the preceding stages/components affected the outcome and therefore determined whether intervention occurred. One theory that connects both Latanà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½ and Darleys Cognitive model and Piliavin et al.s Arousal-Cost-Reward model is Sherifs (1935) Autokinetic Paradigm; a study in which Sherif used this optical illusion to determine participants reactions when asked to say how far the light was moving. Results showed that 100% of participants changed their answers when put in groups with confederates. This, it has been suggested, is similar to the nature of an emergency as both situations involve uncertainty, ambiguity and a lack of structure in terms of a proper basis for judgement or action. Therefore it could be assumed that in both cases the individual will look to others for guidance on how to think and act. This has been shown in Latan and Rodins (1969) experiment (Latan Nida 1981) and also in the case study of Kitty Genovese case (1964) (Gross 2001). Research has found that not only does the influence of others determine Bystander Behaviour; gender is also seen to have an effect on Bystander intervention. In terms of the arousal-cost component of Piliavins model, research has suggested that women help only certain people in certain ways (Eagly Crowley 1986). This could help to explain why some bystanders experience higher levels of arousal than others. The idea of gender could also be applied to Latan and Darleys cognitive model within the final stage in that women may feel more competent in some situations and therefore are more likely to intervene then men. In conclusion, Latanà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½ and Darleys (1970) Cognitive model and Piliavin et al.s Arousal-Cost-Reward model have many similarities between them. They both attempt to explain why bystanders intervene in an emergency by using cognitive processes; they also address the possibility of social influences affecting bystander intervention. However a fundamental difference between them is in the cost-reward component of Piliavins model as it raises the issue of personal gains or costs from intervening whereas Latanà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½ and Darley only address this briefly within stage three of the decision model. Despite these similar and contrasting ideas both theories have had a huge impact on social psychology and continue to generate research. References: Cardwell, M., Clark, L., Meldrum C. (2001). Psychology for A2 Level. p64. Corsini, R.J. (1999) The Dictionary of Psychology. p133. Eagly, A and Crowley, M. (1986). Gender and Helping Behaviour: A meta analysis review of the social psychology literature. Psychological Bulletin, vol 100, no 3, p284. Gross, R. (2001). Psychology: The Science of Mind and Behaviour (Fourth Edition). pp434-438.