Module 5 Paper

Josh Jackson
College of Integrative Sciences and Arts
OGL 321: Project Leadership
Professor Ben Pandya
June 5, 2021
Module 5 Paper

 For this week’s scenario exercise, we wrestled with the challenge of creating a task-

heavy, competitive product within a very limited time window. In past scenarios, we have

needed to navigate the span of a project while experiencing external threats that hampered either

our manpower or time resources. In this instance, the challenge came from within, namely due to

the demandingly short amount of time allotted due to the projections of upper management.  To

underscore the lessons brought forth by this experience, we explored the issues regarding scope

creep and stakeholder conflict as described by Kim Heldman. This was paired with a 2013 study

portraying the importance of talent development and maturation of project management

processes by the Project Management Institute, which, if applied properly, would solve many of

the problems described in Heldman’s chapter. 

To shore up the lessons from these two pieces, I am including in my body of study two

blogs that echo the challenges of stakeholder conflict  and scope creep. This include “sIdentify

And Avoid Project Scope Creep” by Suzanna Haworth and “How to Create the Perfect

Stakeholder Management Plan” by Jessica Everitt,

 Echoing much of Heldman’s scope creep culprits, Haworth does an excellent job in her

blog listing  every possible project stakeholder and how their role can contribute to scope creep

along with some helpful solutions that can circumvent these issues from occurring. From her

perspective, Scope Creep could come from a team member via confusion about the goal or by

imposing their own agenda. Scope Creep could also come from third parties, peers, or even the

product users!

 Solutions for these problems  are elaborated even further in Everitt’s blog. Here, she

proposes that the most effective way to circumvent conflict and Scope Creep is to create a

stakeholder plan from the very beginning. This plan is a list of every possible stakeholder, their
Module 5 Paper

frequency of contact, motivations, other stakeholders they touch, and a detailed plan for how to

manage conflict with them. She writes, “A stakeholder management plan will help you ensure

project deliverables and expectations align, and that your project is seen as a success (Everitt,

2018).”

In light of the experience from this week’s scenario, I find the positions of each of these

authors to be relevant and applicable. The challenges surrounding this week’s scenario centered

around the demanding time schedule handed down from upper management, which illustrates

how complicated and tense the dynamics of a project can be when multiple stakeholders are

involved. Considering only this scenario, there is only for stakeholder groups to consider:

Myself, upper  management, the project team and outsource service providers. With only these

four stakeholders to consider, the challenges were palpable, especially when needing to balance

team morale, budget and a truncated timeline. In real life, a project manager has to consider even

more stakeholders including sponsors, fellow peers and multiple departments. This is why tools

like those espoused by Everitt are so timely. Having a clear, visual account of stakeholder

relationships and motivations is helpful for managing potential clashes or miscommunications,

but it’s also hopeful for combating Scope Creep, particularly when it can be caused by the

unwitting good intentions or outright alternate agenda of a stakeholder. The March 2013 Pulse of

The Profession presentation understands these tensions when they express their recommendation

for firms to mature their project management and decision making processes, stating “The

imperative to improve project management for competitive advantage is clear. In spite of barriers

to implementation—including the need to do more with less, expanding global priorities, and

enabling innovation—there are lessons to be learned from high performers and successful

projects that can be replicated across organizations of all types to improve their value (CITE).”
Module 5 Paper

Disparate stakeholder motivations can account for this week’s challenging scenario.

Upper management, ignoring any refutals or contrarian opinions of the project manager, pushed

for a Level 4 printer to be released in 12 weeks. Their primary motivation is marketing,

specifically to go to market with a competitive product earlier than their rival brand. While this

motivation is a valid one, the managers were not taking into account how demanding the

schedule would be, and how the potentially stressful workload would cause harried workers to

rush, make mistakes, and inadvertently delay the product from reaching the market in a desired

timeframe.  To be successful, I as a virtual project manager needed to stand in the middle of the

tension and work to provide satisfaction for both sides. This seems to be a critical element of the 

project manager role. Namely, a successful project manager will listen to all the needs of each set

of stakeholders and create a process that will account for everyone’s needs without sacrificing

what is most important for a project’s success. 

A vivid memory comes to mind when considering the  complications associated with

mixed stakeholders and projects. Last Fall, I was associated with a project that became so

bungled at the very outset, it resulted in two people (one of which being myself) leaving a church

community.  

Last year, my church suffered from a triple crisis of a violent tornado hitting East

Nashville, followed by the church elders (called the Session in my denomination) deciding to fire

our head pastor, followed weeks later by the nationwide Covid outbreak. For the next several

months, the session was at a loss deciding how best to navigate Sunday worship in light of the

pandemic, and due to a mix of both valid and invalid reasons, there had been no concrete plan to

move forward to  resuming in-house worship throughout the Spring and Summer. 
Module 5 Paper

In September, during a church member Zoom meeting, it was announced to the group

that one member was stepping up to volunteer to find a good solution for the church, and if

anyone wanted to help her to contact her. I reached out to this person, and the two of us started

hashing out ideas. After finding a solution we were both pleased with, I video-messaged a

proposal to the Session,and ended the message  with an invitation to respond critically with our

proposal and give us feedback after taking into account the issue from their perspective. Several

days passed, and one of the session elders responded with a video message of his own,

announcing that the two of us, along with two other members, were going to form a committee

that would work to bring Sunday morning worship back. Excited, my cohort and I (who

ironically happens to be an actual project manager) sprang into action and started dialoguing

with the other two members via email. Almost immediately, there was confusion and mixed

signals. One member reacted contrarily to everything we discussed, while the other wasn’t even

responding to our messages but almost having a separate conversation all his own. My cohort

and I were flummoxed. I decided to call the other two members individually to better understand

their perspective. It turned out, while my cohort and I were of the impression that this was a

brand new project spawned by our proposal, the Session had already been working with one of

these members (a church staffer) on this very topic since July, and the other member (a retired

Session elder) since February, but never explained the context to any of us. This meant that us

four members were operating under three entirely different narratives. 

In the heat of confusion, the retired elder decided to back out after the first meeting, while

the staffer continued to be contrarian in every way, feeling like the efforts she made prior to

September were being thwarted, as well as feeling fear of the virus and a belief that it wasn’t

even safe to consider meeting in person.  As a solution to our clashing, I worked with the session
Module 5 Paper

to have one of the elders serve as our head, and to be the final word in a dispute. Once that

happened, a new flavor of stakeholder tension arose. While my cohort and I were of the thought

that we were working towards what we proposed and the staffer didn’t even want congregants to

meet in person, the elder was pushing for something different altogether: a “normal” Sunday

service where there is no singing and everyone is masked and distanced and only a third of the

congregation would be allowed to attend. It became clear to me after a 2nd meeting that this was

not what I had signed up for. Having lost all faith in this project and the Session’s ability to lead,

I walked away from the committee. 

My cohort, the actual project manager would eventually leave as well when yet another

stakeholder entered the mix. This new member was a staff pastor who’s last Sunday to preach

would be the first Sunday that this project would commence. Emotionally invested in this last

day, he completely took over and my cohort was bulldozed in the decision making process.
Module 5 Paper

Works Cited

Heldman Kim. (2016). Project Manager’s Spotlight on Risk Management. Sybex. 

Unknown. (2013, March 1). Pulse of the Profession. Project Management Institute. 

Haworth, Suzanna. (2018, January 10). Identify and Avoid Project Scope Creep. Blog

Post.https://thedigitalprojectmanager.com/scope-creep/

Everitt, Jessica. (2020, July 31). How to Create the Perfect Stakeholder Management Plan. Blog
Post. https://www.wrike.com/blog/how-create-stakeholder-management-plan