Management

 

How do you know the current status of your project? How is the current status of the project communicated to your organization’s management team? How do you ensure your clients know the project’s status? When do you introduce change or corrective action into the project based on the project’s current status? When do you decide to allow the project to continue “as is” with no changes being introduced? The answers to these question stem from the Monitoring and Controlling Process Group.

The answers to these questions seem easy on the surface. Yet, in my experience, I find that these are some of the most difficult questions faced by project managers.

In this discussion, succinctly answer the following:

1. How is Monitoring different from Controlling?

2. What role do key stakeholders plan in this process?

3. Discuss at least one Information System tool you may use to Monitor or Control, such as a PMIS, EVM, or others.

 

Sample Solution

Management

Project monitoring and control are, in some ways, simply the opposite sides of project selection and planning. Monitoring is the collection, recording, and reporting of project information that is of importance to the project manager and other relevant stakeholders. Control uses the monitored data and information to bring actual performance into agreement with the plan. Clearly, the need to exert proper control mandates the need to monitor the proper activities and elements of the project. Frequently, the distinction between monitoring and control is blurred, and their interaction often makes us think we are working on a single task, but they are quite distinct.

ee with Oberdorfer that Gorbachev is an important factor that led to the end of the Cold War because if he wasn’t in charge, things would have most likely carried out in the same manner as before. For example, the Soviet Economy would have fallen drastically even faster than it fell under his leadership, thus the big impact Gorbachev had through managing the economy in a better way than others, creating or enforcing relationships with leaders such as Reagan and being more active than previous members changed the outcome of the Cold War. After the demise of the previous leader, Chernenko, Reagan sent his vice president, Bush to the funeral to meet Gorbachev, the new leader who was going to induce “serious change” to the Soviet Union, and bring it out of “its long time troubles”. This positive perception did not become reality because of the breakup of the Soviet Union and the loss of power and control over the Eastern European countries, hence why we cannot ignore the vast importance of Eastern European countries gaining independence as the main cause of the end of the Cold War. Gorbachev’s leadership was not inadequate but, Levesque argues, when he needed to focus on the Eastern countries, he did the exact opposite and focused on the West. Moreover, he offered no financial support to those who wanted change in the Eastern European countries since the Soviet Union’s economy was rapidly declining as evident in the Soviets increased the price of oil exports. Therefore, it is quite apparent that the Cold War ended as a result of the lack of control the Soviet Union had over Eastern European countries.
Comparison:
Levesque has the most valid interpretation because the breadth of it is larger than Oberdorfer’s and Pemberton’s interpretations. Levesque ultimately argues that the Cold War’s end was a result of the Soviet Union’s sheer lack of control of Eastern European countries. His argument is articulate in exploring the reason of the end of the Cold War as well as exploring other contributing factors such as the Soviet economy and how its status was slowly dissolving the Soviet diplomacy and the impact of the Afghanistan War on them, which is further explored by Reuveny and Prakash. Therefore, Levesque’s interpretation is considered objective as he takes a holistic approach in viewing the majority of the factors that contributed to the end of the Cold War, then pinpoints the most impactful one- the lack of control of Eastern European countries and their attainment of independence. Similarly to Levesque’s interpretation, Pemberton and Oberdorfer touch on the Sov

This question has been answered.

Get Answer