A contract is a binding agreement, one which ensures that all parties honor their promises. ACL, as well as SCF’s undertaking, is a project within the context of a contract, and hence, for changes to be included after starting out, it is highly necessary that both teams agree.
To a large extent, SCF should either refute the request or accept it with new documented conditions. A change of request late into the beginning of a project does not only imply a change in the cost of completing the project regarding time, but it does also mean a change concerning the skill set required, research, as well as time (Heerkens, 2014). With long deliberation, as an SCF project manager with the necessary experience and who is sure that ACL’s proposal does not hold any truth, it would be wise to reject it. The ground of rejection would first be on the additional cost other than the one ACL’s thinks of. According to the SCF management, the best estimate of the proposed change would be €39, 1000 against a €100,000 best estimate by ACL. Besides, due to the change in design of the project required, it is highly necessary that more research as well as tests are done to ensure perfect functionality of the end product. Given that SCF is lagging behind by two weeks, the change will further affect the time required to finish up the project. On the hand, in the case that ACL accepts to do a written agreement about the additional cost, time requirement as well as the consideration of the likely alternative risks that come with such a change. As a project manager, it is possible to accept since, in case of any problem arising, with a written agreement, the agreement will act as evidence in a legal setting (Posner, 1998). The positive implication of accepting the project with or without a written agreement is that it is possible to make quick profits. It might, however, tarnish the name face of SCF in the case that products that are not up to standard are produced. In rejecting the proposal, it is possible to lose the projected profits but protect the company’s brand at the end of it all.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
To negotiate with ACL, SCF manager should table the detailed broken down budget to ACL manager. In return, she should ask ACL manager to present a detailed broken down budget that warrants the change. This way, it is possible to negotiate with facts and evidence on the table which is likely to make both sides reason (Bharadwaj, Vijay & John, 2003). In addition to the above, if possible, it is the best undertaking to involve major stakeholders from both companies so as they can help in resolving the issue. For a long-lasting relationship between ACL and SCF, there is a need for both companies to act professionally in every undertaking. ACL, for example, should agree to make a written proposal concerning the change. While conducting professionally, it is almost impossible to come across a situation that cannot be resolved. Besides, both companies should act in the best interest of each other and not on selfish interest such as the one ACL wants to push for, regardless of the evidence by the other party that it is impossible.
Due to the need to cut research cost as well as well as improve performance firms, in some circumstances outsource some of their undertakings (Artunian, 2006). Regardless of the need to outsource for the above specific reasons, there are aspects that are compromised when a few elements of a projected are entrusted to an external farm. An example is quality as well as inability to have further control on the project. With a contract in place, it is unethical to outsource a project, especially when it is likely that the overall standard will be compromised. Even in the case that all the requirements will not be compromised, it is highly necessary that permission is obtained from the individuals with whom a contract is entered. Another option available is outsourcing some elements of the project partially in that, the manager will always have a say in quality and major aspects pertaining the project. The above will be like hiring a high-quality skill set for a period to speed up completion. Besides the above, probably it would be possible to collaborate with another company which deals with the same products and work in conjunction with them in elements such as testing to ensure prototypes are put out there and the real reflection of their functionality obtained. Here, the work will not have been outsourced entirely, and hence, little or no ethical implications.
A major inclusion of the alternative solution is requesting SCF a written proposal with a breakdown of the budget they would be working with. With the breakdown, it is essential to scrutinize the plan for validity and negotiate with ACL on the best undertaking that will be a win-win situation for both sides. In addition to the above, it is also necessary to dialogue with ACL on the possibility of reducing the number of underwater modems and produce those that are within their budget of € 100, 000. Here with the reduced figure, it would be possible to obtain the best modems whose standards are not compromised, and the demand met within a short period. In connection to the above, there is need to dialogue with ACL management and make them understand the need to have quality over quantity.
In conclusion, without a written proposal, it would be unwise for SCF to undertake the change as required by ACL. Regardless, it would be good for professionalism to be observed in negotiations as well as deliberations on the best move to be undertaken, one which will favor both sides.
References
Artunian, J. (2006). The seven deadly sins of outsourcing. Computerworld , 40 (19), 56-58.
Bharadwaj, V. G., & Baras, J. S. (2003, June). Towards automated negotiation of access control policies. In Policies for Distributed Systems and Networks, 2003. Proceedings. POLICY 2003. IEEE 4th International Workshop on (pp. 111-119). IEEE.
Heerkens, G. (2014). The cost of change. PM Network, 28 (1), 22–23.
Posner, E. A. (1998). The parol evidence rule, the plain meaning rule, and the principles of contractual interpretation. University of Pennsylvania Law Review , 146 (2), 533-577.
