IT Project Management: Structures, Life Cycles & Org Frames
This paper addresses four foundational topics in information technology project management. It compares functional, project, and matrix organizational structures, outlining the advantages and disadvantages of each. It then contrasts predictive and adaptive software development life cycle models, describing waterfall, spiral, incremental build, prototyping, and RAD approaches alongside adaptive methods. The paper goes on to explain the four phases of a project life cycle — initiation, planning, execution, and closure — and the significance of each. Finally, it examines Bolman and Deal's four frames of organizations (structural, human resources, political, and symbolic) and explains why each frame matters to a project manager's effectiveness within an organization.
- Organizational Structures in IT Project Management: Pros and cons of functional, project, and matrix structures
- Predictive vs. Adaptive Product Life Cycle Models: Waterfall, spiral, RAD versus adaptive development approaches
- The Four Phases of a Project Life Cycle: Initiation, planning, execution, and closure phase details
- The Four Frames of Organizations: Structural, HR, political, and symbolic frames for project managers
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Each question is answered with a consistent compare-and-contrast structure: definition, advantages, and disadvantages are addressed in logical sequence, making the analysis easy to follow.
- The paper draws on two well-chosen sources — Schwalbe's textbook for technical project management content and Bolman & Deal for organizational theory — and cites them accurately throughout.
- Concrete named models (waterfall, spiral, RAD, incremental build) are listed and briefly defined, demonstrating command of the subject vocabulary without over-expanding any single point.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper applies parallel structure across all four sections: each organizational or conceptual element is introduced, described in terms of its purpose or definition, and then evaluated for its strengths and weaknesses. This technique — definition followed by balanced evaluation — is a reliable approach for short-answer academic responses and shows the writer can synthesize textbook material into concise analytical prose.
Structure breakdown
The paper is organized as four discrete short-answer responses, each targeting approximately 200 words. Section one covers organizational structures; section two compares life cycle models; section three walks through project phases; and section four applies Bolman and Deal's four-frames model to project management. A Works Cited section concludes the paper in APA format.
Organizational Structures in IT Project Management
Functional structure is the classic hierarchy of a CEO, departmental managers reporting to the CEO, and skilled employees in each department (Schwalbe, 2014, p. 49). This arrangement is favorable for its flexible use of personnel with specialized skills from each department, but unfavorable because each department is focused on its own needs, resulting in low project motivation and awkward intra-departmental coordination.
Project structure has project managers reporting directly to the CEO (Schwalbe, 2014, p. 50). Each project manager has staff grouped for a specific project. This is favorable because the project is the central focus and employees are specially assembled, have specific tasks, and answer only to their project manager. However, it is unfavorable because there may be duplication of work across different project teams, a lack of loyalty to the broader organization, and a lack of job continuity.
Matrix structure is a hybrid approach (Schwalbe, 2014, p. 51) that retains classic departmental managers while also maintaining a department of project managers, with employees reporting to both. This is favorable because the project remains the focus, specially skilled employees from different departments can be utilized, company resources can be balanced, and there is greater job continuity. It is unfavorable, however, because of the tensions, shared resources, and conflicting directives that can arise from dual reporting lines.
Predictive vs. Adaptive Product Life Cycle Models
A predictive life cycle means a project's scope can be clearly determined and the completion schedule and cost can be precisely anticipated (Schwalbe, 2014, pp. 59–60). The project team spends a significant amount of time clarifying system requirements and producing a design before the IT project team develops working software. Models of predictive life cycles include:
Waterfall, which is based on stable requirements and involves definite, linear stages of analysis, design, construction, testing, and support. Spiral, which recognizes the iterative nature of software development and easily allows for changes, revisions, and clarification using the original requirements. Incremental build, which focuses on the progressive development of functioning software, with each release adding new capabilities. Prototyping, which tailors software for heavily involved end users. RAD (Rapid Application Development), which uses a progressing prototype with significant user involvement to quickly develop a high-quality software system (Schwalbe, 2014, pp. 60–61).
The adaptive software development life cycle is based on the belief that requirements cannot be clearly defined in the early stages of a project. In this model, risks are expected, incorporated, and addressed, with greater freedom to develop components and functionality for a specific group. These types of projects use target dates within the life cycle, are driven by mission objectives, and are focused on components (Schwalbe, 2014, p. 61).
Works Cited
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2008). Reframing organizations. Retrieved from http://www.slideshare.net/PhilVincent1/fourframe-model
Method123. (n.d.). Project management life cycle. Retrieved from http://www.method123.com/project-lifecycle.php
Schwalbe, K. (2014). Information technology project management (Rev. 7th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.