note the differences and the similarities in the ways metrics are used among the various project examples provided.discuss how you might adopt your peer's approach for your own project

Historically the project teams I have been on have been light when it comes to using and reporting project metrics. The basic set of metrics has been utilized such as earned value, planned value, actual cost, cost variance, schedule variance, schedule performance index, and cost performance index. Of all the metrics SPI and CPI get the most attention. It makes sense as CPI measures project cost efficiency progress while SPI measures project schedule efficiency progress (Larson & Gray, 2019).

The metrics are typically reported in laymans terms. Progress is typically report in summary format. A short blurb on the status is usually enough for the sr. management stakeholders. Sometimes graphs are included, but often they are not as project management is sometimes an afterthought at my company. The more intricate metrics are usually digested by the project team(s).

Once the performance data is analyzed there are several actions that are typically taken. The first is usually the allocation of additional resources. This is generally the case because projects are not always well supported due to project management being in its infancy in my organization. The next action item is often addressing scope creep. Software development in-house is new to the company, and planning for these projects is a difficult task. These projects often start out as critical path projects and then morph into more of an agile project which ultimately tends to grow the scope beyond what was originally planned.

In my limited experience, my role is to handle both action items. Unfortunately, I do not have free reign to allocate the resources as needed. I often must bargain and sometimes plead for the extra help. It is not a pleasant experience, but each time I take it as a learning experience and use it as a chance to further enhance my soft skills. When managing the project scope, I often must balance proposed enhancements as necessary functionality or nice to have additions. This can be tricky because the nice to have addition(s) in the eye of the stakeholder who suggested it is not always viewed as a nice to have. It is a delicate balance and at the end of the day not everyone ends up being happy, and that is the unfortunate but necessary part. Cutting out the nice to have items enables the project to get closer to the planned schedule while managing scope creep.