| Course | BUSI 681 Advanced Project Management II (BUSI681) |
|---|---|
| Module/Week | 1 |
| Assignment | Group DB Forum 1 Part 1 |
| Paper type | Discussion thread |
| Length | about 525 words (thread and replies). Course guide: an individual thread of 500 to 750 words demonstrating course-related knowledge, referencing at least 3 peer-reviewed sources and including at least 1 biblical integration; the group's synthesized reply follows in Part 2 |
| Format | APA 7 citations and reference list |
| Points | 50 |
| School | Liberty University Online |
| Program | MBA |
| Where it sits | Module/Week 1 in Liberty's published BUSI 681 course guide; current sections can differ |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for BUSI 681 Week 1
Group Discussion Board Forum 1: Part 1 (Thread)
BUSI 681 Advanced Project Management II, Group Discussion Board Forum 1: Part 1 (thread)
Thread by [Student Name]
The forum prompt and the water utility are composites standing in for the course's own; the textbook, Scripture and research cited are real, and the requirements follow Liberty's public course guide for BUSI 681.
Thread
Our composite water utility now has to finish a filter upgrade at its main treatment plant six weeks earlier than planned, because state regulators moved up a compliance deadline. The current schedule has 34 weeks remaining, with the critical path running through equipment installation, controls programming and startup testing. Gray and Larson (2018) list the main ways to shorten a project: add resources, outsource work, schedule overtime, establish a dedicated core team, crash individual activities along the time-cost curve and fast-track by overlapping activities that would normally run in sequence. The chapter's time-cost analysis tells me which critical activities are cheapest to crash per week saved. It does not tell me what else will change when I do it.
Adding people is the most tempting option, because our contractor has offered a second controls programming crew. Abdel-Hamid (1989) built a system dynamics model of software development and used it to simulate the staffing practices of an actual project, examining how staffing policies affected project behavior and testing how far people and months could substitute for each other. The model's lesson is that staffing decisions do not act alone: new staff need training from experienced staff, add communication paths and change the productivity of the whole team. Our controls programming is software work, and a second crew would need weeks to learn the plant's existing control logic, taking time from the first crew's programmers.
Fast-tracking raises different issues. We could begin controls programming before installation drawings are final. Krishnan et al. (1997) argued against the common advice to overlap activities as much as possible and presented a framework identifying when different kinds of overlapping are appropriate for coupled activities, depending on how quickly upstream information stabilizes and how sensitive the downstream task is to changes. Loch and Terwiesch (1998) modeled the same trade-off: overlapping saves time but invites rework when downstream work proceeds on preliminary information, and communication reduces that rework at the cost of meeting time. They found that the optimal meeting frequency follows the rate of engineering changes and rises with uncertainty and dependence. Overlap only pays when the information being started on is unlikely to change.
Applied to our upgrade, the evidence suggests overlapping controls programming with installation only for the filter cells whose equipment has already been delivered and inspected, where drawings are stable, and holding frequent coordination meetings during that period. For installation itself, which is labor-intensive but not knowledge-intensive, adding a second shift is likely to shorten the work with less hidden cost than adding a programming crew.
Nehemiah faced his own compressed schedule. While rebuilding Jerusalem's wall under threat, he reports that half of his servants worked on construction while half held the spears, shields and bows, and even the men hauling loads did their carrying with a weapon close at hand (English Standard Version Bible, 2001/2016, Nehemiah 4:16-17). The work went fast because it had to, yet he guarded against the risks of speed. That is the balance this decision requires.
I would welcome my group's views: when your organizations have shortened a schedule, did the hidden costs of crashing or overlapping appear, and how were they managed?
References
Abdel-Hamid, T. K. (1989). The dynamics of software project staffing: A system dynamics based simulation approach. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 15(2), 109-119. https://doi.org/10.1109/32.21738
English Standard Version Bible. (2016). Crossway. (Original work published 2001)
Gray, C. F., & Larson, E. W. (2018). Project management: The managerial process (7th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
Krishnan, V., Eppinger, S. D., & Whitney, D. E. (1997). A model-based framework to overlap product development activities. Management Science, 43(4), 437-451. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.43.4.437
Loch, C. H., & Terwiesch, C. (1998). Communication and uncertainty in concurrent engineering. Management Science, 44(8), 1032-1048. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.44.8.1032
What the BUSI 681 Week 1 instructions ask
BUSI 681 picks up where BUSI 680 left off: its first module covers Gray and Larson's chapter 9 on shortening project schedules, with a presentation, the opening checklist and introductions, Quiz 1 and the first forum's Part 1 thread. Group membership is set by the instructor during that first week. In Part 1 every member writes a thread on the chapter's problem, kept between 500 and 750 words, resting on three peer-reviewed project studies or more and engaging Scripture; for Part 2, the group writes a synthesized reply of 450 to 600 words with the same requirements. Fifty points ride on the individual thread and twenty-five on the shared reply.
How this BUSI 681 Week 1 example is built
The thread works through a scheduling decision. It sets out the utility's deadline problem and the chapter's options for shortening a project: adding resources, outsourcing, scheduling overtime, establishing a core team, crashing activities along the time-cost curve and fast-tracking. It then asks what the cost curve leaves out. Abdel-Hamid's simulation of software project staffing shows how adding people affects training and communication, Krishnan, Eppinger and Whitney's framework identifies when overlapping coupled activities is appropriate, and Loch and Terwiesch's model shows how concurrency trades time against rework and meetings. A recommendation follows, and the account from Nehemiah frames working fast while guarding against risk.
BUSI 681 Week 1 grading rubric: where the points go
Graders read Part 1 threads for command of chapter 9, critical analysis, a length between 500 and 750 words, the three peer-reviewed studies the forum requires and Scripture that actually advances the argument. Chapter 9 concepts that earn credit include the reasons for reducing duration, the project time-cost relationship, direct and indirect costs, crash times and crash costs, the critical path and near-critical paths, fast-tracking and the options available when resources are or are not constrained. Graders look for a thread that evaluates options with evidence rather than listing them, and for a clear position that gives the group material for its synthesized reply. The instructor seeks substantial, thoughtful and critical interaction.
BUSI 681 Week 1 help: mistakes that cost points
The usual weakness in this forum is to explain crashing with the textbook's cost-slope arithmetic and stop. Go further by asking what the arithmetic omits, such as learning curves for new staff, coordination load or rework when overlapping work proceeds on preliminary information. Use your own project if possible, with a specific deadline and options. Check that the three sources are peer-reviewed; practitioner blogs on fast-tracking do not count. Make the biblical integration fit the topic, such as diligence, urgency balanced with caution or stewardship of a team's strength. Stay within 750 words, because your group must read every member's thread before writing Part 2. A small worked example of one crash decision, with the cost per week saved, makes the analysis concrete.
Related BUSI 681 sample papers
Other BUSI 681 weeks
- BUSI 681 Week 2: Forum 1 Part 2: Leading a Crash
- BUSI 681 Week 3: Forum 2: Building a Split Team
- BUSI 681 Week 4: Forum 2 Reply: Outsourced Teams
- BUSI 681 Week 5: Forum 3: Earned Value as Warning
- BUSI 681 Week 6: Project Model Part 1: Lead Lines
- BUSI 681 Week 7: Forum 4: An Offshore Model Team
- BUSI 681 Week 8: Project Model Part 2: Lead Lines
More MBA sample papers
- BUSI 644 Week 2: Forum 1: Needs Before Training
- BUSI 645 Week 1: Forum 1: Lead, Match or Lag Pay?
- BUSI 650 Week 1: Forum 1: Operations Strategy Choices
- BUSI 680 Week 1: Forum 1 Thread: Defining Success
BUSI 681 Week 1 questions, answered
What is BUSI 681 Group Discussion Board Forum 1?
BUSI 681's first group forum pairs each member's Part 1 thread on shortening schedules, 500 to 750 words for 50 points in the opening module, with a synthesized group reply worth 25 points the following week.
Where can I find a free BUSI 681 Week 1 sample paper?
The page above holds a complete BUSI 681 Week 1 thread that compares crashing and fast-tracking for a treatment plant upgrade with research on staffing dynamics and overlapping activities.
What is the difference between crashing and fast-tracking?
Crashing shortens critical activities by adding resources at extra cost, while fast-tracking starts a later activity before the earlier one finishes, gaining time at the risk of redoing work.
Does adding people to a late project help?
Not always. New staff need training and add coordination load, and research using simulation models shows that staffing decisions ripple through a project's productivity, so added people may increase cost more than they save time.
What else is due in BUSI 681 Module/Week 1?
The opening checklist, a class introduction and Quiz 1, which has 30 questions and a 45-minute limit, alongside the chapter on reducing duration.
Use it as a model, or ask for your own
This paper is an original model written by our desk for study. It is not a submitted student paper and not an official Liberty University document. Read it for structure and reasoning, then write your own to the instructions in your Canvas course. If you want a version built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
Ask for a custom BUSI 681 Week 1 sample · All BUSI 681 weeks · All courses