Discuss why the following approach is best suited for a project and What are the advantages and disadvantages of the approach you selected?

Quality Management Methodology

According to A Summary of PMBOK Practices: Quality Management, this methodology has two goals, “ensuring a quality end-product and ensuring that all of the process involved during the project lifecycle are carried out efficiently.” The Project Management Body of Knowledge or PMBOK offers methods on almost all the methodologies mentioned here including quality management. PMBOK recommends using quality planning, assurance, and control to complete a project successfully. A manager may think of an efficiently run assembly line before implementing quality management practices. Simply put, quality run projects produce quality outcomes, meaning not only an efficient one but one with the end-product as designed. Most experts believe the practices of quality management and total quality management (TQM) go hand in hand.

Risk Management Methodology

In Using Risk Management Plans to Prevent Project Failure, the risk management methodology is described as “identifying risks, measuring their potential for harm, and creating plans to deal with the threats.” Risks are identified as being operational, financial, strategic or perimeter and then prioritized. Risk treatment plans are utilized to help prioritization of risks. Managers use the risk register to analyze how a risk will affect the project or the process. Once risks are identified, who will handle risks and risk controls are put in place. Risk management also includes the realization that some risks are acceptable and should not deter the project. Finally, at project end, a risk analysis is performed to see how well the project flowed.

In 2011, huge crowds in the United States and other countries around the world broke the laws of their nations to protest against injustices. Hundreds of thousands of Arabs held illegal demonstrations in Tunisia, Lybia, Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain, Iran, Syria, and Morocco, protesting unjust government regimes. Protestors succeeded in overthrowing the governments of Tunisia, Lybia, and Egypt. In New York, “Occupy Wall Street” demonstrators illegally occupied a park near Wall Street to protest unjust economic inequalities that benefit the richest “1 percent” at the expense of the other “99 percent.” Within days, the movement spread to Boston, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Washington, D.C., Salt Lake City, Philadelphia, Sacramento, Portland, Houston, Dallas, Tampa, New Orleans, Cleveland, Denver, Seattle, Berkeley, and more than a hundred other U.S. cities where demonstrators also illegally took over private property in protest of rising inequality. The movement also spread to dozens of cities in Europe, South America, and Australia where demonstrators used similar illegal tactics to protest the growing gap between the rich and the poor. This was not the first time Americans deliberately broke the law to protest something they felt was morally wrong. During the 1960s, thousands of black people illegally sat in “white-only” sections of restaurants, theaters, buses, and other segregated businesses to protest unjust segregation laws, and thousands of blacks and whites engaged in civil disobedience to protest state laws that kept blacks from exercising their constitutional rights to vote and to attend the same public schools as whites. During the 1970s, tens of thousands of people broke the law to protest the U.S. war in Vietnam, occupying government property, refusing to pay taxes that would support the war, and trespassing on the private property of companies that made military weapons. In the 1990s, thousands broke the law to protest the Gulf War, and in 2003, thousands more did so to protest the war in Iraq. And during the past decade numerous groups have illegally occupied power plants, illegally blocked logging operations, illegally prevented construction workers from building new coal plants, and staged illegal sit-ins, all in protest of the ongoing destruction of the environment. When arrested, protesters have inevitably said that their actions are a matter of conscience and that they are obligated to obey their conscience rather than the law. QUESTIONS 1. Is it morally wrong to break the law in the situations just described? Is it wrong when a demonstrator breaks only those specific laws the demonstrator believes are unjust? Explain your answers. 2. How would Socrates respond to the civil disobedience of these various groups of protesters? Who is right, Socrates or the demonstrators?