| Course | WMBA 6620 Practices in Project Management |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 7 |
| Paper type | Peer replies |
| Length | About 410 words, 3 pages |
| Format | Discussion reply, APA 7 citations |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | Master of Business Administration (MBA) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for WMBA 6620 Week 7
Week 7 Discussion: Reconciling Classmates' Plans
Nineteen Weeks of Packages in a Fourteen-Week Schedule, and a Cost Estimate $86,400 Short of Its Own Rows: Two Peer Replies That Quote the Disagreeing Figures, Do the Arithmetic and Say Which Document Moves
Response to Jordan: Schedule Against Work Packages
Jordan, your work breakdown lists nine packages for the clinic relocation with durations of 3, 2, 4, 1, 2, 3, 2, 1 and 1 weeks, and your schedule shows the move complete in 14 weeks. Those two figures disagree unless some packages run in parallel.
Here is the arithmetic. The nine durations total 19 weeks. Your network diagram shows only one parallel pair: furniture procurement, 4 weeks, alongside network cabling, 3 weeks. Running those together saves 3 weeks, bringing the chain to 16 weeks, not 14. The remaining 2 weeks would need another overlap, and none is drawn.
I think the schedule should move, not the breakdown. Your package durations came from the vendors and the facilities team, while the 14 weeks matches the date the old lease ends, which suggests the schedule was fitted to a deadline. If the lease date is fixed, the honest options are to find a second overlap, perhaps staff training during cabling, which the PMBOK Guide calls fast-tracking and which carries some risk of rework (Project Management Institute, 2021), or to negotiate a two-week lease extension now, while it is cheap. Kelley and Walker (1959) designed the critical path method to show exactly this: which chain sets the end date. Which of those would your sponsor accept?
Response to Priya: Cost Estimate Against Its Own Rows
Priya, your estimate summary for the call center expansion shows a total of $1,240,000, but the rows in your table add up to $1,326,400. The difference is $86,400.
Working through the table, I think I found it: the furniture row shows 48 workstations at $1,800, which is $86,400, but the summary seems to have been calculated before that row was added. The other rows match their totals.
The summary should move, since the rows carry the sources and the furniture is real scope. That puts your estimate about 7 percent above the $1.24 million you were given, which is worth flagging now rather than at the first invoice. Flyvbjerg (2006) traced cost underestimates to optimism and the inside view planners take of their own projects, and this looks like an early figure that survived a change in scope. Would your sponsor rather fund the $86,400 or trim workstations?
References
Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). From Nobel Prize to project management: Getting risks right. Project Management Journal, 37(3), 5-15. https://doi.org/10.1177/875697280603700302
Kelley, J. E., & Walker, M. R. (1959). Critical-path planning and scheduling. In Papers presented at the December 1-3, 1959, eastern joint IRE-AIEE-ACM computer conference (pp. 160-173). https://doi.org/10.1145/1460299.1460318
Project Management Institute. (2021). A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK guide) (7th ed.).
WMBA 6620 Week 7 instructions, in plain terms
The week's discussion asks students to check classmates' plans for internal consistency. Most sections are satisfied by two replies of roughly a page between them. Instructors expect each reply to quote the two figures that disagree before anything else, so a reader can check the claim. The middle should do the arithmetic openly, showing how the figures fail to reconcile. The close should propose which document moves and commit to it, since naming a discrepancy without recommending a fix leaves the classmate with nothing to act on. A question the classmate can answer usually ends the reply. Replies should also check their own arithmetic carefully, since an error in a correction undermines it. A brief note on the cause of the discrepancy, where it can be found, makes the fix easier for the classmate.
How the WMBA 6620 Week 7 example is put together
The first reply quotes nine package durations and a 14-week schedule, totals the durations at 19 weeks, credits the single parallel pair and finds 16 weeks. It argues the schedule was fitted to a lease date and should move, offers a second overlap or a lease extension and cites the PMBOK Guide on fast-tracking and Kelley and Walker on the critical path. The second reply quotes a summary total and the sum of the rows, identifies the missing furniture row, recommends correcting the summary and flags a 7 percent overrun, citing Flyvbjerg on optimism and the inside view. Each ends with a question for the sponsor's choice. Margin comments flag the quoted figures and the committed fix. Both replies stay within two hundred fifty words. The arithmetic is shown in full in each reply.
WMBA 6620 Week 7 rubric: what earns full marks
Graders reward replies that quote the disagreeing figures precisely and show the arithmetic. Identifying the likely cause of the discrepancy demonstrates careful reading. Committing to which document should change, with a reason, carries significant weight. Offering realistic options and asking a question the classmate can answer makes the reply useful. Citations that support the recommendation add credibility. Replies that propose a reconciled figure, not just a disagreement, show the classmate a way forward. Replies that link the discrepancy to a decision the sponsor must make show the most practical value.
WMBA 6620 Week 7 help: mistakes that cost marks
Read your classmate's documents side by side and look for two numbers that should agree. Quote both. Then show the calculation that reveals the gap. Ask which figure has better support, and recommend that the other one change. Offer one or two ways to resolve the difference. Students often lose marks by noting a discrepancy without numbers, by suggesting both documents might be wrong without choosing or by offering general praise. Another frequent gap is arithmetic errors in the reply itself. Check your sums twice. For a custom sample pair of reconciliation replies, send us your classmates' plans.
Get a WMBA 6620 Week 7 example written to your instructions
Both classmate submissions being reviewed are needed here, together with the Week 7 instructions and the participation rubric. Two replies with the arithmetic worked through come back in 24 to 48 hours, the first one free. Names come out before drafting and go back as placeholders once the replies return.
More WMBA 6620 papers and MBA samples
- WMBA 6620 Week 1: Missed Project Target Post
- WMBA 6620 Week 2: Bakery Line Project Charter
- WMBA 6620 Week 3: Project Scope Statement
- WMBA 6620 Week 4: Work Breakdown Structure
- WMBA 6620 Week 5: Critical Path Schedule Build
- WMBA 6620 Week 6: Bottom-Up Project Cost Estimate
- WMBA 6620 Week 8: Project Quality Plan
- WMBA 6620 Week 9: Change Control Procedure
- WMBA 6620 Week 10: Earned Value Status Report
- WMBA 6620 Week 11: Project Closeout Report
- WMBA 6623 Week 7: Risk Response Plan
- WMBA 6615 Week 7: Field Crew Subculture Analysis
- WMBA 6627 Week 7: Stakeholder Engagement Plan
- WMBA 6608 Week 7: Financial Condition Assessment
WMBA 6620 Week 7 questions, answered
Where can I find a free WMBA 6620 Week 7 sample paper?
Both plan reconciliation replies are published in full here.
What does the first reply find?
Nine packages total 19 weeks, or 16 with one overlap, against a 14-week schedule.
Which document should move in the first case?
The schedule, which appears fitted to a lease date.
What does the second reply find?
Estimate rows total $1,326,400 against a $1,240,000 summary, an $86,400 gap.
What caused the second gap?
A furniture row added after the summary was calculated.