| Course | PM 310 Project Planning and Performance (PM/310) |
|---|---|
| Week | 3 |
| Paper type | Development approach and life cycle analysis |
| Length | about 1,038 words, 4 double-spaced pages plus title page and references |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | University of Phoenix |
| Program | BS in Business |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for PM 310 Week 3
Concrete Waits for Winter, Software Does Not: Choosing a Hybrid Development Approach and Life Cycle for Canal Automation
[Student Name]
University of Phoenix
PM/310: Project Planning and Performance
Week 3 Assignment
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Basalt Bench Irrigation District, its phases, dates and figures are composites written for a model paper.
Basalt Bench Irrigation District, the invented Snake River district near Twin Falls, Idaho, used in this course, is automating 46 canal headgates and launching an online water-ordering portal at a cost of $7.2 million. The Week 1 and Week 2 papers covered stakeholders and the team. This paper decides how the work should be developed and delivered. The decision is not obvious, because the project contains two very different kinds of work that follow different calendars and respond to change in different ways.
Three Development Approaches
The current standard describes a spectrum of development approaches (Project Management Institute [PMI], 2021). A predictive approach defines scope, schedule and cost early and delivers against that plan; it suits work whose requirements are known and whose changes are expensive. An adaptive approach, which includes agile methods, plans in short iterations and refines the product through feedback; it suits work with evolving requirements and users who can respond to early versions. A hybrid approach combines elements of both, either by using different approaches for different parts of a project or by blending them within one stream. The standard also separates two ideas often confused: iterative development improves a product through repeated cycles, while incremental development delivers it in pieces that are usable on their own.
Two Work Streams
The gate stream covers civil and electrical work at 46 sites: demolition of old wooden or steel slide gates, concrete modifications, installation of actuators, solar panels, batteries, flow meters and radios, and testing. The canals carry water from about April 1 to mid-October, so all construction must happen between mid-October and late March. Designs need sign-off from the district's engineer and the grant office, and the state watermaster must accept the metering.
The portal stream covers a web and mobile ordering application that lets growers request water, see delivery status and view meter data, plus integration with the district's billing system. Growers have never used such a tool, and their needs are only partly known. The vendor supplies a base product that can be configured and extended.
Selection Factors
The team scored each stream on six factors drawn from the standard: requirement stability, cost of change, regulatory constraints, stakeholder availability for feedback, delivery options and team experience.
Requirement stability: the gates are well specified by hydraulics and the grant; the portal's features are uncertain.
Cost of change: changing a poured concrete structure is expensive; changing a portal screen is cheap.
Regulation: the gates face design approvals and metering acceptance; the portal faces only data privacy and billing accuracy rules.
Stakeholder availability: growers can test portal features in winter, when they have time; nobody can test a gate until water flows.
Delivery options: gates can be delivered by lateral, a few at a time; the portal can be released in small updates.
Team experience: the contractor knows staged construction; the vendor's software team already works in two-week iterations.
Every factor points toward predictive delivery for the gates and adaptive delivery for the portal.
The canal decides when the concrete is poured; the growers decide what the portal becomes.
Evidence for a Hybrid
Boehm and Turner (2003) argued that the choice between agile and plan-driven methods should rest on risk: where the risks of moving too fast are high, plans pay off, and where the risks of being locked into wrong requirements are high, agility pays off. Both kinds of risk exist here, in different streams. Gemino et al. (2021) studied a large sample of projects using agile, traditional and hybrid approaches and found hybrid projects performed about as well as agile projects on measures such as stakeholder satisfaction, and better than traditional ones on some measures, concluding that hybrid is not a second-best compromise. Their findings support using a mixed approach on purpose rather than by accident.
Recommendation
The gate stream will follow a predictive approach with incremental delivery. Design will be completed and approved once, then built in two installation windows: 22 gates on the three busiest laterals in the first winter and the remaining 24 in the second. Each lateral's gates go live together, so riders learn one area at a time.
The portal stream will follow an adaptive approach in two-week iterations. A pilot group of 15 growers will test each release from November through March. The first public release, limited to ordering and confirmation, goes live for the first season on the automated laterals; meter data, history and mobile alerts follow in later releases.
Life Cycle and Decision Points
The project's life cycle has eight phases across 24 months:
Feasibility and grant award (complete).
Design and approvals, April to September of year one, ending at Gate 1: approved gate designs and watermaster acceptance of metering.
Procurement, July to October, overlapping with design for long-lead actuators.
First installation window, mid-October to late March, with portal iterations running in parallel; ends at Gate 2: 22 gates tested dry and portal release one accepted by the pilot group.
First season operation, April to October, with gates on manual backup and portal iterations continuing at a slower pace.
Second installation window, mid-October to late March, ending at Gate 3: all gates tested and the full portal released.
Second season operation, April to October.
Closeout, with final grant reporting and benefits handover.
Keeping the Streams in Step
The two cadences meet at fixed points. Every second portal iteration review includes the gate team, so new gates appear in the portal on the day they go live. The gate schedule publishes which laterals go live when, which sets portal priorities. Gates 2 and 3 require both streams to be ready, so neither can declare success alone. A shared risk list covers the interfaces, such as meter data formats and radio coverage.
Conclusion
The canal automation project contains fixed, seasonal, regulated construction and uncertain, user-shaped software. Scoring each stream against selection factors led to a hybrid: predictive and incremental for the gates, adaptive for the portal, joined by shared reviews and gates tied to the irrigation calendar. The life cycle respects the one constraint nobody can change, the water season, while giving growers a voice in what they will use.
References
Boehm, B., & Turner, R. (2003). Using risk to balance agile and plan-driven methods. Computer, 36(6), 57-66. https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.2003.1204376
Gemino, A., Horner Reich, B., & Serrador, P. M. (2021). Agile, traditional, and hybrid approaches to project success: Is hybrid a poor second choice? Project Management Journal, 52(2), 161-175. https://doi.org/10.1177/8756972820973082
Project Management Institute. (2021). A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK guide) (7th ed.). Project Management Institute.
What the PM 310 Week 3 instructions ask
The third assignment in PM 310 generally asks students to explain development approaches and life cycles and to recommend one for a project. Prompts usually request definitions of predictive, adaptive and hybrid approaches, the factors that influence the choice, such as requirement stability, risk, regulation and stakeholder availability, a recommended approach with justification and a description of the project's life cycle with its phases. Some instructors ask students to compare iterative and incremental delivery or to describe cadence. Use the project from earlier weeks if the prompt allows, cite the standard and at least two scholarly sources and present the life cycle in a list or diagram that shows phases and decision points.
How this PM 310 Week 3 example is built
The example begins by noticing that the canal project contains two projects in one. Installing 46 headgates means concrete, steel and electrical work that must happen between October and March, when the canals are empty, under a design the state and the grant office approve in advance. The ordering portal is software whose users, the growers, can try features and react. The paper defines the approaches, scores each work stream on six selection factors and recommends predictive delivery for the gates, adaptive delivery in two-week iterations for the portal and incremental rollout by lateral for both. A phase-by-phase life cycle follows, with three gates tied to the irrigation calendar, and a closing section explains how the two streams stay synchronized.
PM 310 Week 3 grading rubric: where the points go
High-scoring papers show that the approach was chosen, not assumed. Graders look for accurate definitions, a set of selection factors applied honestly to the project and a recommendation that follows from that analysis. When a project mixes work types, recognizing the mix and splitting the approach earns credit. The life cycle should name phases, deliverables and decision points and reflect real constraints such as seasons, regulation or funding. Using research on agile, traditional and hybrid outcomes strengthens the case. Explaining how different cadences will be coordinated shows a deeper grasp of the domain. Logical organization, a readable phase list or diagram, careful terminology and properly formatted APA sources finish the job.
PM 310 Week 3 help: mistakes to avoid
Students often choose agile because it is popular and then struggle to explain how sprints apply to pouring concrete. Match the approach to the work, not to fashion. Another frequent error is confusing iterative and incremental delivery: iterative refines a product through repeated cycles, incremental delivers it in usable pieces. Some papers present a life cycle as a list of generic phases, initiating, planning, executing, closing, with no link to the project's real milestones. Tie each phase to dates and deliverables. Others recommend hybrid without saying which parts get which approach or how they fit together. Name the interface points. Finally, include the factors that pushed you away from the alternatives. A tutor can help you test whether your recommendation holds up against each factor.
Related PM 310 sample papers
Other PM 310 week samples
- PM 310 Week 1: Stakeholders and Engagement
- PM 310 Week 2: Building and Leading the Team
- PM 310 Week 4: The Planning Domain
- PM 310 Week 5: Project Management Plan
More BS in Business sample papers
- MKT 446 Week 3: Website Architecture
- MKT 449 Week 3: Measuring Brand Recognition
- MKT 498 Week 3: Media Selection and Planning
- PM 300 Week 3: Governance and Project Environments
PM 310 Week 3 questions, answered
What does PM 310 Week 3 usually cover?
It usually covers the development approach and life cycle performance domain: predictive, adaptive and hybrid approaches, the factors that guide the choice and how a project's phases and cadence are organized.
Where can I find a free PM 310 Week 3 sample paper?
The Week 3 paper above recommends a hybrid approach and a seasonal life cycle for canal automation in Idaho; anyone can open and read the whole thing at no cost.
What is the difference between predictive and adaptive approaches?
A predictive approach fixes scope, schedule and cost early and follows a plan. An adaptive approach plans in short cycles and adjusts the product as feedback arrives.
When is a hybrid development approach a good choice?
When a project contains work with stable, regulated requirements alongside work whose requirements are uncertain or best discovered with users, so each part can use the approach that suits it.
What is the difference between iterative and incremental development?
Iterative development improves a product through repeated cycles of feedback. Incremental development delivers the product in usable pieces that add up to the whole.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official University of Phoenix document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
Request this one custom, free · All PM 310 week samples · All courses