| Course | PM 400 Agile Management and Tailoring (PM/400) |
|---|---|
| Week | 1 |
| Paper type | Tailoring analysis |
| Length | about 1,029 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 400 Week 1
Three Projects, One Library District: Tailoring the Approach to a Catalog Migration, a Makerspace and a Mobile App
[Student Name]
University of Phoenix
PM/400: Agile Management and Tailoring
Week 1 Assignment
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Desert Sky Library District, its projects, staff and figures are composites written for a model paper.
Desert Sky Library District, a composite public library system in southern Arizona, serves about 410,000 residents through 14 branches, a bookmobile and online services. Its board has approved three projects for the coming year: migrating the district's integrated library system, which runs the catalog, circulation and patron accounts, to a new cloud platform; fitting out a makerspace with 3D printers, a laser cutter and sewing machines at the Mesa Verde branch; and rebuilding the library's mobile app, which patrons rate poorly. The district's project manager, Rafael Quintana, has used the same method for every project, a detailed plan approved in advance. This paper explains why that habit should change and how each project's approach should be tailored.
What Tailoring Means
The current standard describes tailoring as the deliberate adaptation of the project management approach, governance and processes to make them more suitable for the given environment and the work at hand (Project Management Institute [PMI], 2021). It is not doing less; it is doing what fits. A data migration that moves 1.2 million patron and item records needs rigor that a makerspace fit-out does not, and an app redesign needs flexibility that a migration cannot afford.
The Tailoring Process
The standard describes four steps: select an initial development approach, tailor it for the organization, tailor it for the project and implement ongoing improvement (PMI, 2021). For Desert Sky, the organizational step matters because the district is a public body. Arizona procurement rules govern purchases above set amounts, records about patrons are confidential under state law and the board must approve any contract above its delegation limit. Those rules stay in every project's approach regardless of method.
Six Factors Applied
The team assessed each project on six factors.
Requirement certainty: the migration's requirements are fixed by the data and the new platform's specifications; the makerspace's are mostly known; the app's are uncertain, since staff do not know what patrons want.
Cost of change late in the work: high for the migration, where a mapping error discovered after cutover affects every patron; moderate for the makerspace; low for the app.
Regulation and confidentiality: high for the migration, which handles patron records; low for the makerspace except safety; moderate for the app, which handles logins.
Stakeholder access for feedback: limited for the migration, since patrons cannot test a back-end system; good for the makerspace through branch staff; very good for the app through patron testers.
Team: the migration involves the vendor and the district's two system librarians; the makerspace a branch manager and an equipment supplier; the app an outside development firm and the digital services team.
Size: the migration is the largest at about $780,000; the makerspace about $160,000; the app about $240,000.
Conforto et al. (2014) studied agile practices in companies outside software and found that factors such as team location, team experience and customer involvement influenced whether agile methods could be adopted, supporting the use of multiple factors rather than project type alone.
The same district can run a careful plan, a light plan and a two-week cycle in the same year, if each one fits its project.
Tailored Approaches
Catalog migration: predictive, with a detailed plan, three test migrations of the full data set, a formal sign-off by system librarians at each test, a frozen cutover weekend and a rollback plan. Governance includes the board's approval of the contract and a steering group of the deputy director, the two system librarians and a branch manager. Documentation is heavier: data mapping specifications, test results and a cutover runbook.
Makerspace: light predictive. A one-page charter, a vendor contract covering equipment and training, a simple schedule with five milestones and a safety plan reviewed by the district's risk manager. A branch-level steering of one meeting every two weeks is enough. Turner et al. (2010), studying project management in small and medium-sized firms, found that smaller undertakings were better served by a simplified, people-centered version of the standard processes than by the full set used in large organizations, which is the logic of keeping this plan light.
Mobile app: agile, with two-week iterations, a product owner from digital services, a ranked backlog, reviews with a panel of 30 patron testers and releases to app stores every second iteration. Governance is through a monthly product review with the deputy director, who sees progress against outcome measures, such as app ratings and holds placed through the app, rather than against a fixed scope.
What Does Not Change
Across all three, the district keeps a common core: procurement rules, confidentiality of patron records, a charter signed by the sponsor, monthly reporting to the director in the same format and a closeout review. Tailoring happens above that floor, not below it.
Tailoring Within a Project
Tailoring can also differ inside one project. The catalog migration includes a small piece of work with uncertain requirements: a new self-service screen that lets patrons update their own addresses and notification preferences. The team will build that screen in short cycles with feedback from five branch managers, while the data migration around it follows the predictive plan. The makerspace has the opposite case: the safety training curriculum is fixed by the equipment supplier, but the program of classes the branch will offer is open, so branch staff will test three trial classes before settling the schedule.
Keeping the Approach Under Review
At each project's midpoint, Quintana will ask the team whether any process is being followed without value or any risk lacks a control. If the app team finds that patrons need features with legal implications, such as payment of fines, its governance will tighten. If the migration's test cycles show clean data early, the third test might be shortened.
Conclusion
Desert Sky's three projects differ in certainty, cost of change, regulation, feedback access, team and size. Tailoring each approach, predictive with heavy testing for the migration, light predictive for the makerspace and agile for the app, fits the method to the work while a shared core protects the district's legal and public duties. Reviewing the approach midway keeps the tailoring honest.
References
Conforto, E. C., Salum, F., Amaral, D. C., da Silva, S. L., & de Almeida, L. F. M. (2014). Can agile project management be adopted by industries other than software development? Project Management Journal, 45(3), 21-34. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmj.21410
Project Management Institute. (2021). A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK guide) (7th ed.). Project Management Institute.
Turner, J. R., Ledwith, A., & Kelly, J. (2010). Project management in small to medium-sized enterprises: Matching processes to the nature of the firm. International Journal of Project Management, 28(8), 744-755. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2010.06.005
What the PM 400 Week 1 instructions ask
The first PM 400 assignment typically asks students to explain tailoring in project management and apply it to one or more projects. Prompts may ask what tailoring is and why organizations do it, which aspects of a project can be tailored, such as life cycle, processes, engagement, tools, methods and artifacts, which factors guide tailoring decisions and how a team would tailor its approach for a given scenario. Some versions ask students to compare tailoring for predictive and agile projects. Use a project you know or a provided case, show the tailoring decisions concretely and tie each one to the standard and to two or more journal articles, cited in APA.
How this PM 400 Week 1 example is built
Here the library district gives the paper three contrasting projects. It first explains that tailoring is a deliberate fit between approach and context, not a shortcut. It then walks through the standard's sequence: choose an initial approach, tailor it for the organization, tailor it for the project and keep improving it. Six factors, including requirement certainty, regulation, team location and stakeholder access, are assessed for each project. The catalog migration gets a predictive approach with heavy data testing; the makerspace a light predictive plan with a vendor contract; the app an agile approach with two-week iterations. The paper closes with the documents and governance each one needs and a short review rule.
PM 400 Week 1 grading rubric: where the points go
Graders of this paper reward deliberate, reasoned choices. Top work defines tailoring accurately, identifies what can be tailored and applies a clear set of factors to each project. Assessors look for concrete decisions, such as which life cycle, which meetings, which artifacts and what level of governance, with a reason for each. Papers that contrast projects, showing that the same organization can use different approaches, earn credit, as do those that note when tailoring goes too far and removes needed controls. Research on agile adoption or project contingency supports the analysis. Logical organization, consistent terms and careful APA style earn the last points.
PM 400 Week 1 help: mistakes to avoid
Tailoring papers often say the project will be tailored to its needs and stop there. Name what changes: the life cycle, the meeting cadence, the documents, the approvals. Another frequent issue is treating tailoring as permission to drop controls a project actually needs, such as testing for a data migration. Explain what stays. Students also tailor only for the project and forget the organization's own rules, such as public procurement or records retention. Some papers use one factor, usually uncertainty, to decide everything. Use several. Finally, tailoring is not a one-time act; describe how the approach will be reviewed. If your scenario has only one project, a tutor can help you show tailoring decisions within its parts.
Related PM 400 sample papers
Other PM 400 week samples
- PM 400 Week 2: Agile Values and Principles
- PM 400 Week 3: Scrum Roles, Events and Artifacts
- PM 400 Week 4: Kanban and Flow Measures
- PM 400 Week 5: Hybrid Approaches and Governance
More BS in Business sample papers
- PM 310 Week 1: Stakeholders and Engagement
- PM 340 Week 1: The Project Work Domain
- PM 350 Week 1: Organizational Project Management
- PM 360 Week 1: Models for People and Change
PM 400 Week 1 questions, answered
What does PM 400 Week 1 usually cover?
It usually covers tailoring: adapting a project's life cycle, processes, governance, methods and artifacts to the project and organization, and the factors that guide those choices.
Where can I find a free PM 400 Week 1 sample paper?
The Week 1 paper above tailors three different projects at a composite Arizona library district and every page of it is open to read.
What can be tailored in a project?
The life cycle and development approach, processes, engagement and communication practices, governance and approvals, tools, methods and the artifacts the team produces.
What factors influence tailoring decisions?
Common factors include requirement certainty, rate of change, regulation and compliance, project size and criticality, team experience and location and how easily stakeholders can give feedback.
Can tailoring go too far?
Yes. Removing controls a project needs, such as testing, approvals or documentation required by law, to save time can increase risk and lead to costly failures.
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 400 week samples · All courses