The predictive life cycle is based on the definition of immediate tasks and their detailed study and planning. Further tasks, for example, expected in one or two months, are considered irrelevant for planning. Managers in this cycle solve problems as they come and do not waste their energy and that of the team discussing nebulous probabilities and possible risks of the distant future (Paschen, 2017). Even though this is the 50th Kitchen Heaven store and the pre-opening algorithms are clear, it is considered most relevant not to use this life cycle. There are special opening conditions (conference, anniversary, celebration, inclusive team), and the project manager still does not have enough experience. The development of a specialist should be gradual and take into account the various subtleties of planning and design. Departments and ‘cogs’ of the project must be in constant communication to clarify the details of the project.
Given the inexperience of the project manager, it is considered beneficial to use an iterative approach. An important aspect of this approach is the expansion of activities from the beginning of the project to its completion. Before opening the 50th Kitchen Heaven store, the departments’ tasks are joined by organizing a celebration during the conference and not just directly taking care of the opening of the next store. It can tire the work of departments and other managers (Ylhäinen, 2017). An iterative approach within the framework of the project can help to deal directly with the design and organization of a celebration, the holding of which is difficult to summarize with tangible results.
The incremental approach is similar to the interactive lifecycle discussed above since it is based on the non-uniform expansion of actions. However, several issues are caused by creating many fragmented parts of the project. There is a risk that too many features will slow down the project and make the monotonous pronunciation of results superfluous. The Kitchen Heaven case is much more connected to the human factor than it might seem. Because of this, the heading of stages and the constant summing up in detail is considered irrational. The project involves very different people (landlords, suppliers, managers, regular departmental workers, clients, specialized (inclusive) workers), and their too frequent interaction will delay the project.
However, the agile lifecycle can provide opportunities for frequent communication across departments. Agile is “profitable application of creativity to improve products and services, processes, or business models” (Rigby et al., 2018, p. 91). Suppose, at the beginning of the project, it is possible to create a convenient and, most importantly, a quick model for exchanging views and results of the work. In that case, this communication will not interfere with the implementation of the project on time. Agile is based on adaptive attitudes that keep the team constantly in good shape. It will come in handy in the case under consideration if there are problems with suppliers, landlords, or recruiting an inclusive team.
The hybrid life cycle lives up to its name and tries to balance predictive and adaptive aspects. It is essential to be able to combine forecasting in the project, as well as to keep the team motivated to adapt to changing circumstances and working conditions. These changes can be conflicts or refusals of supplies from suppliers, new conditions from landlords, and changes in the overall market caused by increased competition. These changes should not stress the team and managers; the use of this life cycle is considered very rational in this context.
References
Paschen, J. (2017). Choose wisely: Crowdfunding through the stages of the start-up life cycle. Business Horizons, 60(2), 179-188.
Rigby, D. K., Sutherland, J., & Noble, A. (2018). Agile at scale. Harvard Business Review, 96(3), 88-96.
Ylhäinen, I. (2017). Life-cycle effects in small business finance. Journal of Banking & Finance, 77, 176-196.