| Course | MGT 505 Managing in an Age of Information Technology Change |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 3 |
| Paper type | MBA software project paper |
| Length | About 1,051 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Aspen University |
| Program | Master of Business Administration |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for MGT 505 Module 3
A Grain Bin Is Not an App: What Makes Software Projects Different for a Farmer Cooperative's Board
Student Name
Master of Business Administration, Aspen University
MGT 505: Managing in an Age of Information Technology Change
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
A Grain Bin Is Not an App: What Makes Software Projects Different for a Farmer Cooperative's Board
Dakota Prairie Grain Cooperative, a composite farmer-owned cooperative in Aberdeen, South Dakota, buys, stores and markets corn, soybeans and wheat for about 1,900 member farmers through eleven elevators. Farmers now call or visit an elevator to check bids and sign contracts to sell grain at a set price. Members have asked for an app to do this from the field. Last spring, the board approved $780,000 for an app that shows live bids, lets farmers lock prices and sign contracts and connects to the cooperative's accounting system. A software firm in Sioux Falls was hired at a fixed price. The board, experienced in building grain bins and scale houses, expects the app to arrive finished in ten months. The general manager has asked for a paper explaining whether that expectation is realistic.
Why Software Is Different
Brooks (1987) argued that software's hardest problems are essential, not accidental. Its complexity grows faster than its size, because the number of states and interactions grows with every feature. It must conform to other systems built by others, such as the cooperative's accounting software and the exchanges that set grain prices. It is always being changed, because users discover new needs once they see it working. And it is invisible: unlike a grain bin, half-built software cannot be inspected by walking around it. Better tools reduce accidental difficulties, such as clumsy programming languages, but no tool removes the essential ones.
Comparing the App With a Grain Bin
| Feature | Grain bin | Farmer contract app |
|---|---|---|
| Visibility of progress | Seen daily; steel goes up | Invisible until demonstrated |
| Requirements | Fixed by capacity and codes | Change as farmers and staff use it |
| Dependence on other systems | Few: foundation, power | Many: accounting, price feeds, phone platforms |
| How failure appears | Gradually, during construction | Often late, at testing or launch |
| Cost of change late | High but visible | High and often hidden until integration |
Managing by Risk
Boehm (1988) proposed the spiral model as an alternative to planning everything up front. Development proceeds in cycles. Each begins by setting objectives and identifying the largest remaining risks, then resolves them through prototypes, tests or analysis before building more, and ends with a review where the team decides whether to continue. The approach suits projects where the riskiest questions, such as whether farmers will trust a phone to lock a price or whether the accounting connection works, can be answered early and cheaply.
How Far Projects Can Go Wrong
Flyvbjerg and Budzier (2011) examined about 1,400 IT projects and found that the average cost overrun was moderate, but the distribution had a fat tail: one in six projects had a cost overrun of about 200% on average and a schedule overrun of almost 70%. Such projects can damage an organization far beyond the project itself. They urged leaders to test whether their organizations could survive a black swan IT project before starting one.
Why Fixed Price Is Risky Here
A fixed-price contract works when scope can be defined completely in advance, as with a grain bin built to an engineer's drawings. Brooks's point about changeability means the app's scope cannot be fixed that way: once farmers see live bids on their phones, they will ask for alerts, charts and delivery scheduling. Under a fixed price, every such request becomes a dispute, and the software firm has an incentive to resist changes or cut testing to protect its margin. Pricing by release keeps both sides honest, because scope is agreed only for the next few months, when it can be known.
What Farmers Expect
A survey of 300 members found that younger farmers would use the app weekly, mainly to watch bids, while older members would use it only if they could still call an elevator to confirm a price lock. Both groups said the app must never show a bid that is out of date. These findings shape the first release: bids only, with clear timestamps, so the cooperative learns how members use the app before money moves through it.
Risks Specific to the App
The largest risks are not technical. Farmers may not trust a price locked on a phone without a phone call to confirm it. The accounting system's vendor may not support the connection the app needs. Grain prices change by the second, so an app showing stale bids could cause disputes. And the fixed price may lead the software firm to cut testing if the work grows.
Recommendations
The cooperative should restructure the project into four releases. The first, in three months, shows live bids only, testing price feeds and farmer interest with twenty volunteer members. The second adds price locks for small amounts. The third connects to accounting. The fourth adds contract signing. Each release ends with a board review deciding whether to continue. The contract will be converted from one fixed price to a price per release, with the first two firm. The budget will include a 30% contingency, reflecting Flyvbjerg and Budzier's evidence. A member of staff will act as product owner, meeting the developers weekly.
The Product Owner's Role
Software projects fail when no one on the business side has time to answer developers' questions. The cooperative's grain merchandising manager will serve as product owner, spending about a day a week with the developers, deciding priorities within each release and bringing farmers' feedback. Her other duties will be partly reassigned for the project's duration.
What the Board Should Watch
The board should ask to see working software at each review, not progress reports, and should track whether farmers in the test group actually use it.
Costs of the New Approach
Converting to releases may raise the total cost if all four are built, since each release carries testing and review overhead. But it lets the board stop after the second release if farmers do not use the app, limiting losses to about $300,000 rather than the full $780,000. The contingency, about $230,000, will be held by the board and released only at reviews.
Conclusion
The board's construction habits will mislead it on software. Brooks's essential difficulties explain why, Boehm's spiral model offers a risk-driven alternative and Flyvbjerg and Budzier's evidence on fat-tail risk justifies releases, early tests and a real contingency.
References
Boehm, B. W. (1988). A spiral model of software development and enhancement. Computer, 21(5), 61-72. https://doi.org/10.1109/2.59
Brooks, F. P., Jr. (1987). No silver bullet: Essence and accidents of software engineering. Computer, 20(4), 10-19. https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.1987.1663532
Flyvbjerg, B., & Budzier, A. (2011). Why your IT project may be riskier than you think. Harvard Business Review, 89(9), 23-25.
Reading the MGT 505 Module 3 assignment instructions
Module 3 of Aspen's MGT 505 explains why software work behaves differently from other projects managers know. Students usually apply that understanding to one software effort and show how it should be managed. Requirements come from the Module 3 page in your course shell; this example deals with a cooperative's first app. Describe the project and how the organization is approaching it, including its contract and expectations. Explain the characteristics that make software projects difficult, using research. Present evidence on how software projects fail and how badly they can overrun. Compare the project with familiar work the organization manages. Recommend a management approach that fits software's nature, including how the contract and the business's role should change.
How this MGT 505 Module 3 example is built
The paper opens with Dakota Prairie Grain Cooperative, owned by 1,900 farmers, which approved a $780,000 app so members can see bids, lock prices and sign contracts from their phones. The board treated it like a construction project, with a fixed scope and price. Brooks's article in Computer argues that software's essential difficulties cannot be removed by better tools. Boehm's spiral model, also in Computer, organizes development as cycles that address the greatest risks first. Flyvbjerg and Budzier's Harvard Business Review article reports that one in six IT projects in their sample had cost overruns averaging about 200%. A table contrasts the app with a grain bin on visibility, how requirements change and how failure appears. The plan splits the app into four releases, tests each with twenty farmers and holds a 30% contingency.
MGT 505 Module 3 rubric: what earns full marks
Software project papers earn credit for explaining software's distinctive difficulties accurately, using evidence on failure and proposing management practices that fit. This example uses Brooks's four difficulties to explain why the board's construction habits will mislead it. Boehm's spiral model supplies an alternative approach based on risk, with a review after every cycle. Flyvbjerg and Budzier's evidence justifies a larger contingency and early warning. The comparison table translates research into terms the board knows, the paper explains why a fixed price is risky for software and the plan names releases, tests, decision points and a product owner.
Common MGT 505 Module 3 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Software project papers often describe development methods without explaining why software is hard to manage. Start with what makes software different: complexity, changing requirements and work that cannot be seen. Another weakness is treating software like construction, with fixed scope and price. Use evidence on IT project risk. Compare the project with work the organization already understands. Recommend practices such as short cycles, early user tests and decision points where the project can be stopped. Finally, explain what managers should watch for, since software problems hide until late. Consider how contract terms shape behavior on a software project.
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 Aspen University 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.
More MGT 505 and Master of Business Administration sample papers
- MGT 505 Module 1: The IT Environment and the Manager's Role
- MGT 505 Module 2: IT Department Problems and Symptoms
- MGT 505 Module 4: Estimating and Scheduling Technology Work
- MGT 505 Module 5: Managing Technical Professionals
- MGT 505 Module 6: Vendors, Outsourcing and Cloud Services
- MGT 505 Module 7: IT Governance and Alignment
- MGT 505 Module 8: Rescuing a Troubled IT Project
- MGT 500 Module 2: Planning and Goal Setting
- MGT 646 Module 6: Risk Assessment
- MGT 647 Module 2: Scrum
- MGT 530 Module 6: Power, Influence and Organizational Politics
MGT 505 Module 3 questions, answered
What does MGT 505 Module 3 usually ask for?
Aspen's MGT 505 covers the nature of software projects in this module, so an MBA paper explaining what makes software different and how to manage it is typical. Read your classroom prompt.
What are Brooks's essential difficulties of software?
Complexity, conformity to other systems, changeability and invisibility, which Brooks argued no tool could fully remove.
What is the spiral model?
Boehm's approach to software development in repeated cycles, each identifying and resolving the greatest remaining risks before building more.
Where can I find a free MGT 505 Module 3 sample paper?
The example above explains to a grain cooperative's board why its farmer app differs from construction projects and recommends how to manage it.
Are IT project overruns unusual?
Flyvbjerg and Budzier found that IT projects have fat-tail risk: in their sample, one in six had cost overruns averaging about 200%.