“Tegan &amp

Hrad cases"The second point is that Hrad Technika agreed to take the project on a fixed return basis, which means that Tegan had managed one of the fundamental risks of project management, which is cost. The third issue was Hrad Technika delivery record, which had been above par before the A/P project. These reasons gave Tegan strong reasons to feel safe with Hrad Technica. The other options, such as developing the system locally did not have such strong incentives as at the time of commissioning the project. There was the risk that the project would consume more time and resources compared to outsourcing it.
The first trade off is that there is a serious risk that the company will developed biased plans. Being a participant on both sides of the bidding process gives the company undue advantage and makes it hard for it to develop an objective requirements analysis.
The second tradeoff is that there would be loss of detail in the development of the requirements. This comes from the self-confidence the bidding company has that may make them feel some details are not necessary to include in the requirements analysis. In this case, it is evident that Hrad Technica underestimated the cost and the duration it would take to develop the project when it developed the requirements analysis.
The third Risk is that the bidding company may end up fitting the requirements analysis to their capabilities. They will interpret the needs of the client company in light of their capabilities, and not necessarily in the context of the needs of the client company
The final risk will be lack of ownership of the project by the client company. The clients company can disown any problems that accrue from the implementation of the project even if they are genuine simply because of heightened expectations that the company that developed the needs requirement understands their needs well enough.
On the other hand, such an arrangement can end up in the development of