Put yourself in the role of a project manager collaborating with MTD, an events company.
Considering the difficulties and problems that MTD encounters in their projects, what insights have you gained this week that could offer assistance?
If an iterative approach were employed in organizing an event as a project, what would be the consequences? Similarly, what are the implications of adopting an agile approach? If the company sought your advice, what would you recommend?
Contribute your thoughts and ideas to the discussion.
Ubong Etim (for Ubama Solutions)
As a project manager collaborating with an event management company like MTD, this week’s learning about project lifecycles, such as linear and iterative projects, the appropriate methods for each case such as waterfall, agile or hybrid methods, and the VUCA framework provides useful insights for managing the uncertainties involved in event projects.
Event management projects often operate in a VUCA environment which is characterised by volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity. For example, events may face sudden weather changes, supplier delays, shifting client expectations, regulatory requirements, or logistical complications. These uncertainties require project managers to adopt flexible planning and decision-making approaches rather than relying solely on rigid project structures.
One key insight is the importance of selecting an appropriate project lifecycle.
A purely linear approach such as the waterfall model may not always be ideal for event projects. Waterfall relies heavily on detailed planning at the beginning and assumes that project requirements will remain stable. However, in event management, conditions often change rapidly, making it difficult to follow a strictly sequential process.
Adopting an agile approach would emphasize flexibility, collaboration, and rapid response to change. Agile practices such as frequent team communication, short planning cycles, and continuous stakeholder involvement could help the event team quickly adapt to unexpected challenges. For example, if there are last-minute venue changes or supplier issues, the team can quickly re-prioritise tasks and adjust plans.
However, relying solely on agile methods may also create challenges. Events typically have fixed deadlines and clearly defined deliverables, meaning certain elements such as venue booking, permits, infrastructure installation, and safety compliance, require structured planning well in advance. These aspects are better suited to a linear or structured approach.
For this reason, my recommendation to MTD would be to adopt a hybrid project management approach. Critical logistical components of the event such as infrastructure setup, contracts, and regulatory compliance can follow a linear planning process, while more flexible areas such as marketing strategies, stakeholder engagement, and attendee experience can be managed using agile methods.
This balanced approach would allow the organisation to maintain control and predictability where necessary, while still remaining adaptable to the uncertainties typical of event projects.
Thank you.
Managing a water supply project for an event requires strict planning, safety compliance, and on-time delivery. Because the event date is fixed and failure is highly visible, the project management approach must ensure control and reliability.
If an iterative approach were used, the system would be developed in stages, allowing parts of the water supply to be installed, tested, and improved before full completion. This could help detect technical problems early and allow stakeholder feedback. However, iterations require time for review and adjustments. In an event project where deadlines cannot change, repeated revisions may cause delays and increase costs. While iterative methods support improvement, they introduce schedule risk.
If an agile approach were adopted, the team would focus on flexibility, collaboration, and adapting to changes. This could help MTD respond quickly to changes in event layout or attendance. Communication would improve, and issues could be resolved faster. However, agile allows evolving scope and continuous changes, which may reduce cost control and weaken documentation. Since a water supply system must meet strict safety and regulatory standards, too much flexibility could create compliance risks.
For this reason, I recommend a predictive (traditional) approach. It ensures clear scope definition, detailed scheduling, strong risk planning, proper documentation, and better cost control. In a fixed-deadline, safety-critical project like this, structured planning is the most reliable and responsible choice for MTD.