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.
Here is my advice, flexibility, adaptability and adoptability is the key. As a project manager you must not have a particular way to solve a problem. You must be open and expect sudden and develop prompt action to whatsoever may come up so long it leads to the success of the project and meets the time and quality.
The agile and interactive or linear approach are good approach so long they produce good result.
If asked by the MTD, I would say you know the current method is not giving you what you want you change to another one to see which works best or better still marry the two together
My advice to the company would to apply both, since iterative and agile approaches offer significant advantages over a strictly traditional approach. Iterative planning promotes continuous improvement, while agile enhances responsiveness and collaboration. This blended approach provides the best balance of structure, flexibility, and stakeholder engagement, leading to more successful event/project outcomes.
If a company asked me to advise them on project approach, I’d keep it simple:
*My advice: Don’t marry one method. Date both. Use a hybrid + context-first rule.*
3-point advice
*1. Start with context, not with Scrum or Waterfall*
Ask 3 questions before picking any approach:
1. How clear are the requirements today? Clear = lean linear. Fuzzy = go iterative.
2. How fixed is the deadline/budget? Fixed = more linear planning upfront. Flexible = more iterative.
3. How often can stakeholders give feedback? Weekly access = iterative. Only 2 meetings total = linear.
*2. Run “Hybrid by default”*
95% of companies need both:
linear backbone for things that can’t change: legal, compliance, contracts, venue booking, hardware orders. Lock these early.
– *Iterative cycles* for things that should change: product features, marketing message, UI/UX, event flow. Test + refine these in sprints.
This gives you predictability + flexibility without chaos.
*3. Build “change gates” not “change walls”*
Instead of saying “no changes after Phase 2”, set 3-4 formal review points. At each gate, client + team decide: lock this part, or keep iterating that part. That way you control scope creep but don’t kill innovation.
If a company asked me to advise them on project approach, I’d keep it simple:
*My advice: Don’t marry one method. Date both. Use a hybrid + context-first rule.*
3-point advice
*1. Start with context, not with Scrum or Waterfall*
Ask 3 questions before picking any approach:
1. How clear are the requirements today? Clear = lean linear. Fuzzy = go iterative.
2. How fixed is the deadline/budget? Fixed = more linear planning upfront. Flexible = more iterative.
3. How often can stakeholders give feedback? Weekly access = iterative. Only 2 meetings total = linear.
*2. Run “Hybrid by default”*
95% of companies need both:
linear backbone for things that can’t change: legal, compliance, contracts, venue booking, hardware orders. Lock these early.
– *Iterative cycles* for things that should change: product features, marketing message, UI/UX, event flow. Test + refine these in sprints.
This gives you predictability + flexibility without chaos.
*3. Build “change gates” not “change walls”*
Instead of saying “no changes after Phase 2”, set 3-4 formal review points. At each gate, client + team decide: lock this part, or keep iterating that part. That way you control scope creep but don’t kill innovation.
Thank you for reading
In this case as MTD is an events company then their main issues spans from multiple stakeholders, meeting of deadlines, vendor issues, as the case may be to customer satisfaction.
Implication of using iterative method is that event is broken down into phases and regular reviews are done, issues are caught easily and teams can adapt, but then there may not the luxury of time waiting for reviews to be completed after moving one to the next phase.
Implications of using Agile method, is that there is flexibility and responsiveness, it suits unpredictable nature of events, but agile is tricky as events require long-time bookings that can’t be rushed into action.
My advice to MTD is that they can implement a hybrid approach into their event planning.
This week I learned that MTD operates in a VUCA world, and the “Developing project agility” lesson gave me practical tools for it. Last-minute client changes show Volatility, multiple vendors and stakeholders create Complexity, and new trends with no precedent bring Ambiguity. Agility isn’t just moving fast — it means acting at least as fast as the rate of change. Agile teams do this by working in short sprints and building in slack or spare capacity so they’re not overloaded when something urgent hits. An iterative approach would help MTD by breaking the event into phases like concept, venue, logistics, marketing and rehearsal, then reviewing and adjusting after each one. That gives better control of risks and budget creep, and lets us catch vendor issues early. The limitation is that iteration still assumes the overall event goal stays fixed, so if the client changes the whole theme after the venue is booked, iteration alone won’t be enough.An agile approach would take it further by working in 1-2 week sprints with a prioritized backlog, daily check-ins, and client feedback every sprint. This is a huge advantage for volatility because MTD can reprioritize fast if a sponsor drops out or a new trend emerges, and stakeholders feel more involved. The downside is that vendors like caterers and AV need fixed dates, so pure agile can create chaos for them, and it only works if the client is available for frequent feedback. Because of that, my advice to MTD is to use a hybrid approach guided by the VUCA framework. Use linear/waterfall for low-volatility, high-certainty parts like contracts, permits, venue booking and safety plans where structure matters. Then use agile/iterative sprints for high-volatility, high-ambiguity parts like creative design, marketing content and guest experience, and build in slack so the team has capacity to adapt.
We encounter uncertainties in many of the things we do. As a PM, one way to tackle this is to be willing and ready to adopt and adapt practical ways that get the job done. The Linear Approach may look very enticing and as it seems easy but what it lacks is the chance to survive in a complex (unstable) environment. In a nutshell, as a PM, I should be open to methods that work.
both the iterative and agile help the project manager to manage the major challenges the counter the process of carrying their work. it gives a wider range the task to carried out in a hybrid form. using the hybrid form to do it a particular approach