Faculty of Business and Law
Level: 3 Module: SIM335 Managing Projects
Assignment Code: SIM335 Module Leader: Peter Coleman
Contribution to module assessment: 100%
SunSpace & JIRA/Webservices Deadline: Tuesday 14th March 2017 at 16:00
This is an individual assignment – complete both tasks 1 and 2
Background: The assignment is intended to bring out the benefits and limitations of
different approaches to project planning and control by relating these to the
circumstances in the case outlined. It is also intended to allow students to demonstrate
their learning and competence in respect of the management of resources generally, but
in particular elements of scope, schedule, quality, and cost.
Task 1 (40% marks) 700 words (+/- 10%) each short answer question
requires a response in a few sentences for the questions awarded 6 marks
and a paragraph for questions awarded up to 8-10 marks.
1) What are the key defining characteristics of a project?
(8 marks).
2) Using an example briefly explain the meaning of a Work Breakdown Structure.
Why is it important to have such a structure?
(6 marks.)
3) Using the information below, plot out a full project Gantt chart and
identify the critical path. How many days does it take to complete the project?
(6 marks).
4) What alternative techniques of investment appraisal are available for project
selection?
(6marks).
5) Explain what is meant by a Risk Management Plan. (6 marks).
6) Outline the main aspects of monitoring project quality
(8 marks)?
Tasks Precedence Time
a – 3days
b a 2 days
c b 3 days
d b 1 days
e c 5 days
f c 8 days
g d 2 days
h f 6 days
2
Task 2: (60% marks)
Case Study:
A new individual has recently been appointed Senior Project Manager for PM Solutions
Ltd, a market leader in Project Management consultancy. One of their main
responsibilities is to appoint a project leader for each contract that has been entered
into.
A new client is a global leader in the provision of terrorism threat detection for both
private and public sector organisations.
The company needed to consolidate operations and relocate their U.K. headquarters.
This involved closing the existing headquarters, retaining or relocating key
employees through the move, relocation of numerous operations including customer
services, accounting and finance, and research and development laboratories. The
objective was to save operating costs and create improved opportunities for
customer service and scientific collaboration.
PM Solutions has been brought in to manage the project. The new Senior Project
Manager is unsure as to which of your team should be appointed Project Manager for
this client. In order to inform her choice she has asked all interested candidates to
write a report from a project management perspective outlining the activities
required to successfully manage this new initiative, ensuring that it is on time, and
within budget.
You are keen to be given the opportunity to be Project Manager so you need to
submit a report. Your analysis should include the skills and competencies required by
the Project Manager, along with the project management process. Use examples of
the concerns, Project Life Cycle stages, processes, leadership, and administration
and control problems associated with managing the lifecycle of this major project.
Assignment presentation and assessment
The answers to both tasks are independent and should be addressed separately.
Task 1 answers to six questions – (700 words +/- 10%) – completed as an
individual task
Task 2 a report that is produced for task two (2300 words +/- 10%) – completed
as an individual task
For your convenience both tasks should be submitted as one document, which
contains both individual tasks.
3
The criteria for assessing the task two report will be:
Report presentation (20%) (12 marks)
The extent to which the assignment represents an effective report. This will be judged
on:
Appearance: Is a word count included at the end of the report? Is it within the specified
amount? Is the text double spaced?
Structure: Does the report follow the conventions of the format? Does it have a clear
introduction, explaining how it answers the questions? Do the sections of the report
develop ideas in a logical sequence? Are diagrams or other subsidiary information
shown in appendices?
Spelling and grammar: Are all words spelled correctly and is the meaning of sentences
clear?
Referencing: Have appropriate references been included in the report. Has a
recognised referencing system been used for notation? (See relevant section in the
Guide to Basic Study Skills)
Use of relevant theory (40%) (24 marks)
Has the right theoretical content been chosen as the basis for answering the
questions? Is there evidence of the use of course notes and books? Is the theory that
is selected significant to the questions?
Analysis (40%) (24 marks)
This measures the extent to which students develop a structured argument for the
points they make, by combining relevant theory with the information provided in the
questions.
Any work submitted is subject to the University’s rules and procedures
governing infringement of assessment regulations.
4
Grading Criteria SIM335 Managing Projects Individual
Assignment
First Class (70 – 100%)
A creative and original response to the question. Critically
reflecting on perceived theory and experiences. Wide and
appropriate use of sources (theory and practice) based on
reading and experiences. Answer written fluently, with
evidence of a highly developed capacity to structure work
systematically and argue logically.
Upper Second Class (60 – 69%)
Comprehensive knowledge of concepts and theories.
Appropriate application of theory and experience to the
question answered. Ability to inter-relate concepts and ideas.
Some originality in approach and awareness of scope and
limitations. Answer systematically structured and coherent.
Lower Second Class (50-59%)
Evidence of knowledge of concepts and theories. Attempts to
relate and balance theory and practice. Main issues
addressed appropriately. Mainstream texts and lecture notes
used. Work presented in a structured form but arguments
weak in places.
Third Class (40-49%)
Evidence of uncritical knowledge of main concepts and
theories. Limited attempts to relate theory and practice
relaying on personal opinion or assertions. Limited evidence
of reading. Presentation and structure weak in several places.
Fail (0 – 39%)
Some knowledge of main concepts and theory but major
omissions and / or misunderstandings. Style and structure
weak and overly descriptive. Considerable limitations in
ability to perceive the relationship of theory and practice.
Limited reading.
5
SIM335: Management of Projects (Academic Year 20015/16)
Task 2
Criteria 70% + 60-69% 50-59% 40-49% <40%
Use of
relevant
theory
Indicative
weighting =
40% of 60
mark
(24 marks)
The report identifies all the relevant
theories to answer to complete the
task. The theories used are
described in detail. There is clear
evidence that course notes, books
and other sources are used.
Theories used are significant in
listing the activities required to
successfully plan and manage a
major project.
The report identifies most of the
relevant theories to answer to
complete the task. On the whole, the
theories used are described in
detail. There is clear evidence that
course notes and books are used.
Theories used are largely significant
in listing the activities required to
successfully plan and manage a
major project.
On the whole, the report identifies
the relevant theories required to
answer to complete the task. The
theories used are sometimes
described in detail. Overall, there is
clear evidence that course notes
and books are used. Theories used
are significant in listing the activities
required to successfully plan and
manage a major project.
The report identifies some of the
relevant theories to answer to
complete the task. The theories
used are partly described. There is
some evidence that course notes,
and books are used. Theories used
are sometimes significant in listing
the activities required to successfully
plan and manage a major project.
The report fails to identify the
relevant theories to answer to
complete the task. The theories
used are not described. There is no
evidence that course notes, books
or other sources are used. Theories
used are not significant in listing the
activities required to successfully
plan and manage a major project.
Analysis
Indicative
weighting =
40% of 60
mark
(24 marks)
There is evidence of extensive
research from a variety of sources to
provide better understanding to the
background of the task. A structured
argument is taken for the points
made by combining relevant
theories with information researched
or provided in the task. The
conclusions are clear and link into
the requirements of the task.
There is evidence of some extensive
research from a variety of sources to
provide better understanding to the
background of the task. A structured
argument is taken for the points
made, often by combining relevant
theories with information researched
or provided in the task. The
conclusions on the whole are clear
and link into the requirements of the
task.
There is evidence of some research
to provide better understanding to
the background of the task but
sources are not extensive. There is
some structured argument taken for
the points made. The relevant
theories are not always combined
with information researched or
provided in the task. The
conclusions are not clear and have
only limited linkages into the
requirements of the task.
There is evidence of limited
research being conducted to provide
better understanding to the
background of the task but sources
are not extensive. There is limited
structured argument taken for the
points made. There are only limited
combinations of the relevant
theories with information researched
or provided in the task. The
conclusions are descriptive and do
not link into the requirements of the
task.
There is no evidence of research
from a variety of sources to provide
better understanding to the
background of the task. There is no
structured argument taken for the
points made. The relevant theories
are not combined with information
researched or provided in the task.
The conclusions are unclear and
only descriptive. Conclusions also
do not link into the requirements of
the task.
Presentation
and
Structure
Indicative
weighting =
20% of 60
mark
(12 marks)
The presentation is clear. There are
no or few spelling or grammatical
errors. The report has been
referenced correctly, using the
Harvard style of referencing. A word
count is provided at the end of the
report and is within the limit of 2300
words. The report is text doublespaced.
The structure of the project is clear,
cohesive and logical. Each section
has been clearly structured using
sub-headings (signposts) and these
follow a logical order. Additional
diagrams and other subsidiary
information are shown in the
appendices and properly
referenced. Appendices are relevant
and are able to provide a better
understanding to the report.
The presentation is on the whole
clear, there are no or few spelling or
grammatical errors. The project has
been referenced correctly, using the
Harvard style of referencing. A word
count is provided at the end of the
report and is within the limit of 2300
words. The report is text doublespaced.
The structure of the project is on the
whole clear, cohesive and logical.
Each chapter has been clearly
structured using sub-headings
(signposts) and these on the whole
follow a logical order. Additional
diagrams and other subsidiary
information are shown in the
appendices and properly
referenced. Appendices are mostly
relevant and are able to provide a
better understanding to the report.
The presentation is partially clear.
There are occasional spelling and or
grammatical errors. The project has
not always been referenced
correctly, using the Harvard style of
referencing. A word count is
provided at the end of the report but
is not within the limit of 2300 words.
The report is text double-spaced.
The structure of the project is not
entirely clear, cohesive or logical.
Each section has partially been
clearly structured using some subheadings
(signposts) but it is difficult
to follow. Additional diagrams and
other subsidiary information are
sometimes shown in the appendices
but not always properly referenced.
Appendices are occasionally
relevant and are at times able to
provide a better understanding to
the report.
The clarity of the presentation of the
project is limited. There are spelling
and or grammatical errors. The
project has not been referenced
correctly, using the Harvard style of
referencing. The layout is loose and
was difficult to follow.
The structure of the project is not
clear, cohesive or logical. Each
chapter has been limited structured
using some or no sub-headings
(signposts), which made it very
difficult to follow. Additional
diagrams and other subsidiary
information are not shown in the
appendices and not properly
referenced. Appendices are
irrelevant and are not able to provide
a better understanding to the report.
The presentation is unclear. There
numerous spelling or grammatical
errors. The report has not been
referenced correctly, using the
Harvard style of referencing. A word
count is not provided at the end of
the report and is not within the limit
of 2300 words. The report is not text
double-spaced.
The structure of the project is
unclear, inconsistent and illogical.
Sections are not clearly structured
using sub-headings (signposts) and
do not follow a logical order.
Additional diagrams and other
subsidiary information are not
shown in the appendices and not
properly referenced. Appendices
are irrelevant and are not able to
provide a better understanding to
the report.
Total: 60 marks