Assessment Brief
Academic Year
2018-19
Module Title
Project Management
Module Code
QAB020N503A
Module Convener
C. Tom Davis
Type of Assessment
100% coursework (individual)
Assessment Deadline
Monday, 17 December 2018 at 1400/2pm
Instructions
Details
Coursework: Formative – 500 words for peer review in small groups (informal feedback will be given but you will not be marked); Summative – final individual report (formal, individually marked)
Summative (Main) Assignment: This assignment is based on a fictitious case study (details to be provided separately) that presents students with a business project scenario. You must take the role of Project Manager and are required to analyse the case study, research the best approach to managing it and develop the following 4 items of project planning documentation, to be submitted as a single, individual report:

1. Sample Project Initiation Document (PID) including budgetary information, timescales, objectives, approach, key staff and stakeholder analysis (approx. 750 words)
2. Gantt chart with at least 20 items in the work breakdown structure (WBS). The Gantt chart should include all necessary core elements (tasks, dependencies, milestones, summary tasks) and a clear indication of the critical path. Any tool that allows you to present this information appropriately may be employed. All diagrams should be embedded into your report as images;
3. Risk register containing at least 10 fully documented risks, including owner, mitigation and contingency actions, pre-and post- action weighting and scores;
4. Short report to the Project Sponsor, the Director of Operations. Your report should contain both of the following:
   a. An explanation of the importance of quality risk management plans and the potential impact on the project were rigorous risk management processes to be ignored;
   b. An analysis and critique of the potential relevance of PRINCE2 as a methodology for this project (including strengths and weaknesses) and a recommendation as to whether or not this should be used. The Sponsor has said that they have had some negative past experience of PRINCE2 projects. There is no right or wrong answer for this, hence marks will be given on the basis of how well you have explained and justified your decision (approx. 1,000 words).
   Note: In all cases reference must be made to established project management theory. As this is a fictitious project case you are free to make assumptions where necessary and these should be clearly stated in your submission. Also note that you are not expected to have any specific technical knowledge of computing architecture, building refurbishment or facilities management, hence any reasonable assumptions may be made (must be stated clearly) and your lecturers will be happy to advise where necessary. Furthermore, it is expected
   that you use multiple real project examples (both good and bad) as additional reference sources to help you demonstrate what good practice project management looks like and what happens when it is not applied.
   It is suggested that you use the triple constraint of time, cost and quality as a basis for discussion of some of the above where relevant, reflecting on which of the three elements may be the most dominant for this project and how that affects attitude to risk, methodology, etc.
   Considerable class time will be devoted to guiding you and helping you complete these tasks so attendance at the classes will be of immense use in achieving a good assignment mark.
   IMPORTANT: It is absolutely essential that your answers are well referenced. This means that published work (text books, journals, other printed material such as newspapers and credible magazine articles) is used to illustrate your points to enhance the validity and credibility of your work. Websites may also be used although in some instances they are less reliable (not peer reviewed or subject to editorial constraints), hence should be used sparingly. Failure to reference correctly may result in a particularly poor mark and possible failure. In contrast, good and extensive use of relevant references that inform and enhance your work will be awarded high marks.
   Marking and Feedback
   Formative (not formally marked – opportunity to obtain feedback)
   Students will be given the opportunity to share their ideas and work so far in small groups. You will be given a full briefing early in the course. You should be expected to complete a form (to be provided) with about 500 words and bring it to the seminar group in taught week 6. This form will be a structured set of notes about the key elements of the assignment and your initial findings and thoughts. Students will be placed in small groups where they will pass around their forms and critique and review those of other students. One seminar only will be given over to this. Seminar tutors will then lead a class discussion to gain broader feedback and observations from the whole seminar class. In addition, a Review Week (week 9) provides an opportunity to discuss an outline of your proposed individual report, and to discuss common areas of clarification or where further work is required.
   Summative (formal, individually marked assessment)
   The work in small groups in the first half of the semester gives you an opportunity to gain a basic understanding of the case study through interaction and discussion with each other. This will help you ‘get started’ as you work towards the delivery of the marked assessment which is an Individual report of 2,500 words total plus diagrams, tables, appendices, etc. containing the items listed above. As this is a report, it should make extensive use of structural elements (table of contents, headings, subheadings, lists, diagrams, tables, etc.) to help make your work clear to understand. You are expected to show understanding of theory and practice and make use of multiple external reference sources including referencing sources of all templates used for sample PID, Risk Register, etc. While students are encouraged to work together, particularly until the formative assessment in the middle of the semester, the final reports are required to be individual work demonstrating the student’s unique understanding and insight into the case given.
   You will be given a separate suggested report template to provide you with a suitable structure, should you choose to use it.
   How will we support you with your assessment?
    You will receive formative feedback in Week 6. This will take the form of informal small group sharing of your ideas on the form provided with group discussions as well as ‘private’ feedback from your tutor on your progress so far. Although the final deliverable is an individual piece of work staff will encourage and support you in working informally in small groups to help everyone gain a better understanding of the case.
    There will be an assessment briefing in Weeks 1/2 as necessary and a formative briefing in week 4.
    Frequently asked questions (and their answers) will be posted on the module’s Moodle site
    There will be an opportunity to review and reflect upon work from previous cohorts. This will be delivered in lecture time.
    Significant seminar time will be given over to the discussion of the various aspects of project management that you will cover in your reports and this seminar time in the final two weeks will used to help support you in developing your assignment answers.
   How will your work be assessed?
   Your work will be assessed by a subject expert who will use the marking grid provided in this assessment brief.
   When you access your marked work it is important that you reflect on the feedback so that you can use it to improve future assignments.
   Referencing
   You MUST use the Harvard System. The Harvard system is very easy to use once you become familiar with it.
   Assignment Submissions
   The Business School requires a digital version of all assignment submissions. These must be submitted via Turnitin on the module’s Moodle site. They must be submitted as a single MS Word file (not as a pdf) and must not include scanned in text or text boxes. They must be submitted by 2pm on the given date. For further general details on coursework preparation refer to the online information via StudentZone at http://studentzone.roehampton.ac.uk/howtostudy/index.html.
   Mitigating circumstances/what to do if you cannot submit a piece of work or attend your presentation
   The University Mitigating Circumstances Policy can be found on the University website – Mitigating Circumstances
   Policy
   Marking and Feedback process
   Between handing in your work and receiving feedback and marks within 20 days, there are a number of quality assurance processes that we go through to ensure that students receive marks which reflects their work. A brief summary is provided below:
    Step One – The module and marking team meet to agree standards, expectations and how feedback will be provided.
    Step Two – A subject expert will mark your work using the criteria provided in the assessment brief.
    Step Three – A moderation meeting takes place where all members of the teaching and marking team will review the marking of others to confirm whether they agree with the mark and feedback
    Step Four – Work at Levels 5 and 6 then goes to an external examiner who will review a sample of work to confirm that the marking between different staff is consistent and fair
    Step Five – Your mark and feedback is processed by the Office and made available to you.
   The grid below shows you the detailed marking criteria against which your work is marked.
   Resit Information
   Resit information may be found at the end of this document
   Outstanding 100
   Excellent
   (80-89)/85
   Very Good
   (70-79)/75
   Good
   (60-69)/65
   Satisfactory
   (50-59)/55
   Adequate
   (40-49)/45
   Marginal Fail (30-39)/35
   Fail
   (20-29)/25
   Missing
   (0)
   Use of Theory and reference examples (20%)
   Quality and application of relevant project management theory and examples to inform all your answers, support your analysis of the project and add credibility to your recommendations
   Demonstrates a sophisticated approach to the application of theory to practice. Project has been researched in depth and sources have been used to provide considerable insight.
   Extensive evidence of quality research throughout with generally an excellent use of theory to inform practice.
   Considerable evidence of solid research into the project. Extensive use of theory.
   Good evidence of thorough investigation with research informing your answer and supporting extensive use of theory.
   Some relevant use of theory supported in general by a solid amount of research.
   Adequate investigation using a range of appropriate sources to inform your answer. Some evidence of wider reading and research into the issues discussed. Reasonable use and application of theory to support analysis.
   Weak and somewhat superficial. Project not properly investigated using appropriate sources and lightweight, limited use of theory. Referencing poor and few appropriate sources used to enhance report.
   Theory not applied. Very little use of relevant reference material and any sources incorrectly cited
   No theory mentioned and no examples used
   20
   17
   15
   13
   11
   9
   7
   5
   0
   Task 1. PID (15%)
   Quality of application of theory to the task. Thoroughness of task, accuracy and relevance of content, demonstration that the student has understood the value and use of this piece of documentation.
   .
   Professional standard based on high quality, referenced examples/templates. Complete and thorough, demonstrating depth of insight into the usefulness and importance of this element. Difficult to improve within the constraints of this case study.
   Near professional standard based on quality, referenced examples/templates. Complete and thorough, demonstrating understanding of the importance of this element. Perhaps could be enhanced with some further guidance.
   Very good attempt with all major elements and good use of quality external references. Artefact is generally correct and demonstrates some good understanding. Some points may be improved.
   .
   Artefact is largely correct and appropriate with most points covered and supported by useful references. Could be improved with guidance but is a solid and competent attempt.
   Some valid references support a reasonable attempt that is mostly complete. Somewhat lightweight but has potential with additional help.
   Poor but adequate attempt. Some elements may be missing or are superficial and of limited relevance. Weak referencing. Some basic understanding in evidence in places.
   Weak attempt at the task with significant elements missing and little or no referencing. Artefact is of little real use and is superficial at best
   Task attempted but missing basic and core elements. Artefact is ineffective and irrelevant.
   Task not attempted
   15
   13
   11
   10
   8
   7
   5
   4
   0
   Task 2. Gantt (15%)
   Quality of application of theory to the task. Thoroughness of task, accuracy and relevance of content, demonstration that the student has
   Professional standard based on high quality, referenced examples/templates. Complete and thorough, demonstrating depth of insight into the
   Near professional standard based on quality, referenced examples/templates. Complete and thorough, demonstrating
   Very good attempt with all major elements and good use of quality external references. Artefact is generally correct
   Artefact is largely correct and appropriate with most points covered and supported by useful references. Could be
   Some valid references support a reasonable attempt that is mostly complete. Somewhat
   Poor but adequate attempt. Some elements may be missing or are superficial and of limited relevance. Weak
   Weak attempt at the task with significant elements missing and little or no referencing. Artefact is of little real use and is
   Task attempted but missing basic and core elements. Artefact is
   Task not attempted
   15
   13
   11
   10
   8
   7
   5
   4
   0
   Task 3. Risk (15%)
   Quality of application of theory to the task. Thoroughness of task, accuracy and relevance of content, demonstration that the student has understood the value and use of this piece of documentation.
   Professional standard based on high quality, referenced examples/templates. Complete and thorough, demonstrating depth of insight into the usefulness and importance of this element. Difficult to improve within the constraints of this case study.
   Near professional standard based on quality, referenced examples/templates. Complete and thorough, demonstrating understanding of the importance of this element. Perhaps could be enhanced with some further guidance.
   Very good attempt with all major elements and good use of quality external references. Artefact is generally correct and demonstrates some good understanding. Some points may be improved.
   .
   Artefact is largely correct and appropriate with most points covered and supported by useful references. Could be improved with guidance but is a solid and competent attempt.
   Some valid references support a reasonable attempt that is mostly complete. Somewhat lightweight but has potential with additional help.
   Poor but adequate attempt. Some elements may be missing or are superficial and of limited relevance. Weak referencing. Some basic understanding in evidence in places.
   Weak attempt at the task with significant elements missing and little or no referencing. Artefact is of little real use and is superficial at best
   Task attempted but missing basic and core elements. Artefact is ineffective and irrelevant.
   Task not attempted
   15
   13
   11
   10
   8
   7
   5
   4
   0
   Task 4. Report to boss (15%)
   Quality of application of theory to the task. Thoroughness of task, accuracy and relevance of content, demonstration that the student has understood the value and use of this piece of documentation.
   Professional standard based on high quality, referenced examples/templates. Complete and thorough, demonstrating depth of insight into the usefulness and importance of this element. Difficult to improve within the constraints of this case study.
   Near professional standard based on quality, referenced examples/templates. Complete and thorough, demonstrating understanding of the importance of this element. Perhaps could be enhanced with some further guidance.
   Very good attempt with all major elements and good use of quality external references. Artefact is generally correct and demonstrates some good understanding. Some points may be improved.
   .
   Artefact is largely correct and appropriate with most points covered and supported by useful references. Could be improved with guidance but is a solid and competent attempt.
   Some valid references support a reasonable attempt that is mostly complete. Somewhat lightweight but has potential with additional help.
   Poor but adequate attempt. Some elements may be missing or are superficial and of limited relevance. Weak referencing. Some basic understanding in evidence in places.
   Weak attempt at the task with significant elements missing and little or no referencing. Artefact is of little real use and is superficial at best
   Task attempted but missing basic and core elements. Artefact is ineffective and irrelevant.
   Task not attempted
   15
   13
   11
   10
   8
   7
   5
   4
   0
   Overall Argument & Effectiveness (10%)
   All tasks completed
   Report content is of professional standard throughout,
   Report content is excellent and near professional in
   Consistent and effective content demonstrating
   Competent attempt addressing all
   Most tasks completed with some minor
   Report elements presented tend towards being
   Weak and inconsistent with little connection
   Chaotic and highly inconsiste
   Most tasks not attempted
   10
   8.5
   7.5
   6.5
   5.5
   4.5
   3.5
   2.5
   0
   Structure & Presentation (10%)
   Professionalism, writing and quality of documentation.
   Professional standard of report that would be worthy of giving to a commercial client. Expertly written,
   Well written and presented with very good use of structure. Tables, diagrams, etc correctly labelled and
   Mostly well written and presented with good use of structure. Tables, diagrams, etc correctly labelled and used.
   Reasonable quality of writing with only modest errors throughout. An attempt has been made to
   Adequately written and does not significantly detract from understanding. Some valid use of structure.
   Writing somewhat poor in places with potentially significant impact on report credibility. Presentation poor
   Very poor writing. Poor quality of document presentation with little use of structure. References
   Writing rarely makes sense. Very messy presentation, lacking use of structure.
   Unintelligible writing and messy/chaotic to the point of illegibility.
   inspiring confidence, no English errors and layout & structure highly effective and appropriate. Referencing accurate and correct
   used. References correct to Harvard standards
   References generally correctly cited.
   use appropriate structure. Referencing mostly correct with minor errors
   Referencing needs some correction.
   with limited structure. Referencing inconsistent
   poorly and incorrectly cited.
   10
   8.5
   7.5
   6.5
   5.5
   4.5
   3.5
   2.5
   0
   Resit Information
   Resit Assignment Details
   Resit submission date: To be announced and as shown on Moodle.
   For students who are offered a resit you are required to improve and resubmit your original work as well as adding a further reflective commentary discussing what you have learned from the process.
   You must resubmit your work using the specific resit Turnitin link on Moodle.
   You should:
5. Review your previously submitted work and read carefully the feedback given by the marker.
6. Use this feedback to help you revisit and rewrite your work, improving it in the areas identified as weak in the original marking process
7. Include with your resubmission an additional reflective piece (up to 500 words) on what you understand was weak, how you set about addressing this and what you have learned from this that may help you with further assignments. You should address the following specifically:
   (i) Identify tutor feedback points on your original work and identify where/how the resit work has changed (give page number) in response to feedback
   (ii) Identify the lessons you have learnt from doing the resit
   (iii) Reflect on how your feedback and this process will help you improve future assignments
   If you did not submit work at the first opportunity you cannot reflect on your feedback. However, you are still required to submit a reflective piece in which you identify your reasons for non-submission, the implications of non-submission for your future success and how you propose to address this in the future. If you have issues with confidentiality of your reasons for non-submission then you could reflect on how you have met the learning outcomes for the module, how you can use what you have done on the module to support your future career and what skills/employability attributes you feel the module has helped you to develop.
   If you were deferred at the first assessment opportunity you do not need to include the reflective piece as this is a first submission at a later date, not a resit.
   The original marking criteria will still apply (see marking grid provided above) except that the 10% weighting for presentation will be awarded instead to your reflective piece