Managing projects

  Important Instruction: Students are required to submit their assignments through JIRA. Only assessments submitted through JIRA will be marked. Any other submission including submission to your study centre in hard copy will be treated as a non-submission 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 cases outlined. It is also intended to allow students to demonstrate their learning and competence in respect of the effective project management with focus on resources, trade-offs among scope, cost and time, as well as key elements of the project life cycle. Task 1 (40 marks) 700 words (+/- 10%) each short answer question requires a response in a few sentences for the questions awarded up to 4 – 6 marks and a paragraph for questions awarded up to 8 – 10 marks. Citation(s) is/are essential for each question to demonstrate students’ ability to fulfill academic writing style in accordance to Harvard referencing. 1) What are risk responses in project management? Identify and briefly discuss FOUR (4) types of responses to manage risk. (8 marks) 2) Sharp View Pte Ltd – a market leader that manufactures high-end optical scope fitted on hunting rifles for the past 30 years. Recently the top management has decided to diversify the business by applying its propreitary technology to develop top-quality binocular. Which project structure would you recommend for this organisation? Together with a diagram, write short notes to describe the proposed structure and provide appropriate justifications to support your recommendation. (6 marks) 3) Project Control Systems are often used to ensure the quality of project outcomes. Identify and briefly discuss methods (project evaluation, monitoring and control) you could introduce to ensure a project meets the desired outcome and is successful. (6 marks) 4) Identify and briefly discuss the FOUR (4) determinants of project success. (4 marks) BFAD5 1814A, BMTD5 1814A, _SIM335 Managing Projects, Individual Assignment Page 3 of 6 5) What is the purpose of establishing project priorities? And what would normally be considered when setting project priorities. (6 marks) 6) Your faculty is preparing for the end of course graduation ceremony. Appointed as the project manager to spearhead the event, you have mapped out the activities and durations in the table below: ID Description Preceding Activity Activity Duration A Initial Discussion None 3 B Food Planning A 4 C Entertainment Planning A 5 D Drinks Planning A 2 E Committee Approval B, C, D 5 F Student Invitation E 8 G Faculty Invitation E 5 H Furniture Arrangement E 3 I Decorate Hall E 6 J Committee Final Approval F, G, H, I 5 i. What is the purpose of establishing a Project Network Diagram? ii. Develop an AON project network based on the information provided. iii. How many days will the project take to complete? iv. Identify the critical path of this project. v. Draw the Gantt chart of this project. (10 marks) The criteria for assessing Task 1 will be: Referencing: Has/have appropriate citation(s) been included to support relevant theory presented to answer each question? Has a recognized referencing system been used for notation? (see relevant section in the Guide to Basic Study Skills) Task 2: (60 marks) Case Study: Your organization is planning for a 1-day sports tournament (choose any indoor or outdoor sports). As the Project Manager appointed by your CEO, you are in-charge of planning and organizing this event. As the project is currently at the feasibility stage, you are required to provide a project plan to organize the event and to prepare a report (2,300 words) for top management’s approval. From a project management perspective, outline the key areas required to successfully manage this project – e.g. Project Scope Statement, Project Priorities, Work Breakdown Structure (with work packages) and Cost Estimation (with time-phase budget). The report should demonstrate the skills and competencies required by the Project Manager, along with relevant project management perspectives. The criteria for assessing Task 2 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 the purpose of project? Do the sections of the report develop ideas in a logical sequence? Are diagrams or other subsidiary information provided to support relevant sections? Spelling and grammar: Are all words spelled correctly and is the meaning of sentences clear? Referencing: Have appropriate references (minimum of 5) been included in the report? Has a recognized 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 on 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. Assignment presentation and assessment The answers to both tasks are independent and should be addressed separately. Task 1 answer to six questions (700 words) – completed as an individual task Task 2 presented in a report (2,300 words) – completed as an individual task For your convenience, both Task 1 and Task 2 should be submitted as one document. A minimum of 10 references (Task 1 and Task 2 combined) should be included in the report. 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 the ability to perceive the relationship between theory and practice. Limited reading. SIM335: Management of Projects (Academic Year 2018) 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 2000 words. The report is text doublespaced. The structure of the project is clear, cohesive and logical. Each section has been clearly structured using subheadings (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 2000 words. The report is text doublespaced. The structure of the project is on the whole clear, cohesive and logical. Each section 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 2000 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 section 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 2000 words. The report is not text double-spaced. The structure of the project is unclear, inconsistent and illogical. Sections are not clearly structured using subheadings (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