Two task assignment ( Task 1 – Presentation – Project Case Study Analysis. and Task 2 – Narrative Literature Review.) Task 1: Assignment Brief: This task requires the submission of a project case study analysis, which will be in the format of a 10-minute group presentation(*). The presentation will be in powerpont and as a minimum it should fully introduce the ‘case’, provide a project description and position it within a wider PPP context, before identifying the key project challenges, and solutions, and then reflecting on those ‘lessons learned’ that can inform future practice. Creativity will be rewarded in this assessment and as such, the presentation can be in the form of a documentary, or other style, being mindful that you should consider how best to educate, inform and entertain the listener. Task 1 is worth 50% of the module. It will be submitted and assessed electronically and it addresses all Module Learning Outcomes: 1, 3, 4 and 5 listed below. Additional instructions to students: Throughout the Module there are various learning activities which focus on aspects of theory, and contemporary practice around Project Management. Specifically these will also include engagement with real life and/or hypothetical case studies. In order to further equip you with topic specific knowledge and understanding, and help you develop your intellectual skills and abilities in this subject, you are to analyse one such project case study, from a project management perspective. Full-time students will work in groups (that where applicable, may also have distance learning students attached*). Each group will produce a 10 minute presentation, which will be saved as an ppt.file and submitted electronically via the LD7031: Upload for Task 1 submissions link provided on the Assessment page of the Blackboard module site. In order to avoid duplication, only one member of the group should perform this task. The presentation is to be titled as follows: ‘Group [Number] – LD7031 Presenttion’ – for example Group 3 – LD7031 Presentation. All members of the group must participate at some point, in the delivery of the presentation. There will be no requirement to submit a hard copy of this task. The work will be marked and returned electronically. *Note that, in exceptional cases, and only with prior agreement from the Module Tutor, distance learning students may choose to ‘opt-out’ in order to submit their own individual video submissions to be assessed. The focus of the presentation will be upon a student selected case study project. This could be a prominent, widely available case, where useful materials are readily available, or one that the student is currently, or has previously worked on. In addition to the video file you are to submit two additional files: a cover sheet that lists all team members (names and student numbers) and a separate references sheet in Northumbria Harvard format identifying the academic sources that have informed your thinking about this project case study. IMPORTANT: Such a project should only be one that you have normal access to. If such a project is a ‘building’ or ‘live site’, then this should only be one that you have the ‘normal’, and ‘necessary’ permissions to access externally and/or internally (i.e. you are not to engage in any trespass of any building/site that you do not have normal permission to enter). Also note that you should not ‘cold-contact’ professionals to attempt to arrange access to any project that you do not have normal access to. You are to have discussed the proposed case study project with the tutor during seminar by teaching week 6 in order to receive tutor confirmation that the project is suitable for the purposes of the case study analysis. The core content of the presentation should focus on the following aspects: ? Introduction and description of the case study project, which includes a discussion of its positioning within the wider PPP context. ? The identification of a range of ‘key issue’ problems within the project case study, which the project team faced. ? Evaluation of the specific solutions/tactics that were used to address these key issue problems. ? Perform a critical appraisal of the ‘lessons learned’ from this project case study, and consider if and how these can deployed in future practice. Further Information Learning outcomes from the Module Descriptor/Specification (Note: if ‘greyed-out’, this outcome is not addressed by this assessment): 1. Establish conceptual understanding of the complex scenarios that multiple and major projects environments and settings have, including the relationships between projects, programmes or portfolios within host organisations. 2. Critically appraise existing project management knowledge and identify areas that can improve aspects of project delivery for stakeholders through the application of project management, theory or practice. 3. Critically reflect upon approaches to project problem-solving on real life projects, in order to evaluate, learn from, and adopt similar appropriate solutions in future professional practice. 4. Embrace critical thinking, to systematically identify, analyse, plan, produce, and then present, original work for academic review. 5. Embrace academic, ethical, and professional standards, through practice and conduct, whilst developing understanding of competence in project management. Assessment criteria / marking scheme: (refer to standard marking criteria that apply or replace with assessment specific criteria) ? Introduction – How well the work establishes and describes the case study project, and positions it within a wider PPP context: 10% ? Problems – The ‘key issue’ problems identified within the project case study, which the project team faced. This criteria will balance ‘range’, against ‘appropriateness’ of the key issues: 20% ? Solutions – Evaluation of the specific solutions/tactics that were used to address these key issue problems: 20% ? Lessons – Perform a critical appraisal of the ‘lessons learned’ from this project case study, and consider if and how these can deployed in future practice: 20% ? Quality of professionalism – which is apparent in the produced documentary: 10% ? Quality of presentation – which is apparent in the produced documentary: 10% ? Creativity – demonstrated throughout the documentary: 10% Total: 100% Task 2: Assignment Brief: This individual task requires the submission of a literature review, which is to take the form of a ‘narrative’ (not ‘systematic’) review. It should describe and discuss current knowledge across two self-selected topics in the discipline of Project Management, from theoretical and contextual perspectives, in order to summarize what is ‘known’ in these areas. Task 2 is worth 50% of the module. It will be submitted and assessed electronically and it addresses Module Learning Outcomes: 2, 4 and 5 listed below. Additional instructions to students: Throughout the Module there are discussions on aspects of contemporary practice around Project Management. In order to further equip you with topic specific knowledge and understanding, and help you develop your intellectual skills and abilities in this subject, you are to individually produce a narrative literature review paper focusing on two selected topics from the below lost, around the art, science, and discipline of Project Management. Students should select only 2 of the following topics to structure their narrative literature review around (Note that this list is based upon the ‘APM Competence Framework’): 1. Ethics, compliance and professionalism. 2. Team management. 3. Conflict management 4. Leadership. 5. Procurement. 6. Contract management. 7. Requirements management. 8. Solutions development. 9. Schedule management. 10. Resource management. 11. Budgeting and cost control. 12. Risk, opportunity and issue management. 13. Quality management. 14. Consolidated planning. 15. Transition management. 16. Financial management. 17. Resource capacity planning. 18. Governance arrangements. 19. Stakeholder and communications management. 20. Frameworks and methodologies. 21. Reviews. 22. Change control. 23. Independent assurance. 24. Business case. 25. Asset allocation. 26. Capability development. 27. Benefits management. Whilst your review is to primarily draw upon, and refer to, the body of academic work in this area, it is also reasonable to expect that some elements in your review will be informed by material issued by credible, relevant, professional institutes within Project Management (e.g. https://www.apm.org.uk/, http://www.ipma.world/, https://www.pmi.org/) as these organisations will be useful in highlighting current issues and offering supporting information. It is envisaged that by undertaking such independent preliminary research, this may act as a prelude, generating future research interest which could be further developed individually, or in collaboration with peers or academic staff at the end of the module. The review is to be properly structured and supported through ‘academic’ research using appropriate and quality references which are cited correctly throughout. It is to conclude with an effective summary recording what is now ‘know’ in these selected areas. A separate references list must also be provided at the end of the document. Further Information Learning outcomes from the Module Descriptor/Specification (Note: if ‘greyed-out’, this outcome is not addressed by this assessment): 1. Establish conceptual understanding of the complex scenarios that multiple and major projects environments and settings have, including the relationships between projects, programmes or portfolios within host organisations. 2. Critically appraise existing project management knowledge and identify areas that can improve aspects of project delivery for stakeholders through the application of project management, theory or practice. 3. Critically reflect upon approaches to project problem-solving on real life projects, in order to evaluate, learn from, and adopt similar appropriate solutions in future professional practice. 4. Embrace critical thinking, to systematically identify, analyse, plan, produce, and then present, original work for academic review. 5. Embrace academic, ethical, and professional standards, through practice and conduct, whilst developing understanding of competence in project management. Assessment criteria / marking scheme: (refer to standard marking criteria that apply or replace with assessment specific criteria) ? Introduction: How well the introduction of the work contextualises Project Management and concisely justifies the selection, and importance, of the selected topic areas in the main subject matter- 10% ? Main subject matter: This related to the focus, appropriateness, and quality of the review regarding the two selected topic areas. The overall narrative should be coherent, and remain relevant to the project management subject area – 20% ? Relationship with existing literature: The entire review should demonstrate adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field, cite an appropriate range of literature sources and not ignore any significant work – 30% ? Quality of Conclusion: The conclusion of the work should be sufficiently related to the preceding narrative review, and effectively summarize for the reader key knowledge in these two areas. It is envisaged that this ‘preliminary’ research, can act as a ‘springboard’ for any reader wishing to develop future research efforts in either areas, and as such, the work and conclusion in particular, should be positioned for this audience – 10% ? Quality of Communication: The work should clearly express its case. Attention should have been paid to the clarity of expression and readability, such as sentence structure, jargon use, acronyms, etc. – 20% ? General structure and formatting of the work, and the References section (see below notes) in particular – 10% Total: 100% Note: attach are documents and information relative to this work
Back