Advanced Project Management Assessment
The purpose of this individual assessment is to highlight both your theortical and practical knowledge of Advanced Project Management. The assignment has six distinctive sections (see Appendix A – Assignment Structure). Moreover, the initial four sections are aligned with the module learning outcomes (see Advanced Project Management handbook). The student is encouraged to undertake a critical literature review through the book chapters and papers that are identified in the workshops. Furthermore, students are expected to employ harvard style referencing. Reading around the topic areas is also encouraged for it demonstates scholarly initiative. Findings and conceptual models from your group project work can be used to further support your views with respect to relevant sections of the assignment. The final two sections requires the student to reflect upon the findings of the practical session findings, and use of methodologies or methods during the group project work. Additionally, the student is expected to generate some lessons leant which may lead to possible future project management learning and development actions. The style guide of the assignment is given in Applendix B, and marking scheme is given in Appendix C.
Some possible areas to consider for each six sections
- The Limitations of the Traditional Approach to Project Management (20 marks)
- Characteristics of traditional project management;
- Identify relevant methods and tools associated with traditional project management;
- Connectivity with technical core (level 1 of Management of Projects);
- Symptoms (factors and measures) of project failure;
- Traditional life-cycle models, product creation, and earned value;
- Factors and measures connected with efficiency;
- Doing the project right (‘the what’, ‘the how’);
- Emerging factors associated with project success;
- Projects as a given, hard systems thinking, analytical thinking;
- Project management success factors;
- Projects as temporary organisations;
- Mechanical metaphor, Taylorism, instrumental lifecycle image of projects;
- Role of the traditional project manager.
- The Broader Factors, Besides the Technical Ones, to Enhance Project Performance (20 marks)
- Characteristics associated with strategic envelope (level 2 of Management of Projects);
- Connectivity of strategic envelope with the technical core;
- Projects as social processes, alternative process models to deal with complex situations;
- Value creation as the prime focus;
- Emerging new relationships with business customer;
- Factors and measures connected with effectiveness;
- Choosing the right project (‘the why’);
- Project front-ending, project strategy and business strategy;
- Project success factors;
- Value and benefits;
- Value creation as a project image;
- Broadening the role of the project manager;
- Systems thinking, soft systems thinking and soft systems methodology;
- The Evolution of a Project Management System within Organisations with the Aim of Improving it (20 marks)
- Characteristics associated with institutional context (level 3 of Management of Projects);
- Institutional context connectivity with strategic envelop and technical core;
- Project Management Office (PMO);
- Project Management Maturity Model;
- Sponsorship and Governance;
- Connectivity between business strategy and PMO;
- Features associated with project management system;
- Consistent project success;
- Learning organisation;
- Strategic resource and procurement.
- The Importance of Context for, and its Effects on, the Management of Projects (20 marks)
- Management of projects characteristics – institutional context is ‘outward looking’;
- Environmental changes, new methodologies, methods and standards for project management;
- Emerging methodologies and methods from different disciplines (g. operational research) used in Management of Projects – an emerging interdisciplinary approach to project management;
- Importance of the Project Management office (PMO);
- Evolutions in the Business environmental , awareness of business changes, new innovations e.g. technology, competitive advantage;
- Importance of value creation – working with external customers (and theirs strategies and values);
- business strategy influencing innovative projects and vice-a-versa;
- Images of the Organisation;
- Business organisations influencing the environment through innovative projects.
- Reflections and Lessons Learnt (15 marks)
- Project managers as reflective practitioners;
- Applicability of systems thinking, soft systems methodology for management of projects;
- Applicability of analytical thinking, mind maps and fishbone diagrams for management of projects;
- Highlight appropriate learning models such as the learning cycle of soft systems methodology, Kolb’s experiential learning model, single and double loop learning;
- Learning and development at individual, group, project and organisational levels;
- Lessons learnt with regards findings from practical workshop sessions, and use of methodologies and/or methods.
- Project Management Actions (5 marks)
- Highlight future learning and development actions (based on your lessons learnt) which may improve the student’s future project management skills.
Other information
- Module is 100% assignment (individual work)
- Word count 3000 ( ±10%) words
Appendix A – Assignment Structure
- The Limitations of the Traditional Approach to Project Management.
- The Broader Factors, Besides the Technical Ones, to Enhance Project Performance.
- The Evolution of a Project Management System within Organisations with the Aim of Improving it.
- The Importance of Context for, and its Effects on, the Management of Projects.
- Reflections and Lessons Learnt
- Project Management Actions
Appendix A – Further Supporting Materials
Appendix B – Assignment Style Guide
The assignment should be in Times New Roman 12-points font size, and line spacing at 1.5. Furthermore, the assignment should be fully justified before submission.
Appendix C – Marking Scheme
| Class | Mark | Description |
| Distinction | 90-100 | Exceptional: In addition to the requirements for outstanding, the work has very substantial elements of originality and exhibits a professional quality. As such, it represents an original contribution to knowledge which would, in principle, be publishable in an academic journal. |
| 80-89 | Outstanding: The work demonstrates a systematic mastery of the subject that critically explores alternative perspectives and evidence. It critically reflects on, evaluates and/or synthesizes relevant theoretical frameworks, concepts and/or empirical perspectives. It excels in rigorously analysing or interpreting appropriate data or evidence. The argument presented is very well developed, clearly structured, complete and consistent, and is written in a compelling manner. Perhaps most importantly, an 80+ piece of work is characterised by a spark of creativity in problem-solving, an extension of existing theories or concepts, original empirical work on existing data, and/or by deep insights that emerge from the student’s reading and experience. | |
| 70 – 79 | Very good: The work demonstrates a proficient systematic understanding of the subject based on some critical analysis of competing perspectives and evidence. It draws effectively on relevant theoretical frameworks, concepts and/or empirical perspectives to build a comprehensive and cohesive argument which demonstrates an awareness of the nuances and assumptions of the question or assignment. The work draws on appropriate data or evidence, and makes excellent use of appropriate, fully referenced, detailed examples. It is well argued, well organised, well-structured and well documented. Work graded at 70 and above is characterised by persuasive problem solving, and/or independent thinking with some critical reasoning. | |
| Merit | 60 – 69 | Good: The work demonstrates a reasonably systematic understanding of the subject. Major themes, frameworks, concepts and debates within the theoretical and/or empirical literature are recognised and at least partly synthesized, yet with only limited evidence of critical independent thinking. The work provides some relevant data or evidence, and arguments are illustrated by reference to relevant examples. The assignment is adequately structured, in most instances clearly argued and tends to be accurately documented. Many relevant points are made, and/or a sound solution to a policy or management problem is proposed, but some minor shortcomings may be present. |
| Pass | 50 – 59 | Satisfactory: The work demonstrates a basic competence in the subject, but with a rather limited systematic understanding of the theoretical literature and/or empirical evidence. It draws on relevant theoretical frameworks, concepts and/or empirical evidence, but provides only a very limited critical analysis and synthesis of this material. It makes a few good points addressing the essay title or question posed, but contains some gaps in argumentation, numerous shortcomings in the documentation, significant factual errors, internal or logical contradictions and/or structural weaknesses. The line of argument may often lack clarity and/or the evidence needed to sustain it may be largely absent. Some examples are used to support the argument, but these may not be fully documented or detailed enough, or there might be weaknesses in their interpretation. Work of this grade is characterized by a sufficient coverage of the subject, and/or a reasonable attempt in problem-solving. |
| Fail | 40 – 49 | Unsatisfactory: The work demonstrates an unsystematic and limited degree of understanding of the subject, but makes some reference to relevant academic or policy debates. There is a tendency towards reportage rather than any form of critical interpretation of relevant theoretical frameworks, concepts and/or empirical evidence. The work may be poorly directed at the essay title or question asked, and/or characterized by inadequate problem solving. The arguments developed and the solutions proposed are not clear, incompetent or incomplete. The assignment is poorly structured, poorly documented and/or poorly articulated. It may contain major factual errors. |
| 20 – 39 | Poor: The work demonstrates a lack of understanding of the subject. There are significant gaps in the interpretation of the literature and/or hardly any critical awareness of relevant theoretical frameworks, concepts and/or empirical evidence. The work fails to provide an argument and/or problem-solving that adequately addresses the topic or question asked. It utilizes inadequate evidence, is poorly designed, only provides a superficial analysis and may be flawed in conception. | |
| 0-19 | Very poor: The work clearly demonstrates a lack of understanding of the subject. There are large gaps in the interpretation of the literature and almost no awareness of relevant theoretical frameworks, concepts and/or empirical evidence. The work is seriously flawed in conception, organization, data analysis, presentation, reasoning and/or evidence. It fails to address the essay title or question asked and/or shows an inability of problem-solving. The reasoning is inconsistent, incomplete and/or contradictory. |
