Module title: Project Management
Assessment point: Assessment point 1 (Week 4)
Assessment task: Report
Word count limit: 3000 words +/-10% (excluding references, tables and appendices)
Width: 70% of overall module grades
Submission deadline: Please consult VLE.
Submission procedure: Please submit via the submission link on VLE.
Submission Record
Extenuating circumstances
Ensure you are familiar with the process for submitting a claim for extenuating circumstances. If you experience any extenuating circumstances that may have affected your ability to attempt or submit the present assignment, please follow the relevant instructions on VLE in order to submit your claim for extenuating circumstance prior to your submission deadline.
Academic misconduct including plagiarism
Ensure that you are familiar with the relevant regulations regarding academic misconduct. By submitting the present assignment, you declare that it is your own work and that the material and sources of information used, including internet sources, have been fully identified and properly acknowledged. In addition, you confirm that the presented work has not been submitted for any other assessment. You also acknowledge that the faculty reserves the right to investigate allegations of plagiarism and other forms of academic misconduct which, if proven and dependent on the severity level of the offence, will result in a penalty that may affect your progress.
Late submissions
Note that all work handed in up to 3 working days after the submission deadline will be accepted and marked but the mark will be capped at 50% (if the work) passes unless you have been granted an extension to the submission deadline or a deferral in accordance with the Extenuating Circumstances Policy. Work submitted more than 3 working days after the submission deadline without a granted extension to the submission deadline or a deferral in accordance with the Extenuating Circumstances Policy will not be accepted and will be recorded as 0%.
By submitting your work, you acknowledge that you have read and agreed with the above statements.
General Guidance
Your assignment should be word typed processed (handwritten assignments are not accepted), using Times New Roman size 12 font, double spaced, with numbered pages and your student number printed as a footer on every page.
The word limits stated for this assignment excludes the reference list at the end of the assignment but includes all text in the main body of the assignment (including direct quotations, in-text citations, footnotes, tables, diagrams and graphs).
Please be aware that exceeding the word count limit will affect the academic judgement of the piece of work and may result in the award of a lower mark.
Appendices are not considered a supplement thus will not be assessed as part of the content of the assignment. As such, they will not contribute to the grade awarded, however it may be appropriate to use an Appendices section for any material which is a useful reference for the reader. Please note that appendices are not included in the word count.
The majority of references should come from primary sources (e.g., journal articles, conference papers, reports, etc.) although you can also utilise area specific textbooks. You must ensure that you use the University of Suffolk’s Harvard style of referencing.
Please indicate the word count length at the end of your assignment.
Learning outcomes applied in this assessment
1. Analyse complex projects to design and allocate defined tasks to a project team
2. Manage the key project variables of time, cost and quality
3. Use project management software to develop, implement and monitor projects
Marking and assessment:
- This assignment will be marked out of 100%
- This assignment contributes 70% of the total module marks.
Assessment guidelines:
Produce a 3000-word report (+/-10%) (excluding the list of references, tables and appendices) which offers students the ability to demonstrate their developing knowledge and application of the teaching and learning material covered in weeks 1 to 3. It also encourages students to develop their thoughts and perspectives on contemporary project management issues, and be intellectually creative (underpinned by credible resources).
Tasks
For the successful development of this assessment point you should read carefully the case study below and address clearly the following areas: resources allocated, tasks needed to achieve its aims, and then a breakdown of the project using the Project Libre – Project Management software.
Be assured, that you will address the below tasks:
Task 1: Identify the project’s stakeholders.
Task 2: Plan the project using critical path analysis, a Gantt chart and a WBS plan.
Task 3: Create a budget for the project broken down by Task and Activity.
Task 4: Create an HR plan.
Task 5: Identify the potential risks associated with this project and develop a risk analysis and management plan.
Task 6: Breakdown the project with the use of Project Libre – Project Management software, which you can access via this link https://sourceforge.net/projects/projectlibre/
- he timescale of the project is defined as 6 months (26 weeks), which means that the project must be completed by December 31, 2021. The time of the delivery of the project cannot change due to the urgency of the situation and the negotiations that have occurred with local and central government authorities per the contract signed and the RFP issued. The total procurement budget for the project has been set at 10m Euros.
| Task | Description | Duration (weeks) | Predecessor/s |
| A | ACTIVITY 1 | 4 | – |
| B | ACTIVITY 2 | 2 | – |
| C | ACTIVITY 3 | 3 | A |
| D | ACTIVITY 3 | 1 | B |
| E | ACTIVITY 5 | 4 | B |
| F | ACTIVITY 6 | 2 | C |
| G | ACTIVITY 7 | 2 | C |
| H | ACTIVITY 8 | 2 | C,D |
| I | ACTIVITY 9 | 3 | E,H |
| J | ACTIVITY 10 | 3 | F |
Note the suggested structure for your assignment:
Introduction (500 words) – 15%
- Presentation of the project you are going to analyze.
- Possible definitions for terms relating to the question.
- What the report will include and/or leave out (scope).
- What topics the report will discuss and the order they are presented.
- What methodologies and tools you will apply.
Main body (2000 words) – 55%
The following structure can be used for the presentation of the tasks you should develop for the successful development of the report:
- Project summary (introduce the project you will analyze, its main parts and the software);
- Identify the project’s stakeholders.
- Present the critical path analysis, the Gantt chart and the WBS chart.
- Present the budget of the project.
- Present the HR plan.
- Identify potential project risks.
Conclusion (500 words) – 15%
- Links back to the themes identified in the introduction.
- A reminder of what you discussed in the report.
- A recap of the main plans, methodologies and tools you implemented.
- A brief evaluation of the project’s limitations.
Formatting, Structure and Referencing (List of references not included in word count) – 15%
- High quality presentation of the material that conforms to principles of academic writing and contains minimal errors in sentence construction, grammar and punctuation.
- A logical structure was followed.
- The assignment followed appropriate academic conventions regarding in-text
citations and referencing.
Marking Criteria
Level 7 | ||||||
| In accordance with the FHEQ, at the end of Level 7 students should have a systematic understanding of knowledge, and a critical awareness of current problems and/or new insights, much of which is at, or informed by, the forefront of their academic discipline, field of study or area of professional practice. They will be able to demonstrate originality in the application of knowledge, together with a practical understanding of how established techniques of research and enquiry are used to create and interpret knowledge in the discipline. They should have a conceptual understanding that enables them to evaluate critically current research and advanced scholarship in the discipline and to evaluate methodologies and develop critiques of them and, where appropriate, to propose new hypotheses. They will also be able to deal with complex issues both systematically and creatively, make sound judgements in the absence of complete data, and communicate their conclusions clearly to specialist and non-specialist audiences. In addition, they will be able to demonstrate self-direction and originality in tackling and solving problems, and act autonomously in planning and implementing tasks at a professional or equivalent level. | ||||||
| Assessment category | ||||||
| Coherent and detailed knowledge and understanding of the subject area, at least some of which is informed by the latest research and/or advanced scholarship within the discipline | Cognitive and intellectual skills | Application of theory to practice (for courses with a professional practice element) THIS ASSESSMENT CATEGORY IS NOT APPLICABLE | Reading and referencing | Presentation, style and structure Work that significantly exceeds the specified word limit may be penalized | ||
| Pass mark, demonstrating achievement of all associated learning outcomes | 90%-100% | Exemplary systematic, theoretical and conceptual understanding of knowledge at or informed by the forefront of the field of study, demonstrating highly sophisticated grasp of the subject matter | Exceptional critical evaluation and awareness of current problems, and contemporary issues and debates that draws on new insights or perspectives within the field. Work demonstrates exemplary ability to synthesise current research and advanced scholarship in an original, creative and innovative manner. | Sophisticated, systematic and innovative application of knowledge and theory to professional practice within the discipline. Flawless use of systematically selected literature to justify and express reasoned judgements and decisions in relation to complex issues and problems at a professional level | A very high level of critical engagement across a systematic and fully appropriate range of relevant and current academic, research, policy- and practice-related literature demonstrating deep and selective reading and initiative along with highly consistent accurate referencing | Exemplary presentation of work that is fluent and flawless throughout. |
| 80%-89% | Excellent systematic, theoretical and conceptual understanding of knowledge at or informed by the forefront of the field of study and showing sophisticated depth, breadth, detail and clarity | Sophisticated critical evaluation and awareness of current problems, and contemporary issues and debates that draws on new insights or perspectives within the field. Work demonstrates a very high level of originality and creativity in the student’s approaches to synthesising current research and advanced scholarship within the subject area | An excellent level of originality and innovation in the application of knowledge and theory to professional practice within the discipline. Demonstration of excellent critical awareness and evaluation and the ability to effectively critique and employ current academic literature in making reasoned judgements and decisions in relation to complex issues and problems at a professional level | A very high level of critical engagement across an extensive range of relevant and current academic, research, policy- and practice-related literature demonstrating deep and appropriate reading and initiative along with highly consistent accurate referencing | Outstanding presentation of work that is logically and coherently structured with a strong or original central argument(s), conveyed with a high level of fluency and eloquently communicates compelling, coherent conclusions to specialist and non-specialist audiences |
| Level 7 | Coherent and detailed knowledge and understanding | Cognitive and intellectual skills | Application of theory to practice THIS ASSESSMENT CATEGORY IS NOT APPLICABLE | Reading and referencing | Presentation, style and structure | |
| Pass mark, demonstrating achievement of all associated learning outcomes | 70% – 79% | A high level of systematic, theoretical and conceptual understanding of knowledge at or informed by the forefront of the field of study and showing considerable depth, breadth, detail and clarity | A high level of critical evaluation and awareness of current problems, and contemporary issues and debates that draws on new insights or perspectives within the field. Work demonstrates a significant level of originality and creativity in synthesising current research and advanced scholarship within the subject area | A high level of originality and innovation in the application of knowledge and theory to professional practice within the discipline. Demonstration of excellent critical awareness and evaluation and the ability to select and use academic literature in making reasoned judgements and decisions in relation to complex issues and problems at a professional level | A high level of critical engagement across an extensive range of relevant and current literature demonstrating wide and appropriate reading and initiative along with highly consistent accurate referencing | Excellent presentation of work that is logically and coherently structured with a strong or original central argument(s), conveyed with a high level of clarity of expression and which clearly communicates valid, coherent conclusions to specialist and non-specialist audiences |
| 60% – 69% | An effective, systematic, theoretical and conceptual understanding of knowledge mostly at or informed by the forefront of the field of study and showing good depth, breadth, detail and clarity | An effective level of critical evaluation and awareness of current problems and contemporary issues and debates that draws on new insights or perspectives within the field. Work demonstrates some effective originality and creativity in synthesising current research and scholarship within the subject area | A good level of originality and innovation in the application of knowledge and theory to professional practice. Demonstration of consistently good critical awareness and evaluation and reasonable ability to use the academic literature in making reasoned judgements and decisions in relation to complex issues and problems at a professional level | A good level of critical engagement across a good range of relevant and current academic, research, policy- and practice-related literature demonstrating appropriate reading and some initiative along with consistent accurate referencing | High quality presentation of work that is largely logically and coherently structured with a generally strong central argument conveyed with a clarity of expression and which communicates clear conclusions to specialist and non-specialist audiences | |
| 50% – 59% | A sufficient but limited level of systematic, theoretical and conceptual understanding of knowledge at times at or informed by the forefront of the field of study but showing adequate depth, breadth, detail and clarity | A sufficient but limited level of critical evaluation and awareness of current problems and contemporary issues and debates, with some reference to new insights or perspectives within the field. Limited evidence of originality and creativity in synthesising current research and scholarship within the subject area | A reasonable but limited level of originality and innovation in the application of knowledge and theory to professional practice within the discipline. Demonstration of some good critical awareness and evaluation and some ability to use the academic literature in developing judgements and decisions in relation to complex issues and problems at a professional level | Sufficient critical engagement with a reasonable range of relevant and current academic, research, policy- and practice-related literature demonstrating mainly appropriate reading but limited initiative and/or some minor inconsistencies and inaccuracies in referencing | Generally good presentation of work that is sufficiently logical and coherent in structure with a discernible central argument. May present limited originality and lack some clarity of expression, but an identifiable conclusion reasonably communicated to specialist and non-specialist audiences |
| Level 7 | Coherent and detailed knowledge and understanding | Cognitive and intellectual skills | Application of theory to practice THIS ASSESSMENT CATEGORY IS NOT APPLICABLE | Reading and referencing | Presentation, style and structure | |
| Marginal fail | 45% – 49% | Knowledge and understanding of the subject matter is incomplete, uninformed or limited in its scholarship within the field of study, or lacking sufficient depth, breadth, detail or clarity | Critical evaluation is limited or lacks awareness of current problems and contemporary issues and debates. Insufficient reference made to new insights or perspectives within the field, or insufficient evidence of originality and creativity in synthesising current research and scholarship within the subject area | Insufficient degree of originality or innovation in the application of knowledge and theory to professional practice within the discipline. Demonstration of poor critical awareness and evaluation or a lack of ability to use the academic literature in developing judgements and decisions in relation to complex issues and problems at a professional level | Insufficient critical engagement with relevant and current academic, research, policy- and practice-related literature. Lack of evidence of wider reading or a lack of initiative or inconsistent and inaccurate referencing | Presentation of work shows insufficient organisation or central argument, and is lacking in logical and coherent structure. Poor clarity of expression weakly communicating to specialist or non-specialist audiences |
| Fail | 30% – 44% | Limited knowledge and understanding of the subject matter shown. Work is not sufficiently informed by scholarship within the field of study and is insufficient in depth, breadth, detail or clarity | Insufficient evidence of critical evaluation and awareness of current problems and contemporary issues and debates. Insufficient reference to new insights or perspectives within the field and lacking in originality and creativity in synthesising current research and scholarship within the subject area | Little evidence of originality and innovation and a significant lack of application of knowledge and theory to professional practice demonstrating little critical awareness and evaluation and a lack of ability to use the academic literature to make judgements and decisions in relation to complex issues and problems at a professional level | Little evidence of critical engagement with relevant and current literature. Poor use of appropriate sources and/or inconsistent and inaccurate referencing | Often poorly presented work that is disorganised, has an ill-formed central argument, and lacks a logical and coherent structure. A lack of clarity of expression or fails to communicate effective conclusions to specialist or non-specialist audiences |
| < 30% | Inadequate and limited knowledge and understanding of the subject matter shown. Work is not informed by scholarship within the field of study and significantly lacks depth, breadth, detail or clarity | Descriptive work with little or no evidence of critical evaluation and awareness of current problems and contemporary issues and debates. No evidence of awareness of new insights or perspectives within the field. Little or no synthesis of current research and scholarship within the subject area | No evidence of originality and innovation and little to no application of knowledge and theory to professional practice. Demonstrates no critical awareness and evaluation and a distinct lack of ability to use the academic literature in an effective manner | No evidence of critical engagement with relevant and current literature. Lack of use of appropriate sources and inconsistent and inaccurate referencing | Poorly presented and disorganised work that lacks a logical and coherent structure, lacks a well-formed central argument and shows a significant lack of clarity of expression with very weak or irrelevant conclusions, that may be incoherent to specialist or non-specialist audiences |
