Assignment Brief Academic Year 2020-20211 Task requirementsThis coursework is a 1500 (+/- 10%) word report designed to assess learner’s ability to demonstrate an in depth knowledge and systematic understanding ofproject management theory and tools linked to the planning of projects.Project Management – Camden Sickle Cell and Thalassaemia Service Group – Project BriefCase StudyDear Consultant,I wanted … Continue reading “BM522 Project Management | My Assignment Tutor”
Assignment Brief Academic Year 2020-20211 Task requirementsThis coursework is a 1500 (+/- 10%) word report designed to assess learner’s ability to demonstrate an in depth knowledge and systematic understanding ofproject management theory and tools linked to the planning of projects.Project Management – Camden Sickle Cell and Thalassaemia Service Group – Project BriefCase StudyDear Consultant,I wanted to thank you for taking on this contract at short notice, but to express my confidence in your ability to provide the service sustainable ways of raisingfund over the coming months. Last year the Camden sickle cell and thalassaemia unit found a large proportion of our society/community are unaware of theservices we run. We are currently in the process of appointing a group of consultants to move quickly to organise musical concert to create awareness with theunder listed activity list. Using these activity please kindly provide us with a 1500 words document detailing project management knowledge areas that shouldbe considered in this event.The aim of this project is to provide a sustainable way of raising fund for the Sickle Cell and Thalassaemia Care Forum. Module code and title:BM522 Project ManagementModule leader:Dr Muhammad HijazyAssignment No. and type:CW1Assessment weighting:50%Submission time and date:14.00 UK Time, 29th April 2021Target feedback time and date:3 Weeks after the submission deadline 2Internal approval:Suzanne Doria, October 2020External approval: Below is Table A, consisting of all the major tasks, dependencies and timescales required for each task.ActivityNrMain Activities with PredecessorsName of the Task Duration Predecessors1 Budget Approval 1 day -2 Hire Publicity Director 14 days 13 Hire Set Designer 14 days 14 Hire Place For Auditions 7 days 25 Advertising To Hire Crew and Cast 7 days 26 Hire Production & Publicity Crew 28 days 4, 57 Set Designed and Built 35 days 3,68 Train Production Crew 12 days 3,6 3Internal approval:Suzanne Doria, October 2020External approval: 9Auditions To Hire Cast 2 days 4, 510 Cast Rehearsal 66 days 911 Hire Orchestra 7 days 112 Music 7 days 1113 Photograph Cast And Crew & Collect Biographies 35 days 6, 9,1114 Enter Information Into Computer 1 day 1315 Printing 5 days 1416 Develop an Advertising Plan 7 days 617 Advertising Media 21 days 1618 Orchestra rehearsal 4 days 1219 Order Costumes 7 days 920 Costume Parade And Alterations 5 days 7,1921 Dress Rehearsal 1 day 8,10,18,2022 Performance 10 days 15,17,21 4Internal approval:Suzanne Doria, October 2020External approval: You are to assume that it is 28th of September 2020, the Monday of the first week of the project. While the project team is being formed, the Project Managerasks you to prepare a 1500 (+/-10%) word report to be with him on 11th November 2020 and which he can present to Camden Sickle Cell and ThalassaemiaService Group – board and other senior managers of the University. The project has only 101days available to be completed which means all tasks on theactivity list below must be completed within the 101days. (However, for extra consultancy fee of £5000 you could also advise Camden Sickle Cell andThalassaemia Service Group – the alternative approach to shorten the project duration and if this is the case, should Camden Sickle Cell and ThalassaemiaService Group want to finish this project ealier than expected how soon can this be done beside finishing within 101days? Support with PERT analysis and anadditional network diagram)The title of the report is ‘Camden Sickle Cell and Thalassaemia Service Group – Project Brief’Task1) Develop a network diagram manually, AS TAUGHT (activities on arrows) clearly showing the relationship between all the activities listed above, thedependencies, the likely duration for each activity, the likely completion date (expected total project time). Calculate the earliest starting time, the lateststarting time (EST,LST) and the earliest finishing time and latest finishing time (EFT, LFT) for each activity including an outline description of the criticalpath, highlighting the critical activities and the shortest possible time in days in which the project can be completed as scoped above (give reasons foryour choice). [20 marks]Task 22) Undertake a stakeholder analysis for this project. This should clearly identify internal and external stakeholder, group stakeholders according to theirinterest and power i.e. stakeholder management matrix, communication strategies (20 marks)Task 3Using the activity list above, develop a clearly numbered Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) alongside an organizational structure for this music event[10 marks] 5Internal approval:Suzanne Doria, October 2020External approval: Task 4You are required to prepare a Risk Analysis for 20 different risks that could affect your project. Analyse the risks involved and develop strategies for dealing withthem in detail. Present your Risk Analysis and Risk Management strategies/mitigations in the form of a table, AS TAUGHT in class. [20 marks]Task 5You are required to determine what the quality expectation, acceptance criteria, quality specification, and what measures would be put in place to control theevent. In other words you write up in this section must cover these heading. (15 marks)Task 6Provide a critical analysis of what methodology would be appropriate for this project and why? Support just justification with examples of where this methodologyhas been previously used as well as the benefits of using this methodology in your project. (15 marks)This assignment has been designed to provide you with an opportunity to demonstrate your achievement of the following module learning outcomes:LO 1Evaluate and explain the major factors and performance requirements of project management.LO 2Plan projects using appropriate project management softwareLO 3Analyse and critically evaluate projects using an appropriate industry standard methodology. 6Internal approval:Suzanne Doria, October 2020External approval: Referencing and research requirementsPlease reference your work according to the Harvard style as defined in Cite Them Right Online (http://www.citethemrightonline.com). This information is alsoavailable in book form: Pears, R. and Shields, G. (2016) Cite them right: the essential reference guide. 10th edn. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Copies areavailable via the university library.How your work will be assessedYour work will be assessed on the extent to which it demonstrates your achievement of the stated learning outcomes for this assignment (see above) andagainst other key criteria, as defined in the University’s institutional grading descriptors. If it is appropriate to the format of your assignment and your subjectarea, a proportion of your marks will also depend upon your use of academic referencing conventions.This assignment will be marked according to the grading criteria attached belowSubmission detailsThis assignment should be submitted electronically. Please use the relevant submission point in the Submit your work area in your VLE module shell.You can submit your work as many times as you like before the submission date. If you do submit your work more than once, your earlier submission will bereplaced by the most recent version.Once you have submitted your work, you will receive a digital receipt as proof of submission, which will be sent to your forwarded e-mail address (providedyou have set this up). Please keep this receipt for future reference, along with the original electronic copy of your assignment.You are reminded of the University’s regulations on academic misconduct, which can be viewed on the University website:https://bucks.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0024/9546/Academic-Misconduct-Policy.pdf. In submitting your assignment, you are acknowledging that you haveread and understood these regulations 7Internal approval:Suzanne Doria, October 2020External approval: Submission date and timeThis assignment should be submitted before 14.00 UK Time, 29th April 2021.Work that is submitted up to 10 working days beyond the submission date will be accepted as a late submission. Late submissions will be marked and theactual mark recorded but will be capped at the pass mark (typically 40%), provided that the work is of a passing standard. Work submitted after this period willnot be marked and will be treated as a non-submission.Feedback and marks for this assignment will be available 3 weeks after the submission deadline. 8Internal approval:Suzanne Doria, October 2020External approval: Marking SchemeA70-100%B60-69%C50-59%D40-49%E35-39%Activity List, Networkdiagram, and CriticalPath(20%)Network Diagram done in Excel,or by hand and shows the activitynode values; Network Diagramneat and correct showingrelationship between activitiesand their dependencies; CriticalPath clear & correct; Excellentcalculation of Activity EST & LSTas well as EFT & LFT for eachactivity. Project durationshortened to reflect newcompletion date and new criticalpath identified. Optional –Approach used to shortenduration of project clearedjustified, readable and wellanalysed. All resources identifiedfor each activity.Network Diagram done in Excel, or byhand and shows the activity nodevalues; Network Diagram good withsome errors in calculation on ES &LST as well as EFT & LFT. CriticalPath correct. Project durationshortened to reflect new completiondate and new critical path identified.(Optional -Few errors at clearlyjustifying approach used to shortenduration of project.Largely correct Network Diagram donein Excel, or by hand and shows theactivity node values; the relationshipbetween activities and theirdependencies; Network diagramlargely correct some calculations.Critical Path identified. Optional –Project duration shortened to reflectnew completion date. This reflecting ina new network diagram showing newcritical path.Attempt made to justify approach usedto shorten duration of project but withsignificant mistakes.Network Diagram contains someanomalies; CP largely correct; ORNetwork diagram presented in MSProject format. Optional – Somequestionable logic on project durationshortened, with some attempt to draw anew network diagram showing newcritical pathNetwork Diagram illogical andcritical path (CP) not identified orincorrect. Optional – Approachused to shorten project durationnot shown, no new networkdiagram, no new critical pathidentified 9Internal approval:Suzanne Doria, October 2020External approval: Stakeholder Analysisand communicationplan (20%)Comprehensive, believable andlogical with good use of PM theoryand concepts Completesstakeholder analysis to a highstandard; identified internal andexternal stakeholders, theirinterest and power, establishedcommunication plan for allstakeholders group identified.Good but the justification forstakeholder analysis elements maynot be clear. However identifiedinternal and external stakeholders,their interest and power andcommunication strategy missing.Completes the following stakeholderanalysis: identified internal andexternal stakeholders, their interestand power at least to a satisfactorystandard:Completes at least 3 of the following:identified stakeholders, grouped theminto internal and external stakeholders,their interest and power, and establishcommunication plan to an acceptablestandard.Does not complete at least 3 ofthe following: identifiedstakeholders, grouped them intointernal and externalstakeholders, their interest andpower, and establishcommunication plan to anacceptable standard. 10Internal approval:Suzanne Doria, October 2020External approval: WBS andOrganogram (10%)Excellent complete, correct,clearly numbered and detailedWBS/PBS. An excellentorganogram showing hierarchicalstructure of the projectorganizationComplete and correct WBS showingall relevant work packages but withsome errors in numbering.A very good organogram showinghierarchical structure of the projectorganization with minor errors.Good WBS, complete, but query oncontent/logic.A good organogram but query onhierarchical structure of the projectorganizationAcceptable WBS, but incomplete.Correct diagrammatic form.An acceptable but incompleteorganogram showing hierarchicalstructure of the project organizationPoor WBS. Very poor attempt ata developing or drawing a WBS.Poor organogram with poorattempt to show the hierarchicalstructure of the projectorganizationRisk Analysis (20%)Innovative approach to risksidentification and analysis,detailed and excellent responsesplanned, with proximity of risks.Very good risks identification andanalysis, Some responses planned butnot to great extent.Risks identified and analyzed, attemptmade at planning responsesRisks identified, initial analysis conductedwith questionable responses to risksidentifiedAn attempt made at identifyingrisks, but not at riskmanagement.Quality Assurnceand Control (15%)Excellent identification andclassification of stakeholders’quality expectation, acceptancecriteria, quality specification, withdetailed measures put in place tocontrol quality aspects of theeventVery good identification andclassification of stakeholders’ qualityexpectation, acceptance criteria,quality specification, but not detailedmeasures put in place to controlquality aspects of the eventGood identification and classificationof at least 3 of stakeholders’ qualityexpectation, acceptance criteria,quality specification, with detailedmeasures put in place to controlquality aspects of the eventAcceptable attempts made at identifyingand classifying and addressing at least 2of the stakeholders’ quality expectation,acceptance criteria, quality specification,with questionable measures put in placeto control quality aspects of the eventPoor identification andclassification of stakeholders’quality expectation, acceptancecriteria, quality specification, withno clear measures put in place tocontrol quality aspects of theeventIntroduction,aim/justification forthe project,evaluation/analysisof appropriateproject managementmethodology andquality of reportpresention (15%)Overall aim, objectives & reasonfor undertaking the project clearlystated and aligned to withstrategic goal of the organization.Issues discussed in themethodology section entirelyappropriate, with the approach tobe taken clearly described,appropriate & rigorous. Materialreviewed from all appropriatesources, with good evidence oforiginality; methodology adoptedand material followed a logical,systematic & persuasiveapproach with direct relevance toobjectives.Overall aims & objectives of the projectclearly stated; strategicrelevance/justification of projectindicated; most of the issues with themethodology indicated; Methodologyadopted generally appropriate withsome argument possible over its rigour.Almost all sources used are generallyunderstood with occasional omissionswith respect to the argument; someoriginality; generally systematicpresentation without completepersuasiveness; generally relevant toobjectives.Overall aim can be inferred but somelack of clarity in objectives; strategicor wider relevance/justification ofproject can be discerned with someassumptions necessary;methodology chosen not entirelyclear and/or lacks consistentdemonstration of relevance.Some sources omitted but withreasonable grasp of those consulted& with sensible relevance to theargument; no particular originality;some unevenness in presentation;occasional doubt as to relevance tothe objectivesOverall aim and/or objectives in somedoubt; uncertainty over strategic or broaderproject relevance; methodology chosenunclear with some arbitrariness discernible;key aspects of the methodology appear tobe omitted. Overall, reader placed in aposition of having to assume or guess atsome elements of the above components.Omission of sources relevant to objectives,some seriously so; some misunderstanding;argument not following a clear thread,unconvincing where discernible, with littleattempt to summarize the gist; objectivesrarely referred to.Aim unclear, some or allobjectives missing; little or nostrategic relevance/justification ofproject stated; Methodologyunstated. Overall, the reader leftin a position of guessing orignorance over abovecomponents. Key sourcesomitted, much misunderstanding;argument must be guessed at,with little or no case made; readerconfused as to the thrust of theargument, having to referconstantly to the objectives and/orconclusions, where availableQuality Assurance RecordInternalApproval:Suzanne Doria 02/10/2020ExternalApproval:
