Task 2: (60% marks)
CASE STUDY
The Concrete Masonry Corporation designs and manufactures pre-stressed concrete for the building Industry for years; the company enjoyed a stable marketplace and a relatively predictable business environment. Although there had been a boom in residential construction in recent years, commercial work was on the decline. As a result, all the pre-stressed concrete manufacturers were going further afield to big jobs. In order to survive, Concrete Masonry Corporation was forced to bid on jobs previously thought to be out of their geographical area. Survival depended upon staying competitive. However with the declining conditions of the market and the evolution that had drastically changed the character of the market place, the Concrete Masonry Corporation previously successful approach was now in question.
With the removal of trade barriers and other Globalized international trade agreements, the Concrete Masonry Corporation found itself competing with other pre-stressed manufacturers headquartered in countries around the world. A decision was then made to transfer several manufacturing machines to a new site in Eastern Europe to allow more agility and efficiency within their manufacturing supply.
The Project
The project was to include the transfer of 8 industrial pre-stressed concrete assembly machines, along with ancillary equipment into Eastern Europe (Poland). Scheduling the project had to take six months from end of September before production must start on April to supply potential customers. A site had been selected although the appointed Project Manager and potential team members had not visited the area, nor did they understand the weather conditions of wind, rain and snow that prevailed in this area. The assembly machines were to be transported by sea and then road haulage before arriving at the new site. Road infrastructure was again an area that required attention.
Kevin Lewis
Kevin Lewis has been appointed as the Project manager for this installation transfer. He is a
29-year-old graduate of a well known University in the UK with a B.S.degree in Mechanical Engineering. After graduation, he worked for five years in Engineering Design Industries. Although he took a significant pay cut, he jumped at the opportunity to return to his home location with Concrete Masonry Corporation. His job in Engineering Industries had been very demanding. The long hours and extensive travelling had created tension in his marriage. He was looking forward to a normal job with reasonable hours, or so he thought. While working in Engineering Design Industries, Lewis worked on projects and installed new Engineering designs. He was confident that he had the requisite technical expertise to excel at his new job with the Concrete Masonry Corporation.
The Team
Lewis had a part-time team of five assistants on placement from the departments within Concrete Masonry Corporation. At first, he was not sure how freely he could delegate work to the assistants bearing in mind they also reported to other managers within the organisation. He quickly realised that they were all very bright, competent workers who were anxious to leverage this project experience into a lucrative career.
The project transfer has an investment of £900,000 pounds and is scheduled to take 6 months to complete; taking into account, the project would be completed during the winter which would be difficult. Lewis and his team would first need to visit the new location and start to consider the project activities.
You are required to prepare a report concerning the main issues to be addressed by Kevin Lewis from a project management perspective (2,500 words +/- 10%).
From a project management perspective base on Project life cycle outline the activities required to be completed by Kevin Lewis to successfully implement this new initiative, e.g. Project Scope Statement, Project Priorities (with a balanced trade-off and justification), Work Breakdown Structure (with brief details of work packages) and Cost Estimation (with time-phased budget) ensuring that it can operate on-time, and within budget. Kevin Lewis is only Project Managing the transfer of equipment and not the actual facility building project. (Assume the building has already been completed.)
Your report should be based on the four stages of Project life cycle and include examples of the concerns, Project Life cycle stages, associated with managing the lifecycle of this major project.
Don’t forget you must provide:
I. Project scope Statement,
II. Work Breakdown Structure (with brief details of work packages),
III. Network diagram,
IV. Cost appraisal methods (theory)
V. and any other relevant table or information as an Appendix;
also any practical examples in relation to relevant theories in Task 2 should be derived from the case study.
Assignment presentation and assessment
The answers to both tasks are independent and should be addressed separately.
Task 1 answers to six questions – (800 words) – completed as an individual task
Task 2 a report that is produced for Task two (2500 words) – completed as an individual task
For your convenience, both tasks should be submitted as one document, which contains both individual tasks.
The criteria for assessing the task two report will be:
Report presentation (20%) (12 marks)
The extent to which the assignment represents a valid 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 how it answers the questions? Do the sections of the report develop ideas in a logical sequence? Are diagrams or other subsidiary information shown in appendices?
Spelling and grammar: Are all words spelt correctly and is the meaning of sentences clear?
Referencing: Have appropriate references been included in the report. Has a recognised referencing system been used for notation? (see the relevant section in the Guide to Basic Study Skills)
Appendix: Are any appendices to support the task 2 with relevant tables or diagrams, are properly referenced.
Use of relevant theory (40%)(24 marks)
Has the right theoretical content been chosen as the basis for answering the questions? Is there evidence of 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 Universitys rules and procedures governing infringement of assessment regulations.
Module Leader: Yannis Smirnis Moderated by: Peter Coleman
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. Extensive and appropriate use of sources (theory and practice) based on reading and experiences. Answer wrote 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. Insufficient evidence of reading. Presentation and structure weak in several places.
Fail (0 – 39%)
Some knowledge of main concepts and theory but significant omissions and/or misunderstandings. Style and structure weak and overly descriptive. Considerable limitations inability to perceive the relationship between theory and practice. Limited reading.
SIM335: Management of Projects (Academic Year 2019/20)
Task 2
Criteria 70% + (22-24) 60-69% (18-22) 50-59% (14-17) 40-49% (10-13) 40% (0-9)
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 sub-headings (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 chapter has been clearly structured using subheadings (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 chapter 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 sub-headings (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
6