RBP020L055A Advanced Project Management Assignment Solutions

 

Assignment Detail:-

• Number of Words: 4500

 

Are you searching for online RBP020L055A Advanced Project Management Assignment Solution Online? We are here to help you with your assignment at Assignment Help AUS; where our experts provide the required study material to complete their assignments on time. Our service is very fast. Avail of our Project Management Assignment Help.  We provide 100% plagiarism free and unique content. We deliver assistance to all the students worldwide. Visit-us.

 

 

ASSESSMENT BRIEF

 

Academic year and term:	2022/23 – Semester A
Module title:	Advanced Project Management
For further module description see above Module Brief.
Assessment deadline:	Formative (informal feedback given): Assignment 1: Timed MCQ Assessment. Assignment 2: Individual Report – Case Study Analysis.     Summative (formally marked): Assignment 1: Timed MCQ Assessment. 27th to 31st July 2023, 2359hrs SG Time Assignment 2: Report – Case Study Analysis. Monday, 31st July 2023, 2359hrs SG Time

Instructions for assessment: Summative components overview

 

 

Components of summative assessment	Individual or group submission?	Word count	Weighting	Must Attempt Y/N	Must Pass Y/N	Sub- components
Assignment 1: Timed MCQ Assessment	Individual	1,000	25%	Yes	No	n/a
Assignment 2: Report (Case study analysis)	Individual	3,500	75%	Yes	No	n/a

 

Note that above table does not include the formative assessments. Formative assessments are not formally marked.

 

Instructions for Assessments

Formative feedback

 

There will be regular opportunities for feedback on your work in progress and an opportunity for formative assessment of your coursework while it is under construction, through peer-to-peer evaluations of an interim your work (in the case of on-campus delivery this will be immediately before reading week).

 

More specifically, two structured formative feedback opportunities will be given as follows:

 

Assignment 1: Timed MCQ Assessment

Submit to in seminar sessions MCQ activities

Undertake through Moodle practice Timed MCQ Assessment

 

Assignment 2: Case Review

Opens Week

Submit approx. a single page of notes including:

• Chosen case and headline points about the project (especially important if it is one you have chosen yourself)
• Summary paragraph about the approach to risk management

• Summary paragraph about main stakeholders, their impact on the project and whether or not their needs were correctly addressed
• Brief discussion defining success or failure of the project with justification of your decision
• Paragraph reflecting on what you have learned and how it may be applied to your understanding of the challenges of international projects (where relevant)
• Brief list of major sources used (does not have to be full Harvard standard at this stage)

 

This should be submitted using the Turnitin link on Moodle.

 

Summative Assessments

 

There are two summative assessments. One is a MCQ timed through Moodle assessment and the other is to be written in the form of a report, with a brief abstract, table of contacts, headings, sub headings and bibliography, etc. An executive summary is not required.

 

Assessment 1: Timed MCQ Assessment

You are required to review a set number of questions and select the most appropriate answer/answers. This is an individual undertaking and needs to be completed within a set time frame 27^th to 31^st July 23, 2359hrs SG Time.

The questions are based upon the module learning outcomes and the associated learning content that has been undertaken.

This is an individual assessment approximately equivalent to 1,000 words.

 

Assessment 2: Case Study Analysis

You are required to choose from the following project case studies, all of which are relatively well documented online and in textbooks. Note that some are great successes, some are terrible failures and some could be argued either way depending on your perspective. All are well documented but do make sure you focus on the way project management processes were (or were not) followed and do not use up large word count on engineering or technical descriptions as this is not an engineering module:

 

• Space Shuttle Challenger testing and launch
• Crossrail implementation on London’s tube network
• Siemens Business Services – UK Passport system development and launch
• Comparing & Contrasting Burj Khalifa Dubai (& The Shard UK design and build)
• Boeing 787 development
• The Thames Tideway Upgrading London’s Sewer System

 

Options

Environmental Projects (UK, Europe or World): Energy, Utilities, Flood and Coastal Erosion There must be a major project undertaking in order to base your development against.

 

Alternative options:

 

1. If you have access to adequate sources of information, you are free to approach your tutor to suggest an alternative case study for your work, particularly if you have personal experience of Such requests will only be granted if the tutor believes the subject may be appropriate and that the information available is public domain and can therefore be verified and referenced.

 

2. If you are studying through one of Roehampton University’s partner institutions around the world your tutor may give you additional project options from, or relevant to, your local environment

You job for this assignment is to analyse and critique the success or failure of the project specifically in terms of its project management capability and to tell us what you have learned from this. For example, Burj Khalifa was an engineering success story but, as a project, can it, and should it, be seen as successful? In this particular case how does it compare to ‘The Shard’ in its approach to development and construction techniques. Do not get distracted by detail of the engineering processes or technical design. These may be important but your focus MUST be on the application of the project management process throughout the project’s lifecycle. Specifically, analyse the case’s approach to risk management and stakeholder management. You will draw on the perspectives of project management best practice and academic literature and demonstrate your understanding of how the case does or does not reflect this best practice. The tasks and marking criteria are as follows:

 

1. Discuss and critique the project team’s approach to the management of project risk (20%)
2. Analyse the approach to stakeholder management (20%)
3. Decide to what extent you believe the project (or some aspects of it) should be seen as a Critique and compare your view with that of others (media, investors, employees, etc.) and justify your position. Having reviewed risk management, stakeholder management and the success or failure of the project what lessons can be learned. (25%)
4. From above (and wider projects investigations in a similar field) what can you offer to help the profession of project management in their applied application to projects? Specifically, if you were writing an article for the Association of Project Managers what would you highlight to the readers to help them in their careers and to do their own jobs better? (25%)
5. Overall quality of writing, presentation and academic standards (referencing syntax, ). (10%)

 

This is an individual report and should be approximately 3,500 words, not including references, diagrams, tables, appendices and headings.

 

To help you, the following is a suggested template structure for your report although this is not prescriptive and you are free to use a different structure if you prefer:

 

• Title Page
• Abstract
• Table of Contents
• Brief Introduction to the Project – what, why, where and when
• Risk Management – approach to project risk management, major risks to project success, how specific risks were dealt with,
• Stakeholder Management – who were the major stakeholders, why important, how were they managed?
• Success Review – in what way was the project a success or failure – justify from multiple What you learned from the project you are reviewing. This could be a separate heading Lessons learned?
• Project Management Professional Application – this is worth 25% of the marks so spend some time on this and demonstrate depth of (see Below)
• Final conclusions
• References
• Bibliography
• Appendices (if needed)

 

You must resubmit your work using the specific re-sit Turnitin link on Moodle. This additional word count can be added on top of the original word count of this assignment, if you used the full word count.

 

The original marking criteria will still apply (see marking grid in Appendix A) except that the reflective piece will be worth 10% of the total and will take the place of the 10% previously allocated for presentation and professionalism.

 

If you did not submit work at the first opportunity, you cannot reflect on your feedback. However, you can reflect on why you did not submit the first time (time management, confusion, etc) and what you would do differently in order to avoid such situations in the future. You can also reflect upon how the module contents could be beneficial to you as knowledge of best practices for your future career. Marks will be awarded for depth of self-awareness.

 

If you were deferred at the first assessment opportunity you do not need to include the reflective piece as this is a first submission at a later date, not a re-sit.

 

How will your work be assessed?

 

Your work will be assessed by a subject expert who will use either the marking criteria provided in the section “Instructions for assessment” or the Marking rubric enclosed in the Appendix, as appropriate for this module. When you access your marked work, it is important that you reflect on the feedback so that you can use it to improve future assignments.

 

Referencing and Submission

 

You must use the Harvard System.

 

The Business School requires a digital version of all assignment submissions. These must be submitted via Turnitin on the module’s Moodle site. They must be submitted as a Word file (not as a pdf) and must not include scanned in text or text boxes. They must be submitted by 2pm on the given date. For further general details on coursework preparation refer to the online information at StudentZone, http://studentzone.roehampton.ac.uk/howtostudy/index.html.

 

Mitigating circumstances/what to do if you cannot submit a piece of work or attend your presentation

 

The University Mitigating Circumstances Policy can be found on the University website: Mitigating Circumstances Policy

 

Marking and feedback process

 

Between you handing in your work and then receiving your feedback and marks within 20 days, there are a number of quality assurance processes that we go through to ensure that students receive marks which reflects their work. A brief summary is provided below.

 

• Step One – The module and marking team meet to agree standards, expectations and how feedback will be provided.

 

• Step Two – A subject expert will mark your work using the criteria provided in the assessment brife.

 

• Step Three – A moderation meeting takes place where all members of the teaching and marking team will review the marking of others to confirm whether they agree with the mark and feedback

 

• Step Four – Work then goes to an external examiner who will review a sample of work to confirm that the marking between different staff is consistent and fair

 

• Step Five – Your mark and feedback is processed by the Office and made available to you

 

Appendix: Marking rubric (to be updated autumn 2022)

 

Rubric category (range) Assigned mark >>   Marking criteria (weight out of 100	Not done   0	Fail (20-29) 25	Fail (30-39) 35	Marginal Fail (40-49) 45	Adequate (50-59) 55	Good (60-69) 65	Very Good (70-79) 75	Excellent (80-89) 85	Outstanding 100
Appraisal of Risk Management aspects   (20%) Quality and application of relevant project management theory to support analysis of approach to risk management on the project. Reference to relevant project management literature to support analysis of research. Quality of analysis/range of sources, evidence of research effort. Quality of discussion.	Missing. Wholly incorrect or not attempted.	Little or no analysis. Theory not applied. Very little use of relevant reference material. Artefacts either missing or largely irrelevant.	Weak, superficial analysis at best, project not properly investigated using appropriate sources and lightweight, limited use of theory. Referencing poor and few appropriate sources used to enhance report.	Still weak and superficial analysis with some valid attempt vague alluded to.	Adequate investigation using a range of appropriate sources to inform your answer. Some evidence of wider reading and research into the issues discussed. Reasonable use and application of theory to support analysis. Argument somewhat superficial but basic points covered.	Good evidence of thorough investigation with research informing your answer and supporting extensive use of theory. Analysis clear and relevant, based on variety of sources and depth of understanding of project management techniques demonstrated. Argument shows reasonable depth of understanding.	Considerable evidence of solid research into the project. Extensive use of theory to support highly analytical approach that demonstrates deep understanding. Argument compelling and credible.	Demonstrates a sophisticated approach to the application of theory to practice. Project has been researched in depth and sources have been used to provide considerable insight. Argument demonstrates an impressive, thorough understanding of the challenges faced by project managers.	Outstanding and flawless.
Appraisal of Stakeholder Strategy Management Approach   (20%) Quality and application	Missing. Wholly incorrect or not attempted.	Little or no analysis. Theory not applied. Very little use of relevant reference material. Artefacts either missing	Weak, superficial analysis at best, project not properly investigated using appropriate sources and lightweight, limited use of theory. Referencing poor and few appropriate sources used to	Some but vague and/or confused analysis of project.	Adequate investigation using a range of appropriate sources to inform your answer. Some evidence of wider reading and research into the issues discussed. Reasonable use and application of theory to support analysis.	Good evidence of thorough investigation with research informing your answer and supporting extensive use of theory. Analysis clear and relevant, based on variety of sources and depth of understanding of project management techniques demonstrated. Argument	Considerable evidence of solid research into the project. Extensive use of theory to support highly analytical approach that demonstrates	Demonstrates a sophisticated approach to the application of theory to practice. Project has been researched in	Outstanding and flawless.

 

						Good (60-69) 65	Very Good (70-79) 75	Excellent (80-89) 85	Outstanding 100
of relevant project management theory to support analysis of stakeholder management on the project. Reference to relevant project management literature to support analysis of research. Quality of analysis/range of sources, evidence of research effort. Quality of discussion.		or largely irrelevant.	enhance report. Stakeholders list might have been alluded to.		Argument somewhat superficial but basic points covered. Acknowledges obvious stakeholders.	shows reasonable depth of understanding. Acknowledges stakeholders from society as well as policy and business community, some thoughtful focus.	deep understanding. Argument compelling and credible. Acknowledges stakeholders from society as well as policy and business community, excellent focus.	depth and sources have been used to provide considerable insight. Argument demonstrates an impressive, thorough understanding of the challenges faced by project managers. Demonstrates deep insight of stakeholders from society as well as policy and business community, excellent focus throughout.
Critical Review of Project Success & Lessons Learned   (25%) Quality and application of relevant project management theory to support analysis of success of the project. Reference to relevant project management literature to support analysis of research. Quality of analysis/range	Missing. Wholly incorrect or not attempted.	Little or no analysis. Theory not applied. Very little use of relevant reference material. Artefacts either missing or largely irrelevant. No discussion provided.	Weak, superficial analysis at best, project not properly investigated using appropriate sources and lightweight, limited use of theory. Referencing poor and few appropriate sources used to enhance report. No discussion provided.	Still weak and superficial analysis with some valid attempt vague alluded to.	Adequate investigation using a range of appropriate sources to inform your answer. Some evidence of wider reading and research into the issues discussed. Reasonable use and application of theory to support analysis. Argument somewhat superficial but basic points covered. Discussion could be more critical and informed by data but overall good attempt.	Good evidence of thorough investigation with research informing your answer and supporting extensive use of theory. Analysis clear and relevant, based on variety of sources and depth of understanding of project management techniques demonstrated. Argument shows reasonable depth of understanding. Well informed and critical discussion.	Considerable evidence of solid research into the project. Extensive use of theory to support highly analytical approach that demonstrates deep understanding. Argument compelling and credible. Very good and well informed	Demonstrates a sophisticated approach to the application of theory to practice. Project has been researched in depth and sources have been used to provide considerable insight. Argument	Outstanding and flawless.

 

Rubric category (range) Assigned mark >>   Marking criteria (weight out of 100	Not done   0	Fail (20-29) 25	Fail (30-39) 35	Marginal Fail (40-49) 45	Adequate (50-59) 55	Good (60-69) 65	Very Good (70-79) 75	Excellent (80-89) 85	Outstanding 100
of sources, evidence of research effort. Quality of discussion.							discussion.	demonstrates an impressive, thorough understanding of the challenges faced by project managers. Impressive depth and scope of discussion.
Project Management Professional Application (25%)   Quality and application of relevant project management theory to support analysis of Professional Application on the project. Reference to relevant project management literature to support analysis of research. Quality of analysis/range of sources, evidence of research effort. Quality of discussion.	Missing. Wholly incorrect or not attempted.	Little or no analysis. Theory not applied. Very little use of relevant reference material. Artefacts either missing or largely irrelevant. Uncritical and descriptive writing.	Weak, superficial analysis at best, project management not properly investigated/considered using appropriate sources and lightweight, limited use of theory. Referencing poor and few appropriate sources used to enhance report. Uncritical or descriptive writing.	Some but vague and/or confused analysis of project management application.	Adequate investigation/consideration using a range of appropriate sources to inform your answer. Some evidence of wider reading and research into the issues and considerations discussed. Reasonable use and application of theory to support analysis. Argument somewhat superficial but basic points covered. Overall critical approach to discussion.	Good evidence of thorough investigation/considerations with research informing your answer and supporting extensive use of theory. Analysis clear and relevant, based on selected project with a variety of sources and depth of understanding of project management techniques demonstrated. Argument shows reasonable depth of understanding. Highly critical approach to discussion.	Considerable evidence of solid research into the selected project. Extensive use of theory to support highly analytical approach that demonstrates deep understanding. Argument compelling and credible. Highly critical approach to discussion.	Demonstrates a sophisticated approach to the application of theory to practice. Project has been researched in depth and sources have been used to provide considerable insight. Argument demonstrates an impressive, thorough understanding of the challenges faced by project managers. Highly critical approach to discussion.	Outstanding and flawless.

 

Rubric category (range) Assigned mark >>   Marking criteria (weight out of 100	Not done   0	Fail (20-29) 25	Fail (30-39) 35	Marginal Fail (40-49) 45	Adequate (50-59) 55	Good (60-69) 65	Very Good (70-79) 75	Excellent (80-89) 85	Outstanding 100
Professionalism and Presentation   (10%) Quality of writing and document presentation, use of structure, correct syntax of references (this 10% will instead be used to mark the reflective piece in in the case of resits)	Missing. Wholly incorrect or not attempted.	Unintelligible writing. Very messy presentation, lacking use of structure. References not listed.	Very poor writing. Poor quality of document presentation with little use of structure. References poorly and incorrectly provided.	Writing poor with significant impact of report credibility. Little use of structure and references often inconsistent.	Writing poor with significant impact of report credibility. Presentation with limited structure. References sometimes inconsistent.	Adequate quality of writing with modest errors throughout. An attempt has been made to use appropriate structure. References generally correct with minor errors.	Well written and presented with good use of structure. Tables, diagrams, etc. correctly labelled. References correct to Harvard standards.	Professional standard of report that would be worthy of giving to a commercial client. Exemplary standard of writing throughout with wholly correct and appropriate presentation.	Outstanding and flawless.

 

For REF… Use: #getanswers2002542