self-Reflective of Management of Project course

60061 Management of Projects Assignment Brief

ENGM60061 Teaching group

Introduction In group assessment, you will produce an 8-minute video based on a real-world project. You will be in a team and control the production of this video using the PM techniques that you will learn in this course. The point of the assessment is not to produce a high-production-value film, but to promote active reflection on the 60061 learning content and the APMBoK and how this information could be used to explain the things that you observe in real project work, or how the activities of real project practitioners relate (or not) to the APMBoK or other literature you have read. Your project will be chosen from a range including IT, construction, organisational change, engineering or events management, which will be presented to you in week 3. Working with your groupmates, producing the video and controlling the progress of coursework is a project-in- itself, which includes efforts that cannot be done by a single person. This is with the need for leadership, teamwork, creativity, and motivation under constrained resources and real deadlines. This will get you used to group work which will be vital for the semester two specialist units, as well helping you begin to develop some competencies important for careers in project management, such as client and stakeholder management as you work with teaching staff and the project practitioner that will be assigned to you as part of the case. This practitioner will be a key stakeholder/supplier in a superior position – your interaction with them should recognise this. You will also produce a range of typical project management documentation to demonstrate the scoping and control of your coursework as a project. Based on this groundwork, you will also have induvial coursework, which is to reflect on your project management experience in your coursework group.

Assignment Instructions In week 1, you will be put into a team and your first task will be to appoint a team manager who will be the single point of contact with the lecturer - the ‘client’. You will then need to assign roles within the team; video-capture and edit, voice-over, project researcher, scriptwriter, story-boarder, producer, or other roles that are important for your group function. You will also need to choose a case project from a selection that will be shown to you in week 3. Make equal choices with good reasons and be prepared to do ANY of them. You will not be permitted to select any other case project, except one of these. Your group manager will notify me of your choices and you will be allocated one of them. You will be given details of the nature of the contact that you will be allowed with the project practitioner, there will be a specific communication protocol for each one which you must stick to. You MUST NOT contact the project practitioner until the lecturer gives

approval. The team manager will be the only person allowed to contact the practitioner and they must clear all contact with Kun Wang first. The practitioner will be expecting a set of questions, which we must approve before they are sent and will not be approved until they are suitable and in clear English. If the case project manager chooses to give you more information than covered in your questions, that is up to them, but you will not be able to expect more than is in the protocol. However, through skillful relationship management, you may be able to obtain more. They are doing you the favor, remember this and make sure your communication with them reflects this. In support of the project management of the video production, you will also produce a range of project documentation that you will submit prior to submitting your video.

Content of the Video How do you feature in the 8 minutes (do not exceed the time limit) is up to you, you need to communicate something meaningful about the project of course, we also expect to see integration of some of the elements of 60061 & the APMBoK, i.e. the project manager role (including their professional identity), procurement, stakeholder relationships, the project strategy, project change management. You can be as creative as you like with the production – voice overs, graphics, titling, video clips, etc., but you must be sure to deliver the academic requirements as described in the marking criteria below. Most importantly, what can we learn about project management from your case, how could other projects benefit from what you discover about the case project? You must conclude with meaningful recommendations for project management in general, i.e. NOT for commenting the case project. Many teams in previous years forgot this important point for the conclusions and so lost a lot of marks unnecessarily.

Content of the Documentation and mid-term presentation In addition to your 8-minute video, on week 7, we require the following from each team for controlling the production of your ‘media artefact’, your initial project planning such as schedule, resource/cost and risk management plan based on week 1-6 learning, which you will orally present in mid-term assessment. You need to submit your PPT slides on week 6. You will also obtain a small virtual crise to apply to your initial plan to practice your emergency-response ability before a day of your assessment day, you can choose to just orally discuss it or add a few pages to your original slides, but you cannot change the content in your original slides.

At the end of the semester, you need to submit project documentation including your project charter; storyboard for your video (you can show multiple versions as it will be enhanced during the semester), final project plan; reflections on your original plan and changes in later weeks you

have experienced; minutes of your group meetings; and research documentation that record what and how did you make use your literature.

Individual assessment and peer review With the submission of the video you are also to submit an individual ‘lessons learned’ report through blackboard, which will be awarded an individual mark. Please for university plagiarism regulations. (Highlights: 1. In your lessons learned report, it is a bad idea to replace word by word of your reference without really understanding it and properly use your own understanding to describe or explaining the contents you cited; 2. Self-plagiarism is also plagiarism, it means you cannot reuse the work you have done by yourself, such problems usually occur between your group report and individual report and they were both submitted to Turinitin system hence many self-plagiarism had been identified in past years, you should clarify the different purpose of these two reports and avoid this).

You will then take part in a final peer-review activity. It is important that you contribute to your team, as that will affect your final mark for this assignment. If you fail to participate in the peer assessment or foul your assessment in any way, you will be awarded an instant penalty of 5% off the final group mark.

Marking Criteria

Group coursework (70%)

Video (50% of group coursework)

Criteria description

<40 No identifiable project considered, lacking any analysis and learning from 60061 lecture content/APMBoK and lacking any points for learning for project management. The display of text or charts is not readable.

40-49

Satisfactory identification of a relevant project, but either analysis from at least one area of 60061 lecture content/APMBoK or theoretical points for learning for project management are missing from the conclusions. The recommendation is not for general project management. The quality of figures or tables is hard for audiences to read clearly.

50-59

A complete video is presented with all basic requirements: clear demonstration of three areas of 60061 lecture content/APMBoK and the real-world project’s application, and some points for learning for general project management however lacking referring back to evidence.

60-69

Demonstrates a good understanding of the case project by introducing it, with the integration of three areas from 60061/APMBoK. Presents evidence of research from multiple secondary sources beyond lecture notes and 7th edition APMBoK. Synthesises distinct original arguments and learning points that are detailed and instructive for general project practice.

70+

Demonstrates deep understanding of the case projects well as their industrial contexts, and used such understandings to actively guide developing original research themes and discussions; these should also be with the integration of three areas of knowledge from 60061, APMBoK and high-quality literature. Presents evidence of research from multiple secondary sources, with interpretation and in-depth analysis, induction and the comparison between literature and practice. Synthesises distinct original arguments and learning points for project management that are detailed and instructive for general project practice. Such recommendations are based on comprehensive theoretical support and practical evaluations.

Mid-term presentation (25% of group coursework)

Mid-term Presentation

8 minutes (original plan + discussion about simulated

Criteria description

crisis) + 5 minute Q&A

<40 Misunderstood the project scope. Both writing in PPT and oral parts are not comprehensive. Wrong calculations and bad quality charts that cannot be clearly read by audiences.

40-49 Misunderstood the project scope. Either the oral or writing part is not comprehensive. Wrong calculations or wrong presentations of the initial project plan (e.g wrong timeframe; wrong network diagram; misuse of terms due to not fully understanding the terminologies).

50-59 Correct project scope. Clear and understandable presentation. No fundamental mistakes in basic project management knowledge.

Crisis scenarios were only briefly mentioned without analysis and questions cannot be fully answered.

60-69 Correct scope. High-quality presentation with readable charts. No fundamental mistakes and some rational decision-making process of adopting certain management methods based on the understanding to project management.

Comprehensive considerations and reflections on the crisis and potential changes to the initial plan. Questions were answered and showed good understanding of the concepts of project management by clearly interpreting the terms.

70+ Correct scope. No fundamental mistakes and critical justifications and the decision-making process of adopting certain methods based on the understanding to project management and actual group context. Excellent presentation with notable use of available technology (value-adding additional graphics, effects, etc– however, effects do not dominate the learning content). The plan could provide sufficient guidance for your group activities that contribute to the actual implementation of the time, cost and risk management. Clear evidence of effort as a group.

Comprehensive considerations and reflections on the crisis and potential changes to the initial plan. Questions were actively answered and showed a good understanding of the concepts of project management, as well as showed you have mastered your team situation in front of your client (lecturers) and be able to describe ‘how’ did you manage your team and justify ‘why’ a management approach has been used. Have shown the concerns of the audiences/stakeholders during oral reports and resilience or positive attitude of your team in dealing with the crisis and uncertainties for your clients.

Your group’s project management documentation (25% of group coursework)

Criteria description

<40

At least two of the following are missing: project charter, final project plan (mainly time, cost, risk components) , research documentation, minutes of project meetings, storyboard, and reflections of any changes (or not) to your original plan.

40-49

At least one of the following is missing; project charter, final project plan (mainly time, cost, risk components), research documentation (some notes but not linked to the content of the video produced), minutes of project meetings, storyboard, reflections of any changes (or not) of your original plan.

50-59

A complete set of basic project documentation is presented to an adequate standard – project charter, final project plan (mainly time, cost, risk components), research documentation showing basic information of your reading, and brief minutes of project meetings.

Reflections have only limited or no analysis provided as to how the plan has been changed.

60-69

A complete set of basic project plan (mainly time, cost, risk components) is presented to a very good standard in a good logic, the steps of your plan are enough for outsiders to understand what is going on in your team, with some meaningful extra project management planning elements. The plans have critical justifications based on the project management knowledge you have learned.

Clearly understanding of the functions of storyboard.

Evidence of wide research in research documentation such as the case project type and literature related to BoK areas and how did your reading guide your analysis.

Meeting minutes showed good guidance to your actions.

Limited evidence is provided in reflections as to how the initial plan has been modified to reflect changes as the project progressed. Provide some insights into the effectiveness of the plan and the changes (or not) that were made during the project but there is a lack of in-depth discussion to support the reflections and insights.

70+

A complete set of project plan (mainly time, cost and risk components) is presented to an excellent standard and rationale decision-making analysis based on both theory and specific practical concerns of your team. The plan is presented to a professional level that considered actual implementations in your team, as well as a good sense of interrelationships among work breakdown, time, cost, risk etc. Some meaningful extra project management panning elements.

Good understanding of the functions of storyboard, good quality control and the guidance or contributions of how the ideas of storyboard makers have been transferred to the video editor/ video-making process can be observed.

Evidence of wide research in research documentation such as the case project type and literature related to BoK areas. Strong evidence of original research in research documentation: good search strategy, selection criteria, and fully clear how the literature has been used to guide your analysis and research.

Meeting minutes could show good guidance to your actions and knowledge exchanges within your team; can reflect diverse contributions and high engagement of team members.

The reflections contain good insights and a detailed discussion related to the effectiveness of your plan as well as how and why the changes that were made, with supporting reasons/evidence/literature, throughout the project that can be transferred into future practice.

Individual coursework (30%) Lessons learned report

1500 words

Criteria description

<40 No report submitted, or a report without team-level observations and individual observations

40-49 At least one of the lessons learned following is missing; team-level observations, individual observations or recommendations, or both may be present but presented in an incoherent way or in a way that makes its originality doubtful.

50-59 A complete lessons learned report is presented to an adequate standard with an original combination of individual and team-level observations, and some brief recommendations for project management.

60-69 A complete lessons learned report is presented to a very good standard with an original combination of team-level observations or individual observations, with sufficient details of the observed experience, what is the experience and how you or your team managed those; as well as evaluations or reflections on the experience. Provide evidence of research into project critical success factors literature. Some meaningful recommendations for future practice, are detailed enough for showing how exactly an issue could be dealt with.

70+ A complete report is presented to an excellent standard with an original and detailed combination of team-level observations or individual observations will good details about what are the experience and how you or team managed those; as well as evaluations or reflections on the experience. Project critical success factors literature was well understood and studied to evaluate your experience and explored ‘why’ the experience. Meaningful recommendations for future practice, which are detailed enough for showing how exactly an issue could be dealt with. Such recommendations are clearly based on your experience and research, showing good guidance for your future study and practice.