SIM335 Managing Projects

Faculty of Business and Law
Level: 3 Module: SIM335 Managing Projects
Assignment Code: SIM335 Module Leader: Michael Cassop-Thompson
Issue date: Friday 14th August 2009 Return date: Friday 9th October 2009
Contribution to module assessment: 100%
This is an individual assignment - complete both tasks 1 and 2
Background: The assignment is intended to bring out the benefits and limitations ofdifferent approaches to project planning and control by relating these to thecircumstances in the cases outlined. It is also intended to allow students todemonstrate their learning and competence in respect of the management ofresources generally, but in particular elements of time, finance and human resource.
Case 1: Jashol Ltd is an organisation which customise luxury cars for dealerships
and private individuals. These customisations include: body-kits, interiors, soundssystems, CD players, and accessories. As part of your job as the Jashol Ltd SpecialProjects Manager, you have produced a list of activities that need to be addressed toprovide a new engine innovation exclusively to Mercedes. The details are shown inthe table provided. Please note: You must use the methodology detailed above table
1 headed “essential methodology”.
Task 1 (40% marks)
1) Draw the network diagram (use activity on the node). (8 marks)
2) Explain how you determined the timing of activities and the total float. (6marks)
3) Explain how you determined the project duration and the critical path. (6
marks)
4) If the project starts on the 5 April 2010, what is the earliest date it can becompleted using a 5 day working week? Assume no other holidays(explain how you calculated the figure). (4 marks)
5) If the following happened what would be the effect on the duration of thewhole project? Explain the reasons. (6 marks)
a) A 1 day delay during activity H.
b) Activity R is completed 1 day before schedule.
c) A 2 day delay during activity C .
6) Explain and discuss the purpose of network diagrams. (10 marks)
SIM335 Managing Projects
2
Essential methodology (activity on the node):
• All the timings (i.e. earliest start, earliest finish, latest start, latestfinish, total float, duration and activity) must be included within eachnode of your diagram. This essential methodology is detailed in thetext: Project Management, Field and Keller (2007. p. 197,p.198 & p.391)
• All timings must be in days – not dates
• To complete your network diagram assume that:
o If task A has a duration of 4 days (task A, earliest finish would
be day 4), therefore, task B earliest start time will be day 4.
• This essential methodology is detailed in the text: Project
Management, Field and Keller (2007. p. 197,p.198 & p. 391),#p#分頁標題#e#
Table 1
Activity (Tasks)
Duration (Days) Preceded By
A 4 -
B 4 A
C 1 A
D 1 A
E 1 A
F 5 B, C, D, E
G 6 F
H 2 F
I 2 F
J 7 G, H, I
K 6 J
L 3 J
M 2 J
N 8 K, L, M
O 10 N
P 2 N
Q 10 O,P
R 10 Q
SIM335 Managing Projects
3
Case 2: Lax is an SME company specialising in the supply of stationary, and office
related items. They provide their products to organisations who require large scalestationary orders. Specifically, products are provided to universities, banks, largeretailers, and large corporations.
At present the company has a small sized head office (1,600 square metres)employing 5 administration staff, and 15 operational employees (consisting of mainlysales staff). As part of a strategy of expansion, Lax are to move to a larger premises
(3,600 square metres) creating a new head office. This new premises will allow a“new one stop shop” to be included. This one stop shop is targeted at smaller scaleorganisations in the local community. It will allow them to call, browse, and purchasestationary at their convenience.
Task 2 (60% marks)
As Project Manager responsible for the opening of the new head office, you arecontracted at the feasibility stage. You are required to prepare a report (2,000words). Outline the activities required to successfully manage this major project ofopening the new base, ensuring that it opens on time, and within budget.
The analysis should include the skills and competencies required by the ProjectManager, along with the project management process. Use examples of theconcerns, stages, processes, leadership, administration and control problems
associated with managing the lifecycle of this major project.
Assignment presentation and assessment
The answers to both tasks are independent and should be addressed separately.
Task 1 (i.e. the network diagram information – (600 words) – completed as anindividual task
Task 2 a report that is produced for task two (2000 words) – completed as an
individual task
For your convenience both tasks should be submitted as one document, whichcontains both individual tasks.
The criteria for assessing the first task - the network diagram tasks – are detailed on
page 6.
The criteria for assessing the task two report will be:
Report presentation (20%)
The extent to which the assignment represents an effective 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#p#分頁標題#e#
shown in appendices?
SIM335 Managing Projects
4
Spelling and grammar: Are all words spelled 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 relevant section in the
Guide to Basic Study Skills)
Use of relevant theory (40%)
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%)
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 University's rules and procedures
governing infringement of assessment regulations.
Module Leader Mr Michael Cassop Thompson Moderated by Dr. Tie Xu
SIM335 Managing Projects
5
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. Wide and
appropriate use of sources (theory and practice) based on
reading and experiences. Answer written 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. Limited evidence
of reading. Presentation and structure weak in several
places.
Fail (0 – 39%)
Some knowledge of main concepts and theory but major
omissions and / or misunderstandings. Style and structure
weak and overly descriptive. Considerable limitations in
ability to perceive the relationship of theory and practice.
Limited reading.
SIM335 Managing Projects
6
SIM335: Management of Projects (Academic Year 2006/07)
Task 1
1. 8 marks. 1 points to be taken off for each wrong node.
A maximum of 5 wrong nodes, after which the student gets 0 for the question.#p#分頁標題#e#
No common start, 1 points off.
No common end, 1 points off.
Please note: Marks are only awarded if the methodology for Activity on
the Node - detailed in Project Management, Field and Keller (2007. p. 197.
p.198 & p. 391) is used.
Please note; Marks are only awarded if the timings are in days – not
dates
2. 3 marks for explaining how the timings were determined .
3 marks for explaining how the float was determined.
Please note: Marks are only awarded if timings for all activities are included onthe network diagram, and theexplanation given. This approach is detailed inProject Management, Field and Keller (2007. p. 197. p.198 & p. 391)
3. 3 marks for correct project duration and explanation.
3 marks for correct critical path and explanation.
4. 4 marks for correct earliest date (and explain how the figure was calculated).
5. a) 1 mark for the correct identification of the effect on the duration of the whole
project, 1 mark for right reason
b) 1 mark for the correct identification of the effect on the duration of the whole
project, 1 mark for right reason
c) 1 mark for the correct identification of the effect on the duration of the whole
project, 1 mark for right reason
6. 10 marks for the discussions of key purposes (including benefits) of network
diagrams. 1 mark will be awarded for each mentioned key purpose (including
benefits) and 1 mark for the explanation of it.
Total: 40 marks
SIM335 Managing Projects
7
SIM335: Management of Projects (Academic Year 2007/08)
Task 2
Criteria 70% + 60-69% 50-59% 40-49% <40%
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#p#分頁標題#e#
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#p#分頁標題#e#
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#p#分頁標題#e#
(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