Assignment Brief Academic Year 2020-2021

Module code and title: BM522 Project Management Module leader: Dr Muhammad Hijazy

Assignment No. and type: CW1 Assessment weighting: 50%

Submission time and date: 14.00 UK Time, 29th April 2021 Target feedback time and date: 3 Weeks after the submission deadline

Task requirements

This coursework is a 1500 (+/- 10%) word report designed to assess learner’s ability to demonstrate an in depth knowledge and systematic understanding of
project management theory and tools linked to the planning of projects.

Project Management – Camden Sickle Cell and Thalassaemia Service Group – Project Brief
Case Study
Dear 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 raising
fund over the coming months. Last year the Camden sickle cell and thalassaemia unit found a large proportion of our society/community are unaware of the
services 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 the
under listed activity list. Using these activity please kindly provide us with a 1500 words document detailing project management knowledge areas that should
be 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.

1
Below is Table A, consisting of all the major tasks, dependencies and timescales required for each task.

Activity
Main Activities with Predecessors
Nr
Name of the Task Duration Predecessors

1 Budget Approval 1 day -

2 Hire Publicity Director 14 days 1

3 Hire Set Designer 14 days 1

4 Hire Place For Auditions 7 days 2

5 Advertising To Hire Crew and Cast 7 days 2

6 Hire Production & Publicity Crew 28 days 4, 5

7 Set Designed and Built 35 days 3,6

8 Train Production Crew 12 days 3,6

2
Internal approval:Suzanne Doria, October 2020
External approval:
9 Auditions To Hire Cast 2 days 4, 5

10 Cast Rehearsal 66 days 9

11 Hire Orchestra 7 days 1

12 Music 7 days 11

13 Photograph Cast And Crew & Collect Biographies 35 days 6, 9,11

14 Enter Information Into Computer 1 day 13

15 Printing 5 days 14

16 Develop an Advertising Plan 7 days 6

17 Advertising Media 21 days 16

18 Orchestra rehearsal 4 days 12

19 Order Costumes 7 days 9

20 Costume Parade And Alterations 5 days 7,19

21 Dress Rehearsal 1 day 8,10,18,20

22 Performance 10 days 15,17,21

3
Internal approval:Suzanne Doria, October 2020
External 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 Manager
asks 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 Thalassaemia
Service Group – board and other senior managers of the University. The project has only 101days available to be completed which means all tasks on the
activity list below must be completed within the 101days. (However, for extra consultancy fee of £5000 you could also advise Camden Sickle Cell and
Thalassaemia Service Group – the alternative approach to shorten the project duration and if this is the case, should Camden Sickle Cell and Thalassaemia
Service Group want to finish this project ealier than expected how soon can this be done beside finishing within 101days? Support with PERT analysis and an
additional network diagram)
The title of the report is ‘Camden Sickle Cell and Thalassaemia Service Group – Project Brief’
Task
1) Develop a network diagram manually, AS TAUGHT (activities on arrows) clearly showing the relationship between all the activities listed above, the
dependencies, the likely duration for each activity, the likely completion date (expected total project time). Calculate the earliest starting time, the latest
starting time (EST,LST) and the earliest finishing time and latest finishing time (EFT, LFT) for each activity including an outline description of the critical
path, highlighting the critical activities and the shortest possible time in days in which the project can be completed as scoped above (give reasons for
your choice). [20 marks]
Task 2
2) Undertake a stakeholder analysis for this project. This should clearly identify internal and external stakeholder, group stakeholders according to their
interest and power i.e. stakeholder management matrix, communication strategies (20 marks)

Task 3
Using the activity list above, develop a clearly numbered Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) alongside an organizational structure for this music event
[10 marks]

4
Internal approval:Suzanne Doria, October 2020
External approval:
Task 4
You 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 with
them in detail. Present your Risk Analysis and Risk Management strategies/mitigations in the form of a table, AS TAUGHT in class. [20 marks]

Task 5
You are required to determine what the quality expectation, acceptance criteria, quality specification, and what measures would be put in place to control the
event. In other words you write up in this section must cover these heading. (15 marks)

Task 6
Provide a critical analysis of what methodology would be appropriate for this project and why? Support just justification with examples of where this methodology
has 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 1 Evaluate and explain the major factors and performance requirements of project management.

LO 2 Plan projects using appropriate project management software

LO 3 Analyse and critically evaluate projects using an appropriate industry standard methodology.

5
Internal approval:Suzanne Doria, October 2020
External approval:
Referencing and research requirements

Please reference your work according to the Harvard style as defined in Cite Them Right Online (http://www.citethemrightonline.com). This information is also
available in book form: Pears, R. and Shields, G. (2016) Cite them right: the essential reference guide. 10th edn. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Copies are
available via the university library.

How your work will be assessed

Your work will be assessed on the extent to which it demonstrates your achievement of the stated learning outcomes for this assignment (see above) and
against other key criteria, as defined in the University’s institutional grading descriptors. If it is appropriate to the format of your assignment and your subject
area, 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 below

Submission details

This 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 be
replaced 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 (provided
you 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 have
read and understood these regulations

6
Internal approval:Suzanne Doria, October 2020
External approval:
Submission date and time

This 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 the
actual 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 will
not 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.

7
Internal approval:Suzanne Doria, October 2020
External approval:
Marking Scheme A B C D E
70-100% 60-69% 50-59% 40-49% 35-39%

Activity List, Network Network Diagram done in Excel,
or by hand and shows the activity
diagram, and Critical
node values; Network Diagram
Path neat and correct showing
relationship between activities
(20%)
and their dependencies; Critical
Path clear & correct; Excellent
calculation of Activity EST & LST
as well as EFT & LFT for each
activity. Project duration
shortened to reflect
completion date and new critical
path identified. Optional
Approach used to shorten
duration of project cleared
justified, readable and well
analysed. All resources identified
for each activity.
Network Diagram done in Excel, or by
hand and shows the activity node
values; Network Diagram good with
some errors in calculation on ES &
LST as well as EFT & LFT. Critical
Path correct. Project duration
shortened to reflect new completion
date and new critical path identified.
(Optional -Few errors at clearly
justifying approach used to shorten
new duration of project.
- to shorten duration of project but with
Largely correct Network Diagram done
in Excel, or by hand and shows the
activity node values; the relationship
between activities and their
dependencies; Network diagram
largely correct some calculations.
Critical Path identified. Optional -
Project duration shortened to reflect
new completion date. This reflecting in
a new network diagram showing new
critical path.
Attempt made to justify approach used
significant mistakes.
Network Diagram contains some
anomalies; CP largely correct; OR
Network diagram presented in MS
Project format. Optional - Some
questionable logic on project duration
shortened, with some attempt to draw a
new network diagram showing new
critical path
Network Diagram illogical and
critical path (CP) not identified or
incorrect. Optional - Approach
used to shorten project duration
not shown, no new network
diagram, no new critical path
identified

8
Internal approval:Suzanne Doria, October 2020
External approval:
Stakeholder Analysis Comprehensive, believable and Good but the justification for Completes the following stakeholder Completes at least 3 of the following: Does not complete at least 3 of
logical with good use of PM theory stakeholder analysis elements may analysis: identified internal and identified stakeholders, grouped them the following: identified
and communication
and concepts Completes not be clear. However identified external stakeholders, their interest into internal and external stakeholders, stakeholders, grouped them into
plan (20%) stakeholder analysis to a high internal and external stakeholders, and power at least to a satisfactory their interest and power, and establish internal and external
standard; identified internal and their interest and power and standard: communication plan to an acceptable stakeholders, their interest and
external stakeholders, their communication strategy missing. standard. power, and establish
interest and power, established communication plan to an
communication plan for all acceptable standard.
stakeholders group identified.

9
Internal approval:Suzanne Doria, October 2020
External approval:
WBS and Excellent complete, correct,
clearly numbered and detailed
Organogram (10%)
WBS/PBS. An excellent
organogram showing hierarchical
structure of the project
organization
Risk Analysis (20%) Innovative approach to risks
identification and analysis,
detailed and excellent responses
planned, with proximity of risks.
Quality Assurnce Excellent identification and
and Control (15%) classification of stakeholders’
quality expectation, acceptance
criteria, quality specification, with
detailed measures put in place to
control quality aspects of the
event
Introduction, Overall aim, objectives & reason
aim/justification for for undertaking the project clearly
the project, stated and aligned to with
evaluation/analysis strategic goal of the organization.
of appropriate Issues discussed in the
project management methodology section entirely
methodology and appropriate, with the approach to
quality of report be taken clearly described,
presention (15%) appropriate & rigorous. Material
reviewed from all appropriate
sources, with good evidence of
originality; methodology adopted
and material followed a logical,
systematic & persuasive
approach with direct relevance to
objectives.
Quality Assurance Record
Internal
Approval: Suzanne Doria 02/10/2020
Complete and correct WBS showing
all relevant work packages but with
some errors in numbering.
A very good organogram showing
hierarchical structure of the project
organization with minor errors.
Very good risks identification and
analysis, Some responses planned but
not to great extent.
Very good identification and
classification of stakeholders’ quality
expectation, acceptance criteria,
quality specification, but not detailed
measures put in place to control
quality aspects of the event
Overall aims & objectives of the project
clearly stated; strategic
relevance/justification of project
indicated; most of the issues with the
methodology indicated; Methodology
adopted generally appropriate with
some argument possible over its rigour.
Almost all sources used are generally
understood with occasional omissions
with respect to the argument; some
originality; generally systematic
presentation without complete
persuasiveness; generally relevant to
objectives.
External
Approval:
Good WBS, complete, but query on
content/logic.
A good organogram but query on
hierarchical structure of the project
organization
Risks identified and analyzed, attempt
made at planning responses
Good identification and classification
of at least 3 of stakeholders’ quality
expectation, acceptance criteria,
quality specification, with detailed
measures put in place to control
quality aspects of the event
Overall aim can be inferred but some
lack of clarity in objectives; strategic
or wider relevance/justification of
project can be discerned with some
assumptions necessary;
methodology chosen not entirely
clear and/or lacks consistent
demonstration of relevance.
Some sources omitted but with
reasonable grasp of those consulted
& with sensible relevance to the
argument; no particular originality;
some unevenness in presentation;
occasional doubt as to relevance to
the objectives
10
Acceptable WBS, but incomplete.
Correct diagrammatic form.
An acceptable but incomplete
organogram showing hierarchical
structure of the project organization
Risks identified, initial analysis conducted
with questionable responses to risks
identified
Acceptable attempts made at identifying
and classifying and addressing at least 2
of the stakeholders’ quality expectation,
acceptance criteria, quality specification,
with questionable measures put in place
to control quality aspects of the event
Overall aim and/or objectives in some
doubt; uncertainty over strategic or broader
project relevance; methodology chosen
unclear with some arbitrariness discernible;
key aspects of the methodology appear to
be omitted. Overall, reader placed in a
position of having to assume or guess at
some 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 little
attempt to summarize the gist; objectives
rarely referred to.
Internal approval:Suzanne Doria, October 2020
External approval:
Poor WBS. Very poor attempt at
a developing or drawing a WBS.
Poor organogram with poor
attempt to show the hierarchical
structure of the project
organization
An attempt made at identifying
risks, but not at risk
management.
Poor identification and
classification of stakeholders’
quality expectation, acceptance
criteria, quality specification, with
no clear measures put in place to
control quality aspects of the
event
Aim unclear, some or all
objectives missing; little or no
strategic relevance/justification of
project stated; Methodology
unstated. Overall, the reader left
in a position of guessing or
ignorance over above
components. Key sources
omitted, much misunderstanding;
argument must be guessed at,
with little or no case made; reader
confused as to the thrust of the
argument, having to refer
constantly to the objectives and/or
conclusions, where available