Project Management Theory & Practice

Learning Outcomes:

• Apply the key principles, tools and techniques as detailed within the Project Management Institute Project Management Book of Knowledge (PMI PMBOK) to a range of project management contexts.
• Critically evaluate the differences between and applications of the main project management methodologies in use today. 

Task:

With reference to the Teradyne Case Study: The Jaguar Project and relevant literary sources, evaluate the extent to which the key principles, tools and techniques as detailed within the Project Management Institute Project Management Book of Knowledge (PMI PMBoK) support  the project manager in managing projects effectively, taking into account the influence  of context.

Important Notes and guidance:

• You must follow a management report format e.g. Title page, Executive Summary, Contents Sheet, Introduction, Main Body, Conclusions and Recommendations; each section and subsection of the report should be numbered.
• You should make use of the information provided by the case study to support your evaluation of the project management toolsMarking Guidelines:70-100  Distinction.

  Excellent performance relative to designated learning outcomes. Demonstrates excellent understanding of the subject matter covered in the assessment. Demonstrates a high degree of analytical ability, originality and critical insight using a wide range of sources and literature. Demonstrates a very high level of comprehension of relevant academic content and shows clear evidence of appreciating its professional application. Work is well written, well presented, and fully referenced.  Marks in the higher end of the marking band are awarded for exceptional pieces of work that demonstrate a deep understanding of the subject matter covered in the assessment.  The work demonstrates an exceptional grasp of relevant theory and a rigorous application.

  60-69 Good Pass (Merit level standard).

  Very good performance relative to designated learning outcomes.  Demonstrates broad understanding of the subject matter covered in the assessment. Demonstrates solid analytical ability and a good grasp of the relevant academic content and its application. Demonstrates good powers of critical thought. The discussion is well organized and structured logically. Arguments are justified sufficiently. Work displays evidence of reading of the literature and other sources. Work is clearly written, clearly presented, and referenced appropriately.

  50-59 Pass.

  Good performance relative to designated learning outcomes.  Demonstrates understanding of the subject matter covered in the assessment. Demonstrates knowledge of the material provided in the basic readings but without much evidence of wider reading. There may be some isolated deficiencies in knowledge and understanding. The discussion reflects some ability to argue logically and organise an answer. Work is presented appropriately and is referenced adequately.

  40-49 Low Pass.

  Satisfactory performance in designed learning outcomes.  Demonstrates a basic understanding of the subject matter covered in the assessment. Demonstrates some ability to identify key issues and construct an argument. Shows comprehension of the basic facts and principles but may present some notable deficiencies in knowledge and understanding. There may be some deficiencies in the presentation and the referencing of the work.

  35-39 Fail.

  Has marginally failed to demonstrate an adequate understanding of the subject matter covered in the assessment. Only partial knowledge and understanding of key concepts and ideas. May include notable inaccuracies and some irrelevant material. Shows poor comprehension of the basic facts and principles.  Presentation and referencing may be poor.

• 0-34 Low Fail.

  Fails to demonstrate an understanding of the subject matter covered in the assessment. The candidate shows little knowledge and demonstrates a poor understanding of the subject. The answer may be totally or largely irrelevant to the question. Presentation and referencing may be poor

  Model Answer:

  Please see the teaching notes at the end of the Chunnel case study document.  These, of course, should be removed before distributing the case study to the students.

  The Winch case study document is intended as additional reading.

  The Assessment Process…

   Meeting of Internal Examiners…our assessments for this module are weighted at 20 credit points at Masters Level.  All written assignments are double blind marked by two members of staff (internal examiners), who will meet to agree a final mark.

  This meeting is to agree the mark awarded between the two markers and discuss standards, particular problems and general issues arising.  These recommendations are passed to the External Examiner.  

  Assignments and Internal Assessor’s Reports sent to the External Examiner…

  The External Examiner looks at a sample of MBA assignments paying particular attention to any which are graded: distinction, fail or borderline distinction or fail.  The External Examiner also assesses consistency of marking and considers the overall standards compared with similar students on similar programmes worldwide.  The External Examiner may wish to discuss general or particular issues with the module team and has the authority to recommend the up-grading or down-grading of any or all marks.  The External Examiner may also recommend the oral examination of any student.

• The Examination Board… Final examination marks and the awarding of degrees are decided at this meeting, with the External Examiner in attendance.  Marks are provisional until this meeting.  This is why grades can on no account be discussed with students until after this meeting when final marks are agreed.
• Assessment and Assessment Criteria…Assessment criteria indicate the dimensions against which internal and external examiners will assess your work.  It is important to realize that your work will be assessed as a whole, not as a simple summation of these categories.The enclosed marking pro-forma indicates an allocation of marks for various sections and each section contains an outline of the qualities we expect.  There will be penalties for an over or under-length piece of work.  This could result in your assignment being awarded a mark equivalent to 10% below its worth.  Penalties on length may seem harsh but part of the academic exercise involves discipline on how to succinctly present the material you wish to include.

  Please CHAT WITH LIVE Assignment Advisor to get assignment help at low price