Advanced Project Management
Client selected • Comparing & Contrasting Burj Khalifa Dubai (& The Shard UK design and build)
Your 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.
3.
4.
5.
This is an individual report and should be approximately 3,500 words, not including references, diagrams, tables, appendices and headings.
Module Title:
Advanced Project Management
Advanced project management refers to the use of advanced techniques and tools to effectively manage complex projects. These techniques and tools are designed to help project managers plan, execute, and control projects with a higher level of precision and accuracy.
Some examples of advanced project management techniques and tools include:
Earned value management: This technique helps project managers track the progress of a project and compare it to the project plan. It involves measuring the value of work completed and comparing it to the planned value of the work.
Six Sigma: This methodology involves using data and statistical analysis to identify and eliminate defects in processes. It can be applied to project management to help improve efficiency and reduce waste.
Agile project management: This approach involves using iterative and incremental development to manage projects. It emphasizes flexibility and the ability to adapt to change.
By using these advanced techniques and tools, project managers can more effectively manage complex projects and increase the chances of project success.
Module summary
Mastering project management is crucial to organisations in the 21st century. Recognising the importance of both tools and techniques as well as human and organisational factors in achieving project success, the module enables students to learn the ‘hard’ science essential for project managers today, but with the crucial emphasis on the soft skills involved in managing people and change in order to help achieve delivery of successful projects.
Effective project management involves a combination of both hard skills, such as the ability to use specific tools and techniques, and soft skills, such as the ability to communicate effectively and lead a team. Hard skills are important because they help project managers plan, execute, and control projects effectively. These skills include the ability to create project schedules, allocate resources, track progress, and identify and mitigate risks.
Soft skills, on the other hand, are focused on the interpersonal aspects of project management. These skills involve the ability to communicate clearly and effectively, build and maintain relationships with team members and stakeholders, and lead and motivate a team.
In order to be an effective project manager, it is important to have a balance of both hard and soft skills. By mastering both, project managers can effectively plan, execute, and control projects while also being able to lead and motivate their teams and effectively communicate with stakeholders
Through extensive case study analysis, and with insight from current research, you will evaluate the role of the project manager in today’s workplace and critically review the rise of the project-centric organisation in a global context. Relating theory to practical reality in the light of the current research, you will understand new best practice in project management and how it impacts organisations seeking to run effective projects, both locally and across international borders.
Learning objectives
1. Knowledge outcomes – you will be able to demonstrate a critical understanding of the skills and competencies needed by project managers and selectively apply the relevant tools and techniques available to address challenges and solve problems involved in managing complex international projects, in line with organisations’ strategic direction.
2. Cognitive skills outcomes – you will be able to create, enhance and critique project planning documentation as well as applying soft skills in a team leadership context and recognizing and initiating change in organisations.
Outline of contents
Note: The following week by week content is indicative only. The order may change and will also be affected by the calendar of the delivery location as this module is delivered by partners across the world as well as on-campus.
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: Assignment 2: Report – Case Study Analysis. 6th Jan 2023, 2pm
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 1000 25% Yes No n/a
Assignment 2: Report (Case study analysis) Individual 3,500 75% Yes No n/a
Instructions for Assessment
Summative Assessment
Assessment : 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.
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 success. 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, etc.). (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, etc.
• 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 perspectives
• Recommendations to Project Managers – this is worth 30% of the marks so spend some time on this and demonstrate depth of understanding
• Final conclusions
• References
• Appendices (if needed)
Instructions for Re-sit
The same assignment task as for the main assignment period applies to the re-sit, with further instructions see below.
Presentation
Your submission should be in the form of a professional report using appropriate structural elements and diagrams, figures, tables, etc. where relevant. It must also follow academic best practice with fully referenced sources, in-text citations and bibliography.
Any written work should be spell-checked and a contents page should be included. Do not use various font sizes and colours, except where deliberate emphasis is appropriate for clarity and impact. Black ink, Arial, size 11, 1.5 lines spaced is recommended. Use DIN A4 format and page margins of 2.5 cm or 1 inch.
Full reading list
There will be weekly guided reading and you will be expected to undertake your own review of relevant literature, both academic and professional as well as internet sources relating to real business scenarios and cases.
Essential Readings
Pinto, J. K. (2020) Project Management: Achieving Competitive Advantage. (5th ed.) Pearson. (note: 2016 4th ed. Contains similar information and for the most part will be adequate)
Straw, G. (2015) Understanding Project Management: Skills and Insight for Successful Project Delivery. Kogan Page: London.
Recommended Readings
Carnell, C. & Todnem, R. (2014) Managing Change in Organisations. (6th ed.) Harlow: Prentice Hall.
Graham, N. (2008) PRINCE2 for Dummies. Chichester: Wiley.
Harris, E. (2009) Strategic Project Risk Appraisal and Management. Farnham: Gower.
Kerzner, H. (2010) Project Management Best Practices: Achieving Global Excellence. (2nd ed.) Hoboken: Wiley & Sons.
Lientz, P.B. & Ria, P.K. (2011) Project Management for the 21st Century. (3rd ed.) Routledge.
Maylor, H. (2010) Project Management. (4th ed.) Harlow: Prentice Hall.
Moran, R.T. & Youngdahl, W.E. (2008) Leading Global Projects: For Professional and Accidental Project Leaders. Burlington: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Schwalbe, K. (2016) Information Technology Project Management. (8th ed.) Boston: Cengage.
Further Reading
Aaltonen, K. & Kujala, J. (2016) Towards an improved understanding of project stakeholder landscapes. International Journal of Project Management 34(8) pp. 1537–1552.
Adler, P.S., Mandelbaum, A., Nguyen, V., & Schwerer, E. (1995) From project to process management: An empirically-based framework for analyzing product development time. Management Science 41(3) pp. 143–165.
Alarcón, L.F., Ashley, D.B., de Hanily, A.S., Molenaar, K.R., & Ungo, R. (2010) Risk planning and management for the Panama Canal expansion program. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 137(10) pp. 762–771.
Alfons, M., Sierk Y., Karen, S., Stewart, C., & Tyrone, P. (2016) Clash of the titans: Temporal organizing and collaborative dynamics in the Panama Canal Megaproject. Organization Studies 37(12) pp. 1745–1769.
Alnsour, B.H. (2014) The Use of Virtual Project Teams for Project Management in Jordanian Corporations. Eurasian Journal of Business and Management 2(2) pp. 50–60.
Anbari, F., Khilkhanova, E., Romanova, M., Ruggia, M., Tsay, H-H., & Umpleby, S. (2009) Managing Cross-Cultural Differences in Projects. Paper presented at PMI Global Congress, 2009, Orlando.
Bakker, R.M. (2011) Managing the Project Learning Paradox: A set theoretic approach towards knowledge transfer. International Journal of Project Management 29(5) pp. 494–503.
Bender, M.B. (2010) A Manager’s Guide to Project Management: Learn How To Apply Best Practices. Upper Saddle River: FT Press.
Chin, M.M.C. & Spowage, A.C. (2012) Project Management Methodologies: A Comparative Analysis. Journal for the Advancement of Performance Information and Value 4(1) pp. 106–118.
Chuing Loo, S., Abdul‐Rahman, H., & Wang, C. (2013) Managing external risks for international architectural, engineering, and construction (AEC) firms operating in Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states. Project Management Journal 44(5) pp. 70–88.
Ciutiene, R. & Meiliene, E. (2014) Influence of cultural differences on implementation of international projects: Sample of international educational projects. Journal of Advanced Management Science 2(3) pp. 254–259.
Cuellar, M. (2010) Assessing project Success: Moving beyond the triple constraint, International Research Workshop on IT Project Management, 2010.13. http://aisel.aisnet.org/irwitpm2010/13
Dey, P. (2012) Project risk management using multiple criteria decision-making technique and decision tree analysis: A case study of Indian oil refinery. Production Planning & Control 23(12) pp. 903–921.
Didraga, O. (2013) The role and the effects of risk management in IT projects success. Informatica Economica 17(1) pp. 86–98.
Evaristo, R. (2003) The management of distributed projects across cultures. Journal of Global Information Management 11(4) pp. 58–70.
Hodgson, D (2002) Disciplining the professional: The case of project management. Journal of Management Studies 39(6) pp. 803–821.
Joslin, R. & Muller, R. (2015) Relationships between a project management methodology and project success in different project governance contexts. International Journal of Project Management 33(6) pp 1377–1392.
Kaliba, C., Muya, M., & Mumba, K. (2009) Cost escalation and schedule delays in road construction projects in Zambia. International Journal of Project Management 27(5) pp. 522–531.
Matos, S. & Lopes, E. (2013) PRINCE2 or PMBOK: A question of choice. Procedia Technology 9 pp. 787–794.
Minavand, H., Farahmandian, S., & Minaei, V. (2013) HR challenges of project managers. IOSR journal of business and management 11(5) pp. 40-45.
Newton, R. (2009) The Practice and Theory of Project Management: Creating Value Through Change. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Ochieng, E.G. & Price, A.D.F. (2009) Addressing cultural issues when managing multicultural construction project teams. Association of Researchers in Construction Management pp. 1273–1282.
Rodrigues, I. & Sbragia, R. (2013) The cultural challenges of managing global project teams: A study of Brazilian multinationals. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation 8(1) pp. 38–52.
Sarkar, S. & Kovid, R.K. (2015) Framework of risk factors and financing implications for road projects in India: Study of selected cases. Pacific Business Review International 8(2) pp. 110–122.
Stewart, J (2006) Cross Culture Project Management. Paper presented at PMI® Global Congress 2006—North America, Seattle, WA. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.
Too, E.G. & Weaver, P. (2014) The Management of Project Management: A conceptual framework for project governance. International Journal of Project Management 32(8) pp. 1–25.
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.
Appendix: Marking rubric (to be updated autumn 2021)
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 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. 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. Stakeholders list might have been alluded 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. Argument somewhat superficial but basic points covered. Acknowledges obvious stakeholders. 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. Acknowledges stakeholders from society as well as policy and business community, some thoughtful focus. 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. Acknowledges stakeholders from society as well as policy and business community, excellent focus. 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. Demonstrates deep insight of stakeholders from society as well as policy and business community, excellent focus thorughout. Outstanding and flawless.
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 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. 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 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. Impressive depth and scope of discussion. Outstanding and flawless.
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.
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.
