1


Coursework Brief for
Exam Alternative Assessment 2021
Module name: Project Management
Module code: MSIN0068 (Level 6)
Module leader name: Jane Britton
Academic year: 2020-2021
Term 1, 2 or 3: Term 3
Nature of assessment: Individual

Content of this coursework Brief
Section Content
A Core information
B Coursework brief and requirements
C Module learning outcomes covered in
this assessment
D Assessment of this coursework
E Appendixes 1-2

2

Section A: Core information
This assessment is
marked out of
200 marks
% weighting of this
assessment within
total module mark
50%
Advisable time to
spend on this
assessment
This is an alternative assessment to an exam and our
expectations are not the same as those for a typical ‘in term’
piece of coursework.

Accordingly:
• for a module up to and including 60% weighting, our
advice is that it would be reasonable to spend up to
two (2) working days on the assessment;
• for a module above 60% weighting, our advice is that
it would be reasonable to spend up to three (3)
working days on the assessment.
Word count/page
length – maximum This assignment comprises two (2) parts, A and B.
Part A) is quantitative. This component should not be
longer than 5 pages (based on A4 size) including any
drawings or calculations and a narrative of no longer than
500 words. If you use more than 5 pages any excess
pages will not be marked.
Part B) is qualitative. You should not exceed two
thousands (2,000) words – you may use fewer words if
you so choose to. If you use more two thousands (2,000)
words any excess words will not be marked.
Footnotes,
appendices, tables,
figures, diagrams,
charts included
in/excluded from
word count
Included in numbers of pages/word count

Do note that as this alternative assessment is an alternative
to an exam, it is not expected that appendices will be
included. If they are, they will not be marked.
Bibliographies,
reference lists
included
in/excluded from
word count
Excluded from page length/word count

Do note that as this alternative assessment is an alternative
to an exam, it is not expected that bibliographies/reference
lists will be included. If they are, they will not be marked.
Penalty for
exceeding word
count/page length
Yes – As above: if you exceed the specified page length
and or word length, the excess content will not be marked.
Academic
misconduct
(including
plagiarism)
Academic Misconduct is defined as any action or attempted
action that may result in a student obtaining an unfair
academic advantage. Refer to Academic Manual Section 9:
Student Academic Misconduct Procedure - 9.2 Definitions.

3

Submission date 17 MAY 2021

Submission time 10:00:00 (UK time)

Penalty for late
submission
Yes. Refer to Academic Manual Section 3: Module
Assessment - 3.12 Coursework Deadlines & Late
Submissions.

If you encounter problems, issues, challenges which fall
under the scope of Extenuating Circumstances, please
apply to your Home Department.

Submitting your
assignment
The assignment MUST be submitted to the module
submission link located within this module’s Moodle ‘Late
Summer Assessments’ tab by the specified deadline.
Submissions are through Turnitin.
Submissions should be in pdf format and as one
document for each part i.e. one document for Question A
and another document for Question B.
Anonymity of
identity
Normally, all assignments are anonymous unless the nature
of the assessment e.g. video, presentation, group work with
minutes attached, is such that anonymity is not possible.

The nature of this assessment is such that anonymity
is required – this assessment is anonymous.


Return and status
of marked
assessments
As this is an alternative assessment to an exam, feedback
will be primarily linked to defined rubrics (Appendix 2) and
forms.
Generic cohort feedback will also be supplied.
Assessments are subject to double marking/scrutiny, and
internal quality inspection by a nominated School of
Management internal assessor. All results when first
published are provisional until confirmed by the relevant
External Examiner and the Examination Board.
No appeals regarding your published mark are available
until after confirmation by that Examination Board.

4

Section B: Coursework Brief and Requirements

Context
This assignment comprises two (2) parts: Part A and Part B. Part A relates to the
‘Highway Problem’ short case scenario and Part B relates to ‘Spar Applied Systems
(A)’ case scenario.
Part A carries 100 marks and Part B carries 100 marks.
Part A) is quantitative and is based on the ‘Highway Problem’ short scenario.
Part B) is qualitative and is based on the ‘Spar Applied Systems (A)’.

Brief
Part A [100 marks]
Case scenario: Highway Problem
Route A12 that runs north-east / south-west between London and the coastal town
of Lowestoft was named as Britain's worst road because of "potholes and regular
closures due to roadworks"1. Recently, Highways England has decided to re-paved
the part of the route which has been in the worst condition. The length of that part is
30.8 miles.
The plan is for 3.08 miles to be completed each month for 10 months. The estimated
cost of the entire project is £5,880,000.
Table below represents the status of the project at the end of fourth month:
Miles Cost
Month Planned Completed Planned Actual
1 3.08 3.08 £588,000 £694,124
2 3.08 2.48 £588,000 £646,844
3 3.08 2.56 £588,000 £616,356
4 3.08 2.88 £588,000 £796,852

Please remember that the “miles completed” can be seen and measured as you drive
down the highway. That is, as the improvements proceed, it is quite possible for a

1 "Motorists name A12 as worst road". BBC News. 26 February 2007. Available online at
. Accessed on 2 January 2021.

5

driver to measure the progress with little effort. Because of that your calculations
should be performed using cumulative data.
As a project manager working for Highways England and managing this project,
please provide answers to the following FOUR (4) questions:
Question A1. Using the given data, conduct a full Earned Value Analysis, including
variances and performance indices. Show full workings as the correct
method, even with incorrect results, can gain credit. (32 marks)
Question A2. It is now month 4. Using two different assumptions for each, estimate:
Forecast Cost at Completion AND Forecast Completion Time. Show
full workings as the correct method, even with incorrect results, can
gain credit. (20 marks)
Question A3. Compare the use of individual monthly EV analysis data versus
cumulative EV analysis data to evaluate project progress. You should
make four distinct points. (8 marks).
Question A4. This question has TWO (2) parts:
a) Write a short report to the Senior Management of Highways England
(non-experts in EV) explaining the results of your EV analysis and
forecast outturns. Your narrative should not exceed 500 words. (35
marks)
b) Your report should be supported by a graph which clearly presents
your findings for the (non-expert) Senior Management. (5 marks)

Part B [100 marks]
Case scenario: Spar Applied Systems (A) (Appendix 1 outside this brief)
Required
Read the ‘Spar Applied Systems (A)’ case study (see Appendix 1 and link Moodle)
and provide answers to the following FOUR (4) questions:
Question B1. By March 1996 the Avionics 2000 project was late and potentially over
budget. The case notes [pages 8-9]: “The presentation to Stephen
Miller…and other leaders included data which surprised most of the
people present…Neither Mike nor team members present were able to
explain the reasons for the overrun…”. With the benefit of hindsight,
what project management practices should have been implemented on
the project which might have helped to avoid the situation noted above.
Explain the reason(s) for your suggestions. (50 marks)
Question B2. What, if any, were the positive aspects of the way in which the project
was managed that the organisation should aim to capture for future
projects? (15 marks)
Question B3. The case notes a move away from cost-plus to “fixed price contracts
with penalties for non-compliance” [page 5], and that the project has a
potential $1m cost over-run. What, if any, might be the risk(s) to the
6

customer, Phoenix Helicopter International, if this cost over-run were to
occur? (15 marks)
Question B4. After the presentation of the ECT in March 1996 Stephen was
considering whether or not the project should be terminated. In your
opinion, should the project be terminated or should Stephen allow it to
continue? State the reason(s) for your view. (20 marks)

Your total answer for Part B must not exceed 2,000 words.

Tips on Approach for Part B:
• The nature of Part B is analysis and developing a reasoned argument. You
should draw on relevant project management theories, concepts and
frameworks as appropriate to support your arguments / viewpoints.

• There is absolutely no need to research the project or the players any further
beyond the information in the case. I am looking for your analysis of the problem
as given in the case, not your knowledge of the people / project in question.

• Please do not combine your answer for each of these questions into one essay.
There is no need to summarise the case. You can go straight into your answers,
assume I have read the case and know the plot.


7

Section C: Module Learning Outcomes covered in
this Assignment

This assignment contributes towards the achievement of the following stated
module Learning Outcomes as highlighted below:
• Identify project success criteria and how these might be measured.

• Demonstrate an understanding of tools and techniques used in project
management, and apply these to resolve project problems / situations.

• Identify the relevant management skills needed for effective project management.




8

Section D: Assessment of this Coursework
Within each section of this coursework you may be assessed on the following
aspects, as applicable and appropriate to this particular assessment, and should
thus consider these aspects when fulfilling the requirements of each section:
• The accuracy of any calculations;
• The strengths and quality of your overall analysis and evaluation;
• Appropriate use of relevant theoretical models, concepts and
frameworks;
• The rationale and evidence that you provide in support of your arguments;
• The credibility and viability of the evidenced conclusions/
recommendations/ plans of action you put forward;
• Structure and coherence of your considerations and reports;
• Appropriate and relevant use of, as and where relevant and appropriate,
real world examples, academic materials and referenced sources. Any
references should use either the Harvard OR Vancouver referencing
system (see References, Citations and Avoiding Plagiarism)
• Academic judgement regarding the blend of scope, thrust and
communication of ideas, contentions, evidence, knowledge, arguments,
conclusions.
• Each part has requirements with allocated marks, maximum word count
limits/page limits and where applicable, templates that are required to be
used.

You are advised to refer to the UCL Assessment Criteria Guidelines, located at
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/teaching-learning/sites/teaching-learning/files/migrated-
files/UCL_Assessment_Criteria_Guide.pdf


9

Marking Criteria (Part A)
The following criteria will be used for the Part A of this coursework:
Aspect Weight What this means
Question A1 32 marks Full Earn Value Analysis.
Correct calculations.
All required items included.
Question A2 20 marks Correct calculations.
All required items included.
Correctly used assumptions
Question A3

8 marks 4 distinctive points discussed.
Well-justified assertions.
Question A4a 14 marks Identifies and discusses relevant points.
10 marks Appropriate use of relevant concepts, frameworks from the
course / readings etc.
11 marks Breadth & depth of insight.
Strength of argument; justified well-argued assertions.
Question A4b 5 marks Chart is based on the EV data. Drawing includes
appropriate titles and clear labels. Chart is complete and
easy to read.


Marking Criteria (Part B)
The following criteria will be used for the Part B of this coursework:
Aspect for each Questions
in this section (B1-B4)
Weight What this means
Analysis & arguments:
Relevant points 40% Identifies and discusses relevant points.
Project management 30% Appropriate use of relevant concepts,
frameworks from the course / readings etc.
Quality of arguments 30% Breadth & depth of insight.
Strength of argument; justified well-argued
assertions.

Please see the detailed marking rubric for B in the Appendix 2.

10


Section E: Appendixes

Appendix 1: Case scenario – Spar Applied Systems (A)

Please access the file with case study in the separate link available in Moodle. The
link is marked as “Appendix 1 – Case scenario – Spar Applied Systems (A)”.



11

Appendix 2: Marking rubric for Part B
Question
number
Dimension No marks
0%
Very poor
20%
Poor
40%
Needs more work
45%
Satisfactory
50%
Very Satisfactory
55%
Quite good
60%
Good
65%
Very good
70%
Excellent
75%
Outstanding
80%
Industry
standard
100%
Q
ue
st
io
n
1
A. Relevant
Points
(20 marks)
Either required
content is
missing or zero
has been
awarded for
examination
irregularity(ies)
It appears that
you may have
misunderstood
what was
required. The
analysis
doesn’t meet
the brief as
given. Some
credit awarded
where points
happen to be
relevant.
Points are
relevant but
are largely
copied / pasted
from the case
study and do
not
demonstrate
any added
value.
Generally the
points made are
quite vague and
do not succeed in
identifying the
separate issues
raised in the case.
A fair effort, some
key issues
identified, but
these are few and
at a very
superficial level.
Some relevant
points, although
issues identified
tend to be very
obvious and / or
with weak
descriptors.
Points are
largely
relevant, but
descriptors
can be weak
in places and
/ or
identification
of issues
lacks breadth.
Points are
generally
relevant. But
could go
further in
identifying the
breadth of
issues raised
by the case.
Overall good,
solid work.
Meets the
requirements
at the base
level.
Very good
identification
of the key
issues in the
case. Meets
the
requirements
at an
advanced
level.
Excellent
work. Points
are entirely
relevant and
focus clearly
on the issues
in the case.
Very good
identification
of the ‘softer’
/ people
aspects.
Exceptional
work. Points
demonstrate a
thorough
survey of the
more subtle
issues that the
case raises.
The quality of
the points
made is
exceptional.
Publishable
standard work.
B. Project
Management
(15 marks)
Either required
content is
missing or zero
has been
awarded for
examination
irregularity(ies)
Extremely
limited use of
project
management
concepts.
Limited use or
misapplication
in places of
project
management
concepts.
Use of some
project
management
concepts, but very
basic with
significant
misunderstanding /
misapplication.
Use of some
project
management
concepts but quite
basic with some
misunderstanding /
misapplication.
Use of some
project
management
concepts, but
scope to scope to
widen the theories
used. There may
be some
misunderstanding
in places.
Solid use of
project
management
concepts in
places,
although the
work would
benefit from
stronger
descriptors of
the theories.
Good use of
project
management
concepts.
Meets the
requirements
at the base
level.
Very good
use of project
management
concepts.
Meets the
requirements
at an
advanced
level.
Excellent use
of project
management
concepts.
Concepts and
theories used
very well to
support
points made.
Exceptional
work. Valid
and original
use of
concepts and
theories to
support points
and enhance
arguments.
The use of
project
management
concepts and
supplementary
sources is
exceptional.
Industry
standard work
C. Quality of
Argument
(15 marks)
Either required
content is
missing or zero
has been
awarded for
examination
irregularity(ies)
It appears that
you may have
misunderstood
what was
required. The
points are
either copied
from the case
with no
analysis or not
clearly related
to the events in
the case.
Significant
errors /
omissions /
unclear points.
Much more
work is needed
to develop and
support
assertions.
Generally,
arguments need to
be strengthened
much more. Some
points on the very
obvious issues but
quite a few errors
and omissions.

A few good
arguments on the
very obvious
issues, but weak
on either
relevance to the
case or support
from theories /
concepts.
Arguments are
generally along the
right lines but a
little weak in
places. Scope to
increase depth
and breadth of
analysis in many
instances. Quite a
few key points
missed.

A solid
analysis
which covers
many of the
key issues,
although
scope for
further
analysis in
some places
A few key
points
missed.
A good solid
analysis
which covers
the key
issues.
There is
some scope
to increase
breadth and
depth of
analysis in a
few places.
Very good
points, with
well-
supported
arguments
which relate
clearly to
events in the
case.
Excellent
arguments.
Well justified
assertions
that
demonstrate
depth and
breadth of
insight.
Outstanding
work.
Demonstrates
originality,
breadth and
depth of
thought and
attention to
detail.
Industry-
standard work.
Exceptional
work. Depth
and breadth of
points made
are publishable
standard

12

Q
ue
st
io
n
2
A. Relevant
Points
(6 marks)
Either required
content is
missing or zero
has been
awarded for
examination
irregularity(ies)
It appears that
you may have
misunderstood
what was
required. The
analysis doesn’t
meet the brief
as given. Some
credit awarded
where points
happen to be
relevant.
Points are
relevant but are
largely copied /
pasted from the
case study and
do not
demonstrate
any added
value.
Generally the
points made are
quite vague and do
not succeed in
identifying the
separate issues
raised in the case.
A fair effort, some
key issues
identified, but
these are few and
at a very superficial
level.
Some relevant
points, although
issues identified
tend to be very
obvious and / or
with weak
descriptors.
Points are
largely
relevant, but
descriptors
can be weak
in places and
/ or
identification
of issues
lacks breadth.
Points are
generally
relevant. But
could go
further in
identifying the
breadth of
issues raised
by the case.
Overall good,
solid work.
Meets the
requirements
at the base
level.
Very good
identification
of the key
issues in the
case. Meets
the
requirements
at an
advanced
level.
Excellent
work. Points
are entirely
relevant and
focus clearly
on the issues
in the case.
Very good
identification
of the ‘softer’ /
people
aspects.
Exceptional
work. Points
demonstrate a
thorough
survey of the
more subtle
issues that the
case raises.
The quality of
the points made
is exceptional.
Publishable
standard work.
B. Project
Management
(4 marks)
Either required
content is
missing or zero
has been
awarded for
examination
irregularity(ies)
Extremely
limited use of
project
management
concepts.
Limited use or
misapplication
in places of
project
management
concepts.
Use of some
project
management
concepts, but very
basic with
significant
misunderstanding /
misapplication.
Use of some
project
management
concepts but quite
basic with some
misunderstanding /
misapplication.
Use of some
project
management
concepts, but
scope to scope to
widen the theories
used. There may
be some
misunderstanding
in places.
Solid use of
project
management
concepts in
places,
although the
work would
benefit from
stronger
descriptors of
the theories.
Good use of
project
management
concepts.
Meets the
requirements
at the base
level.
Very good
use of project
management
concepts.
Meets the
requirements
at an
advanced
level.
Excellent use
of project
management
concepts.
Concepts and
theories used
very well to
support points
made.
Exceptional
work. Valid
and original
use of
concepts and
theories to
support points
and enhance
arguments.
The use of
project
management
concepts and
supplementary
sources is
exceptional.
Industry
standard work
C. Quality of
Argument (5
marks)
Either required
content is
missing or zero
has been
awarded for
examination
irregularity(ies)
It appears that
you may have
misunderstood
what was
required. The
points are either
copied from the
case with no
analysis or not
clearly related
to the events in
the case.
Significant
errors /
omissions /
unclear points.
Much more
work is needed
to develop and
support
assertions.
Generally,
arguments need to
be strengthened
much more. Some
points on the very
obvious issues but
quite a few errors
and omissions.
A few good
arguments on the
very obvious
issues, but weak
on either relevance
to the case or
support from
theories /
concepts.
Arguments are
generally along the
right lines but a
little weak in
places. Scope to
increase depth and
breadth of analysis
in many instances.
Quite a few key
points missed.
A solid
analysis
which covers
many of the
key issues,
although
scope for
further
analysis in
some places
A few key
points missed.
A good solid
analysis
which covers
the key
issues. There
is some scope
to increase
breadth and
depth of
analysis in a
few places.
Very good
points, with
well-
supported
arguments
which relate
clearly to
events in the
case.
Excellent
arguments.
Well justified
assertions
that
demonstrate
depth and
breadth of
insight.
Outstanding
work.
Demonstrates
originality,
breadth and
depth of
thought and
attention to
detail.
Industry-
standard work.
Exceptional
work. Depth
and breadth of
points made are
publishable
standard

13

Q
ue
st
io
n
3
A. Relevant
Points
(6 marks)
Either required
content is
missing or zero
has been
awarded for
examination
irregularity(ies)
It appears that
you may have
misunderstood
what was
required. The
analysis doesn’t
meet the brief
as given. Some
credit awarded
where points
happen to be
relevant.
Points are
relevant but are
largely copied /
pasted from the
case study and
do not
demonstrate
any added
value.
Generally the
points made are
quite vague and do
not succeed in
identifying the
separate issues
raised in the case.
A fair effort, some
key issues
identified, but
these are few and
at a very superficial
level.
Some relevant
points, although
issues identified
tend to be very
obvious and / or
with weak
descriptors.
Points are
largely
relevant, but
descriptors
can be weak
in places and
/ or
identification
of issues
lacks breadth.
Points are
generally
relevant. But
could go
further in
identifying the
breadth of
issues raised
by the case.
Overall good,
solid work.
Meets the
requirements
at the base
level.
Very good
identification
of the key
issues in the
case. Meets
the
requirements
at an
advanced
level.
Excellent
work. Points
are entirely
relevant and
focus clearly
on the issues
in the case.
Very good
identification
of the ‘softer’ /
people
aspects.
Exceptional
work. Points
demonstrate a
thorough
survey of the
more subtle
issues that the
case raises.
The quality of
the points made
is exceptional.
Publishable
standard work.
B. Project
Management
(4 marks)
Either required
content is
missing or zero
has been
awarded for
examination
irregularity(ies)
Extremely
limited use of
project
management
concepts.
Limited use or
misapplication
in places of
project
management
concepts.
Use of some
project
management
concepts, but very
basic with
significant
misunderstanding /
misapplication.
Use of some
project
management
concepts but quite
basic with some
misunderstanding /
misapplication.
Use of some
project
management
concepts, but
scope to scope to
widen the theories
used. There may
be some
misunderstanding
in places.
Solid use of
project
management
concepts in
places,
although the
work would
benefit from
stronger
descriptors of
the theories.
Good use of
project
management
concepts.
Meets the
requirements
at the base
level.
Very good
use of project
management
concepts.
Meets the
requirements
at an
advanced
level.
Excellent use
of project
management
concepts.
Concepts and
theories used
very well to
support points
made.
Exceptional
work. Valid
and original
use of
concepts and
theories to
support points
and enhance
arguments.
The use of
project
management
concepts and
supplementary
sources is
exceptional.
Industry
standard work
C. Quality of
Argument (5
marks)
Either required
content is
missing or zero
has been
awarded for
examination
irregularity(ies)
It appears that
you may have
misunderstood
what was
required. The
points are either
copied from the
case with no
analysis or not
clearly related
to the events in
the case
Significant
errors /
omissions /
unclear points.
Much more
work is needed
to develop and
support
assertions.
Generally,
arguments need to
be strengthened
much more. Some
points on the very
obvious issues but
quite a few errors
and omissions.

A few good
arguments on the
very obvious
issues, but weak
on either relevance
to the case or
support from
theories /
concepts.
Arguments are
generally along the
right lines but a
little weak in
places. Scope to
increase depth and
breadth of analysis
in many instances.
Quite a few key
points missed.

A solid
analysis
which covers
many of the
key issues,
although
scope for
further
analysis in
some places
A few key
points missed.
A good solid
analysis
which covers
the key
issues. There
is some scope
to increase
breadth and
depth of
analysis in a
few places.
Very good
points, with
well-
supported
arguments
which relate
clearly to
events in the
case.
Excellent
arguments.
Well justified
assertions
that
demonstrate
depth and
breadth of
insight.
Outstanding
work.
Demonstrates
originality,
breadth and
depth of
thought and
attention to
detail.
Industry-
standard work.
Exceptional
work. Depth
and breadth of
points made are
publishable
standard

14

Q
ue
st
io
n
4
A. Relevant
Points
(8 marks)
Either required
content is
missing or zero
has been
awarded for
examination
irregularity(ies)
It appears that
you may have
misunderstood
what was
required. The
analysis doesn’t
meet the brief
as given. Some
credit awarded
where points
happen to be
relevant.
Points are
relevant but are
largely copied /
pasted from the
case study and
do not
demonstrate
any added
value.
Generally the
points made are
quite vague and do
not succeed in
identifying the
separate issues
raised in the case.
A fair effort, some
key issues
identified, but
these are few and
at a very superficial
level.
Some relevant
points, although
issues identified
tend to be very
obvious and / or
with weak
descriptors.
Points are
largely
relevant, but
descriptors
can be weak
in places and
/ or
identification
of issues
lacks breadth.
Points are
generally
relevant. But
could go
further in
identifying the
breadth of
issues raised
by the case.
Overall good,
solid work.
Meets the
requirements
at the base
level.
Very good
identification
of the key
issues in the
case. Meets
the
requirements
at an
advanced
level.
Excellent
work. Points
are entirely
relevant and
focus clearly
on the issues
in the case.
Very good
identification
of the ‘softer’ /
people
aspects.
Exceptional
work. Points
demonstrate a
thorough
survey of the
more subtle
issues that the
case raises.
The quality of
the points made
is exceptional.
Publishable
standard work.
B. Project
Management
(6 marks)
Either required
content is
missing or zero
has been
awarded for
examination
irregularity(ies)
Extremely
limited use of
project
management
concepts.
Limited use or
misapplication
in places of
project
management
concepts.
Use of some
project
management
concepts, but very
basic with
significant
misunderstanding /
misapplication.
Use of some
project
management
concepts but quite
basic with some
misunderstanding /
misapplication.
Use of some
project
management
concepts, but
scope to scope to
widen the theories
used. There may
be some
misunderstanding
in places.
Solid use of
project
management
concepts in
places,
although the
work would
benefit from
stronger
descriptors of
the theories.
Good use of
project
management
concepts.
Meets the
requirements
at the base
level.
Very good
use of project
management
concepts.
Meets the
requirements
at an
advanced
level.
Excellent use
of project
management
concepts.
Concepts and
theories used
very well to
support points
made.
Exceptional
work. Valid
and original
use of
concepts and
theories to
support points
and enhance
arguments.
The use of
project
management
concepts and
supplementary
sources is
exceptional.
Industry
standard work
C. Quality of
Argument
(6 marks)
Either required
content is
missing or zero
has been
awarded for
examination
irregularity(ies)
It appears that
you may have
misunderstood
what was
required. The
points are either
copied from the
case with no
analysis or not
clearly related
to the events in
the case.
Significant
errors /
omissions /
unclear points.
Much more
work is needed
to develop and
support
assertions.
Generally,
arguments need to
be strengthened
much more. Some
points on the very
obvious issues but
quite a few errors
and omissions.
A few good
arguments on the
very obvious
issues, but weak
on either relevance
to the case or
support from
theories /
concepts.
Arguments are
generally along the
right lines but a
little weak in
places. Scope to
increase depth and
breadth of analysis
in many instances.
Quite a few key
points missed.
A solid
analysis
which covers
many of the
key issues,
although
scope for
further
analysis in
some places
A few key
points missed.
A good solid
analysis
which covers
the key
issues. There
is some scope
to increase
breadth and
depth of
analysis in a
few places.
Very good
points, with
well-
supported
arguments
which relate
clearly to
events in the
case.
Excellent
arguments.
Well justified
assertions
that
demonstrate
depth and
breadth of
insight.
Outstanding
work.
Demonstrates
originality,
breadth and
depth of
thought and
attention to
detail.
Industry-
standard work.
Exceptional
work. Depth
and breadth of
points made are
publishable
standard














































































































































































. Accessed on 2 January 2021.

5

driver to measure the progress with little effort. Because of that your calculations
should be performed using cumulative data.
As a project manager working for Highways England and managing this project,
please provide answers to the following FOUR (4) questions:
Question A1. Using the given data, conduct a full Earned Value Analysis, including
variances and performance indices. Show full workings as the correct
method, even with incorrect results, can gain credit. (32 marks)
Question A2. It is now month 4. Using two different assumptions for each, estimate:
Forecast Cost at Completion AND Forecast Completion Time. Show
full workings as the correct method, even with incorrect results, can
gain credit. (20 marks)
Question A3. Compare the use of individual monthly EV analysis data versus
cumulative EV analysis data to evaluate project progress. You should
make four distinct points. (8 marks).
Question A4. This question has TWO (2) parts:
a) Write a short report to the Senior Management of Highways England
(non-experts in EV) explaining the results of your EV analysis and
forecast outturns. Your narrative should not exceed 500 words. (35
marks)
b) Your report should be supported by a graph which clearly presents
your findings for the (non-expert) Senior Management. (5 marks)

Part B [100 marks]
Case scenario: Spar Applied Systems (A) (Appendix 1 outside this brief)
Required
Read the ‘Spar Applied Systems (A)’ case study (see Appendix 1 and link Moodle)
and provide answers to the following FOUR (4) questions:
Question B1. By March 1996 the Avionics 2000 project was late and potentially over
budget. The case notes [pages 8-9]: “The presentation to Stephen
Miller…and other leaders included data which surprised most of the
people present…Neither Mike nor team members present were able to
explain the reasons for the overrun…”. With the benefit of hindsight,
what project management practices should have been implemented on
the project which might have helped to avoid the situation noted above.
Explain the reason(s) for your suggestions. (50 marks)
Question B2. What, if any, were the positive aspects of the way in which the project
was managed that the organisation should aim to capture for future
projects? (15 marks)
Question B3. The case notes a move away from cost-plus to “fixed price contracts
with penalties for non-compliance” [page 5], and that the project has a
potential $1m cost over-run. What, if any, might be the risk(s) to the
6

customer, Phoenix Helicopter International, if this cost over-run were to
occur? (15 marks)
Question B4. After the presentation of the ECT in March 1996 Stephen was
considering whether or not the project should be terminated. In your
opinion, should the project be terminated or should Stephen allow it to
continue? State the reason(s) for your view. (20 marks)

Your total answer for Part B must not exceed 2,000 words.

Tips on Approach for Part B:
• The nature of Part B is analysis and developing a reasoned argument. You
should draw on relevant project management theories, concepts and
frameworks as appropriate to support your arguments / viewpoints.

• There is absolutely no need to research the project or the players any further
beyond the information in the case. I am looking for your analysis of the problem
as given in the case, not your knowledge of the people / project in question.

• Please do not combine your answer for each of these questions into one essay.
There is no need to summarise the case. You can go straight into your answers,
assume I have read the case and know the plot.


7

Section C: Module Learning Outcomes covered in
this Assignment

This assignment contributes towards the achievement of the following stated
module Learning Outcomes as highlighted below:
• Identify project success criteria and how these might be measured.

• Demonstrate an understanding of tools and techniques used in project
management, and apply these to resolve project problems / situations.

• Identify the relevant management skills needed for effective project management.




8

Section D: Assessment of this Coursework
Within each section of this coursework you may be assessed on the following
aspects, as applicable and appropriate to this particular assessment, and should
thus consider these aspects when fulfilling the requirements of each section:
• The accuracy of any calculations;
• The strengths and quality of your overall analysis and evaluation;
• Appropriate use of relevant theoretical models, concepts and
frameworks;
• The rationale and evidence that you provide in support of your arguments;
• The credibility and viability of the evidenced conclusions/
recommendations/ plans of action you put forward;
• Structure and coherence of your considerations and reports;
• Appropriate and relevant use of, as and where relevant and appropriate,
real world examples, academic materials and referenced sources. Any
references should use either the Harvard OR Vancouver referencing
system (see References, Citations and Avoiding Plagiarism)
• Academic judgement regarding the blend of scope, thrust and
communication of ideas, contentions, evidence, knowledge, arguments,
conclusions.
• Each part has requirements with allocated marks, maximum word count
limits/page limits and where applicable, templates that are required to be
used.

You are advised to refer to the UCL Assessment Criteria Guidelines, located at
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/teaching-learning/sites/teaching-learning/files/migrated-
files/UCL_Assessment_Criteria_Guide.pdf


9

Marking Criteria (Part A)
The following criteria will be used for the Part A of this coursework:
Aspect Weight What this means
Question A1 32 marks Full Earn Value Analysis.
Correct calculations.
All required items included.
Question A2 20 marks Correct calculations.
All required items included.
Correctly used assumptions
Question A3

8 marks 4 distinctive points discussed.
Well-justified assertions.
Question A4a 14 marks Identifies and discusses relevant points.
10 marks Appropriate use of relevant concepts, frameworks from the
course / readings etc.
11 marks Breadth & depth of insight.
Strength of argument; justified well-argued assertions.
Question A4b 5 marks Chart is based on the EV data. Drawing includes
appropriate titles and clear labels. Chart is complete and
easy to read.


Marking Criteria (Part B)
The following criteria will be used for the Part B of this coursework:
Aspect for each Questions
in this section (B1-B4)
Weight What this means
Analysis & arguments:
Relevant points 40% Identifies and discusses relevant points.
Project management 30% Appropriate use of relevant concepts,
frameworks from the course / readings etc.
Quality of arguments 30% Breadth & depth of insight.
Strength of argument; justified well-argued
assertions.

Please see the detailed marking rubric for B in the Appendix 2.

10


Section E: Appendixes

Appendix 1: Case scenario – Spar Applied Systems (A)

Please access the file with case study in the separate link available in Moodle. The
link is marked as “Appendix 1 – Case scenario – Spar Applied Systems (A)”.



11

Appendix 2: Marking rubric for Part B
Question
number
Dimension No marks
0%
Very poor
20%
Poor
40%
Needs more work
45%
Satisfactory
50%
Very Satisfactory
55%
Quite good
60%
Good
65%
Very good
70%
Excellent
75%
Outstanding
80%
Industry
standard
100%
Q
ue
st
io
n
1
A. Relevant
Points
(20 marks)
Either required
content is
missing or zero
has been
awarded for
examination
irregularity(ies)
It appears that
you may have
misunderstood
what was
required. The
analysis
doesn’t meet
the brief as
given. Some
credit awarded
where points
happen to be
relevant.
Points are
relevant but
are largely
copied / pasted
from the case
study and do
not
demonstrate
any added
value.
Generally the
points made are
quite vague and
do not succeed in
identifying the
separate issues
raised in the case.
A fair effort, some
key issues
identified, but
these are few and
at a very
superficial level.
Some relevant
points, although
issues identified
tend to be very
obvious and / or
with weak
descriptors.
Points are
largely
relevant, but
descriptors
can be weak
in places and
/ or
identification
of issues
lacks breadth.
Points are
generally
relevant. But
could go
further in
identifying the
breadth of
issues raised
by the case.
Overall good,
solid work.
Meets the
requirements
at the base
level.
Very good
identification
of the key
issues in the
case. Meets
the
requirements
at an
advanced
level.
Excellent
work. Points
are entirely
relevant and
focus clearly
on the issues
in the case.
Very good
identification
of the ‘softer’
/ people
aspects.
Exceptional
work. Points
demonstrate a
thorough
survey of the
more subtle
issues that the
case raises.
The quality of
the points
made is
exceptional.
Publishable
standard work.
B. Project
Management
(15 marks)
Either required
content is
missing or zero
has been
awarded for
examination
irregularity(ies)
Extremely
limited use of
project
management
concepts.
Limited use or
misapplication
in places of
project
management
concepts.
Use of some
project
management
concepts, but very
basic with
significant
misunderstanding /
misapplication.
Use of some
project
management
concepts but quite
basic with some
misunderstanding /
misapplication.
Use of some
project
management
concepts, but
scope to scope to
widen the theories
used. There may
be some
misunderstanding
in places.
Solid use of
project
management
concepts in
places,
although the
work would
benefit from
stronger
descriptors of
the theories.
Good use of
project
management
concepts.
Meets the
requirements
at the base
level.
Very good
use of project
management
concepts.
Meets the
requirements
at an
advanced
level.
Excellent use
of project
management
concepts.
Concepts and
theories used
very well to
support
points made.
Exceptional
work. Valid
and original
use of
concepts and
theories to
support points
and enhance
arguments.
The use of
project
management
concepts and
supplementary
sources is
exceptional.
Industry
standard work
C. Quality of
Argument
(15 marks)
Either required
content is
missing or zero
has been
awarded for
examination
irregularity(ies)
It appears that
you may have
misunderstood
what was
required. The
points are
either copied
from the case
with no
analysis or not
clearly related
to the events in
the case.
Significant
errors /
omissions /
unclear points.
Much more
work is needed
to develop and
support
assertions.
Generally,
arguments need to
be strengthened
much more. Some
points on the very
obvious issues but
quite a few errors
and omissions.

A few good
arguments on the
very obvious
issues, but weak
on either
relevance to the
case or support
from theories /
concepts.
Arguments are
generally along the
right lines but a
little weak in
places. Scope to
increase depth
and breadth of
analysis in many
instances. Quite a
few key points
missed.

A solid
analysis
which covers
many of the
key issues,
although
scope for
further
analysis in
some places
A few key
points
missed.
A good solid
analysis
which covers
the key
issues.
There is
some scope
to increase
breadth and
depth of
analysis in a
few places.
Very good
points, with
well-
supported
arguments
which relate
clearly to
events in the
case.
Excellent
arguments.
Well justified
assertions
that
demonstrate
depth and
breadth of
insight.
Outstanding
work.
Demonstrates
originality,
breadth and
depth of
thought and
attention to
detail.
Industry-
standard work.
Exceptional
work. Depth
and breadth of
points made
are publishable
standard

12

Q
ue
st
io
n
2
A. Relevant
Points
(6 marks)
Either required
content is
missing or zero
has been
awarded for
examination
irregularity(ies)
It appears that
you may have
misunderstood
what was
required. The
analysis doesn’t
meet the brief
as given. Some
credit awarded
where points
happen to be
relevant.
Points are
relevant but are
largely copied /
pasted from the
case study and
do not
demonstrate
any added
value.
Generally the
points made are
quite vague and do
not succeed in
identifying the
separate issues
raised in the case.
A fair effort, some
key issues
identified, but
these are few and
at a very superficial
level.
Some relevant
points, although
issues identified
tend to be very
obvious and / or
with weak
descriptors.
Points are
largely
relevant, but
descriptors
can be weak
in places and
/ or
identification
of issues
lacks breadth.
Points are
generally
relevant. But
could go
further in
identifying the
breadth of
issues raised
by the case.
Overall good,
solid work.
Meets the
requirements
at the base
level.
Very good
identification
of the key
issues in the
case. Meets
the
requirements
at an
advanced
level.
Excellent
work. Points
are entirely
relevant and
focus clearly
on the issues
in the case.
Very good
identification
of the ‘softer’ /
people
aspects.
Exceptional
work. Points
demonstrate a
thorough
survey of the
more subtle
issues that the
case raises.
The quality of
the points made
is exceptional.
Publishable
standard work.
B. Project
Management
(4 marks)
Either required
content is
missing or zero
has been
awarded for
examination
irregularity(ies)
Extremely
limited use of
project
management
concepts.
Limited use or
misapplication
in places of
project
management
concepts.
Use of some
project
management
concepts, but very
basic with
significant
misunderstanding /
misapplication.
Use of some
project
management
concepts but quite
basic with some
misunderstanding /
misapplication.
Use of some
project
management
concepts, but
scope to scope to
widen the theories
used. There may
be some
misunderstanding
in places.
Solid use of
project
management
concepts in
places,
although the
work would
benefit from
stronger
descriptors of
the theories.
Good use of
project
management
concepts.
Meets the
requirements
at the base
level.
Very good
use of project
management
concepts.
Meets the
requirements
at an
advanced
level.
Excellent use
of project
management
concepts.
Concepts and
theories used
very well to
support points
made.
Exceptional
work. Valid
and original
use of
concepts and
theories to
support points
and enhance
arguments.
The use of
project
management
concepts and
supplementary
sources is
exceptional.
Industry
standard work
C. Quality of
Argument (5
marks)
Either required
content is
missing or zero
has been
awarded for
examination
irregularity(ies)
It appears that
you may have
misunderstood
what was
required. The
points are either
copied from the
case with no
analysis or not
clearly related
to the events in
the case.
Significant
errors /
omissions /
unclear points.
Much more
work is needed
to develop and
support
assertions.
Generally,
arguments need to
be strengthened
much more. Some
points on the very
obvious issues but
quite a few errors
and omissions.
A few good
arguments on the
very obvious
issues, but weak
on either relevance
to the case or
support from
theories /
concepts.
Arguments are
generally along the
right lines but a
little weak in
places. Scope to
increase depth and
breadth of analysis
in many instances.
Quite a few key
points missed.
A solid
analysis
which covers
many of the
key issues,
although
scope for
further
analysis in
some places
A few key
points missed.
A good solid
analysis
which covers
the key
issues. There
is some scope
to increase
breadth and
depth of
analysis in a
few places.
Very good
points, with
well-
supported
arguments
which relate
clearly to
events in the
case.
Excellent
arguments.
Well justified
assertions
that
demonstrate
depth and
breadth of
insight.
Outstanding
work.
Demonstrates
originality,
breadth and
depth of
thought and
attention to
detail.
Industry-
standard work.
Exceptional
work. Depth
and breadth of
points made are
publishable
standard

13

Q
ue
st
io
n
3
A. Relevant
Points
(6 marks)
Either required
content is
missing or zero
has been
awarded for
examination
irregularity(ies)
It appears that
you may have
misunderstood
what was
required. The
analysis doesn’t
meet the brief
as given. Some
credit awarded
where points
happen to be
relevant.
Points are
relevant but are
largely copied /
pasted from the
case study and
do not
demonstrate
any added
value.
Generally the
points made are
quite vague and do
not succeed in
identifying the
separate issues
raised in the case.
A fair effort, some
key issues
identified, but
these are few and
at a very superficial
level.
Some relevant
points, although
issues identified
tend to be very
obvious and / or
with weak
descriptors.
Points are
largely
relevant, but
descriptors
can be weak
in places and
/ or
identification
of issues
lacks breadth.
Points are
generally
relevant. But
could go
further in
identifying the
breadth of
issues raised
by the case.
Overall good,
solid work.
Meets the
requirements
at the base
level.
Very good
identification
of the key
issues in the
case. Meets
the
requirements
at an
advanced
level.
Excellent
work. Points
are entirely
relevant and
focus clearly
on the issues
in the case.
Very good
identification
of the ‘softer’ /
people
aspects.
Exceptional
work. Points
demonstrate a
thorough
survey of the
more subtle
issues that the
case raises.
The quality of
the points made
is exceptional.
Publishable
standard work.
B. Project
Management
(4 marks)
Either required
content is
missing or zero
has been
awarded for
examination
irregularity(ies)
Extremely
limited use of
project
management
concepts.
Limited use or
misapplication
in places of
project
management
concepts.
Use of some
project
management
concepts, but very
basic with
significant
misunderstanding /
misapplication.
Use of some
project
management
concepts but quite
basic with some
misunderstanding /
misapplication.
Use of some
project
management
concepts, but
scope to scope to
widen the theories
used. There may
be some
misunderstanding
in places.
Solid use of
project
management
concepts in
places,
although the
work would
benefit from
stronger
descriptors of
the theories.
Good use of
project
management
concepts.
Meets the
requirements
at the base
level.
Very good
use of project
management
concepts.
Meets the
requirements
at an
advanced
level.
Excellent use
of project
management
concepts.
Concepts and
theories used
very well to
support points
made.
Exceptional
work. Valid
and original
use of
concepts and
theories to
support points
and enhance
arguments.
The use of
project
management
concepts and
supplementary
sources is
exceptional.
Industry
standard work
C. Quality of
Argument (5
marks)
Either required
content is
missing or zero
has been
awarded for
examination
irregularity(ies)
It appears that
you may have
misunderstood
what was
required. The
points are either
copied from the
case with no
analysis or not
clearly related
to the events in
the case
Significant
errors /
omissions /
unclear points.
Much more
work is needed
to develop and
support
assertions.
Generally,
arguments need to
be strengthened
much more. Some
points on the very
obvious issues but
quite a few errors
and omissions.

A few good
arguments on the
very obvious
issues, but weak
on either relevance
to the case or
support from
theories /
concepts.
Arguments are
generally along the
right lines but a
little weak in
places. Scope to
increase depth and
breadth of analysis
in many instances.
Quite a few key
points missed.

A solid
analysis
which covers
many of the
key issues,
although
scope for
further
analysis in
some places
A few key
points missed.
A good solid
analysis
which covers
the key
issues. There
is some scope
to increase
breadth and
depth of
analysis in a
few places.
Very good
points, with
well-
supported
arguments
which relate
clearly to
events in the
case.
Excellent
arguments.
Well justified
assertions
that
demonstrate
depth and
breadth of
insight.
Outstanding
work.
Demonstrates
originality,
breadth and
depth of
thought and
attention to
detail.
Industry-
standard work.
Exceptional
work. Depth
and breadth of
points made are
publishable
standard

14

Q
ue
st
io
n
4
A. Relevant
Points
(8 marks)
Either required
content is
missing or zero
has been
awarded for
examination
irregularity(ies)
It appears that
you may have
misunderstood
what was
required. The
analysis doesn’t
meet the brief
as given. Some
credit awarded
where points
happen to be
relevant.
Points are
relevant but are
largely copied /
pasted from the
case study and
do not
demonstrate
any added
value.
Generally the
points made are
quite vague and do
not succeed in
identifying the
separate issues
raised in the case.
A fair effort, some
key issues
identified, but
these are few and
at a very superficial
level.
Some relevant
points, although
issues identified
tend to be very
obvious and / or
with weak
descriptors.
Points are
largely
relevant, but
descriptors
can be weak
in places and
/ or
identification
of issues
lacks breadth.
Points are
generally
relevant. But
could go
further in
identifying the
breadth of
issues raised
by the case.
Overall good,
solid work.
Meets the
requirements
at the base
level.
Very good
identification
of the key
issues in the
case. Meets
the
requirements
at an
advanced
level.
Excellent
work. Points
are entirely
relevant and
focus clearly
on the issues
in the case.
Very good
identification
of the ‘softer’ /
people
aspects.
Exceptional
work. Points
demonstrate a
thorough
survey of the
more subtle
issues that the
case raises.
The quality of
the points made
is exceptional.
Publishable
standard work.
B. Project
Management
(6 marks)
Either required
content is
missing or zero
has been
awarded for
examination
irregularity(ies)
Extremely
limited use of
project
management
concepts.
Limited use or
misapplication
in places of
project
management
concepts.
Use of some
project
management
concepts, but very
basic with
significant
misunderstanding /
misapplication.
Use of some
project
management
concepts but quite
basic with some
misunderstanding /
misapplication.
Use of some
project
management
concepts, but
scope to scope to
widen the theories
used. There may
be some
misunderstanding
in places.
Solid use of
project
management
concepts in
places,
although the
work would
benefit from
stronger
descriptors of
the theories.
Good use of
project
management
concepts.
Meets the
requirements
at the base
level.
Very good
use of project
management
concepts.
Meets the
requirements
at an
advanced
level.
Excellent use
of project
management
concepts.
Concepts and
theories used
very well to
support points
made.
Exceptional
work. Valid
and original
use of
concepts and
theories to
support points
and enhance
arguments.
The use of
project
management
concepts and
supplementary
sources is
exceptional.
Industry
standard work
C. Quality of
Argument
(6 marks)
Either required
content is
missing or zero
has been
awarded for
examination
irregularity(ies)
It appears that
you may have
misunderstood
what was
required. The
points are either
copied from the
case with no
analysis or not
clearly related
to the events in
the case.
Significant
errors /
omissions /
unclear points.
Much more
work is needed
to develop and
support
assertions.
Generally,
arguments need to
be strengthened
much more. Some
points on the very
obvious issues but
quite a few errors
and omissions.
A few good
arguments on the
very obvious
issues, but weak
on either relevance
to the case or
support from
theories /
concepts.
Arguments are
generally along the
right lines but a
little weak in
places. Scope to
increase depth and
breadth of analysis
in many instances.
Quite a few key
points missed.
A solid
analysis
which covers
many of the
key issues,
although
scope for
further
analysis in
some places
A few key
points missed.
A good solid
analysis
which covers
the key
issues. There
is some scope
to increase
breadth and
depth of
analysis in a
few places.
Very good
points, with
well-
supported
arguments
which relate
clearly to
events in the
case.
Excellent
arguments.
Well justified
assertions
that
demonstrate
depth and
breadth of
insight.
Outstanding
work.
Demonstrates
originality,
breadth and
depth of
thought and
attention to
detail.
Industry-
standard work.
Exceptional
work. Depth
and breadth of
points made are
publishable
standard


学霸联盟