Your project is to either
1. ‘Successfully organize and set up a Music Festival’
2. ‘Successfully organize and set up a Food & Drink Festival’
1. .A Project Brief document which includes (2500 words or max 8 sides, whichever comes first):
• a project definition: how the project will be designed, monitored, and controlled;
• an outline business case: justifying the project as the best way to attain the goals;
• any other information which is of relevance.
2. A project plan in MS Project that would be suitable for presenting to and engaging with stakeholders. It should show key stages, tasks, milestones, and a critical path. When printed, the plan should be no larger than one sheet of A3
3. A risk assessment matrix (max 2 pages)
4. A stakeholder analysis matrix (max 2 pages)
Word Count: 2,500 +/- 10% (Any work submitted over the word/page count will not be marked.)
Project brief should be no longer than 8 sides and 2500 words (whichever comes first). Gantt Chart, Risk Assessment Matrix and Stakeholder Analysis Matrix are appendices and are NOT included in the word count but have a maximum page limit. These appendices WILL be marked.
• The word count excludes the words used in any tables, charts or diagrams.
• References must use the Harvard referencing system.
• Your project can mix both music and food & drink.
• Usage of real-world examples is vital.
• Minimum font size is 10.5. Standard margins of 1cm on all sides.
• Please ensure your student number is clearly placed on the submitted document.
6054BUSBM PROJECT MANAGEMENT – COURSEWORK 1 – ORIGINAL SPECIFICATION –WITH GANTT
Name………………………………………… Reg. No…………………… Marker……………………………… Date ………………………
Aspect Weighting Mark & Comments
1) Project Brief
40% <40% 40-49% 50-59% 60-69% 70%+
2) Risk Analysis
<40% 40-49% 50-59% 60-69% 70%+
3) Project Plan
15% <40% 40-49% 50-59% 60-69% 70%+
4) Stakeholder Analysis
15% <40% 40-49% 50-59% 60-69% 70%+
Use of relevant examples from case study and application to theory
Presentation, structure and referencing15% <40% 40-49% 50-59% 60-69% 70%+
100% <40% 40-49% 50-59% 60-69% 70%+
Relevant sections missing. Details for those sections included are lacking in content. Supporting document weak. 40 – 49%
Covers key sections, but the content of those sections is not thorough or totally relevant. Supporting document justification is poor and makes a poor case for why selected. 50 – 59%
Most sections are addressed, and the content is well covered. Explanation in supporting document is sufficient but lacks detailed insight. 60 – 69%
Sections addressed, but some lack quite as much insight and understanding compared to others. The supporting document gives some justification and has some good insights. 70%+
All sections addressed and content for each is extensive and relevant. Supporting document provides clear insight for the reasons and benefits of including specific content, and demonstrates the benefit of a good Project Brief.
Analysis incomplete and contains errors. Risks identified not relevant or inappropriate. Supporting document provides little explanation. 40 – 49%
Analysis brief or irrelevant in places. Risks are basic and do not cover full range possible. Supporting document makes attempt at justification. 50 – 59%
Reasonable range of risks identified which are mostly relevant. No major mistakes in completing analysis. Supporting document provides acceptable justification, but lacks comprehensive insight. 60 – 69%
Good range of risks, well analysed. Categorisation of risks and mitigating actions attempted, but some weaknesses. Supporting documentation addresses most areas, but misses couple of points. 70%+
Full analysis with appropriate weightings, mitigation actions and categorization. The risks identified are relevant and realistic. The supporting document provides clear justification for method and weightings used.
Gantt Chart is poorly formatted, has insufficient tasks, and contains errors. The supporting document doesn’t justify the reasons. 40 – 49%
Gantt Chart is poorly formatted and missing key elements. Supporting document doesn’t help explain weaknesses in the chart. 50 – 59%
Gantt Chart format is acceptable and has sufficient tasks to demonstrate understanding. Most key elements included or attempted. Supporting document makes a sound case for the approach taken. 60 – 69%
Gantt Chart has all key elements, but some small errors are included. The report provides logical reasoning for the approach taken. 70%+
Gantt Chart well formatted with critical path, milestones, stages and contains logical dependencies. The number and nature of tasks is detailed and clear. Supporting document provides clear justification for task selection dependencies.
Only very obvious stakeholders were identified, and no discussion as to how they will be managed. No stakeholder analysis. 40 – 49%
Limited stakeholders identified and interests, communication strategies, etc weak. Analysis has not been completed 50 – 59%
Stakeholders identified, and attempt at analysis. Methods of engaging and managing are limited or inappropriate. 60 – 69%
Major stakeholders identified and attempt an analysis. Some detail lacking with regard to how these stakeholders will be managed effectively. 70%+
Full stakeholder analysis, tabulated and completed to address the motives, interests, and communication strategies for the various stakeholders, and how they will be managed, as demonstrated in lectures/tutorials.
Use of relevant examples
No or very few examples. Those that are given are not relevant or don’t help illustrate. 40 – 49%
Examples used are infrequent and are not entirely relevant to the area being discussed 50 – 59%
Some examples are used, but links to theory are not always well made. Some unsuitable or weak examples are given. 60 – 69%
Good attempt at supporting the use of tools and techniques with relevant examples. Occasional weakness or lack of original insight. 70%+
Examples demonstrate excellent insight and understanding of how techniques should be applied. Each tool/technique has an example. Evidence of originality that must relate well to the case.
Presentation, Structure & Referencing
Unsatisfactory presentation of the work. The structure does not facilitate the logical progression of the discussion and potentially does not include all of the basic requirements.
Very few references were used. Not in Harvard format. 40 – 49%
Basic but incomplete supporting materials are provided. The report has structure but does not fully embrace the requirements of a formal document.
References are those already given in lectures. 50 – 59%
Adequate supporting materials provided. The work is structured in a way that is logical & appropriate but without explicit guidance for the reader.
Evidence of wider reading, well referenced. 60 – 69%
Is written & presented very well, with all necessary supporting elements. There is a logical structure that is easy to follow & is coherent with the aim of the assignment.
References used relate to all theories and examples and show some originality. 70% +
Well written & presented in a professional manner. All fundamentals of good presentation are addressed. There is a logical structure, written succinctly with sign-posting and referencing used throughout.
Many references, all relevant and mainly original used to support all aspects of work. Harvard applied correctly throughout