USA + 1-760-3923232 | UK +44-203-3181775
NOTE: Must be read in conjunction with PPMP20008 Assessment 2 Case studies & questions.
The objective of this assessment is to help students learn about a range of trending topics in project management, especially throughout initiating and planning stages of projects - through conducting research. You are required to analyse case(s) (e.g. a completed project) and distil lessons learnt. The lessons learnt will inform the development process of the project plan for a new project of a similar nature (e.g. Assessment 3). Several questions will be asked in relation to the topics discussed in the unit. The questions address different knowledge areas covered in the unit (e.g. scope management, cost management, stakeholder management and risk management) in relation to project initiation and planning. Therefore, for students, it is essential to acquire a good understanding of the topics covered during Weeks 1 to 8.
See the marking guide at the end of this document
This assessment is relevant to the following Unit Learning Outcomes (ULOs):
Two case studies are considered for this assessment. The case descriptions are provided as an attachment to this document. You should read the cases and provided questions carefully and discuss each question logically by using quality references from academic journals, books, PM standards (e.g. PMBOK and other authenticated sources (such as PMI and APM websites).
This assignment must be delivered in a report format containing:
You must acknowledge all sources of information you have used in your submission. You MUST use Harvard referencing style for in-text citations and reference list. To address questions, it is highly recommended to use quality sources of information e.g. books, peer reviewed journal articles and conference papers.
At least 6 quality references MUST be used to address given questions.
Academic integrity is about honest presentation of your academic work. It means acknowledging the work of others while developing your own insights, knowledge and ideas. You should take extreme care that you have:
If you do not acknowledge the sources of your material, you may be accused of plagiarism because you have passed off the work and ideas of another person without appropriate referencing, as if they were your own.
CQUniversity treats plagiarism as a very serious offence constituting misconduct. Plagiarism covers a variety of inappropriate behaviours, including:
For further information on our policies and procedures, please refer to the University website.
When you submit work electronically, you agree to the below assessment declaration.
I understand that:
I agree and acknowledge that:
You'll find more information about the penalties for plagiarism in the Student Academic Integrity Policy and Procedure - CQU.
|
Criteria |
HD |
D |
C |
P |
F |
|
Exec. Sum - 2 marks Contains purpose of the report and summarises the findings and lessons learned. |
Clear, in-depth and comprehensive expression of the purpose of the report, findings and lessons learned. |
Clear and comprehensive expression of the purpose of the report, findings and lessons learned. |
Clearly expresses the importance of the report, findings and/or lessons learned. |
Basically, expresses the importance of the report, findings and/or lessons learned.
|
Unclear or confusing answer. It does not meaningfully express the importance of report, findings and lessons learned. |
|
Introduction – 2 marks Purpose of the report, cases summaries, and the structure of the report are articulated |
Clear, in-depth and comprehensive introduction |
Clear and comprehensive introduction. |
Clearly expresses the introduction. |
Basically, expresses the introduction. |
Unclear or confusing answer. It does not clearly express the introduction. |
|
Q1 - 3 marks Provide the correct type of the Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) in the case Two techniques are explained, compared, and contrasted using quality references, the examples, when techniques are used, are clearly given and explained. |
Provide the correct type of WBS and discussion is in depth with evidence from the case. Clear, in-depth, and comprehensive answer across all types of WBS. An in-depth compare and contrast is established. References strengthen arguments |
Provide the correct type of WBS and the discussion is in-depth with evidence from the case. Clear and comprehensive answer across all types of WBS. A clear compare and contrast is established. The argument is correct but the reference may not adequate. |
Clear answer across most of mentioned WBS techniques. An acceptable compare and contrast is established. |
Inconsistent answer across the mentioned WBS techniques. Compare and contrast is established to some extent |
Unclear or confusing answer. It does not explain the technique properly. Limited comparison is established. |
|
Q2 - 3 marks The pros and cons of having many levels of WBS are discussed and arguments strengthened with references and example |
Clear, in-depth and comprehensive answer on the pros & cons of having many levels in WBS. Pre-requisite documents are clearly discussed. |
Clear and comprehensive answer on the pros & cons of having many levels in WBS. Pre-requisite documents are fairly discussed. |
Mostly clear answer across the pros & cons of having many levels in WBS. Pre-requisite documents are addressed to some extent. |
Inconsistent answer across the pros & cons of having many levels in WBS. Pre-requisite documents are minimally addressed. |
Unclear or confusing answer. It does not explain the pros & cons of having many levels in WBS. and pre-requisite documents. |
|
Q3 - 3 marks The organizational structure in the case is identified and explained. Explain disadvantages, the evidence must come from the case |
Clear, in-depth and comprehensive answer on organizational structure in the case. Evidence from the case is identified and they well support the arguments. |
Clear and comprehensive answer on organizational structure in the case. Evidence is taken from the case and they adequately support the arguments. |
Mostly clear answer on organizational structure in the case. Evidence from the case is identified and they support the arguments. |
Inconsistent answer across the organizational structure in the case. Evidence from the case provides limited support to the arguments. |
Unclear or confusing answer. It does not explain answer on organizational structure in the case. Arguments are not supported with evidence from the case. |
|
Q4 – 3 marks Four major risk are identified, analysed and discussed. (impact, likelihood, detection difficulty). Risk responses are correctly developed and discussed (reduce, transfer, avoid, accept). |
Clear, in-depth and comprehensive development of risk assessment and response plan. |
Clear and comprehensive development of risk assessment and response plan. |
Mostly clear development of risk assessment and response plan. |
Inconsistent or incomplete development of risk assessment and response plan. |
Unclear or confusing answer. Development of risk assessment and response plan is not indicative of a proper application of RM techniques. |
|
Q5 – 3 marks Case risk control issues and challenges are discussed using appropriate RM theory
|
Clear, in-depth and comprehensive discussion of case risk control issues and challenges. |
Clear and comprehensive discussion of case risk control issues and challenges. |
Mostly clear discussion of case risk control issues and challenges. |
Inconsistent or incomplete discussion of case risk control issues and challenges. |
Unclear or confusing answer. Discussion of case risk control issues and challenges. is not indicative of a proper application of RM techniques. |
|
Q6 – 3 marks The impact of risk management on the war outcome is properly discussed using appropriate RM theory |
Clear, in-depth and comprehensive discussion of risk management consequences on the war outcome. |
Clear and comprehensive discussion of risk management consequences on the war outcome. |
Mostly clear discussion of risk management consequences on the war outcome. |
Inconsistent or incomplete discussion of risk management consequences on the war outcome. |
Unclear or confusing answer. Discussion of RM consequences on the war outcome is not indicative of a proper application of RM techniques. |
|
Conclusion – 2 marks Case study findings and lessons learned are clearly identified. |
Clear, in-depth and comprehensive explanation of case study findings and lessons learned. |
Clear and comprehensive discussion explanation of case study findings and lessons learned. |
Mostly clear explanation of case study findings and lessons learned. |
Inconsistent or incomplete explanation of case study findings and lessons learned. |
Unclear or confusing answer. Lessons learned are not identified. |
|
Referencing quality – 3 marks At least 6 quality references are used across various questions. References are matching the requested style. |
Consistently clear, well-integrated evidence using accurate paraphrasing. Consistently uses accurate references while citations are appropriately positioned. |
Clear, well-integrated evidence using accurate paraphrasing. Uses mostly accurate references while citations appropriately positioned. |
Paraphrases adequately avoid plagiarism. References and citations generally accurately positioned. |
Generally, paraphrases to avoid plagiarism.
References generally accurately positioned. Citation issues are evident. |
Does not paraphrase correctly. References and citations positioned incorrectly or used inaccurately. |
|
Overall report quality – 3 marks Good flow of topics, clarity of language and grammar, coverage and completeness. Report structure is followed. |
Writing is persuasive, logical and communicates meaning clearly. Uses appropriate vocabulary consistently. Spelling and punctuation completely accurate. Consistently integrates research and ideas from relevant and appropriate sources. |
Writing communicates clearly and effectively; logic and meaning not clear in some places but does not detract from meaning. Vocabulary is mostly appropriate; errors not detract from overall meaning. Spelling and punctuation generally accurate; small errors may exist. Integrates research and ideas from relevant sources. |
Writing communicates effectively; logic and meaning not always clear but still comprehensible. Vocabulary is adequate; occasional errors using subject-specific words/terms. Spelling and punctuation generally accurate; some errors may exist. Generally integrates relevant theory from a number of mostly appropriate sources |
Writing errors are frequent, making understanding difficult.
Limited vocabulary, words often incorrect or incorrectly used. Numerous spelling errors indicating spell check not used
Fails to use relevant theory / or number of sources indicates lack of research
|
|
INDIVIDUAL – CASE STUDY REPORT
Executive Summary
This assignment is based on two case studies, where case study one is based on Work Breakdown Structure and the assessment of the same. This part of the assignment has three questions related to the limitations of WBS and the benefits of the same. Case scenario 2 is based on the French attack on Russia and the manner in which the same has failed due to negligence towards the value of risk assessment. Strategies of the Russian Army and the plans of the French army are focused on in this part. This part also highlights the mistakes of napoleon and the manner in which he could have been successful.
Table of Contents
Case 1: Work Breakdown Structure. 4
Question 1: Types of Work Breakdown Structures. 4
Question 3: Identifying Organizational Structure. 5
Case 2: Risk Policies in Russian Projects. 7
Question 4: Risk in Project Management 7
Question 5: Comparison of Risk Response. 8
Question 6: Application of Risk Management Theory. 9
This assignment is based on the different questions that are provided. The topic is based on Case studies that are present, which is related to project planning process. The first case is based on Work Breakdown Structure and the second case is based on risk policies that are related to certain projects in Russia. This assignment focuses on the Work Breakdown Structure and the different aspects of the same. Case scenario 1 is based on the proper evaluation of Work Breakdown Structure and the different forms of WBS system that are represented. In addition to this, the benefits and the limitations of such WBS are also focused on in this assignment. Case study 2 focuses on the importance of risk assessment. The second case is based on Napoleon, the French Army, and the attack on Russia.
Usually there are two types of work breakdown structure and in this Lada Project, the type of Work Break Down structure that is being used is Level based where the project details are based on the different levels of the project. The information of the project is broken down in terms of levels of the project, which suggest the various actions of the projects. Level 1 of the project is based on information related to the project. Level 2 of the project is based on the phases of the project and level 3 is based on the various deliverables that are related to the project.
Common types of Work Breakdown structures that are used include Phase based system, which focuses on different phases of the project. Usually this type of system is used in terms of small projects, which go through a number of phases. In such conditions, phase based WBS structures are used which helps in proper assessment of the structures (Abd Rahman, Zaki and Husain, 2019). Level Based system is another work break down structure, which is divided into different levels the levels are based on the different actions of the project. The actions and the process of the project are categorized and based on such the project actions are termed into levels. The level based system aims towards understanding of the different levels, which consist of sets of actions. The level based system is used in larger projects, which are time consuming and where a lot of groupings are done. The main aim of Work Breakdown structure is to evaluate the conditions of the project and aim towards proper assessment of the actions that are to be taken in the project. The WBS needs to be properly developed and followed by the team to be able to complete the entire proceeding of the project.
There are major benefits of Work Breakdown Structure, which includes the ability of completing the work in an efficient manner (Aven, 2016). The main benefits of Work Break Down Structure is that all the members of the team will be able to see the structure and this is likely to help the entire team in taking proper decisions. This also allows the team members to clearly see the project data which is going to allow them in understanding their duties and tasks in the project. The steps of the project that are allocated to them are properly understood by them due to this and this helps in proper evaluation of the same. Having many levels of the Work Break down Structure helps in proper evaluation of the different stages and this also allows in dividing the work and success in smaller sections which is used to reach the target in a successful manner.
The limitations related to Work Breakdown structure is based on the fact that the WBS structure is a lot rigid and there is no flexibility in the same. It is essential to focus on the fact that WBS structures provide specific rules for the individuals and this leads to lack of innovation. The WBS structure does not allow the individuals to modify the plans or use innovative ideas to alter the rules and steps that have been set by the team. The entire project becomes bureaucratic and this reduces the efficiency of the project (Yourprojectmanager.com.au, 2020). The amount of information that is provided in the WBS structure is also limited which increases confusion and the details related to the task and the job of the employees are not understood by them. The particular order of the tasks are also not present which increases confusion amongst the teams and this in turn increases the confusion related to the completion of the various duties of the team members.
In this case, scenario there is an organizational structure that is used by the company being Opto- Mechanical Group is a functional structure. The main focus of this structure is that the division is based on basis of levels. On the basis of these levels the entire assessment is needed to be done. The tasks of the organization are divided in this form and on the basis of the structure that is developed. The structure is based on the functions that are to be committed by the different employees and this is essential to focus on to organize the actions on the basis of the skills and functions. Separate departments of the company are to be developed in such a manner that the actions of the company are properly conducted (Abd Rahman, Zaki and Husain, 2019). This is going to increase the potential of the company and increase the productivity of the company in the long run. The management of the different parts of the company is needed to be done in an independent manner which is likely to increase the efficiency of the company. The company focuses on this structure as it helps in focusing on the roles of the employees. The employees can easily focus on their roles and they are well aware of the actions. The actions are properly set by the management from the beginning which increases the scope of success. In addition to this, the structure also focuses a lot on the specialization of the team members and increases their potential to achieve more success for the company.
This structure keeps focus on the motivation level of the employees and allows them to be self-determined and confident. It is essential that the company is able to provide this much confidence to the employees which will allow them to be more successful and confident during their employment. The structure also allows the company to scale and measure the condition of the company and the performance of their employees. This allows the company to increase the scope of knowledge towards operations. However, there are many issues that are faced by the companies due to this structure. According to this case scenario, there are many boundaries and bindings in this company being Opto- Mechanical Group due to the presence of this structure. The structure does not allow innovation and keeps the employees tied under obligations and rules. There are strict regulations that are needed to be focused on by the company under this structure and it is important that the company maintain the rules and regulations as have been developed. There is no scope for modification of the rules.
According to this scenario, there can be four risks that are found. The risks that are found are to be based on PMBOK, and specify the impact of such risks (Ashtiani et al. 2019). One of the main risks that are to be focused on is related to the health risk. The French army was not prepared to deal with the harsh winter conditions of Russia and as a result of this the strength of the army was decreasing at a rapid rate. There were no specific mitigation strategies that could have been used as the condition of the troop was becoming weak by each passing day. The Russian army focused on wasting time and retreating so that the harsh winter conditions would be in their favor and hurt the French Army (Fan and Stevenson, 2018). The Russian army will not be impacted by the winter as they are habituated by it. The risks were not focused on by the French army and they had to pay the price for the same.
Situational Risk is another risk that is going to be there for the French Army as Russian Winter and the situations that are created by the same are not common and it is not possible for any army to remain operational in the same (Petit and Lewis, 2017). Management Risk is another risk that was present to the French Army which was caused due to the lack of experience in Russian soil. Napoleon was not able to assess the conditions and assume the impact of the winter. However, he was willing to finish the war before the winter came, which was not possible for him and as a result of this the price was paid. It is essential to focus on understanding the conditions of the surrounding, which is going to help in management of the team (Al-Kasasbeh, Abudayyeh and Liu, 2020). Operational Risk was the fourth risk that was present in this case scenario, which was caused due to the lack of confidence in the team. Napoleon was not able to guide his army in the proper manner under the harsh winter conditions and in such conditions; the army was not able to gather any kind of confidence that led them to failure (Pali, 2019). The army was not able to maintain their composure and the conditions were unknown to them this led to massive issues and the army kept losing to the environmental conditions and not to the Russian Army.
Responses related to these risks include proper assessment of the conditions, which could have helped the team from the health issues. Napoleon should have understood that the French Army is not built to withstand such harsh conditions. With proper assessment, the health risk could have been mitigated. Gathering information and evaluation of the conditions could have prevented the risk of the situation. Management risk could have been addressed by proper communication of the team (Milosevic, Patanakul and Srivannaboon, 2010). Napoleon should have understood the conditions and communicated the same to the team. Finally, for the operational risks it is essential to maintain specialization and innovation. This could have focused on protecting the Army.
In terms of health risk, Napoleon should have done proper assessment to maintain the health risk that was present for the French Army. However, Napoleon aimed towards completing the war before the winter came into impact. This is where Napoleon failed and the war was lost. In terms of the Management Risk Napoleon should have assessed the conditions and understood that the French Army could not suffer the conditions of Russian Winter (Giambona, Graham and Harvey, 2017). The strategy of attacking Russia during winter was not a great strategy and it backfired on Napoleon. Napoleon should have considered the past experience of others who had attacked Russia in winter. This was important and this led to loss of many lives in the French army.
Proper assessment of the conditions was needed in addition to which the main focus that Napoleon should have In terms of situational risk the situation should have been understood by Napoleon which he neglected and as a result of this the war was lost. Enough information should have been gathered by Napoleon to fight in the harsh conditions and win the war. The lack of information in terms of Russian Winter cost Napoleon the war (Koulafetis, 2017). It is essential to focus on the surrounding factors and too gather as much insight as possible, which is likely to help in evaluation of the conditions and to win a situation. In terms of Operational Risk, to gain success the main aim is to evaluate the conditions of surrounding and understand the strong point, which is likely to benefit the team to understand and evaluate the conditions.
According to the conditions of this case scenario, I believe that Napoleon’s risk assessment greatly affected the outcome of the war. It is essential to focus on the conditions of the war. The risk assessment is essential which is needed to be focused on. The main aim is to evaluate the conditions of the risk and to understand the root cause of the risk. It is important to focus on gaining insight into the risk (Leck and Sirota, 2019). According to the Risk Management Theory it is essential to focus on identification of the risks. If the risks are not properly identified then it is not possible to take necessary steps against them. Following the identification it is important to evaluate the risk and the action or process that is related to such risks. It is also important to prioritize the risks and the actions that are needed to mitigate the risk and to enhance the conditions and outcomes (Jankensgard and Kapstad, 2020). In this scenario, it is clear that the steps were not properly evaluated by Napoleon and as a result of the same the consequences of the war was not in favor of Napoleon and the French Army.
Following the evaluation of the conditions, it is also essential to aim towards the understanding of the mitigation process (Giambona et al. 2018.). According to me, the War was greatly based on Napoleon and his decisions. As a result of which the consequences of the war were based on the actions of Napoleon and his strategies. The lack of proper assessment of the risks and the consequences has led to loss of the war. The goals of the war were set however, the actions and the steps that were to lead up to the same were not properly evaluated and taken by Napoleon.
It is clear from this assignment that there are various forms of Work Breakdown Structures and it is important for the proper understanding of the various WBS systems. It is also essential to aim towards the understanding of the benefits and the limitations of each such structure. It is important to evaluate the conditions of the company and the project for which the WBS is being prepared. Proper evaluation will allow the understanding of the different aspects related to the WBS and increase the efficiency of the same. It is also essential to focus on the different aspects of the WBS, which will increase the efficiency to a great extent.
In terms of Case scenario 2, the entire focus is on the assessment of risk and the manner in which Napoleon and his war on Russia failed due to negligence of Risk assessment. This part of the assignment is focused on evaluating the importance of Risk assessment and the different aspects that are needed to be focused on related to risk assessment to increase the efficiency of the risk assessment.
Books
Jankensgard, H. and Kapstad, P., 2020. Empowered Enterprise Risk Management: Theory and Practice. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.
Koulafetis, P., 2017. Modern Credit Risk Management: Theory and Practice. New York: Springer.
Milosevic, D.Z., Patanakul, P. and Srivannaboon, S., 2010. Case studies in project, program, and organizational project management. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.
Journals
Al-Kasasbeh, M., Abudayyeh, O. and Liu, H., 2020. A unified work breakdown structure-based framework for building asset management. Journal of Facilities Management.
Ashtiani, B.N., Jiang, Q., Tayah, M., Welcker, B.L., Patton, T.G., Panvalkar, S.S. and Chan, 2019. W.K.T., Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC, 2017. Controlling resource allocation with automated consumption against a work breakdown structure. U.S. Patent 9,720,737.
Fan, Y. and Stevenson, M., 2018. A review of supply chain risk management: definition, theory, and research agenda. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management.
Giambona, E., Graham, J.R. and Harvey, C.R., 2017. The management of political risk. Journal of International Business Studies, 48(4), pp.523-533.
Giambona, E., Graham, J.R., Harvey, C.R. and Bodnar, G.M., 2018. The theory and practice of corporate risk management: Evidence from the field. Financial Management, 47(4), pp.783-832.
Leck, H. and Sirota, J., 2019. The importance of risk management for managers. EcoSoEn, (1-2), pp.103-108.
Pali, Ç.D., 2019. Importance of Risk Management and Risk Management Process. In Maintaining Financial Stability in Times of Risk and Uncertainty (pp. 157-176). IGI Global.
Petit, F. and Lewis, L.P., 2017. Risk management and business continuity assessment: Importance of considering logical interdependencies. Crit. Infrastruct. Prot. Rev., p.29.
Online Articles
Abd Rahman, W.W., Zaki, N.M. and Husain, M.A., 2019. Work breakdown structure application for man-hours calculation in hull construction shipbuilding in Malaysia. Cogent Engineering, 6(1), p.1599524.Available at: https://www.cogentoa.com/article/10.1080/23311916.2019.1599524?utm_source=TrendMD&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=Cogent_Engineering_TrendMD_0 [Accessed on 8th January]
Aven, T., 2016. Risk assessment and risk management: Review of recent advances on their foundation. European Journal of Operational Research, 253(1), pp.1-13. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377221715011479 [Accessed on 8th January]
Websites
Yourprojectmanager.com.au, 2020 AboutAvailable at: https://yourprojectmanager.com.au/work-breakdown-structure/[Accessed on 8th January]