Cardiff Metropolitan University
 
Institution Name: City Unity College
 
Programme: MBA
 
Module: 7023
 
Lecturer: Spiros D. Papanicolaou
 
Module Title: Project Management Theory and Practice
 
 

Both assessments must be passed (40% or above) to pass the module.
 

 
 
 
Assessment Type: Group Presentation / Debate
 
 
Weighting: 30% of final mark for the module
 
Submission date: 2 weeks before End of Semester
 
Learning Outcomes:

• synthesize learning – key concepts, theories and techniques – from other MBA (particularly core) modules and apply to project management methodological contexts and practices. This would be draw from a broad range of Management Theory
• Reflect critically upon practice and adapt that practice to a variety of contexts and challenges

 
 
Note: Students to rework the same brief for RESIT
 
What you are required to do (two parts):
A key skill of any effective player in business is to be able to structure and present an effective argument as well as being able to think quickly, clearly and insightfully in response to counter-arguments
In order to encourage and build such skills, you are required to undertake, in teams, a formal debate (this forms part one of the assessment).  The motion (moot) to be debated may be selected from the following:
 
 

• “A good project manager can manage projects of any size and in any context”.

• “Unless project managers become educated managers, their success is based on chance”.
• “A project Lessons Learned Log has no value and neither time nor money should be wasted on them”
• “Project team related issues (performance, discipline etc.) are the sole responsibility of the functional manager to whom the team member reports, and not the project manager.”

 
 
A debate is a discussion or structured contest about an issue or a motion. A formal debate involves two sides: one affirming or supporting the motion and one opposing it.  You will therefore be split into two teams – for and against the motion.
Structure for Debate:
Each debate will comprise two teams, a formal debate usually involves three groups: one supporting a motion (affirmative team), one opposing the motion (opposing team), and those who are judging the quality of the evidence and arguments and the performance in the debate. In this case the judging will be carried out by an independent adjudicator and the module leader.  There may also be a small invited audience.
 
Debate Preparation:
There are a number of steps you can take to ensure your team presents a sound case.

1.   At your first team meeting:

• Check that you know exactly what the moot is and what case you will be presenting
• Brainstorm and pool your ideas on the moot
• Think about both positive and negative arguments as they will help you make your own case and prepare you to counter your opponents’ case
• Look up dictionary definitions of the words of the moot
• Do some research to help provide background material for your case

2.   At the next team meeting:

• Divide your initial ideas up into two groups – those for your case, and those against your case (you will then be ready to argue and to rebut)
• Divide your whole case up into three parts and decide who will be your First, Second and Third speakers
• Discuss the arguments you can make to present a strong unified case i.e. help each other with ideas

3.   Go away and prepare your individual debating speeches:

• Keep in mind which speaker you are, and prepare your material accordingly
• Format your speech with an introduction, body of points and a conclusion
• Remember that (unless you are First Affirmative Speaker) you need to leave room for rebuttal
• Write your speech out in full if you need to, then prepare cue cards for use in the debate.
• Make a brief summary, for the others, of the points in your speech, so that they will know what you intend to say
• Practice your speech under timed conditions, remembering that you are likely to speed up your delivery in front of an audience

4.   Meet with your team members to discuss progress:

• Check you are all keeping the same line of argument
• Look at the summary of each other’s speeches so you do not duplicate material
• Be prepared to share ideas to improve your team’s case
• Look for the links in your arguments so that each speaker can build on the previous speaker’s arguments

5.   Meet again to run through your speeches:

• Check that you are all ready for the debate
• Discuss the possible arguments against your case, so that you will be ready for them in the debate
• Prepare some rebuttal arguments so that you can incorporate them into your speech during the debate
• Check that you have reduced your speech notes to the main ideas for your cue cards
• Practice your speech. Find a good strong opening statement, and prepare a convincing concluding statement

6.   On debating day:

• Get there early
• Support your fellow team members
• Use your speaking skills to advantage
• Enjoy the debate!

 
Conducting the debate:
Debate opens with the affirmative team (the team that supports the motion) presenting their arguments, followed by member(s) of the opposing team. This pattern is repeated for the second speaker in each team. Finally, each team gets an opportunity for rebutting the arguments of the opponent. Speakers should speak slowly and clearly. The judges and members of the audience should be taking notes as the debate proceeds. The sequence for debate, with timelines, is as follows:

• The first speaker on the affirmative team presents arguments in support of the motion. (5 – 10 minutes)
  1. Introduces and defines the meaning of the moot
  2. Outlines the team’s case and indicates the aspects of the topic to be dealt with by each member of the Affirmative
  3. Presents the first part of the team’s case
  4. Concludes with a summary of main points – the peroration
• The first speaker on the opposing team presents arguments opposing the motion. (5 – 10 minutes)
  1. Gives the Negative team’s definition of the moot. Accepts, rejects or modifies the definition given by the First Affirmative speaker
  2. Rebuts any major points of the Affirmative case
  3. Outlines the Negative case, and indicates the parts of the topic each member of the Negative team will deal with
  4. Presents the first part of the Negative case
  5. Concludes with a summary of main points – the peroration
• The second speaker(s) on the affirmative team (5 – 10 minutes)
  1. Rebuts points made by the First Negative speaker
  2. Presents the major part of the Affirmative team’s argument
  3. Concludes with a summary of main points – the peroration
• The second speaker(s) on the opposing team (5 – 10 minutes)
  1. Rebuts points made by the Second Affirmative speaker
  2. Presents the major part of the Negative team’s argument
  3. Concludes with a summary of main points – the peroration

The rules will include a short recess for teams to prepare their rebuttals. (10 minutes)

• The opposing team begins with the rebuttal, attempting to defend the opposing arguments and to defeat the supporting arguments without adding any new information. (3 – 5 minutes)
• First rebuttal of the affirmative team (3 – 5 minutes)
• Each team gets a second rebuttal with the affirmative team having the last opportunity to speak. (3 – 5 minutes each)
• Starting with the opposing team, the final member of each team then concludes their argument, drawing together the key points and counter-arguments, and emphasizing the key points they wish the adjudicators to remember. (3 – 5 minutes each

There cannot be any interruptions. Speakers must wait their turns. The adjudicator may need to enforce the rules.
There will be five team members on each side.  It is a requirement that each team member is involved in debate, but it is up to each team as to the nature of that involvement.
You should refer to authors you use in your arguments and provide a list of references at the end of the debate (a hard copy of your references should be given to the adjudicator and module leader)
There are to be NO visual aids used.
 
 
 
Post-debate Discussion and Assessment:
When the formal debate is finished, there will be time allowed (15-20 minutes) for debriefing and discussion. Members of the audience (if in attendance) will be given an opportunity to ask questions and to contribute their own thoughts and opinions on the arguments presented. Members of the debate teams may also wish to reflect on their performance and seek feedback from the audience, including the adjudicator and module leader.
Judging the Debate
Adjudication of serious, formal debating is very complex. The method of judging depends on the type of debating competition involved. However, a common method for judging academic debates is as follows:
Each speaker is given marks in three different categories, to give a total out of 100 marks;

• Matter(40 marks) – this is “what is said”. It is the content material presented by the speaker, and the adjudicator assesses its credibility and relevance to the moot.
• Manner(40 marks) – this is “how it is said”, how the speaker presented the material. The adjudicator assesses aspects such as: stance, voice, audibility, eye contact, use of notes, use of humor, persuasiveness.
• Method(20 marks) – this is an assessment of how the speaker has used the techniques of debating. The adjudicator will consider such things as how the speech related to the team case, how the speech was structured, whether the speaker used peroration, whether the speaker kept to time.

Added to the team total out of 500 will be a mark out of 100 for overall Teamwork.
The final mark for each team will therefore be out of 600.


Assessment Type: Individual Essay (4000 words ± 10% )
 
Weighting: 70% of final mark for the module
 
Submission date: End of Semester
 
 
Learning Outcomes:

• Apply the key principles, tools and techniques as detailed within the Project Management Institute Project Management Book of Knowledge (PMI PMBOK 5^th edition) to a range of project management contexts.
• Critically evaluate the differences between and applications of the main project management methodologies in use today.

 
Note: Students to rework the same brief for RESIT
 
 
Task:
Using the attached case study documents to inform your analysis, you are required to write an essay that identifies and discusses the major areas of strength and major opportunities for improvement in the management of each of the four phases of the Chunnel Project, Inception (Define), Development (Plan), Implementation (Execute), & Closeout. You should also identify any key lessons that might be learned from this case and applied to similar projects in the future.

Notes and guidance:

• To help you in your analysis, you should complete the ‘Assessment & Analysis’ tasks in each section of the PMI ‘Chunnel Project’ Case Study document. This will help you formulate your final report.
• You must follow an essay format  i.e. Introduction, Body and Conclusion
• Your discussion should draw upon project management theory and practice as well as, where appropriate wider theoretical concepts, for example communications theory and stakeholder theory.
• You MUST provide AT LEAST 7 references. These sources must include at least 7  professional and other publications/internet sources.

 
 
 
Referencing Requirements:
 
Please use a recognised standard method for referencing and citing any appropriate materials, preferably American Psychological Association version 5 (APA 5^th) or the Harvard system of referencing.
 
 


Marking Scheme for Individual Essay
 
 

 
Marking Guidelines:
 
70-100 Distinction.
Excellent performance relative to designated learning outcomes. Demonstrates excellent understanding of the subject matter covered in the assessment. Demonstrates a high degree of analytical ability, originality and critical insight using a wide range of sources and literature. Demonstrates a very high level of comprehension of relevant academic content and shows clear evidence of appreciating its professional application. Work is well written, well presented, and fully referenced. Marks in the higher end of the marking band are awarded for exceptional pieces of work that demonstrate a deep understanding of the subject matter covered in the assessment. The work demonstrates an exceptional grasp of relevant theory and a rigorous application.
 
60-69 Good Pass (Merit level standard).
Very good performance relative to designated learning outcomes. Demonstrates broad understanding of the subject matter covered in the assessment. Demonstrates solid analytical ability and a good grasp of the relevant academic content and its application. Demonstrates good powers of critical thought. The discussion is well organized and structured logically. Arguments are justified sufficiently. Work displays evidence of reading
of the literature and other sources. Work is clearly written, clearly presented, and referenced appropriately.
 
50-59 Pass.
Good performance relative to designated learning outcomes. Demonstrates understanding of the subject matter covered in the assessment. Demonstrates knowledge of the material provided in the basic readings but without much evidence of wider reading. There may be some isolated deficiencies in knowledge and understanding. The discussion reflects some ability to argue logically and organise an answer. Work is presented appropriately and is referenced adequately.
 
40-49 Low Pass.
Satisfactory performance in designed learning outcomes. Demonstrates a basic understanding of the subject matter covered in the assessment. Demonstrates some ability to identify key issues and construct an argument. Shows comprehension of the basic facts and principles but may present some notable deficiencies in knowledge and understanding. There may be some deficiencies in the presentation and the referencing of the work.
 
35-39 Fail.
Has marginally failed to demonstrate an adequate understanding of the subject matter covered in the assessment. Only partial knowledge and understanding of key concepts and ideas. May include notable inaccuracies and some irrelevant material. Shows poor comprehension of the basic facts and principles. Presentation and referencing may be poor.
 
0-34 Low Fail.
Fails to demonstrate an understanding of the subject matter covered in the assessment. The candidate shows little knowledge and demonstrates a poor understanding of the subject. The answer may be totally or largely irrelevant to the question. Presentation and referencing may be poor