Individual Report

BIT 2020 Individual Report Brief Note: 

 

Critically explore and analyse using relevant project management tools and techniques taught in our Lectures, the project management of the HS2 project in the UK. This is a large-scale high-speed rail project that intends to transform British railways.

 

High Speed 2 [HS2] is a state-of-the-art, high-speed railway project that will implemented in the UK over the next two decades. The aim of this project is to link up London, the Midlands, the North and Scotland serving over 25 stations, including eight of Britain’s 10 largest cities and to connect around 30 million people (https://www.hs2.org.uk). The project is managed in three different key phases under the supervision of various teams working together.

 

It is debatable whether this project will result in high opportunity cost, what the effects towards sustainability are and what the wider economic and societal impacts are.

 

More specifically, in your individual report you need to:

 

  • Identify and discuss drivers for success for the effective project management of HS2.

 

  • Explore the benefits and the challenges of managing this large-scale project

 

  • Identify and assess the potential risks of the UK’s biggest rail investment project

 

This individual work should use appropriate Project Management discourses, techniques, concepts, models, frameworks and referencing. The word limit is 1000 words.

 

Your project report should include appropriate tables, figures and concepts to address the following:

 

  1. A scope statement (PID)
  2. Project Plan (e.g. Gantt chart)
  3. Risk Management Plan
  4. Organisational Structure
  5. Project Control Plan

 

 

You need to show evidence of academic referencing (APA7th) using various sources such as Google Scholar, Summon and HS2 website.

 

Sources:

 

Dan, W. T. H. M., & Tool, P. (2020). An Exploratory Analysis of Sustainable Initiatives Taken By Hs2.

Denicol, J., Davies, A., & Krystallis, I. (2020). What Are the Causes and Cures of Poor Megaproject Performance? A Systematic Literature Review and Research Agenda. Project Management Journal, 8756972819896113.

Durrant, D. W. (2015). The controversial discourse on speed in the case of HS2. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Urban Design and Planning, 168(5), 241-250.

Flyvbjerg, B. (2007). Policy and planning for large-infrastructure projects: problems, causes, cures. Environment and Planning B: planning and design, 34(4), 578-597.

Kerzner, H. (2017). Project management: Case studies (5th ed.). Hoboken, N.J: Wiley. doi:10.1002/9781119389040

May, T., & Tyler, J. (2016). HS2 and the railway network: The case for a review. Web nd https://www. its. leeds. ac. uk/fileadmin/documents/HS2_-_the_case_for_a_review. pdf.

Phillips, J. (2017). The “whys and wherefores” of citizen participation in the landscapes of HS2. Planning Theory & Practice, 18(2), 328-333. doi:10.1080/14649357.2017.1307538

Pinto, J. K. (2020; 2019). Project management: Achieving competitive advantage (5th, Global ed.). Harlow, England: Pearson.

ASSESSMENT: <Individual Report>

 

Module Code: BIT 2020
Module Title: Project and Quality Management
Assessment Type Individual Report
Academic Year 2020/21 Term 2

 

Assessment Task 
 

Critically explore and analyse using relevant project management tools and techniques, the project management of a large-scale project; the case of HS2 project in the UK.

 

High Speed 2 [HS2] is a state-of-the-art, high-speed railway project in the UK. The aim of this project is to link up London, the Midlands, the North and Scotland serving over 25 stations, including eight of Britain’s 10 largest cities and to connect around 30 million people (https://www.hs2.org.uk).

 

It is debatable whether this project will result in high opportunity cost, what are the effects towards sustainability and what are the wider economic and societal impacts.

Task specific guidance:

 

Identify and discuss drivers for success, benefits, challenges and risks of the UK’s biggest rail investment project using relevant project management tools and techniques taught in the module’s lectures.

 

This individual work should use appropriate Project Management discourses, notions, concepts, models, frameworks and referencing.

 

Your project report should demonstrate:

–       core knowledge requirements of project management theories and techniques that must be demonstrated to obtain a pass in the module (appropriate to Level 4, 5, or 6)

–       the use of evidence of appropriate textbooks, journal articles, relevant websites to completion of the task

–       core intellectual / cognitive skills (appropriate to Level 4, 5, or 6)

–       expectations of writing style, structure, and presentation (e.g. report, case analysis)

The report should include:

a.        A scope statement (PID)

b.        Project Plan (e.g. Gantt Chart plan)

c.        Risk Management Plan

d.        Organisational Structure

e.        Project Control Plan

 

[This section will contain tables and graphics.]

 

 

General study guidance:  

 

·        Cite all information used in your work which is clearly from a source. Try to ensure that all sources in your reference list are seen as citations in your work, and all names cited in the work appear in your reference list.

 

·        Reference and cite your work in accordance with the APA 7th system – the University’s chosen referencing style.  For specific advice, you can talk to your Business librarians or go to the library help desk, or you can access library guidance via the following link:

o   APA 7th referencing: https://library.hud.ac.uk/pages/apareferencing/

 

  • The University has regulations relating to academic misconduct, including plagiarism. The Learning Innovation and Development Centre can advise and help you with how to avoid ‘poor scholarship’ and potential academic misconduct. You can contact them at busstudenthub@hud.ac.uk.

 

·        If you have any concerns about your writing, referencing, research or presentation skills, you are welcome to consult the Learning Innovation Development Centre team busstudenthub@hud.ac.uk. It is possible to arrange 1:1 consultation with a LIDC tutor once you have planned or written a section of your work, so that they can advise you on areas to develop.

·        Do not exceed the word limit.

 

 

Assessment criteria
 

  • The Assessment Criteria are shown the end of this document.  Your tutor will discuss how your work will be assessed/marked and will explain how the assessment criteria apply to this piece of work.  These criteria have been designed for your level of study.

 

  • These criteria will be used to mark your work and will be used to support the electronic feedback you receive on your marked assignment. Before submission, check that you have tried to meet the requirements of the higher-grade bands to the best of your ability. Please note that the marking process involves academic judgement and interpretation within the marking criteria.
  • The Learning Innovation Development Centre can help you to understand and use the assessment criteria.  To book an appointment, either visit them on The Street in the Charles Sikes Building or email them on busstudenthub@hud.ac.uk

 

 

Learning Outcomes
 

This section is for information only.

 

The assessment task outlined above has been designed to address specific validated learning outcomes for this module. It is useful to keep in mind that these are the things you need to show in this piece of work.

 

On completion of this module, students will need to demonstrate:

 

1. Identify key aims, objectives, phases and milestones in the life of a project in a chosen area of application.

2. Apply risk management processes to a chosen project application area.

3. An understanding of project management methodology and how it applies throughout the lifecycle of a project.

4. How analyse data in order to establish root cause.

5. How to generate improvement ideas, research alternatives.

 

 

Please note these learning outcomes are not additional questions.

 

Submission information
Word Limit: 1000 words
Submission Date: 10/05/2021
Feedback Date: 31/05/2021
Submission Time: 15:00
Submission Method: Electronically via module site in Brightspace.  Paper/hard copy submissions are not required.  For technical support, please contact:  busvle@hud.ac.uk

 

 

 

 

Appendix 1 Assessment criteria

 

These criteria are intended to help you understand how your work will be assessed.  They describe different levels of performance of a given criteria.

 

Criteria are not weighted equally, and the marking process involves academic judgement and interpretation within the marking criteria.

 

 

The grades between Pass and Very Good should be considered as different levels of performance within the normal bounds of the module.  The Exceptional and Outstanding categories allow for students who, in addition to fulfilling the Excellent requirements, perform at a superior level beyond the normal boundaries of the module and demonstrate intellectual creativity, originality and innovation.

 

  90-100 80-89 70-79 60-69 50-59 40-49 30-39 20-29 10 – 19 0 – 9
 Level Exceptional

(Outstanding+)

Outstanding

(Excellent +)

 

Excellent Very good Good Pass Unsatisfactory Unacceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable
Fulfilment of relevant learning outcomes Met Met Met Met Met Met Not met or partially met Not met or partially met Not met or minimal Not met or minimal
Response to the question /task Full command of assessment task; imaginative approach demonstrating flair and creativity Clear command of assessment task; sophisticated approach Very good response to task; elements of sophistication in response Well-developed response to assessment task with evident development of ideas Secure response to assessment task but not developed sufficiently developed to achieved higher grade Adequate response that meets minimum threshold, but with limitations of development Nearly a sufficient response but lacks key aspects. Insufficient response Little response No response
Knowledge and understanding (F, I and H)

Knowledge requirements are different at F, I and H level.  Please use the relevant level knowledge assessment criteria

Knowledge of the key concepts and principles required in the assessment task  (F) Work demonstrates originality/creativity or an inspired individual perspective on information, theories and concepts, and a considered individual voice. Effective and extensive use of relevant wider information, theories and concepts and sophisticated integration of ideas Extended breadth of information, theories and concepts evident and integration of ideas.

 

No misunderstandings / gaps.

 

 

 

Appropriate information, theories, concepts and in appropriate depth using module.

Some integration ideas.

 

No major errors or misunderstandings.

Most relevant information, theories, concepts and appropriately.

 

Lacks depth of integrating ideas.

 

Few inaccuracies.

 

 

Adequate account of basic information, theories and concepts relevant to the assessment.

Some significant gaps.

 

Limitations in understanding and/or inaccuracies

Mentions some terminology relating to theories, concepts.

 

Some poor or mistaken of knowledge of concepts and principles relevant to the assessment brief.

 

Extensive gaps.

Very poor of knowledge of concepts and principles relevant to the assessment brief. Major misunderstandings or omissions. Negligible of knowledge of concepts and principles relevant to the assessment brief None demonstrated in the submission.
Detailed knowledge and critical understanding of relevant knowledge in the subject (I) Skilfully integrate ideas from beyond the module or disciplinary areas to provide original/ creative insights into the subject, tensions, and ambiguities in a considered individual voice. Shows an ease with contingency and ambiguity. Skilfully integrates extended knowledge/ ideas from

beyond the module, and disciplinary areas to provide excellent critical insights.  Shows a level of comfort with contingency and ambiguity.

 

 

 

Comprehensively draws on an extended knowledge to show well-developed critical insights and good knowledge integration.

 

No major errors or misunderstandings or gaps.

 

 

 

 

 

Accurately demonstrates extended knowledge showing good critical insights and some knowledge integration.

 

No major errors or misunderstandings or gaps.

 

 

Accurately demonstrates most basic knowledge offers a basic critical understanding.

 

Lacks depth of integrating ideas.

 

Few errors and/or gaps in coverage and relevance.

 

Adequately demonstrates relevant basic knowledge and some, but limited, critical understanding

 

No integration of ideas.

 

Some errors and/or gaps in coverage and relevance

Mentions some terminology relating to theories, concepts

 

Little critical understanding of relevant well-established area(s) of knowledge with a many of errors, misunderstandings, and omissions

Very poor knowledge or critical understanding of relevant well-established theories / principles.  Major misunderstandings or omissions. Negligible coverage of knowledge or critical understanding of well-established / major theories / principles Wholly irrelevant.
Conceptual and critical understanding of contemporary knowledge in the subject and its limitations (H) Skilfully integrates conceptual knowledge from

other modules or disciplinary areas to provide original/ creative critical insights into the subject and its ambiguities in a considered individual voice

Excellent conceptual knowledge and critical appreciation of the key tensions, controversies disagreements and disputes drawing on ideas from beyond the module bounds. Offers original, compelling, insightful or interesting additional perspectives.

 

Draws on an extended conceptual knowledge

 

Shows very strong ability to apply/ critique ideas and a well-developed consideration of the limitations of knowledge.

 

Performance at this level and above shows intellectual comfort with doubt, ambiguity, controversy, uncertainly and complexity -rather than seeking certainty and a single right answer.

Demonstrates competent conceptual knowledge drawing on a broader knowledge base. A good attempt at integrating and critiquing. Some solid insights into the limitations of knowledge.

 

No major errors or misunderstanding.

Demonstrates secure conceptual knowledge, conventional critical understanding of relevant knowledge.  Some awareness of the limitations of knowledge.

 

Lacks depth of integrating ideas.

 

 

Few inaccuracies.

 

 

 

Demonstrates adequate basic conceptual knowledge, some formulaic critical understanding and awareness of limitations of knowledge.

 

No integration of ideas.

 

Some errors and/or gaps in coverage and relevance

Mentions some terminology relating to theories, concepts

 

Demonstrates insufficient grasp of a basic knowledge.  Very limited critical understanding and awareness of the limitations of knowledge.

 

Many errors in understanding and omissions.

Demonstrates little core knowledge.  No critical insight or awareness of the limitations of knowledge.

 

Major misunderstandings and significant omissions.

Demonstrates virtually no core knowledge or critical insight or awareness of the limitations of knowledge.

 

 

Many errors in understanding and extensive omissions.

Wholly irrelevant.
 

 

Cognitive / Intellectual skills

A range of means of framing cognitive and intellectual skills are provided to reflect the variety of assessment tasks across the School.  Module leaders should consider the following criteria and select the one(s) that best reflect the assessment tasks. Assessment task briefs should be designed with sufficient information to provide students with a clear understanding of the core intellectual skills expected within the bounds of the module– corresponding with the appropriate level of study

 

Module leaders should be clear about the nature of information / data to be analysed, as well as the ‘tools’ of analysis expected.  Analytical tools can be based on logic (comparison, connection, categorisation, evaluation, justification) and/or numerical (e.g. statistics, financial) or other.

 

Analysis of information / data using qualitative or quantitative analytical methods Shows inspired / creative insights of both analytical method and results/ findings/ conclusions. Adapts, combines, and possibly reconfigures recognized analytical methods in a way that leads to enhanced insight into a problem area. Extended and accurate analysis of information / data.

 

Expected analytical methods used are wholly appropriately within normal boundaries.

 

Fully appropriate results/conclusions of analysis    within the scope of the tool.

 

 

Competent analysis with evident use of analytical methods.

 

Fully appropriate results / conclusions / findings.

 

No major errors or misunderstanding.

Secure basic analysis with generally sound use of analytical methods.

 

Largely appropriate results with few significant errors

Adequate basic analysis with largely appropriate use of analytical methods.

 

Partially appropriate results/ finding/conclusions with some errors

Inadequate analysis with largely appropriate use of analytical methods.  Partially appropriate results with some errors Barely any relevant analytical methods of information / data.  Major misunderstandings or omissions Negligible analysis of information / data Many errors in understanding and omissions.  No relevant analysis of information / data
Application of knowledge / skills to practice / a solution(s) / proposal / conclusion Creative & original application of knowledge /skills to produce new insights and offers a novel and comprehensive solution / proposal / conclusion which extends beyond the boundary of the brief.

 

Applies knowledge / skills to develop a comprehensive solution / proposal / conclusion which extends beyond the original boundary of the brief.

 

Extended insights.

Applies knowledge / skill in a sophisticated manner to develop a well conceptualised and solution / proposal / conclusion.

 

Alternative approaches might be considered.

 

Thoughtful and developed insights/ creativity.

Applies knowledge/skill in a logical and developed manner to provide a considered solution / proposal / conclusion.

 

Some good insights /creativity

 

No logical errors.

Applies knowledge/skill in a logical manner to provide a more developed solution / proposal / conclusion.

 

Some but limited insights/creativity.

 

Few logical errors

Applies knowledge/skills in a basic manner to develop a simple but limited solution/ proposal/conclusion.

No insights / creativity

Logical errors evident.

Use of some knowledge to provide a solution / proposal / conclusion, but limited solution/ proposal / conclusion Some use of knowledge, but mostly insufficient. Weak use of knowledge / skills evident.  Very limited solution / proposal / conclusion. No evidence of attempt to analyse or interpret information or provide a solution/proposal/ conclusion.
Argument, reasoning Intellectually coherent and comprehensive argument that articulates authentic, considered stance in own voice Compelling argument that shows intellectual agility and captures ambiguity.  Wholly relevant. Sharply focused and complex argument.

 

All points wholly relevant

 

Convincing and coherent reasoning.

Clearly articulated argument with consideration of different perspectives.

 

Mostly relevant points.

 

 

Logically coherent reasoning.

Satisfactory argument but limited in complexity.

 

Broadly relevant points.

 

Some limitations in terms of reasoning

Adequate basic level of argument provided.

Some relevant points but also a number of irrelevant points

Errors in reasoning.

Weak argument with substantial errors in reasoning. Descriptive or largely incoherent Largely incoherent No argument is offered
Use of referenced* evidence and sources to support task

 

*Normally APA 7th or OSCOLA

Systematic and rigorous use of evidence/ sources beyond the normal bounds of the module to robustly support purpose of the work. Evidence of independent reading and research.

 

Referencing fully competent and accurate

Comprehensive use of high-quality evidence and sources beyond the normal bounds of the module and shows evidence of independent reading and research.

 

Referencing fully competent and accurate

Task is very well supported by very extensive use of evidence / sources.

 

All points fully substantiated.

 

No unsubstantiated points.

 

Referencing fully competent and accurate

Task is well supported by more developed use of sources/evidence

 

Most points are substantiated and no major unsubstantiated points

 

Referencing largely competent and accurate.  Some minor errors in citations or references.

Task is supported by several sources /evidence.

 

Some points are unsubstantiated.

 

Referenced appropriately

 

Referencing largely competent and accurate but may include errors

Task supported by basic evidence and sources but is over-reliant on very few sources.

 

Significant number of points are unsubstantiated.

Some effort to reference, but frequent errors and omissions

One or two apparent references to concepts introduced in the assessment task

 

Very few points are substantiated using evidence / sources.

 

Significant errors and omissions in referencing

Little or no evidence

 

Significant errors and omissions in citation and application of referencing

Unsupported

 

Very little attempt to cite or reference

No evidence

No citations

Structure and, style in supporting the development of ideas

(criteria relevant for essay-style work)

Elegant flow and structure is integral to the argument. An exceptional demonstration of academic writing which effectively guides the reader. Elegance of flow that skilfully through the work and excellently supports key message.

 

 

 

Well-ordered logical flow of material in a fluid style which contributes well to the development of the key messages and guides the reader through the writer’s thinking.

 

 

Clear logical and structured flow of material that guides the reader and supports the development of key messages. Basic logical flow of material with elements of signposting for the reader which supports key messages to some extent, but which can lapse in places. Some logical flow of material with some observable elements of signposting for the reader but elements of disorganisation

May contain repetition or irrelevant material which obscures the key messages.

Some attempt at structure, but disorganized and ineffectual in reflecting argument or analysis.

 

No evident intent of structure.  Disorganised, irrelevant or repetitive content. None Insufficient evidence
Language and style Lucid, fluent, elegant, and compelling, using a distinctive and individual voice Clear and fluent with a breadth of vocabulary. Discernible author voice. Clear functional writing with a discernible author voice.

 

Clear and straightforward use language.

 

Largely error free

Basic use of vocabulary, grammar and syntax.

Limited flaws.

 

Basic use of vocabulary, grammar and syntax that conveys the meaning of the text.

 

Many vocabulary, grammar and syntax errors that obscure meaning Extensive flaws in vocabulary, grammar and syntax that prevent the text from being understandable. Unacceptable Insufficient evidence
Formatting of work (font, pagination, labelling) Impeccable formatting entirely consonant with assessment brief expectations Excellent formatting.  Polished and consonant with the assessment brief expectations. Formatting consonant with assessment brief expectations.  No formatting issues. Formatting very largely free from major presentational problems and consonant with assessment brief. Formatting broadly consonant with assessment brief but some breaches of guidance. Acceptable formatting, but some breaches of guidance.  Some unprofessional aspects Formatting not sufficiently consonant with assessment brief. Multiple formatting issues. Formatting not consonant with assessment brief. Very poor with multiple formatting issues No discernible attempt format work. No formatting