CWA1 Project Programming

FIND A SOLUTION AT Academic Writers Bay

CWA1   Project Programming
50% weighting.      3000 words equilivilent as assessed by the Modue Leader.
Please see the Assignment Brief following
The construction process involves a myriad of activities that must be efficiently planned and controlled if any project is to be delivered to meet client expectations with respect to cost, time, and quality.   This module covers essential methods and techniques required for efficient planning and controlling construction activities and for improving productivity of the construction process.        
Module Learning Outcomes  
 On successful completion of the module you should be able to:
Apply and critically evaluate project development and planning techniques used in the management and control of construction/civil engineering projects.
Identify, analyse and critically appraise risk, value and financial management in the   context of the built environment.
The Assignment     This assignment aims to test your understanding as to the processes involved in the development and delivery of large complex projects and is a ‘scenario project’ based around a similar real-life project   Attached to this assignment is a PowerPoint file that lays out the Scenario for ‘The Plant’ and Town  and this forms the basis of the assignment You will be required to carry out the following work; Task 1 – Read the background and understand the project and then  summarise the ethos and rational in 600 words Task 2 – Explain the structure and key components/skills of a project team capable of delivering this project in 600 words   Task 3 – Produce a Gant chart as instructed in the Powerpoint Presentation  (1000 words equivalent) Task 4 – Produce a project risk schedule with what you consider to be  the top 10 project delivery risks, their risk level, and explain briefly why you consider these are the top ten risks – see presentation for full details (500 words equivalent) Task 5 – Produce a separate risk schedule of your top 10 risks explaining one method that would allow mitigation of that risk. Give the revised risk level
Work is to be handed in via turnitin on the submission date via the three turnitin portals provided for;
Portal 1 – Tasks 1 & 2 submitted as a Word file
Portal 2 – Task 3 – submitted as an A3 Excel Gantt Chart  
Portal 3 – Tasks 4 & 5  submitted as an Excel file   
Late submissions are not acceptable and will be deemed a fail
Return of work
It is anticipated that the unmoderated marks for this assignment will be returned to students three working weeks after submission
The final results, including the exam, will be released following University’s Post Graduate Board.
Reading Material  
Baker K. Baker S. 2000, The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Project Management 2nd Edition , Indianapolis, Alpha Books,
Benge David P.  2014, NRM1 Cost Management Handbook, London, Routledge
Lock D. 2013, Project Management 10th Edition, Farnham, Gower
Meredith J. Mantel S. Shafer S. 2010, Project Management – A Managerial Approach, Asia, Wiley
Newell M. Grashina M. 2004, The Project Management Question and Answer Book, New York, Amacom
Philips D. O’Bryan R. 2004, It Sounded Good When We Started, New Jersey, Wiley
Pilcher R. 1994, Project Cost Control in Construction 2nd Edition, Oxford, Blackwell
Portney S. 2017, Project Management for Dummies 5th Edition, New Jersey, Wiley
Potts K. and Ankrah N. 2013, Construction Cost Management 2nd Edition, Oxford, Routledge
Wysocki R. 2012, Effective Project Management 6th Edition, Indianapolis, Wiley
An “academic offence” is committed when a student tries to gain improper advantage for her/himself, or not following the Academic Regulations, concerning any part of the assessment process. Please refer to the 3Rs
For further guidance refer to the University Study Skills guidance on Referencing and Citation, found at
Post-graduate marking scale
This scale applies to Level 7 in the University Credit Framework. The descriptors are typical characteristics of the standard of work associated with each range of marks. The descriptors are illustrative and for guidance only. They are not comprehensive.   A mark of 50% is regarded as a minimum pass.
  % mark
  Mark Descriptors
Excellent Outstanding; high to very high standard; a high level of critical analysis and evaluation, incisive original thinking; commendable originality; exceptionally well researched; high quality presentation; exceptional clarity of ideas; excellent coherence and logic. Trivial or very minor errors. For the highest  marks  (90 – 100%):  an  exceptional  standard  of  work illustrating thorough  and  in-depth understanding,  communicated  with  exceptional authority.
Very good A very good standard; a very good level of critical analysis and evaluation; significant originality; well researched; a very good standard of presentation; commendable clarity of ideas; thoughtful and effective presentation; very good sense of coherence and logic; minor errors only.
Good A good standard; a fairly good level of critical analysis and evaluation; some evidence of original thinking or originality; quite well researched; a good standard of presentation; ideas generally clear and coherent, some evidence of misunderstandings; some deficiencies in presentation.
Satisfactory A sound standard of work; a fair level of critical analysis and evaluation; little evidence of original thinking or originality; adequately researched; a sound standard of presentation; ideas fairly clear and coherent, some significant misunderstandings and errors; some weakness in style or presentation but satisfactory overall.
Unsatisfactory Overall marginally unsatisfactory; some sound aspects but some of the following weaknesses are evident; inadequate critical analysis and evaluation; little evidence of originality; not well researched; standard of presentation unacceptable; ideas unclear and incoherent; some significant errors and misunderstandings. Marginal fail.
Poor Below the pass standard; a poor critical analysis and evaluation; virtually no evidence of originality; poorly researched; presentation unacceptable and not up to graduate standard; ideas confused and incoherent, some serious misunderstandings and errors. A clear fail, short of pass standard.
Very poor Well below the pass standard, with many serious errors.  Standard of presentation totally unacceptable, incoherent and may be severely under- length. No evidence of evaluation or application. A very clear fail, well short of the pass standard.
College of Engineering and Technology
 Division of the Built Environment
Module – 7BU504                                   Assessment CWA1 – Project Programming     
Learning Outcomes   1 & 2
Assignment Specific Assessment Grid
The following grading structure will be employed to assess your assignment submission
Student Name………………………………………..   Course………………………   Date…………………
80 – 100%
70- 79%
60 – 69%
50 – 59%
35 – 49%
1 – 34%
Very Good
Unsatisfactory Marginal Fail
Has effectively chosen (almost) all the facts and principles relevant to the given task with no erroneous inclusions
Has applied these mostly correctly and effectively with some occasional errors
Has applied these correctly and effectively in the large majority of instances
Has applied these correctly and effectively in the majority of instances (>50%)
Has applied correctly in some cases
Has shown little/no evidence of ability to apply correctly or effectively
Has effectively/correctly applied these facts/principles
Has applied these mostly correctly and effectively with some occasional errors
Has applied these correctly and effectively in the large majority of instances
Has applied these correctly and effectively in the majority of instances (>50%)
Has applied correctly in some cases
Has shown little/no evidence of ability to apply correctly or effectively
Critical thought, evaluation and/or analysis within the assignment rigorous and appropriate
Good clear evidence of critical thought , evaluation and/or analysis carried out within assignment
Critical thought, evaluation and /or analysis reasonably well carried out
Some attempt at critical thought, evaluation and/or analysis within the assignment
Very limited attempt at critical thought, evaluation and/or analysis within the assignment
No attempt at critical thought, evaluation and/or analysis within the assignment
Clarity of expression excellent, consistently accurate use of grammar and spelling with fluent professional/academic writing/speaking style
Thoughts and ideas clearly expressed . Grammar and spelling accurate and language fluent
Language mainly fluent . Grammar and spelling mainly accurate. Communication of thoughts and ideas beginning to be affected
Meaning apparent in most instances but language not always fluent. .Grammar and spelling poor to moderate
Often ambiguous leading to meaning be barely apparent. Language, grammar and spelling poor
Purpose and meaning of assignment unclear. Language, grammar and spelling poor
Referencing (5%)
Referencing clear relevant and consistently accurate. Appropriate number.
Referencing relevant and mostly accurate. Appropriate number,
Minor inconsistencies and inaccuracies in referencing. Some shortfall in number. Mostly relevant
Referencing present but had inconsistencies and inaccuracies. Some shortfall in number , more than half relevant
Very limited referencing including some inconsistencies and inaccuracies
Referencing inaccurate or absent

READ ALSO...   Examine the regulatory agencies
Order from Academic Writers Bay
Best Custom Essay Writing Services