doc.

docx1

Module brief (LTAF)

Module Advanced Project Module RBP020L055A Module Colin Beeke
Title: Code: Convener:
Management

Module summary
Mastering project management is crucial to organisations in the 21 st century. Recognising the importance of both tools and techniques as
well as human and organisational factors in achieving project success, the module enables students to learn the ‘hard’ science essential for
project managers today, but with the crucial emphasis on the soft skills involved in managing people and change in order to help achieve
delivery of successful projects.
Through extensive case study analysis, and with insight from current research, you will evaluate the role of the project manager in today’s
workplace and critically review the rise of the project-centric organisation in a global context. Relating theory to practical reality in the light of
the current research, you will understand new best practice in project management and how it impacts organisations seeking to run effective
projects, both locally and across international borders.

Learning objectives
1. Knowledge outcomes – you will be able to demonstrate a critical understanding of the skills and competencies needed by project
managers and selectively apply the relevant tools and techniques available to address challenges and solve problems involved in
managing complex international projects, in line with organisations’ strategic direction.
2. Cognitive skills outcomes – you will be able to create, enhance and critique project planning documentation as well as applying soft
skills in a team leadership context and recognizing and initiating change in organisations.

University of Roehampton Business School 1/22

 doc.docx1

Outline of contents
Note: The following week by week content is indicative only. The order may change and will also be affected by the calendar of the
delivery location as this module is delivered by partners across the world as well as on-campus.

Discover Explore Share and apply

Week Topic Topic Overview Essential reading Exploration and Discussion for Student
and Interactive preparation) seminars etc. checklist
content (guided (independent study) (reflection)
instruction)
1 Introduction • To understand the • Pinto, J.K. (2020) Type: Whole group Checklist
to Project purpose of the Project Management: Activity to discussion (individual) questions:
Management module and agree Achieving explore and
the expectations of Competitive prepare for the Reflection activity / What did you
staff and students Advantage. (5th edn.) discussion: short case study: discover about
• To gain Pearson. Ch. 1, 2 different types of
understanding of • Aaltonen, K. & Kujala, • Find examples Tell the rest of the projects?
each other’s J. (2016) Towards an of major class a little about
professional improved projects that yourself – where you Consider different
project experience understanding of have an are from, why you are projects you have
• To ‘baseline’ project stakeholder international choosing this MBA worked on and
everyone’s landscapes. Internati element and list course and what, if the differences
understanding of onal Journal of out the different any, commercial or between them?
what defines a Project Management groups/countrie business project
project and what 34(8) pp. 1537–1552. s involved in management
are the key subject successful experience you have.
headings to be delivery. Share your examples
considered • Consider what of different types of
Slides to use: sort of projects project. Even if you
interest you have no professional
● MBA Project most – experience, you have
Management construction, all been involved with
Intro slides – Tim event projects, whether it is
Hill’s own. management, planning a trip,
Supplementary – technology building a house
use Pinto implementation extension or
chapter 1 s, etc. and completing a degree.

University of Roehampton Business School 2/22

 doc.docx1

Discover Explore Share and apply

shortlist some
well
documented
examples
• List personal
skills you
believe
necessary for
good project
management

2 Leading, • To understand the • Pinto, J. K. (2020). Activity to Type: Small group Checklist
communicati nature of project Ch. 4, 6. explore and task (5 to 6 students questions:
ng Project management • Minavand, H., prepare for the per group)
Teams leadership Farahmandian, S., & discussion: What did you
• To appreciate the Minaei, V. (2013) HR Share your summary learn about the
crucial nature of Challenges of Project • Find a presentation and cultural
effective project Managers. IOSR scholarly discuss the difference differences in
teams and good Journal of Business article upon between leadership project
communications and “project and management and management?
Slides to use: Management 11(5) management how international
pp. 40–45. leadership” or projects create unique How does your
• Pinto chapter “team challenges to organisation
4– dynamics”; leadership and adapt to cultural
leadership prepare a management. differences in
and the brief summary project
project presentation, management?
manager giving a brief
• Pinto chapter overview of What did you
6 – Project the article. learn about the
team Note: depending differences
Building, on the number of between
conflict and students this may leadership and
resolution be best done in management?
pairs

University of Roehampton Business School 3/22

 doc.docx1

Discover Explore Share and apply

How did this
inform your
understanding of
what project
managers do?

3 Organizing • To have an • Pinto, J. K. (2020). Activity to Type: Small group Checklist

International appreciation and Ch. 11.1. explore and task (5 to 6 students questions:
Projects understanding of • Krishna, Sahay, prepare for the per group)
the challenges Walsham, (2004) discussion: What did you
unique to running Managing Cross- learn about
projects across Cultural Issues in Discuss your international
physical and Global Software • Read observations about projects?
cultural borders Outsourcing. Ciutiene, R. & cultural differences in
• To consider the Communications of Meiliene, E. project management What are the
‘virtual’ element of the ACM, Vol 47(5), (2014) across borders, giving challenges in
project pp. 62-66 Influence of your answers to the international
management that cultural Johnson and Rogers projects in your
may be enabled by • Moran, R.T. & differences on case study. organisation?
new technology Youngdahl, W.E. implementatio
Slides to use: (2008) Leading n of
Global Projects: For international
● Tim Hill’s own Professional and projects:
Accidental Project Sample of
Leaders. Burlington: international
Butterworth- educational
Heinemann. projects.
Journal of
Advanced
Management
Science 2(3)
pp. 254–259
• Reflect on the
core reading
of Pinto
- Sir John
University of Roehampton Business School 4/22
 doc.docx1

Discover Explore Share and apply

Armitt, p.136
- “Engineers
Without
Borders”,
p.207.
• Prepare the
questions
posed at the
end of
Johnson &
Rogers case
study in Pinto,
ch. 6.
•
4 Project • To appreciate the • Pinto, J. K. (2020). Activity to Type: Small group Checklist
Management importance and Ch. 11. explore and task (5 to 6 students questions:
Methodologie value of • Rotterdam and Dubai prepare for the per group)
s methodologies cases (will be discussion: Are you now clear
• To understand the provided on Moodle on what is meant
difference between site). • Read the Port Share your by ‘project
methodologies • Graham N (2008) of Rotterdam ‘methodology articles, management
including PRINCE2 for and Burj giving a brief overview methodology’?
PRINCE2, Dummies. Chichester: Khalifa case to the rest of the
PMBOK, Agile and Wiley. studies class. State what you Can you describe
others • Bender, M.B (2010) A (provided on have now learned the core
• To recognise Manager’s guide to Moodle site); about methodologies. differences
where these Project Management: review Pinto Can you think of other between
differing Learn How To Apply (2016)’s case situations where you waterfall, Agile
methodologies Best Practices. Upper study 11.1 use a ‘methodology’ and PRINCE2?
have their uses Saddle River: FT [“It’s An Agile without even realising
and how they Press. World”] it? Can you
affect • Follow up of understand the
multinational, the answers Comment on the value of correctly
multicultural to Pinto points raised by other applied
projects (2016)’s case students when methodologies to
study 11.1 introducing their
University of Roehampton Business School 5/22
 doc.docx1

Discover Explore Share and apply

Slides to use: [“It’s An Agile articles, to develop different types of
World”]. the discussion and projects?
● Methodology • Find your own help all of you to learn
slides – Tim journal article from each other.
Hill’s own about project
management
methodologie
s and prepare
a brief
summary
presentation
(5 mins).

5 Planning: • To understand the • Pinto, J. K. (2020). Activity to Type: Group Checklist

Time, Cost ‘triple constraint’ of Ch. 8, 9, 10. explore and discussion and questions:
and Quality project prepare for the sharing
management • Kaliba, C., Muya, M., discussion: What have you
• To apply it to real & Mumba, K. (2009) Consider your MBA learned about the
case studies to be Cost escalation and • Visit online as a project in and of balance between
able to assess the schedule delays in https://www. itself. Think about time, cost and
dominant factor road construction thebalancecar time versus cost quality?
Slides to use: projects in Zambia. eers.com/ versus quality. What
International Journal managing- is the dominant factor Can you identify
● Time cost and of Project projects- for the project? When how different
quality slides Management 27(5) 4161683 does it change? Might projects might
from Tim Hill pp. 522–531. • Read the it be different for each prioritise these
• Too, E.G. & Weaver, various of you? Contribute differently?
● Pinto slides – P. (2014) The articles there your views and How
chapter 8 – cost Management of about project might this be very
management Project Management: scheduling, different for other
● Pinto slides – A conceptual planning, etc. projects such as the
chapter 9 – time framework for project • Key in a London Olympics
management governance. Google search Opening Ceremony or
and scheduling International Journal with the the building of Burj
of Project prompt, Khalifa in Dubai? Do
“project in …”
University of Roehampton Business School 6/22
 doc.docx1

Discover Explore Share and apply

Management 32(8) in which you you agree you’re your
pp. 1–25. select a classmates?
country of
interest. Many
of the projects
generated by
such a search
are
government-
sponsored
initiatives.
• Also read the
“Caspian
Kashagan
Project” profile
on pp. 317-
318 in Pinto
(2016).
6 Managing • To understand the • Pinto, J. K. (2020). Activity to Type: Small group Checklist
Risk and difference between Ch. 7. explore and task (5 to 6 students questions:
Uncertainty risks and issues prepare for the per group)
• To be able to use • Sarkar, S. & Kovid, discussion: Can you
the concepts of R. K. (2015) Present your travel articulate the
likelihood, impact, Framework of Risk • Review of task risk registers to difference
mitigation and factors and Crossrail risk the other groups. between
contingency to Financing management Compare your mitigation and
develop risk Implications for case study answers to the others. contingency
management Road Projects in using video Are you all covering actions?
artefacts including India: Study of resources the same risks? Have
a risk register and Selected Cases. (URLs to be you missed anything Do you know how
risk management Pacific Business provided). out? Did the other to build a risk
plan Review • Build a list of groups get register for any
International 8(2) potential risks mitigation/contingency project?
Slides to use: pp. 110–122. for Crossrail correct?
• Harris, E. (2010) project How does the
Strategic Project register help form
University of Roehampton Business School 7/22
 doc.docx1

Discover Explore Share and apply

● Tim Hill’s Risk Risk Appraisal & • Develop a risk Crucially, has the risk a key part of a
management Management. register for register been total approach to
slides Gower. travel tasks. improved as a result managing risk?
Risk-specific chapter of • Consider of all of you
Newton, R. (2009) The identified comparing?
Practice and Theory of risks,
Project Management: weighting and
Creating Value Through prioritisation
Change. Basingstoke: • Perform a gap
Palgrave Macmillan. analysis of
missing risks
and critique of
draft register.

7 Controlling • To understand the • Pinto, J. K. (2020). Activity to Type: Group Checklist

and critical importance Ch. 13. explore and discussion questions:
Evaluating of controlling the • Cuellar, M. (2010) prepare for the
project across all Assessing project discussion: What did you
phases of the success: Moving • Answer the learn about
lifecycle beyond the triple • Read and questions in 13.2 considerations on
• To be able to constraint. review case and post your when evaluating
identify and use International study 13.2 in answers (1 projects?
appropriate Research Workshop Pinto (same in paragraph for each
different control on IT Project Eds 4 and 5) of the three Evaluate a
mechanisms for a Management • Analyse your questions) onto the current project in
given project 2010.13. own chosen discussion chat for your own
scenario. http://aisel.aisnet.org case studies to the online seminar organisation?
• To appreciate the /irwitpm2010/13 see where in or bring to the face
importance of the lifecycle to face sessions
metrics and maximum
success factors in control may be Allow others to do the
evaluating the needed. same and then
success of a critique/comment on
project at least two other
Slides to use: students’ work
University of Roehampton Business School 8/22
 doc.docx1

Discover Explore Share and apply

.
● Pinto slides –
chapter 13

8 Closing a • To be able to • Pinto, J. K. (2020). Activity to Type: Whole group Checklist

Project distinguish Ch. 14. explore and discussion (individual) questions:
between the main prepare for the
types of project • Bakker, R.M. (2011) discussion: • Take the position What did you
termination and to Managing the Project that terminating the learn about
be able to apply Learning Paradox: A • Analyse the project discussed in closing a project?
the seven key set theoretic closeout 14.3 after having
steps of formal process in your invested so much in How you have
approach towards
project closeout knowledge transfer. own case research and experienced
• To understand the International Journal project. development project closure in
key reasons for of Project followed by represented a good your own
early termination Management 29(5), your case or, if or bad decision by organisation?
of projects pp. 494–503. that information the Danish
• To be able to is not available, government. In a
manage a how would you discussion forum
professional have closed it if (online chat with the
closeout process you were the seminar or face to
and know how to project face) argue your
write a final project manager? case and critique at
report • What evidence least two other
is there that the answers
Slides to use: project team
formalised the
• Pinto slides lessons learned
chapter 14 from this project
and how would
you have done
that?
• Review case
study 14.3 in

University of Roehampton Business School 9/22

 doc.docx1

Discover Explore Share and apply

Pinto (same in
Eds 4 & 5).

9 The • To appreciate the • Hodgson, D. Activity to Type: Whole group Checklist

Professional nature of project (2002) explore and discussion (individual) questions:
Project management as a Disciplining the prepare for the
Manager career professional: discussion: Now that you have Which links on
• To be able to The case of studied project the CMI, APM
make informed project • Review CMI, management, what and PMI websites
choices about management. APM and PMI are your views on suggest that
career options, Journal of websites: project management project
engaging with Management - as a career?. management has
project Studies 39(6) www.managers. become a
management in pp. 803–821. org.uk Present your views*
sophisticated and
the workplace and - to the group. Do
you want to be a vital element in
applying www.apm.org.u corporate
professional k project manager?
Would you be good success?
ethical standards - www.pmi.org
to project at it. Explain your
How does the
management Prepare short reasons. Discuss
PMI material
scenarios presentation on with the group
under
how your views* ‘membership’
of project cause you to
• .Slides to use: management
rethink project
have changed
Project management over the course of management as a
as a profession this module and career option?
how you will
apply this to your
career choices
going forward.
10 Summative Lecture overview of Seminar time to be Prepare any Tutor-led Q&A Are you ready to
assessment assignment with final given over to Q&A questions you session about the complete and
submission reminders of what is discussion on may have – assignment – be submit? Do you
expected and some assignment review your ready to post your have all the
progress so far so questions.
University of Roehampton Business School 10/22
 doc.docx1

Discover Explore Share and apply

further examples to that you are best information you
be shown placed to benefit need?
from the seminar
Tim Hill’s slides to discussion
be used

University of Roehampton Business School 11/22

 doc.docx1

ASSESSMENT BRIEF
Academic year and term: 2022/23 – Semester A
Module title: Advanced Project Management
For further module description see above Module Brief.

Assessment deadline: Formative (informal feedback given):

Assignment 1: Timed MCQ Assessment. – Week (7) 5th Nov 23
Assignment 2: Individual Report - Case Study Analysis. Opens Week
(8) 13th Nov 23 and closes (9) 24th Nov 23

Summative (formally marked):

Assignment 1: Timed MCQ Assessment. Week(9) 22nd to 24th Nov
2023, From 0900 hours (22nd) to 1700 hours (24th )
Assignment 2: Report - Case Study Analysis. TBA Jan 2024,
(expected 2nd week)

Instructions for assessment: Summative components overview

Components of summative Individual or Word Weighting Must Must Pass Sub-
assessment group count Attempt Y/N components
submission? Y/N
Assignment 1: Timed MCQ Individual 1000 25% Yes No n/a
Assessment
Assignment 2: Report (Case Individual 3,500 75% Yes No n/a
study analysis)

Note that above table does not include the formative assessments. Formative assessments are not
formally marked.

Instructions for Assessments

Formative feedback
There will be regular opportunities for feedback on your work in progress and an opportunity for formative
assessment of your coursework while it is under construction, through peer-to-peer evaluations of an
interim your work (in the case of on-campus delivery this will be immediately before reading week).

More specifically, two structured formative feedback opportunities will be given as follows:

Assignment 1: Timed MCQ Assessment

Submit to in seminar sessions MCQ activities
Undertaken through Moodle practice Timed MCQ Assessment Mon 6th to Fri 10th Nov 23

Assignment 2: Case Review

Opens Week (8) Mon 13th Nov 23 and closes (9) Fri 25th Nov 23
Submit approx. a single page of notes including:
• Chosen case and headline points about the project (especially important if it is one you have
chosen yourself)
University of Roehampton Business School 12/22
 doc.docx1

• Summary paragraph about the approach to risk management

• Summary paragraph about main stakeholders, their impact on the project and whether or not
their needs were correctly addressed
• Brief discussion defining success or failure of the project with justification of your decision
• Paragraph reflecting on what you have learned and how it may be applied to your
understanding of the challenges of international projects (where relevant)
• Brief list of major sources used (does not have to be full Harvard standard at this stage)

This should be submitted using the Turnitin link on Moodle.

Summative Assessments
There are two summative assessments. One is a MCQ timed through Moodle assessment and the other
is to be written in the form of a report, with a brief abstract, table of contacts, headings, sub headings and
bibliography, etc. An executive summary is not required.

Assessment 1: Timed MCQ Assessment

You are required to review a set number of questions and select the most appropriate answer/answers.
This is an individual undertaking and needs to be completed within a set time frame 22nd to 24th Nov 23.

The questions are based upon the module learning outcomes and the associated learning content that
has been undertaken.

This is an individual assessment approximately equivalent to 1,000 words.

Assessment 2: Case Study Analysis

You are required to choose from the following project case studies, all of which are relatively well
documented online and in textbooks. Note that some are great successes, some are terrible failures
and some could be argued either way depending on your perspective. All are well documented but do
make sure you focus on the way project management processes were (or were not) followed and do
not use up large word count on engineering or technical descriptions as this is not an engineering
module:

• Space Shuttle Challenger testing and launch

• Crossrail implementation on London’s tube network
• The Shard UK design and build
• Boeing 787 development
• The Thames Tideway Upgrading London’s Sewer System

Options
Environmental Projects (UK, Europe or World): Energy, Utilities, Flood and Coastal Erosion
There must be a major project undertaking in order to base your development against.

Alternative options:
1. If you have access to adequate sources of information, you are free to approach your tutor to
suggest an alternative case study for your work, particularly if you have personal experience of
it. Such requests will only be granted if the Module Convener believes the subject may be
appropriate and that the information available is public domain and can therefore be verified and
referenced. Please discuss initially with your seminar tutor who will initial indicate if appropriate
and sufficient material available.
University of Roehampton Business School 13/22
 doc.docx1

2. If you are studying through one of Roehampton University’s partner institutions around the world
your tutor may give you additional project options from, or relevant to, your local environment.

Your job for this assignment is to analyse and critique the success or failure of the project specifically in
terms of its project management capability and to tell us what you have learned from this. For example,
Burj Khalifa was an engineering success story but, as a project, can it, and should it, be seen as
successful? In this particular case how does it compare to ‘The Shard’ in its approach to development
and construction techniques. Do not get distracted by detail of the engineering processes or technical
design. These may be important but your focus MUST be on the application of the project management
process throughout the project’s lifecycle. Specifically, analyse the case’s approach to risk management
and stakeholder management. You will draw on the perspectives of project management best practice
and academic literature and demonstrate your understanding of how the case does or does not reflect
this best practice. The tasks and marking criteria are as follows:

1. Discuss and critique the project team’s approach to the management of project risk (20%)
2. Analyse the approach to stakeholder management (20%)
3. Decide to what extent you believe the project (or some aspects of it) should be seen as a success.
Critique and compare your view with that of others (media, investors, employees, etc.) and justify
your position. Having reviewed risk management, stakeholder management and the success or
failure of the project what lessons can be learned. (25%)
4. From above (and wider projects investigations in a similar field) what can you offer to help
the profession of project management in their applied application to projects? Specifically, if you
were writing an article for the Association of Project Managers what would you highlight to the
readers to help them in their careers and to do their own jobs better? (25%)
5. Overall quality of writing, presentation and academic standards (referencing syntax, etc.). (10%)

This is an individual report and should be approximately 3,500 words, not including references, diagrams,
tables, appendices and headings.

To help you, the following is a suggested template structure for your report although this is not prescriptive
and you are free to use a different structure if you prefer:

• Title Page
• Abstract
• Table of Contents
• Brief Introduction to the Project – what, why, where and when
• Risk Management – approach to project risk management, major risks to project success, how
specific risks were dealt with, etc.
• Stakeholder Management – who were the major stakeholders, why important, how were they
managed?
• Success Review – in what way was the project a success or failure – justify from multiple
perspectives. What you learned from the project you are reviewing. This could be a separate
heading Lessons learned?
• Project Management Professional Application – this is worth 25% of the marks so spend some
time on this and demonstrate depth of understanding. (see Below)
• Final conclusions
• References
• Bibliography
• Appendices (if needed)

Instructions for Re-sit

University of Roehampton Business School 14/22
 doc.docx1

The same assignment task as for the main assignment period applies to the re-sit, with further instructions
see below.

Re-sit deadlines will be published via Moodle. Visit the module’s Moodle site and check your
Roehampton email account on a regular basis. The school is not obliged to check whether you have
noticed re-sit deadlines.

Resit Deadline Assignment 1: (MCQ Test) TBA - Approximately March 24

You are required to review a set number of questions and select the most appropriate answer/answers.
This as before will be 40 questions and you will have 2 hours to complete.

Resit Deadline Assignment 2: TBA – Approximately About March 24

For this assignment, you are required to improve and resubmit your original work using the feedback
originally provided to help you make it better. Please also add a further reflective commentary in form of
a 400-700 words essay. That is, a statement demonstrating how you learned from the feedback and what
you did differently the second time. You must use learning theory such as Gibbs or Kolb to support this.
Do not provide a narrative of excuses as to why you failed the first time but instead show you have
developed a better understanding of yourself and what you need to do differently.

You must resubmit your work using the specific re-sit Turnitin link on Moodle. This additional word count
can be added on top of the original word count of this assignment, if you used the full word count.

The original marking criteria will still apply (see marking grid in Appendix A) except that the reflective
piece will be worth 10% of the total and will take the place of the 10% previously allocated for presentation
and professionalism.

If you did not submit work at the first opportunity, you cannot reflect on your feedback. However, you
can reflect on why you did not submit the first time (time management, confusion, etc) and what you
would do differently in order to avoid such situations in the future. You can also reflect upon how the
module contents could be beneficial to you as knowledge of best practices for your future career. Marks
will be awarded for depth of self-awareness.

If you were deferred at the first assessment opportunity you do not need to include the reflective piece
as this is a first submission at a later date, not a re-sit.

Presentation
Your submission should be in the form of a professional report using appropriate structural elements
and diagrams, figures, tables, etc. where relevant. It must also follow academic best practice with fully
referenced sources, in-text citations and bibliography.

Any written work should be spell-checked and a contents page should be included. Do not use various
font sizes and colours, except where deliberate emphasis is appropriate for clarity and impact. Black
ink, Arial, size 11, 1.5 lines spaced is recommended. Use DIN A4 format and page margins of 2.5 cm
or 1 inch.

Full reading list

There will be weekly guided reading and you will be expected to undertake your own review of
relevant literature, both academic and professional as well as internet sources relating to real business
scenarios and cases.

University of Roehampton Business School 15/22

 doc.docx1

Essential Readings

Pinto, J. K. (2020) Project Management: Achieving Competitive Advantage. (5th ed.)

Pearson. (note: 2016 4th ed. contains similar information and for the most part will be
adequate)
Straw, G. (2015) Understanding Project Management: Skills and Insight for Successful
Project Delivery. Kogan Page: London.

Recommended Readings

Carnell, C. & Todnem, R. (2014) Managing Change in Organisations. (6th ed.) Harlow:
Prentice Hall.
Graham, N. (2008) PRINCE2 for Dummies. Chichester: Wiley.
Harris, E. (2009) Strategic Project Risk Appraisal and Management. Farnham: Gower.
Kerzner, H. (2010) Project Management Best Practices: Achieving Global Excellence. (2nd
ed.) Hoboken: Wiley & Sons.
Lientz, P.B. & Ria, P.K. (2011) Project Management for the 21st Century. (3rd ed.) Routledge.
Maylor, H. (2010) Project Management. (4th ed.) Harlow: Prentice Hall.
Moran, R.T. & Youngdahl, W.E. (2008) Leading Global Projects: For Professional and
Accidental Project Leaders. Burlington: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Schwalbe, K. (2016) Information Technology Project Management. (8th ed.) Boston:
Cengage.

Further Reading

Aaltonen, K. & Kujala, J. (2016) Towards an improved understanding of project stakeholder

landscapes. International Journal of Project Management 34(8) pp. 1537–1552.
Adler, P.S., Mandelbaum, A., Nguyen, V., & Schwerer, E. (1995) From project to process
management: An empirically-based framework for analyzing product development time.
Management Science 41(3) pp. 143–165.
Alarcón, L.F., Ashley, D.B., de Hanily, A.S., Molenaar, K.R., & Ungo, R. (2010) Risk
planning and management for the Panama Canal expansion program. Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management 137(10) pp. 762–771.
Alfons, M., Sierk Y., Karen, S., Stewart, C., & Tyrone, P. (2016) Clash of the titans:
Temporal organizing and collaborative dynamics in the Panama Canal Megaproject.
Organization Studies 37(12) pp. 1745–1769.
Alnsour, B.H. (2014) The Use of Virtual Project Teams for Project Management in Jordanian
Corporations. Eurasian Journal of Business and Management 2(2) pp. 50–60.
Anbari, F., Khilkhanova, E., Romanova, M., Ruggia, M., Tsay, H-H., & Umpleby, S. (2009)
Managing Cross-Cultural Differences in Projects. Paper presented at PMI Global Congress,
2009, Orlando.
Bakker, R.M. (2011) Managing the Project Learning Paradox: A set theoretic approach
towards knowledge transfer. International Journal of Project Management 29(5) pp. 494–503.
University of Roehampton Business School 16/22
 doc.docx1

Bender, M.B. (2010) A Manager’s Guide to Project Management: Learn How To Apply Best
Practices. Upper Saddle River: FT Press.
Chin, M.M.C. & Spowage, A.C. (2012) Project Management Methodologies: A Comparative
Analysis. Journal for the Advancement of Performance Information and Value 4(1) pp. 106–
118.
Chuing Loo, S., Abdul‐Rahman, H., & Wang, C. (2013) Managing external risks for
international architectural, engineering, and construction (AEC) firms operating in Gulf
Cooperation Council (GCC) states. Project Management Journal 44(5) pp. 70–88.
Ciutiene, R. & Meiliene, E. (2014) Influence of cultural differences on implementation of
international projects: Sample of international educational projects. Journal of Advanced
Management Science 2(3) pp. 254–259.
Cuellar, M. (2010) Assessing project Success: Moving beyond the triple constraint,
International Research Workshop on IT Project Management, 2010.13.
http://aisel.aisnet.org/irwitpm2010/13
Dey, P. (2012) Project risk management using multiple criteria decision-making technique and
decision tree analysis: A case study of Indian oil refinery. Production Planning & Control 23(12)
pp. 903–921.
Didraga, O. (2013) The role and the effects of risk management in IT projects
success. Informatica Economica 17(1) pp. 86–98.
Evaristo, R. (2003) The management of distributed projects across cultures. Journal of
Global Information Management 11(4) pp. 58–70.
Hodgson, D (2002) Disciplining the professional: The case of project management. Journal
of Management Studies 39(6) pp. 803–821.
Joslin, R. & Muller, R. (2015) Relationships between a project management methodology
and project success in different project governance contexts. International Journal of Project
Management 33(6) pp 1377–1392.
Kaliba, C., Muya, M., & Mumba, K. (2009) Cost escalation and schedule delays in road
construction projects in Zambia. International Journal of Project Management 27(5) pp. 522–
531.
Matos, S. & Lopes, E. (2013) PRINCE2 or PMBOK: A question of choice. Procedia
Technology 9 pp. 787–794.
Minavand, H., Farahmandian, S., & Minaei, V. (2013) HR challenges of project
managers. IOSR journal of business and management 11(5) pp. 40-45.
Newton, R. (2009) The Practice and Theory of Project Management: Creating Value Through
Change. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Ochieng, E.G. & Price, A.D.F. (2009) Addressing cultural issues when managing
multicultural construction project teams. Association of Researchers in Construction
Management pp. 1273–1282.
Rodrigues, I. & Sbragia, R. (2013) The cultural challenges of managing global project
teams: A study of Brazilian multinationals. Journal of Technology Management &
Innovation 8(1) pp. 38–52.
Sarkar, S. & Kovid, R.K. (2015) Framework of risk factors and financing implications for road
projects in India: Study of selected cases. Pacific Business Review International 8(2) pp. 110–
122.

University of Roehampton Business School 17/22

 doc.docx1

Stewart, J (2006) Cross Culture Project Management. Paper presented at PMI® Global
Congress 2006—North America, Seattle, WA. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management
Institute.
Too, E.G. & Weaver, P. (2014) The Management of Project Management: A conceptual
framework for project governance. International Journal of Project Management 32(8) pp. 1–
25.

How will your work be assessed?

Your work will be assessed by a subject expert who will use either the marking criteria provided in the
section “Instructions for assessment” or the Marking rubric enclosed in the Appendix, as appropriate for
this module. When you access your marked work, it is important that you reflect on the feedback so that
you can use it to improve future assignments.

Referencing and Submission

You must use the Harvard System.

The Business School requires a digital version of all assignment submissions. These must be submitted
via Turnitin on the module’s Moodle site. They must be submitted as a Word file (not as a pdf) and must
not include scanned in text or text boxes. They must be submitted by 2pm on the given date. For further
general details on coursework preparation refer to the online information at StudentZone,
http://studentzone.roehampton.ac.uk/howtostudy/index.html.

Mitigating circumstances/what to do if you cannot submit a piece of work or

attend your presentation

The University Mitigating Circumstances Policy can be found on the University website: Mitigating
Circumstances Policy

Marking and feedback process

Between you handing in your work and then receiving your feedback and marks within 20 days, there
are a number of quality assurance processes that we go through to ensure that students receive marks
which reflects their work. A brief summary is provided below.

• Step One – The module and marking team meet to agree standards, expectations and how
feedback will be provided.

• Step Two – A subject expert will mark your work using the criteria provided in the assessment
brief.

• Step Three – A moderation meeting takes place where all members of the teaching and marking
team will review the marking of others to confirm whether they agree with the mark and feedback

• Step Four – Work then goes to an external examiner who will review a sample of work to confirm
that the marking between different staff is consistent and fair

• Stop Five – Your mark and feedback is processed by the Office and made available to you.

University of Roehampton Business School 18/22

 doc.docx1

Appendix: Marking rubric (to be updated autumn 2022)

Rubric category Not Fail Fail Marginal Adequate Good Very Good Excellent Outstanding
(range) done (20-29) (30-39) Fail (50-59) (60-69) (70-79) (80-89)
Assigned mark >> 25 35 (40-49) 55 65 75 85 100
________________ 0 45
Marking criteria
(weight out of 100
Appraisal of Risk Missing. Little or no Weak, superficial Still weak and Adequate investigation Good evidence of thorough Considerable Demonstrates Outstanding and
Wholly analysis. analysis at best, project superficial using a range of investigation with research evidence of a flawless.
Management incorrect or Theory not not properly analysis with appropriate sources to informing your answer and solid research sophisticated
aspects not applied. Very investigated using some valid inform your answer. supporting extensive use of into the project. approach to
attempted. little use of appropriate sources attempt Some evidence of wider theory. Analysis clear and Extensive use the application
(20%) relevant and lightweight, limited vague reading and research into relevant, based on variety of theory to of theory to
reference use of theory. alluded to. the issues discussed. of sources and depth of support highly practice.
Quality and application material. Referencing poor and Reasonable use and understanding of project analytical Project has
of relevant project Artefacts few appropriate application of theory to management techniques approach that been
management theory to either missing sources used to support analysis. demonstrated. Argument demonstrates researched in
support analysis of or largely enhance report. Argument somewhat shows reasonable depth of deep depth and
approach to risk irrelevant. superficial but basic points understanding. understanding. sources have
management on the covered. Argument been used to
project. Reference to compelling and provide
relevant project credible. considerable
management literature to insight.
support analysis of Argument
research. Quality of demonstrates
analysis/range of an impressive,
sources, evidence of thorough
research effort. Quality understanding
of discussion. of the
challenges
faced by
project
managers.
Appraisal of Missing. Little or no Weak, superficial Some but Adequate investigation Good evidence of thorough Considerable Demonstrates Outstanding and
Wholly analysis. analysis at best, project vague and/or using a range of investigation with research evidence of a flawless.
Stakeholder incorrect or Theory not not properly confused appropriate sources to informing your answer and solid research sophisticated
Strategy not applied. Very investigated using analysis of inform your answer. supporting extensive use of into the project. approach to
Management attempted. little use of appropriate sources project. Some evidence of wider theory. Analysis clear and Extensive use the application
Approach relevant and lightweight, limited reading and research into relevant, based on variety of theory to of theory to
reference use of theory. the issues discussed. of sources and depth of support highly practice.
material. Referencing poor and Reasonable use and understanding of project analytical Project has
(20%) Artefacts few appropriate application of theory to management techniques approach that been
either missing sources used to support analysis. demonstrated. Argument demonstrates researched in
Quality and application
University of Roehampton Business School 19/22
 doc.docx1

Rubric category Not Fail Fail Marginal Adequate Good Very Good Excellent Outstanding
(range) done (20-29) (30-39) Fail (50-59) (60-69) (70-79) (80-89)
Assigned mark >> 25 35 (40-49) 55 65 75 85 100
________________ 0 45
Marking criteria
(weight out of 100
of relevant project or largely enhance report. Argument somewhat shows reasonable depth of deep depth and
management theory to irrelevant. Stakeholders list might superficial but basic points understanding. understanding. sources have
support analysis of have been alluded to. covered. Acknowledges Acknowledges Argument been used to
stakeholder obvious stakeholders. stakeholders from society compelling and provide
management on the as well as policy and credible. considerable
project. Reference to business community, some Acknowledges insight.
relevant project thoughtful focus. stakeholders Argument
management literature to from society as demonstrates
support analysis of well as policy an impressive,
research. Quality of and business thorough
analysis/range of community, understanding
sources, evidence of excellent of the
research effort. Quality focus. challenges
of discussion. faced by
project
managers.
Demonstrates
deep insight of
stakeholders
from society
as well as
policy and
business
community,
excellent focus
throughout.
Critical Review of Missing. Little or no Weak, superficial Still weak and Adequate investigation Good evidence of thorough Considerable Demonstrates Outstanding and
Wholly analysis. analysis at best, project superficial using a range of investigation with research evidence of a flawless.
Project Success &
incorrect or Theory not not properly analysis with appropriate sources to informing your answer and solid research sophisticated
Lessons Learned not applied. Very investigated using some valid inform your answer. supporting extensive use of into the project. approach to
attempted. little use of appropriate sources attempt Some evidence of wider theory. Analysis clear and Extensive use the application
(25%) relevant and lightweight, limited vague reading and research into relevant, based on variety of theory to of theory to
reference use of theory. alluded to. the issues discussed. of sources and depth of support highly practice.
Quality and application material. Referencing poor and Reasonable use and understanding of project analytical Project has
of relevant project Artefacts few appropriate application of theory to management techniques approach that been
management theory to either missing sources used to support analysis. demonstrated. Argument demonstrates researched in
support analysis of or largely enhance report. No Argument somewhat shows reasonable depth of deep depth and
success of the project. irrelevant. No discussion provided. superficial but basic points understanding. Well understanding. sources have
Reference to relevant discussion covered. Discussion could informed and critical Argument been used to
project management provided. be more critical and discussion. compelling and provide
literature to support informed by data but credible. Very considerable
analysis of research. overall good attempt. good and well insight.
Quality of analysis/range informed Argument
University of Roehampton Business School 20/22
 doc.docx1

Rubric category Not Fail Fail Marginal Adequate Good Very Good Excellent Outstanding
(range) done (20-29) (30-39) Fail (50-59) (60-69) (70-79) (80-89)
Assigned mark >> 25 35 (40-49) 55 65 75 85 100
________________ 0 45
Marking criteria
(weight out of 100
of sources, evidence of discussion. demonstrates
research effort. Quality an impressive,
of discussion. thorough
understanding
of the
challenges
faced by
project
managers.
Impressive
depth and
scope of
discussion.
Project Missing. Little or no Weak, superficial Some but Adequate Good evidence of thorough Considerable Demonstrates Outstanding and
Wholly analysis. analysis at best, project vague and/or investigation/consideration investigation/considerations evidence of a flawless.
Management incorrect or Theory not management not confused using a range of with research informing solid research sophisticated
Professional not applied. Very properly analysis of appropriate sources to your answer and into the approach to
attempted. little use of investigated/considered project inform your answer. supporting extensive use of selected the application
Application relevant using appropriate management Some evidence of wider theory. Analysis clear and project. of theory to
(25%) reference sources and application. reading and research into relevant, based on selected Extensive use practice.
material. lightweight, limited use the issues and project with a variety of of theory to Project has
Quality and application Artefacts of theory. Referencing considerations discussed. sources and depth of support highly been
of relevant project either missing poor and few Reasonable use and understanding of project analytical researched in
management theory to or largely appropriate sources application of theory to management techniques approach that depth and
support analysis of irrelevant. used to enhance support analysis. demonstrated. Argument demonstrates sources have
Professional Application Uncritical and report. Uncritical or Argument somewhat shows reasonable depth of deep been used to
on the project. descriptive descriptive writing. superficial but basic points understanding. Highly understanding. provide
Reference to relevant writing. covered. Overall critical critical approach to Argument considerable
project management approach to discussion. discussion. compelling and insight.
literature to support credible. Highly Argument
analysis of research. critical demonstrates
Quality of analysis/range approach to an impressive,
of sources, evidence of discussion. thorough
research effort. Quality understanding
of discussion. of the
challenges
faced by
project
managers.
Highly critical
approach to
discussion.

University of Roehampton Business School 21/22

 doc.docx1

Rubric category Not Fail Fail Marginal Adequate Good Very Good Excellent Outstanding
(range) done (20-29) (30-39) Fail (50-59) (60-69) (70-79) (80-89)
Assigned mark >> 25 35 (40-49) 55 65 75 85 100
________________ 0 45
Marking criteria
(weight out of 100
Professionalism Missing. Unintelligible Very poor writing. Poor Writing poor Writing poor with Adequate quality of writing Well written Professional Outstanding and
Wholly writing. Very quality of document with significant impact of report with modest errors and presented standard of flawless.
and Presentation incorrect or messy presentation with little significant credibility. Presentation throughout. An attempt has with good use report that
not presentation, use of structure. impact of with limited structure. been made to use of structure. would be
(10%) attempted. lacking use of References poorly and report References sometimes appropriate structure. Tables, worthy of
structure. incorrectly provided. credibility. inconsistent. References generally diagrams, etc. giving to a
Quality of writing and References Little use of correct with minor errors. correctly commercial
document presentation, not listed. structure and labelled. client.
use of structure, correct references References Exemplary
syntax of references often correct to standard of
(this 10% will instead inconsistent. Harvard writing
be used to mark the standards. throughout
reflective piece in in with wholly
the case of resits) correct and
appropriate
presentation.

University of Roehampton Business School 22/22