Recent Question/Assignment

Assessment Details and Submission Guidelines
Unit Code MN601
Unit Title Network Project Management
Term, Year T1, 2018
Assessment Type Assignment 1, Individual.
Assessment
Title Individual case study assignment
Purpose of the assessment (with ULO
Mapping) The purpose of this assignment is to build a clear understanding of project management fundamentals and their application, specifically:
• demonstrate project leadership skills; identify and assess risk in designing, executing a major project;
• critically reflect on current project management ethics, research, and theory and practice;
Weight 15%
Total Marks 45
Word limit 800-1000
Due Date Week 7
Submission Guidelines • A draft of the report must be submitted on Moodle by the day before the Week-6 class, to get feedback from the tutor in Week-6. Updated version of the report must be submitted on Moodle the day before your Week-7 class. • The assignment must be in MS Word format, 1.5 spacing, 11-pt Calibri (Body) font and 2 cm margins on all four sides of your page with appropriate section headings.
• Reference sources must be cited in the text of the report, and listed appropriately at the end in a reference list using IEEE referencing style.
Extension • If an extension of time to submit work is required, a Special Consideration Application must be submitted directly on AMS. You must submit this application three working days prior to the due date of the assignment.
Further information is available at:
http://www.mit.edu.au/about-mit/institute-publications/policiesprocedures-and-guidelines/specialconsiderationdeferment
Academic
Misconduct
• Academic Misconduct is a serious offence. Depending on the seriousness of the case, penalties can vary from a written warning or zero marks to exclusion from the course or rescinding the degree. Students should make themselves familiar with the full policy and procedure available at: http://www.mit.edu.au/about-mit/institute-publications/policiesprocedures-and-guidelines/Plagiarism-Academic-Misconduct-Policy-
Procedure. For further information, please refer to the Academic Integrity Section in your Unit Description.
Prepared by: A/Prof Nalin Sharda Moderated by: A/Prof Savitri Bevinakoppa April 2018 1 of 4
Purpose of the assessment:
In this assessment task, you are required examine a project case and write a 800-100 words report on the project management and ethical issues (excluding references).
A case study of a novice project manager
By Patricia E Lindsey, and Scott W Kramer.
Background
Project: University Classroom Building
Location: Southeast United States
Budget: $34 Million
Project Delivery System: Competitive Bid
Party Involved: General Contractor
Case
Assistant Project Manager Jim Rains was 26 years old, newly hired at a large commercial construction company, and was assigned to work on a $34 million dollar university classroom project in the southeast United States. Upon arriving on the job site, Jim was introduced to head superintendent Bob Moore who had been with the firm for 25 years. Bob was an exceptionally proficient organizer and was often requested by clients for the supervision of their construction projects. As the project began, things on a whole went smoothly. In fact, Jim was learning and taking on more project management responsibilities every day.
The winter and spring months brought many days of rain. Often, Bob would have to send several carpenters home because there was nothing at the construction site for them to do when it was raining. This did not sit well with the carpenters when they could only work 3 days per week (and were paid for 3 days work) because of rainouts. Other times, Bob would not send the carpenters home, but would have them sweep up the floors that were already under roof. This activity would normally take 2 hours with a crew of 4, but Bob would be forced to pay them for a full 8-hour day. Some days Bob, being one to hate inefficiency (and the potential loss of workers not returning to the site after being sent home), sent some of the carpenters (who would normally be just standing around and sweeping on rain days) to his home to work. There the carpenters would work on interior framing, finish carpentry, and hang drywall in Bob's new addition. Bob figured that as long as the carpenters were just hanging around the site with little to do, they might as well earn their pay.
The third time Bob sent carpenters to his house on a rain day; Jim decided to talk with Bob about the issue of billing the carpenter's hours to the job site construction cost. Bob was very noncommittal about the whole issue leaving Jim with the dilemma of confronting one of the company's best superintendents. After three more days of watching several carpenters go to Bob's house to work, Jim could no longer stomach the practice and told Bob that it was unethical to use company employees for personal work. Bob told Jim that if he did not send the carpenters home on rain days they would get paid for basically doing nothing. By sending the carpenters to his house to use their skills, he was keeping his workers motivated and satisfied instead of laying them off or having them do small, time-filling jobs.
Getting nowhere with the superintendent, Jim had some major decisions to make. Should he go to the project manager or someone in the home office? What would the company think about some new employee questioning the practices of a long-term employee?
Because Jim was new to the organization, he decided to talk with Bob one more time and asked that he discontinue billing employee hours to the construction project if they were in fact working on Bob's own house. Bob again refrained from doing anything, only commenting that the workers would soon be able to work a normal 5-day workweek because the rainy season was about to end. Jim still could not let the issue go.
Assignment task
Write a report on the above case study that addresses the following issues; and carry out research on project management practice and discuss the ethical implications in this case.
In your report, you must use the headings given in Table 1. We encourage you to use at least 10 key peer reviewed sources for your analysis (a combination of journals, conference papers, website or any other reliable source to support your analysis).
Table 1: Report headings, their description, and marks for each
Heading Description Marks
1. PM Leadership Discuss, how well are leadership skills demonstrated by Jim and Bob? Justify your answer in relation to the incidents in the cases study. 5
2. PM Execution Elaborate on how well is the execution of the project going. What could be the alternatives to the current processes being followed? 5
3. PM Risk Analysis Which risk(s) should the project plan have identified, and what could be their risk mitigation plan(s)? 5
4. Ethics Assessment Document facts about the ethical dilemma(s) arising in this case, and explore questions such as:
• Does it abide by the law?
• Does it align with the PMI Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct? 5
5. Ethics Alternatives Consider the choices available to the concerned parties by documenting the following questions:
• What are the possible alternative choices?
• What are the pros and cons for each possible choice? 5
6. Ethics Analysis Identify the candidate decision and test its validity using the factors suggested by PMI Ethical Decision-Making Framework. 5
7. Ethics Application Apply ethical principles to your candidate decision by asking questions such as:
• Would the choice result in the greatest good?
• Would the choice be fair and beneficial to all concerned? 5
8. Ethics Action Make a decision after considering relevant questions, and justify your choice. 5
9. References List references and give in-text referencing using IEEE style. 5
TOTAL 45
Acknowledgement: We thank the following source for making the case study available for educational purposes.
Source: https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/ethical-issues-case-study-overview-7787
Reference: Lindsey, P. E. & Kramer, S. W. (2003). Ethical issues in project management: a case study of a novice project manager. Paper presented at PMI® Global Congress 2003—EMEA, The Hague, South Holland, The Netherlands. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.
Marking Rubric:
Grade
?
Mark
? HD 80-100% DI
70-79% CR 60-69% P
50-59% Fail
50%
For ? Excellent Very Good Good Satisfactory Unsatisfacto
ry
All
questio
ns
All points discussed are pertinent and covered in depth. Demonstrated the
ability to think critically and make good use of the source material. Points presented are relevant and soundly analysed. Points presented are generally relevant and analysed. Points presented are
somewhat relevance and briefly discussed. Points presented are not relevant to the assignment topic.

Looking for answers ?


Recent Questions