Page 1 of 24
\nASSIGNMENT INSTRUCTIONS
\nAssessment Coursework Report
\nAssessment code: 010
\nAcademic Year: 2022\/2023
\nTrimester: 2
\nModule Title: Applied Project Management Solutions
\nModule Code: MOD006931
\nLevel: 7
\nModule Leader: Martin Stevens
\nWeighting: 100%
\nWord Limit: 3,000
\nThis excludes bibliography and other items listed in rule 6.75 of the
\nAcademic Regulations:
\nhttp:\/\/web.anglia.ac.uk\/anet\/academic\/public\/academic_regs.pdf
\nAssessed Learning
\nOutcomes:
\n1 Knowledge and Understanding:
\nCritically and evaluate the complexities of a substantial business
\nproject, taking into account the time\/cost\/quality parameters and
\nbreak the project down into logical work and cost elements;
\n2 Knowledge and Understanding:
\nCritically assess and evaluate the value of advanced techniques and
\nprocesses at various stages of the project management life-cycle;
\n3 Intellectual, practical, affective and transferable skills:
\nApply selected tools and techniques including computer-based
\nmodels to track project progress and expenditure against plans and
\nbudgets in order to improve the performance of project management
\non complex and\/or problematic business projects, which may
\ninclude making interventions as necessary for successful trouble shooting and recovery;
\n4 Intellectual, practical, affective and transferable skills:
\nDemonstrate a critical awareness of the project management
\nprofession and the specific knowledge required by successful
\npractitioners.
\nSubmission Deadline: This assignment must be received by no later than 14:00 on Click here
\nto enter a date.
\nWRITING YOUR ASSIGNMENT:
\n\u2022 This assignment must be completed individually.
\n\u2022 You must use the Harvard referencing system.
\n\u2022 Your work must indicate the number of words you have used. Written assignments must not
\nexceed the specified maximum number of words. When a written assignment is marked, the
\nexcessive use of words beyond the word limit is reflected in the academic judgement of the
\npiece of work which results in a lower mark being awarded for the piece of work (regulation
\n6.74).
\n\u2022 Assignment submissions are to be made anonymously. Do not write your name anywhere on
\nyour work.
\n\u2022 Write your student ID number at the top of every page.
\n\u2022 Where the assignment comprises more than one task, all tasks must be submitted in a single
\ndocument.
\n\u2022 You must number all pages.
\nPage 2 of 24
\nSUBMITTING YOUR ASSIGNMENT:
\nIn order to achieve full marks, you must submit your work before the deadline. Work that is
\nsubmitted late \u2013 if your work is submitted on the same day as the deadline by midnight, your
\nmark will receive a 10% penalty. If you submit your work up to two working days after the
\npublished submission deadline \u2013 it will be accepted and marked. However, the element of the
\nmodule\u2019s assessment to which the work contributes will be capped with a maximum mark of 40%.
\nWork cannot be submitted if the period of 2 working days after the deadline has passed (unless
\nthere is an approved extension). Failure to submit within the relevant period will mean that you
\nhave failed the assessment.
\nRequests for short-term extensions will only be considered in the case of illness or other cause
\nconsidered valid by the Director of Studies Team. Please contact DoS@london.aru.ac.uk A
\nrequest must normally be received and agreed by the Director of Studies Team in writing at least
\n24 hours prior to the deadline. See rules 6.64-6.73:
\nhttp:\/\/web.anglia.ac.uk\/anet\/academic\/public\/academic_regs.pdf
\nMitigation: The deadline for submission of mitigation in relation to this assignment is no later than
\nfive working days after the submission date of this work. Please contact the Director of Studies
\nTeam-DoS@london.aru.ac.uk See rules 6.112 \u2013 6.141:
\nhttp:\/\/web.anglia.ac.uk\/anet\/academic\/public\/academic_regs.pdf<\/p>\n
Page 3 of 24
\nASSIGNMENT QUESTION
\nThis coursework assignment takes the form of an integrated piece of work
\ninvolving a sequence of tasks based upon a wholly fictitious project scenario.
\nThe project scenario provides both an overview of the project and the specific
\nconsultancy tasks \/ issues that the student is required to review, analyse and
\ndraw conclusions from or make recommendations about.
\nStudents are required to attempt all the tasks contained within the scenario.
\nEach task will be marked out of 10, plus a further mark out of 10 for the overall
\nquality and professionalism of the submitted report document.
\nMaximum mark: 100
\nFor the purposes of the scenario, you are to assume that you are a team member
\nemployed by a project management consultancy. Your role is of a project
\nassistant reporting to a project manager who will task you with a series of project
\nmanagement tasks.
\nEach task will be part of a sequential provision of information. It may be that later
\ninformation conflicts with or provides additional data to that provided earlier in
\nthe scenario.
\nYou must ensure that you only use the information released thus far to answer
\neach question. So, for example the response to task one may only use the data
\nin the general scenario and task one; the response to task two may use the data
\nin the general scenario and tasks one and two \u2026 and so on.
\nThe data and questions in the scenario are to enable you to prepare a draft
\nmanagement progress audit report that provides a record of the changing data
\nabout the project as it evolves. The report will be reviewed by your senior
\nmanagement.
\nYour submission should take the form of a high-quality consultancy report
\ndocument. You may create your own corporate identity for the consultancy firm
\n(name, logotype, brand style etc.) and use it to create your report.
\nIt is suggested that the report should follow the following broad structure:
\n\uf03c Cover page
\n\uf03c Executive summary
\n\uf03c Table of contents
\n\uf03c Introduction
\n\uf03c Main body \u2013 perhaps with \u201cchapters\u201d for each question
\n\uf03c References (if applicable)
\n\uf03c Appendices (if applicable)
\nPage 4 of 24
\nGuidance:
\nYou should read the scenario and each assignment task very carefully. Most of
\nthe information required to complete each task is provided. However, this is a
\nmasters level piece of work and students are expected to undertake their own
\nreading around the topics and to use their own skill and judgement in both the
\nway in which they respond to each task and the conclusions and
\nrecommendations that they make in their report.
\nIf you are unclear about any aspect of the work you should seek clarification as
\nany competent management professional would do.
\nPage 5 of 24
\nSCENARIO
\nThe scenario described here is wholly fictitious and has been compiled solely for the
\npurposes of this assignment, with a certain element of \u201ccreative licence\u201d to support the
\nlearning objectives. Any resemblance to actual locations, buildings, companies or
\npersonalities is coincidental.
\nFor the purposes of the scenario, you are to assume that you are a team member
\nemployed by a project management consultancy. Your role is of a project assistant
\nreporting to a project manager.
\nYour submission should take the form of a high-quality consultancy report document.
\nYou may create your own corporate identity for the consultancy firm (name, logotype,
\nbrand style etc.) and use it to create your report.
\nBoknafjorden Off-Shore Wind Farm
\nPhoto: Baltic Sea by Mary Ray on Unsplash
\n\u2018NordEco\u2019 are a joint venture energy company developing an off-shore wind farm
\nfor the Norwegian Authorities some 30 miles west of Stavanger, Norway.
\nStavanger will be the logistical and management base for the project
\nmanagement and co-ordinating team.
\nThe project will be led by Project Director Giorgi Steiner and the on-site
\nengineering team by Director of Engineering Erik Michelsen.
\nPage 6 of 24
\nProject Details
\nA. Staff Resources
\nAn initial high level work breakdown structure has been prepared and single
\npoint estimates of the staff and technical resource levels required for each
\nactivity assessed:
\nCode: Title: Work-hours:
\n1 Conceptual Design – Stage A
\n1.1 Conceptual Design 8,750
\n1.2 Criteria Development 2,500
\n2 Detailed Design – Stage A
\n2.1 Definitive Design 52,000
\n2.2 CAD analysis 32,000
\n2.3 Engineering Support 45,000
\n3 Construction – Stages B, C, D, E, F & G
\n3.1 Ground surveying \u2013 land terminal 78,000
\n3.2 Subsea surveying 112,000
\n3.3 Tripod foundation structures 185,000
\n3.4 Turbine tower fabrication & installation 364,000
\n3.5 Turbine fabrication and on-shore testing 275,000
\n3.6 Turbine installation 185,000
\n3.7 Land-based trench construction 245,000
\n3.8 Subsea-based trench construction 364,000
\n3.9 Laying subsea interconnectors 225,000
\n3.10 Inspection and testing 125,000
\nPage 7 of 24
\n4 Project Administration – All Stages
\n4.1 Project Management 5,600
\n4.2 Project Planning & Control 4,500
\n4.3 Project Support Services 6,000
\n4.4 Procurement contracts 5,000
\n4.5 Construction Cost Estimate 1,200
\n5 Control Systems Development – Stage F
\n5.1 Process Development 8,750
\n5.2 Telemetry & SCADA 15,500
\n5.3 Control System Development 6,750
\n5.4 Control System Testing 2,600
\n6 Startup – Stage G
\n6.1 Test Preparation 1,850
\n6.2 Unit Testing 18,000
\n6.3 Operating manuals 3,500
\n6.4 Integrated Testing and power-up 29,800
\nBudget estimates for the cost of staff to undertake this work for each stage are:
\n1 Conceptual Design \u20ac 165
\n2 Detailed Design \u20ac 185
\n3 Construction \u20ac 155
\n4 Project Administration \u20ac 160
\n5 Control systems Development \u20ac 175
\n6 Start up \u20ac 165
\nNordEco have recognised that they may not have in-house resources to
\ncomplete a fully developed construction cost estimate (because the estimating
\nteam may be committed elsewhere) and therefore, on a contingency basis, have
\nsought fee proposals from an external cost consultancy; the most favourable of
\nwhich was received from NCC Consultants, highly regarded in the sector, who
\nhave offered to undertake the work for a fixed price of \u20ac184,450.
\nPage 8 of 24
\nB. Delivery Schedule
\nAn outline high level project delivery schedule has also been prepared and an
\nassessment of the additional implementation cost estimates for each stage:
\nCode: Stage: Duration
\n(weeks):
\nComments: Stage costs
\n(\u20ac m)
\nA Design 32 3.7
\nB Foundation
\nstructures
\n24 Scheduled to start 8 weeks
\nbefore design stage ends
\n52.3
\nC Turbine towers 20 Scheduled to start 2 weeks
\nbefore design stage ends
\n62.7
\nD Turbine fabrication,
\ntest & installation
\n36 Scheduled to start as soon
\nas design stage ends
\n98.5
\nE Land & sub-sea
\ntrenches
\n28 Scheduled to start 8 weeks
\nbefore foundation structures
\nstage ends
\n38.4
\nF Interconnectors 16 Scheduled to start 14 weeks
\nafter land and sub-sea
\ntrenches starts
\n25.5
\nG Inspection, test,
\ncommission
\n12 Scheduled to start as soon
\nas interconnectors stage
\nends
\n15.8
\nDesign work on the project was planned to start on Monday 10 January 2022.
\nPage 9 of 24
\nAssignment Task One Initial Budget Estimate
\n(a) Prepare a project cost estimate for all the staff activities identified in the
\nbreakdown structure, and the implementation stage costs; establishing
\nthe summary level 2 costs as well as the total project cost. Allow a 5%
\ncontingency within the total project cost.
\n(b) Make a recommendation to the Board advising if they should \/ should
\nnot accept the offer to provide a construction cost estimate provided by
\nNCC Consultants.
\n10 marks
\nAssignment Task Two Project Gantt Chart and Budget Estimate
\n(a) Using the data in the high-level project delivery schedule, create a Gantt
\nchart for the project to enable further development of the delivery plan
\nand to inform key investors.
\n(b) Having reviewed the initial budget estimate, the project board has
\ndecided to change the configuration of the project administration team.
\nInitially a small project management team will be based in London to
\ndevelop detailed plans, before relocating to Norway once the design
\nstage is complete, where they will join a local team of experienced
\nmarine engineers. The marine engineers will be involved with stages B;
\nC; D and E only.
\nA further team of electrical and control system engineers will be
\nengaged for stages F and G.
\nThe project management team will cost an estimated \u20ac54,000 per week;
\nthe engineering team \u20ac50,000 per week and the electrical and control
\nsystem engineers will cost \u20ac58,000 per week.
\nUsing the data in the high-level project delivery schedule, together with
\nthe implementation stage costs, create an updated budget estimate,
\nshowing your calculations and explaining any assumptions you make.
\n10 marks
\nPage 10 of 24
\nAssignment Task Three Tender Bid Analysis and Recommendation
\n(a) Following a competitive tendering process, KSB Offshore have been
\nappointed to execute stages B; C; D and E.
\nAttention must now turn to procuring a contractor to undertake stages F
\nand G.
\nKSB Offshore are very keen to \u2018roll-on\u2019 their involvement in the project
\nand undertake the remaining work. Nevertheless, three other companies,
\nwith good track records have also submitted tenders: Marine Comm;
\nEco-Gen and Offshore Projects.
\nThe following bids have been received.
\nContractor: KSB Offshore Marine Comm Eco-Gen Offshore Projects
\nStage F \u20ac 70.00 m \u20ac 72.00 m \u20ac 78.50 m \u20ac 82.00 m
\nStage G \u20ac 39.50 m \u20ac 45.00 m No bid \u20ac 47.50 m
\nThe tenders submitted included a number of qualifications by the
\nbidders:
\n\uf03c For Stage G, Marine Comm based their proposal as a co-operative
\njoint venture with a Canadian firm (GreenSeas) who were well
\nexperienced in subsea operations.
\n\uf03c Offshore Projects offered a 30% discount to the total price if both
\ncontracts were awarded to be carried out sequentially.
\n\uf03c Eco-Gen made a very strong commitment to using local
\n(Norwegian) labour and subcontractors wherever possible.
\n\uf03c Marine Comm asserted that if it was awarded both stages, it could
\ncomplete both in six months through flexible resource
\nmanagement.
\nPrior to inviting tenders, key selection criteria were established by senior
\nmanagement in conjunction with the project board and the weightings to
\nbe applied to each:
\nCriterion: Weighting:
\nCredibility of bid 7
\nTechnical expertise 7
\nCommercial strength 4
\nDepth of resources 5
\nRelevant experience 8
\nPage 11 of 24
\nTender submissions were reviewed and the following conclusions about
\nthe merits of each bid reached:
\nStage F
\nBid:
\nKSB Offshore
\nEngineering
\nComment:
\nConstruction
\nComment:
\nProcurement
\nComment:
\nQA Comment:
\nCredibility of
\nBid:
\nDecent bid,
\nvery
\nprofessional
\n8\/10
\n7 All core
\naspects
\ncovered well
\n7\/10
\nNo serious QA
\nissues
\nTechnical
\nExpertise:
\n7\/10 \u2013 seems
\nsolid
\n4
\nCommercial
\nStrength:
\n6\/10
\nMajor
\ncompany, no
\nreal concerns
\n– Some
\nconcerns over
\nfuture
\ncontracts,
\nmay be
\nvulnerable in
\nshort term.
\nPoor liquidity
\n4\/10
\nDepth of
\nResources:
\n7\/10 4 QA Manager
\nin post
\nRelevant
\nExperience:
\n8\/10 9
\nBid:
\nMarine Comm
\nEngineering
\nComment:
\nConstruction
\nComment:
\nProcurement
\nComment:
\nQA Comment:
\nCredibility of
\nBid:
\nGood bid,
\ncomplete and
\nprofessional
\n7\/10
\n5 All bid
\naspects
\ncovered OK
\n6\/10
\nNo QA issues
\nTechnical
\nExpertise:
\nCompetent
\nteam of
\nskilled
\npipeline
\nengineers
\n7.5\/10
\n7 No quality
\nsystem
\npresent.
\nInternal QA
\nmanual
\nPage 12 of 24
\nBid:
\nMarine Comm
\nEngineering
\nComment:
\nConstruction
\nComment:
\nProcurement
\nComment:
\nQA Comment:
\nCommercial
\nStrength:
\nWell
\nestablished
\ncompany.
\n– A credible
\nwell
\nestablished
\nbusiness
\norganisation
\nWell financed
\nand managed
\n8\/10
\nDepth of
\nResources:
\nPlenty of
\nresources for
\nland-based
\npipeline works
\n8\/10
\n8 Poor QA\/QC
\nRelevant
\nExperience:
\n20+ years
\nexperience in
\nfield 8\/10
\n6
\nBid:
\nOffshore
\nEngineering
\nComment:
\nConstruction
\nComment:
\nProcurement
\nComment:
\nQA Comment:
\nCredibility of
\nBid:
\nGood bid, very
\nprofessional
\n7\/10
\n3 A well prepared bid
\ndocument
\n7.5\/10
\nGood QA
\nsystem and
\nexpertise
\nTechnical
\nExpertise:
\n8.5\/10 4 ISO 9000
\naccredited
\nCommercial
\nStrength:
\n6\/10
\nSeems OK
\n– A growing
\nbusiness, no
\nmajor
\nconcerns 7\/10
\nDepth of
\nResources:
\n7.5\/8 Plenty
\nof
\nexperienced
\nstaff
\n6 Good QA
\nManager and
\nteam
\nRelevant
\nExperience:
\n4
\nPage 13 of 24
\nStage G
\nBid:
\nKSB Offshore
\nEngineering
\nComment:
\nConstruction
\nComment:
\nProcurement
\nComment:
\nQA Comment:
\nCredibility of
\nBid:
\nDecent bid,
\nvery
\nprofessional
\n8\/10
\n7 All core
\naspects
\ncovered well
\n7\/10
\nNo serious QA
\nissues
\nTechnical
\nExpertise:
\n7\/10
\nSeems solid
\n4
\nCommercial
\nStrength:
\n6\/10
\nMajor
\ncompany, no
\nreal concerns
\n– Some
\nconcerns over
\nfuture
\ncontracts,
\nmay be
\nvulnerable in
\nshort term.
\nPoor liquidity
\n4\/10
\nDepth of
\nResources:
\n7\/10 4 QA Manager
\nin post
\nRelevant
\nExperience:
\n8\/10 9
\nBid:
\nMarine Comm
\nEngineering
\nComment:
\nConstruction
\nComment:
\nProcurement
\nComment:
\nQA Comment:
\nCredibility of
\nBid:
\nNot a great
\nbid. Not very
\nprofessional
\n4\/10
\n4 A sloppy and
\ncareless bid,
\nfull of typos
\n3\/10
\nNo QA issues
\nTechnical
\nExpertise:
\n5\/10
\nAverage
\n4 No quality
\nsystem
\nCommercial
\nStrength:
\nNo data
\navailable for
\nGreenSeas
\n6\/10
\nMaricom
\nseem fine but
\nno info was
\nprovided for
\ntheir JV
\npartner 7\/10
\nPage 14 of 24
\nBid:
\nMarine Comm
\nEngineering
\nComment:
\nConstruction
\nComment:
\nProcurement
\nComment:
\nQA Comment:
\nDepth of
\nResources:
\nGreenSeas
\nhave more
\nthan enough
\nsubsea
\nresources but
\ntheir
\ncommitment
\nto this JV is
\nunclear from
\nthe bid 5\/10
\n3 Poor QA\/QC
\nRelevant
\nExperience:
\nGood
\ncompany but
\nlacking in
\nsubsea
\nknowledge.
\nHence the
\npartnership
\nwith
\nGreenSeas
\n5\/10
\n3
\nBid:
\nEco-Gen
\nEngineering
\ncomment:
\nConstruction
\nComment:
\nProcurement
\nComment:
\nQA Comment:
\nCredibility of
\nBid:
\nGood bid, very
\nprofessional
\n7\/10
\n8 A well prepared bid
\ndocument
\n7\/10
\nNo QA
\ncontent in bid
\n\u2013 serious
\nconcern
\nTechnical
\nExpertise:
\nHeavily reliant
\non freelance
\ncontractors
\n6\/10
\n6 No quality
\nsystem
\nevident
\nCommercial
\nStrength:
\nSeems fine to
\nme 6\/10
\nFine. No
\nevident
\nissues.
\nCompany
\nappears to
\nhave plenty of
\ncommercial
\nstrength 9
\nDepth of
\nResources:
\nCompany has
\na small
\nengineering
\nteam and use
\nsubcontractor
\ns for multiple
\nroles. 6\/10
\n6 No QA staff or
\nsystems. A
\nmajor concern
\nPage 15 of 24
\nBid:
\nEco-Gen
\nEngineering
\ncomment:
\nConstruction
\nComment:
\nProcurement
\nComment:
\nQA Comment:
\nRelevant
\nExperience:
\nSome
\nexperience
\nbut no major
\nsubsea
\nprojects in the
\nlast 18 months
\n5\/10
\n4
\nBid:
\nOffshore
\nEngineering
\nComment:
\nConstruction
\nComment:
\nProcurement
\nComment:
\nQA Comment:
\nCredibility of
\nBid:
\nFair bid,
\ntechnical
\naspects
\ncovered 8\/10
\n10 All
\nprocurement
\nand
\ncommercial
\naspects
\ncovered 6\/10
\nGood QA
\nsystem and
\nstaff expertise
\nTechnical
\nExpertise:
\nGood track
\nrecord on
\nnumerous
\nsubsea
\ncontracts
\n7\/10
\n10
\nCommercial
\nStrength:
\nSeems fine.
\n6\/10
\n– A growing
\ninternational
\nbusiness, no
\nmajor
\nconcerns 7\/10
\nDepth of
\nResources:
\nCompetent
\nresources
\navailable in
\nterms of staff
\nand
\nequipment
\n8\/10
\n9 Good
\nmanagement
\nteam 7\/10
\nGood QA
\nManager.
\nKnows his job
\nRelevant
\nExperience:
\nSame as for
\nTech.
\nExpertise
\n8\/10
\n8
\nUse the information provided to analyse the bid submissions received
\nfrom each candidate company and reach a clear, in depth
\nrecommendation for the appointment to undertake the two remaining
\nstages (F and G).
\n10 marks
\nPage 16 of 24
\nAssignment Task Four Budget for Project Management Team
\n(a) Giorgi Steiner has reviewed the project management resource needs for
\nthe project and decided to re-configure the project team, which will now
\ncomprise:
\nEngineering manager: \u20ac 525 per day
\nConstruction manager: \u20ac 500 per day
\nQA manager: \u20ac 475 per day
\nServices manager: \u20ac 400 per day
\nFinance manager: \u20ac 395 per day
\nProcurement manager: \u20ac 390 per day
\nDay rates are inclusive of expenses and the project team is expected to
\nwork a typical 8-hour day, five-day week.
\nSuitable offices in Holborn have now been leased for the period the team
\nis in London at a cost of \u20ac 4,000 per week.
\nIt is intended that the six managers would be freelance project
\nprofessionals engaged through employment agencies for the duration
\nrequired. As part of NordEco\u2019s permanent staff neither Steiner or
\nMichelsen are a direct cost to the project (except for their expenses at \u20ac
\n125 per week).
\nThe management team would be supported by a small team of
\nadministrative staff to act as the project support office: One Project
\nAdministration Supervisor (\u20ac 29 per hour), one Project Planner (\u20ac 26 per
\nhour), one Project Support Officer (\u20ac 25 per hour) and three Project
\nAdministrators (\u20ac 19 per hour).
\nImmediately after the Design stage is complete, the entire team of 13
\npeople will relocate to Stavanger. A budget of \u20ac 35,000 is allocated for
\nthe relocation costs.
\nThe Stavanger office will not cost the project anything (they will share
\nspace with the contractor\u2019s site team, costs for which are included in their
\ntenders) but additional site expenses would be payable to every member
\nof the project team.
\nWell before the move to Stavanger NordEco\u2019s Human Resources
\nManager and her assistant looked around the city and have rented
\nseveral residential properties. Before this, each member of the project
\nteam was given the choice between single or accompanied status.
\nSingle status means they would live in Stavanger on their own in a
\nsmaller shared house or apartment but be flown home for a long
\nweekend once a month at company expense (economy class).
\nPage 17 of 24
\nAccompanied status meant that the person would be allocated a larger
\nfamily house and good local schooling for children (if present) but with
\nbusiness class flights home only every six months.
\nIn the event, only the Engineering Manager, Construction Manager and
\nProcurement Manager chose to travel on accompanied status. No
\nchildren were involved. All the others chose single status.
\nThese project costs in \u20ac were estimated as follows:
\nExpat expenses: Accommodation
\nper month:
\nReturn Flights
\neach trip home:
\nSingle status: \u00a3 1,250.00 \u00a3 230.00
\nAccompanied status: \u00a3 2,350.00 \u00a3 530.00
\nGiorgi Steiner and Erik Michelsen will be provided with Accompanied
\nstatus accommodation and business class flights every three months.
\nPrepare a detailed resource budget for the project management team,
\nseparately identifying their costs whilst in London and when deployed to
\nStavanger as well as their accommodation costs and expenses, ignoring
\nthe possibility of public holidays or leave. Clearly state any assumptions
\nyou make and show your calculations.
\n10 marks
\nAssignment Task Five PERT Analysis
\n(a) KSB Offshore have tabled a high-level project schedule for the Turbine
\nfabrication and test element of Stage D
\nCode: Description: Duration
\n(weeks):
\nPredecessors:
\nA Turbine Nacelles 8
\nB Turbine Blades 12
\nC Turbine Hub 6 A
\nD Cathodic Protection 4 A, B
\nE Generator 12
\nF Pre-assembly 4 C, D, E
\nG Generator Test 2 F
\nH Diss-assemble 3 G
\nPage 18 of 24
\nErik Michelsen fears that the schedule is too optimistic. Nevertheless, it is
\nessential that the turbines are available for installation 12 weeks before
\nthe planned end of the stage, otherwise the weather \u2018window\u2019 for the off shore works will close and the project will incur delays and additional
\ncosts, which would affect its financial performance.
\nErik considers that the optimistic and pessimistic durations are likely to
\nbe:
\nCode: Description: Optimistic
\nDuration (weeks):
\nPessimistic
\nDuration (weeks):
\nA Turbine Nacelles 6 10
\nB Turbine Blades 8 15
\nC Turbine Hub 4 7
\nD Cathodic Protection 4 6
\nE Generator 9 16
\nF Pre-assembly 3 5
\nG Generator Test 1 4
\nH Diss-assemble 2 4
\nAnalyse the information and, using the PERT technique assess the
\nprobability of the turbines being ready to install within 24 weeks (or less)
\nof the stage start.
\n10 marks
\nAssignment Task Six Scheduling of Site Engineers
\n(a) The Director of Engineering and the QA Manager are concerned that
\nthere may be a need to deploy additional engineering \/ QA resources
\nduring stages B; C; D and E to monitor the contractor as work proceeds.
\nMichelsen wants the following resources at his disposal:
\nB Foundation structures 4 staff
\nC Turbine towers 4 staff
\nD Turbine fabrication 3 staff
\nE Land and Sub-sea trenches 2 staff
\nIt has yet to be decided if these team members will be recruited locally
\nor from the UK.
\nPage 19 of 24
\nCalculate the number of site engineers to meet these requirements and
\nidentify the maximum number deployed in any week.
\nPresent your findings by means of a resource histogram (column chart).
\nLocally recruited engineers are reported to be available at a cost of \u20ac 375
\nper day inclusive of expenses. Alternatively, a large pool of suitably
\nqualified engineers is available on an ex-patriot basis from the UK at \u20ac275
\nper day inclusive of expenses, but these individuals would require single
\nstatus accommodation and monthly flights home.
\nDetermine which of these choices would be most cost effective.
\n10 marks
\nAssignment Task Seven Resource Levelling \/ Smoothing Options
\n(a) The United Kingdom\u2019s exit from the European Union means that UK
\nNationals will require residence permits to work in Norway.
\nNorwegian Authorities have advised that they will grant a maximum of 10
\npermits at any time for professional staff deployed to the project.
\nThis will affect all of the project team and the additional engineering \/ QA
\nteam. However, as employees of a joint venture Anglo\/Norwegian
\ncompany the requirement will not apply to Giorgi Steiner and Erik
\nMichelsen.
\nAdministration staff will have their engagements terminated and they will
\nreturn to London. They will be replaced with staff recruited locally.
\nDetermine how many of the engineering \/ QA team will need to be
\nlocally recruited to not breach the permit limit.
\nSuggest ways in which resources could be adjusted or re-deployed
\nand\/or if re-scheduling the project would be worthwhile.
\n10 marks
\nPage 20 of 24
\nAssignment Task Eight Progress Review
\n(a) In view of the importance of successfully delivering the project to the
\nNorwegian economy, the Stortinget (Norway\u2019s Parliament) has resolved
\nto waive the permit limit and the project may continue as planned.
\nThe project started on schedule on Monday 10 Jan 2022.
\nWork has progressed well and, is now in progress, and exactly 45 weeks
\nlater on Friday 20 Nov 2022, Giorgi Steiner chaired a project progress
\nmeeting at which the contractor reported the following:
\nCode: Stage: Progress %
\nComplete:
\nA Design 100%
\nB Foundation
\nstructures
\n85%
\nC Turbine towers 75%
\nD Turbine fabrication,
\ntest & installation
\n45%
\nE Land & sub-sea
\ntrenches
\n12%
\nF Interconnectors 0%
\nG Inspection, test,
\ncommission
\n0%
\nAnalyse this information with respect to the project plan you prepared in
\nresponse to task 2 and prepare a \u201ctraffic light\u201d progress report indicating
\nthe status of each task on the following basis:
\nRed Stage in progress falling more than 5% behind plan
\nAmber Stage in progress (broadly in line with plan) or not yet started
\nGreen Stage completed or at least 5% ahead of plan
\nPresent and explain all your workings very carefully.
\n10 marks
\nPage 21 of 24
\nAssignment Task Nine Earned Value Analysis and Review
\n(a) Following the 45-week project progress meeting, the Finance Manager
\n(who was not present at the meeting) has now provided his financial
\nreport of the budget expended to date (20 November 2022).
\nCode: Stage: Agreed
\nBudget (\u20ac m):
\nExpenditure to
\nDate (\u20ac m):
\nA Design 29.685 38.970
\nB Foundation
\nstructures
\n111.039 92.350
\nC Turbine towers 120.000 84.625
\nD Turbine fabrication,
\ntest & installation
\n170.745 74.610
\nE Land & sub-sea
\ntrenches
\n98.700 13.668
\nF Interconnectors 66.600 –
\nG Inspection, test,
\ncommission
\n44.000 –
\nUsing the Earned Value approach determine the following:
\n1. The overall planned % progress so far
\n2. The overall actual % progress so far
\n3. The projected duration of the project based on 20 November data
\n4. The projected total spend on the project based on 20 November
\ndata
\nCarefully set out your workings and explain your conclusions.
\n10 marks
\nPage 22 of 24
\nARU GENERIC ASSESSMENT CRITERIA AND MARKING STANDARDS: LEVEL 7 \u2013
\npostgraduate taught
\nLevel 7 is characterised by an expectation of students\u2019 expertise in their specialism. Students are semi-autonomous,
\ndemonstrating independence in the negotiation of assessment tasks (including the major project) and the ability to
\nevaluate, challenge, modify and develop theory and practice. Students are expected to demonstrate an ability to isolate
\nand focus on the significant features of problems and to offer synthetic and coherent solutions, with some students
\nproducing original or innovative work in their specialism that is worthy of publication or public performance or display.
\nMark
\nBands
\nOutcome
\nCharacteristics of Student Achievement by Marking Band for ARU\u2019s
\nGeneric Learning Outcomes (Academic Regulations, Section 2)
\nKnowledge & Understanding
\nIntellectual (thinking), Practical,
\nAffective and Transferable Skills
\n90-
\n100%
\nAchieves
\nmodule
\noutcome(s)
\nExceptional analysis of key issues\/
\nconcepts\/ethics with very clear
\noriginality and autonomy. Exceptional
\ndevelopment of conceptual structures
\nand argument making an exceptional
\nuse of scholarly conventions.
\nDemonstrates exceptional
\nindependence of thought and a very
\nhigh level of intellectual rigour and
\nconsistency. Work pushes the
\nboundaries of the discipline and may be
\nconsidered for external publication
\nExceptional analysis of key issues\/concepts\/
\nethics. Exceptional development of conceptual
\nstructures and argument, making consistent use of
\nscholarly conventions. Exceptional research skills,
\nindependence of thought, an extremely high level
\nof intellectual rigour and consistency, exceptional
\nexpressive\/professional skills, and substantial
\ncreativity and originality. Exceptional academic\/
\nintellectual skills. Work pushes the boundaries of
\nthe discipline and may be considered for external
\npublication
\n80-
\n89%
\nOutstanding analysis of key issues\/
\nconcepts\/ethics with clear originality and
\nautonomy. Outstanding development
\nof conceptual structures and argument
\nmaking an exemplary use of scholarly
\nconventions. Demonstrates
\noutstanding independence of thought
\nand a very high level of intellectual
\nrigour and consistency
\nOutstanding analysis of key issues\/concepts\/
\nethics. Outstanding development of conceptual
\nstructures and argument, making consistent use of
\nscholarly conventions. Outstanding research
\nskills, independence of thought, a high level of
\nintellectual rigour and consistency, outstanding
\nexpressive\/professional skills, and considerable
\ncreativity and originality. Outstanding
\nacademic\/intellectual skills
\nPage 23 of 24
\n70-
\n79%
\nExcellent analysis of key issues\/
\nconcepts\/ethics. Excellent
\ndevelopment of conceptual structures
\nand argument making excellent use of
\nscholarly conventions. Demonstrates
\nexcellent independence of thought and
\na high level of intellectual rigour and
\nconsistency
\nExcellent analysis of key issues\/concepts\/ethics.
\nExcellent development of conceptual structures
\nand argument, making consistent use of scholarly
\nconventions. Excellent research skills, indepen dence of thought, excellent level of intellectual
\nrigour and consistency, excellent expressive\/
\nprofessional skills, and considerable creativity and
\noriginality. Excellent academic\/ intellectual skills,
\nand considerable creativity and originality
\n60-
\n69%
\nGood analysis of key issues\/concepts\/
\nethics. Development of conceptual
\nstructures and argument making
\nconsistent use of scholarly conventions
\nGood analysis of key issues\/concepts\/ethics.
\nDevelopment of conceptual structures and
\nargument, making consistent use of scholarly
\nconventions
\n50-
\n59%
\nSound knowledge of key issues\/
\nconcepts\/ethics in discipline. Descrip tive in parts but some ability to synth esise scholarship and argument. Minor
\nlapses in use of scholarly conventions
\nSound knowledge of key issues\/concepts\/ ethics
\nin discipline. Descriptive in parts but some ability
\nto synthesise scholarship and argument. Minor
\nlapses in use of scholarly conventions
\n40-
\n49%
\nA marginal
\npass in
\nmodule
\noutcome(s)
\nAdequate knowledge of key issues\/
\nconcepts\/ethics in discipline. Generally
\ndescriptive, with restricted synthesis of
\nexisting scholarship and little argument.
\nInconsistent use of scholarly
\nconventions
\nAdequate knowledge of key issues\/concepts\/
\nethics in discipline. Generally descriptive, with
\nrestricted synthesis of existing scholarship and
\nlittle argument. Inconsistent use of scholarly
\nconventions
\n30-
\n39%
\nA marginal
\nfail in module
\noutcome(s).
\nSatisfies
\ndefault
\nqualifying
\nmark
\nLimited knowledge of key issues\/
\nconcepts\/ethics in discipline. Largely
\ndescriptive, with restricted synthesis of
\nexisting scholarship and limited
\nargument. Limited use of scholarly
\nconventions.
\nLimited research skills impede use of learning
\nresources and problem solving. Significant
\nproblems with structure\/accuracy in expression.
\nTeam\/Practical\/Professional skills not yet secure.
\nLimited academic\/ intellectual skills. Limited use
\nof scholarly conventions
\nPage 24 of 24
\n20-
\n29%
\nFails to
\nachieve
\nmodule
\noutcome(s).
\nQualifying
\nmark not
\nsatisfied
\nLittle evidence of knowledge of key
\nissues\/concepts\/ethics in discipline.
\nLargely descriptive, with little synthesis
\nof existing scholarship and little
\nevidence of argument. Little evidence
\nof use of scholarly conventions.
\nLittle evidence of research skills, use of learning
\nresources and problem solving. Major problems
\nwith structure\/ accuracy in expression. Team\/
\nPractical\/Professional skills virtually absent. Little
\nevidence of academic\/intellectual skills. Little
\nevidence of use of scholarly conventions
\n10-
\n19%
\nDeficient knowledge of key
\nissues\/concepts\/ethics in discipline.
\nWholly descriptive, with deficient
\nsynthesis of existing scholarship and
\ndeficient argument. Deficient use of
\nscholarly conventions.
\nDeficient use of research skills, learning resources
\nand problem solving. Major problems with
\nstructure\/accuracy in expression.
\nTeam\/Practical\/Professional skills absent.
\nDeficient academic\/intellectual skills. Deficient
\nuse of scholarly conventions
\n1-
\n9%
\nNo evidence of knowledge of key
\nissues\/concepts\/ethics in discipline.
\nIncoherent and completely but poorly
\ndescriptive, with no evidence of
\nsynthesis of existing scholarship and no
\nargument whatsoever. No evidence of
\nuse of scholarly conventions.
\nNo evidence of use of research skills, learning
\nresources and problem solving. Incoherent
\nstructure\/accuracy in expression. Team\/
\nPractical\/Professional skills non-existent. No
\nevidence of academic\/intellectual skills. No
\nevidence of use of scholarly conventions
\n0%
\nAwarded for: (i) non-submission; (ii) dangerous practice and; (iii) in situations where the
\nstudent fails to address the assignment brief (eg: answers the wrong question) and\/or related
\nlearning outcomes<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Page 1 of 24 ASSIGNMENT INSTRUCTIONS Assessment Coursework Report Assessment code: 010 Academic Year: 2022\/2023 Trimester: 2 Module Title: Applied Project Management Solutions Module Code: MOD006931 Level: 7 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"pagelayer_contact_templates":[],"_pagelayer_content":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[69],"tags":[70,78,75,73],"class_list":["post-1012","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-website-that-writes-assignments","tag-assignment-help-by-uks-no-1-writing-service","tag-homework-help-services-best-websites","tag-do-my-university-assignment-for-me","tag-dissertation-assignment-help-uae"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.homeworkacetutors.com\/acemyhomework\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1012","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.homeworkacetutors.com\/acemyhomework\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.homeworkacetutors.com\/acemyhomework\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.homeworkacetutors.com\/acemyhomework\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.homeworkacetutors.com\/acemyhomework\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1012"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.homeworkacetutors.com\/acemyhomework\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1012\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.homeworkacetutors.com\/acemyhomework\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1012"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.homeworkacetutors.com\/acemyhomework\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1012"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.homeworkacetutors.com\/acemyhomework\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1012"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}