PMLS ASSIGNMENT 2: House Renovation

Summary: You are responsible for managing a property renovation project, and need to address project scheduling, risk assessment, and leadership and motivation issues for your project.

Submission deadline: See ONLINECAMPUS

Word Limit: 3000

This assignment is worth 50% of the total mark for the Project Management Leadership and Skills module.

Assignment brief

You have recently been appointed by a large property investor in the UK who wishes to renovate a house. To keep his costs to a minimum he likes to have only one worker working on each activity. The property renovation involves various tasks which he estimates will take one worker the times shown in the table below:

Activity	Time needed to complete
Substantial repairs to the roof	8 days
Internal structural work	4 days
Electrical work	7 days
Plumbing	6 days
Installing a new kitchen	3 days
Installing a new bathroom	4 days
Garden	5 days
Plastering	4 days
Internal decoration	5 days
Fitting carpets	1 day
Outside paintwork	5 days

The roof and structural work must be completed before any other activities (inside or outside) can commence. Once these are done, the external jobs can happen at any stage. However, inside the house, the plumbing and electrics must be completed before the plastering can be done. The plastering must be complete before the new kitchen and bathroom can be installed. Decoration can only happen once the kitchen and bathroom are in place, and carpets can only be fitted after decorating.

The property developer knows that to keep his budget on target, all work needs to be completed in 6 weeks. His team only works from Monday to Friday. Can it be done? Which activities is it most important for the property developer to keep on track?

The developer has several other projects on the go at the same time and decides that he can only spare two of his team to work on this project. By assigning activities to Worker 1 and Worker 2 show how this is possible.

There are three (3) parts to this assignment, and each is worth 33% of the final assignment mark.

Part 1 – 33%

Create a network diagram with the critical path clearly marked
What are the advantages to the property developer in using critical path analysis to plan this project?
How realistic is the idea of using only two workers to complete the project given the deadline of six weeks?

You do not need any specialist knowledge of construction to answer this question.

Part 2 – 33%

Review the case above of The House with regard to risk management.

Identify at least 5 risks relevant to this project and create a simple risk table showing how you would manage these risks with appropriate risk controls.
Discuss how you would derive a risk score for each of these risks explaining what evidence you could access to support you calculation of impact and probability.
What are the opportunities available and how would you categorise these strategies?

Please note that you are being assessed on your understanding of risk management and not the discovery of the ‘correct answer’.

Part 3 – 34%

You have recently hired Kevin, a retired ex-lecturer in project management, to work as part of your project team on the house build. He is very good at solving technical project problems but seems to find working in the team very difficult and gives constant negative feedback on his co-workers. His performance and temper has become progressively worse over time. He seems to lack motivation and you may have to consider ending his employment. Why might Kevin lack motivation? Discuss with reference to appropriate theories and case examples; suggest ways in which Kevin may be motivated.

Marking scheme

Criteria	Marks
Part 1	33
– A. network diagram	11
– B. critical path discussion	11
– C. discussion of 2 workers/6 weeks constraint	11
Part 2	33
– A. risk analysis	11
– B. risk score discussion	11
– C. opportunities discussion	11
Part 3	34
– Review of theory relating to leadership and motivation	12
– Examples	11
– Conclusion on ways to motivate Kevin	11

Further marking guidance

You will also need to take the following into account when completing your assignment:

Quality of abstract (does it give a succinct summary of your paper?)
Allocation of credit and sources used (have I included references and citations to the material I have used?)
Clarity of argument and integration of different components of the report
Overall report presentation including spelling and grammar
Word processed (letter size 12, times new roman, 1.5 space), fully referenced (Harvard Referencing System)

Please remember that marks for the assignment will also be awarded in relation to presentation and structure, and aspects such as use of examples, figures, tables, illustrations and statistics that indicate wider/independent reading.

Good scholarship

You are required to follow the University’s regulations regarding plagiarism and citing sources and references used.

Late submission of work and PMC

Assignments may not be submitted late. Marking penalties for late submission will follow the University regulations for PMC and late submission. Lecturers are not able to give extensions.

Module learning outcomes covered by this assignment

Locate, synthesise and critically evaluate recent/current information from a wide range of published literature in Project Management.
Apply knowledge of the theory and practice of project planning and control and the use of Project Management methods and techniques.
Critically evaluate the use of techniques in leading, planning, control and process management.

Criterion / Mark range	90-100	80-89	70-79	60-69	50-59	40-49	0-39
*Overall level (indicative – not for grading)*	Standard comparable to journal publication	Standard comparable to conference paper publication	Distinctive work for Masters level	Merit work for Masters level	Acceptable for Masters	Below Masters pass standard	Significantly below Masters pass standard
Scope	Outstanding clarity of focus, includes what is important, and excludes irrelevant issues.	Excellent clarity of focus, boundaries set with no significant omissions or unnecessary issues.	Clear focus. Very good setting of boundaries includes most of what is relevant.	Clear scope and focus, with some omissions or unnecessary issues.	Scope evident and satisfactory but with some omissions and unnecessary issues.	Poorly scoped, with significant omissions and unnecessary issues.	Little or no scope or focus evident.
Understanding of subject matter	Outstanding with critical awareness of relevance of issues. Outstanding expression of ideas.	Excellent with critical awareness of relevance of issues. Excellent expression of ideas.	Very good with critical awareness of relevance of issues. Outstanding expression of ideas.	Good with some awareness of relevance of issues. Ideas are expressed, with some limitation.	Basic with limited awareness of relevance of issues. Limited expression of ideas.	Poor with little awareness of relevance of issues	Little or no understanding of subject matter is demonstrated.
Literature	Comprehensive literature review. Evaluation and synthesis of source material to produce an outstanding contribution.	Excellent independent secondary research. Sources are evaluated and synthesized to produce an excellent contribution.	Very good independent secondary research. Sources are evaluated and synthesized to produce a very good contribution.	Good secondary research to extend taught materials. Evidence of evaluation of sources, with some deficiencies in choice and synthesis.	Limited secondary research to extend taught materials. Limited evaluation of sources, deficiencies in choice and synthesis.	Little or no extension of taught materials. Poor choice and synthesis of materials.	Poor use of taught materials. No synthesis.
Critical analysis based on evidence	Standard of critical analysis – showing questioning of sources, understanding of bias, independence of thought	Excellent standard of critical analysis – excellence in questioning of sources, understanding of bias, independence of thought	A very good standard of critical analysis. Sources are questioned appropriately, and a very good understanding of bias, showing independence of thought	Critical analysis with some questioning of sources, understanding of bias, independence of thought.	Analysis evident but uncritical. Sources are not always questioned, with limited independence of thought.	Little or no analysis.	No valid analysis.
Structure of argument, leading to conclusion	Well-structured, compelling and persuasive argument that leads to a valuable contribution to the field of study, paving the way for future work.	Argument has excellent structure and persuasiveness, leading to very significant insights and relevant future work.	Well-structured and persuasive argument Insightful conclusion draws together key issues and possible future work.	Structured and fairly convincing argument leads to conclusion that summarises key issues.	Argument has some structure and development towards conclusion with limitations in summary of issues.	Argument is unstructured, no recognizable conclusion.	No evidence of argument or conclusion.