Task Assignment 2 is divided into two sections. Part A Value: 20% Length: 2000 words. Task Read: Brady, T. & Davies, A. (2010). From hero to hubris - Reconsidering the project management for Heathrow's Terminal 5. International Journal of Project Management 28, 151-157. • Discuss the likely actions taken during the project management and identify FOUR separate PMI processes (according to the PMBOK) which in your opinion appear to have failed in this project. These processes may be from any process group, and may even be all from the same group if you wish. • For EACH of these processes specify ONE apparent failure in terms of their process outputs. (That is FOUR apparent failures in total) • For EACH of these four apparent failed outputs give your opinion on which inputs, or tools & techniques, might not have been done or used properly that resulted in, or greatly contributed to, that failure. Give reasons and discuss your explanation in each case. • For each failed output provide one recommendation for how that failure might have been improved or avoided by using the tools and techniques described in the PMBOK. You will be discussing FOUR apparent failures in total. Each failure should be explained in terms of the processes according to the PMBOK to demonstrate your knowledge of how those processes influence project outcomes. Each failure should have your recommendation for what might have been done to avoid or mitigate the failure. There is no requirement for introduction, preamble, conclusion or summary to combine or link these failures. You need only address the four failures themselves. You will need to adequately describe each apparent failure and explain why you believe it contributed to the problems presented in the article. Do not address any apparent failures or other information that might be available elsewhere other than this article. Ensure that the four apparent failures you do address are sufficiently different or separate from each other and avoid discussing the same failure different ways. Part B Value: 15% Length: 1500 words Task Consider the article used in Part A of this assignment and the apparent failures you chose to discuss. Describe a project which you have some personal knowledge of or familiarity with. It may be a social event, a workplace project or a public project. Use approximately one third of your words to describe and summarise this project. Choose ONE of the four apparent failures you discussed in Part A of this assignment. Discuss how well or how poorly your own project performed with regards to that particular PMBOK process. Explain your reasons for your assessment of that process in your project example. If it went well then explain what negatives were avoided by its success. If it went poorly then explain what consequences were experienced as a result. You are required to extrapolate how one of the failures you discussed in Part A also applied in another project you are familiar with. You should demonstrate your knowledge of how these PMBOK processes can influence project outcomes by explaining your reasoning in a wholly different project from the Heathrow T5 project. Highlighting the similarities or differences between the T5 project in the article and your own can also be helpful in your initial project summary so long as they help support your opinions and assessment. Rationale This assessment is intended to: • Assess your knowledge of these key project management processes and to be able to recognise their role in the success and failure of projects. • Assess your ability to be able to identify project stakeholders and analyse their influence on a project • Enhance your understanding of the cause and effect of the specific tools and techniques within the PMBOK on the outputs they are used to create. • Offer practice in corrective action to mitigate or prevent such failures in other projects. • Be able to critically evaluate the relevance and function of each component of the Project Management Framework; • Be able to develop and critically analyse the components of a Master Project Management Plan; • Be able to identify project stakeholders and analyse their influence on a project. Marking criteria Part A Describe your chosen four apparent failures in terms of PMBOK Process outputs /10 Clearly identify and explain why specific tools or techniques may have caused each apparent failure. /15 Provide suitable recommendations on what should have been done for each apparent failure /16 Demonstrate your understanding of how to apply the PMBOK processes to this project. /16 Subtotal /57 Part B Adequately explain the background and summary of your project. /13 Explain the process which you are reflecting upon and describe how your project performed it. /15 Explain your reasoning for why the process in your project went well or poorly. /15 Subtotal /43 Total /100 Rubric Marking Area HD DI CR PS FL Marks Describe your chosen four apparent failures in terms of PMBOK Process outputs Has fully explained 2 PMI processes that have failed in this project and shown strong logical connections to actual events. Has fully articulated 2 logical failures in each process in terms of the PMBOK process outputs and closely linked them to events in the project article. Has adequately explained 2 PMI processes that have failed in this project and shown reasonable logical connections to actual events. Has effectively articulated 2 logical failures in each process in terms of the PMBOK process outputs and has shown reasonable connections to events in the project article. Has partly explained 2 PMI processes that have failed in this project and shown at least some logical connections to actual events. Has partially articulated 2 logical failures in each process in terms of the PMBOK process outputs and has shown some connections to events in the project article. Has only briefly discussed 2 PMI processes, or has not discussed them sufficiently within the context of this project. Has identified 4 merely abstract failures without showing reasonable connection to actual project events (or has given 3 or fewer failures which may be well defined or in context). Discussion of the PMI processes is confused, incomplete or unrelated to the project. Student has not correctly identified at least 2 (of 4) reasonable failures that were related to the project. Has not shown any connections between the processes and the project article. /10 Clearly identify and explain why specific tools or techniques may have caused each apparent failure Has fully discussed the specific tools or techniques that may have caused each apparent failure. Has demonstrated a clear and strong connection between each of these tools and techniques and how they might not have been done or used properly. Has correctly shown how this influenced each failure. Has effectively discussed the specific tools or techniques that may have caused each apparent failure. Has demonstrated a reasonable connection between each of these tools and techniques and how they might not have been done or used properly. Has effectively shown how this could have influenced each failure. Has partially discussed the specific tools or techniques that may have caused each apparent failure. Has demonstrated some connection between each of these tools and techniques and how they might not have been done or used properly. Has partly shown how this might have influenced each failure. Has briefly discussed the specific tools or techniques that may have caused each apparent failure. Has demonstrated weak connections between each of these tools and techniques and how they might not have been done or used properly. Has briefly shown how this might have had some theoretical impact on each failure. Has given minimal or confused explanation of how tools or techniques contribute to any failure (or has not addressed at least 2). Has shown no connections between these tools and techniques and how they might have been done or used properly. Has not shown how this influenced the failures. /15 Provide suitable recommendations on what should have been done for each apparent failure Has clearly provided logical recommendations for all 4 failures which should reasonably have improved or avoided each one. Has fully explained these in terms of PMBOK tools and techniques. Has provided reasonable recommendations for all 4 failures which could possibly have improved or avoided each one. Has effectively explained these in terms of PMBOK in general. Has provided some recommendations for all 4 failures, but which might have only loosely improved or avoided each one. Has partly explained these in PMBOK terms. Has provided brief or unclear recommendations for 4 failures (or good ones for 2-3 failures). Has shown weak or unclear relationships to how these might have improved or avoided. Poorly explained in PMBOK terms. Has not provided recommendations for at least 2 failures. Has shown no relationship to how they may have improved or avoided the failures. Not at all in PMBOK terms. /16 Demonstrate your understanding of how to apply the PMBOK processes to this project. Has shown clear and detailed relationships between the PMI processes and their application in the context of this project. Has clearly used the consequences of these processes to predict outcomes and suggest improvements Has shown effective and obvious relationships between the PMI processes and their application in the context of this project. Has effectively used the consequences of these processes to predict outcomes and suggest improvements Has shown reasonable relationships between the PMI processes and their application in the context of this project. Has partially used the consequences of these processes to predict outcomes and suggest improvements Has shown limited or weak relationships between the PMI processes and their application in the context of this project. Has not effectively used the consequences of these processes to predict outcomes and suggest improvements Has not shown any reasonable relationships between the PMI processes and their application in the context of a real project. Has not addressed the consequences of these processes. /16 Part B Background presentation on the project and the relevant aspects of the organisation to provide context. Student has given an explanation of the background info on the project and organisation which is relevant, informative and strongly within context for the remaining points. Student has given an explanation of the background info on the project and organisation which is aligned, useful and mostly within context for the remaining points. Student has given an explanation of the background info on the project and organisation which is partly useful and partly within context for the remaining points. Has given a weak or unclear explanation of background info on both the project and organisation (or a clear background on only 1 of these). Background given was weakly in context of the remaining points. Background information was minimal or confused. It gave no useful context for the remaining points. /13 Explanation of one process in the project and how well or poorly it was performed in the context of this project. Student has correctly explained one important PMI process and clearly shown how it was performed in context of the project. Student has effectively explained one relevant PMI process and shown how it was performed in context of the project. Student has given a partial explanation of a PMI process and made some connection to how it was performed in context of the project. Student has given a weak or incorrect explanation of a process. Has not shown how it was performed in context of the project. Student has not explained a recognisable process and has not shown how it was performed in context of the project. /15 Discussion on why the chosen process performed the way it did in the context of its project. Has shown strong and compelling logical analysis on how and why the PMI process performed the way it did. Has shown an effective logical analysis on how and why the PMI process performed the way it did. Has shown a partially logical analysis on how and why the PMI process performed the way it did. Has shown some weak logic in their analysis on how and why the PMI process performed the way it did. Has not given any reasonable logic in their analysis of how and why the PMI process performed the way it did. /15 Presentation Use a Report format, with headings and subheadings as appropriate. No introduction or conclusion is required. Feel free to use headings and bullet-lists where you think this is appropriate. Refer to the Presentation section of this Subject Outline. Requirements Word count for this assignment is taken seriously. The word count reflects the level of detail you are required to put into your assignment. Students who exceed the word count by more than 10% will be penalised, and students who exceed wordcounts by an excessive amount may not have their assignment marked beyond a certain point to ensure fairness to other students who have completed the assignment within the guidelines given. Administrative sections of your assignment such as headings, table of contents, reference list and other diagrams & figures are not included in the word count. In text citations are included as part of your word count. Students who submit in PDF form should include a word count on their cover page. For this assessment you are required to use APA referencing to acknowledge the sources that you have used in preparing your assessment. Please refer to the CSU referencing guide http://student.csu.edu.au/study/referencing-at-csu. In addition a very useful tool for you to use that demonstrates how to correctly use in text referencing and the correct way to cite the reference in your reference list can be found at https://apps.csu.edu.au/reftool/apa-6