Faculty of Computing, Engineering and the Built Environment Coursework Assessment Brief Academic Year 2016-17 Module: BNV5084 Operational Management Assessment Title: Coursework 1 Patchwork 3 Assessment Identifier: CWRK001 PW3 Weighting: 10% School: Birmingham School of the Built Environment Module Co-ordinator: Hafiz Alaka Hand in deadline date: See Your Course ( iCity.bcu.ac.uk/yourcourse ) Hand back date: See Your Course ( iCity.bcu.ac.uk/yourcourse ) Re-assessment hand in deadline date: See Your Course ( iCity.bcu.ac.uk/yourcourse ) Support available for students required to submit a re-assessment: Timetabled revisions sessions will be arranged for the period immediately preceding the hand in date NOTE: At the first assessment attempt, the full range of marks is available. At the re-assessment attempt the mark is capped and the maximum mark that can be achieved is 40%. Assessment Summary Patchwork 3. Production of project programme using software application for basic construction projects. This is an individual (not group) piece of work IMPORTANT STATEMENTS Standard Undergraduate Assessment Regulations Your studies will be governed by version 5 of the Standard Undergraduate Assessment Regulations (SUAR 5). Under these regulations you are permitted two attempts at assessment for each module: a first sit and re-assessment attempt. This means that you will be required to withdraw from the course if, following the reassessment attempt, you have not passed. Cheating and Plagiarism Both cheating and plagiarism are totally unacceptable and the University maintains a strict policy against them. It is YOUR responsibility to be aware of this policy and to act accordingly. Please refer to the Academic Registry Guidance at https://icity.bcu.ac.uk/Academic-Registry/Information-for-Students/Assessment/Avoiding-Allegations-of-Cheating The basic principles are: • Don’t pass off anyone else’s work as your own, including work from “essay banks”. This is plagiarism and is viewed extremely seriously by the University. • Don’t submit a piece of work in whole or in part that has already been submitted for assessment elsewhere. This is called duplication and, like plagiarism, is viewed extremely seriously by the University. • Always acknowledge all of the sources that you have used in your coursework assignment or project. • If you are using the exact words of another person, always put them in quotation marks. • Check that you know whether the coursework is to be produced individually or whether you can work with others. • If you are doing group work, be sure about what you are supposed to do on your own. • Never make up or falsify data to prove your point. • Never allow others to copy your work. • Never lend disks, memory sticks or copies of your coursework to any other student in the University; this may lead you being accused of collusion. By submitting coursework, either physically or electronically, you are confirming that it is your own work (or, in the case of a group submission, that it is the result of joint work undertaken by members of the group that you represent) and that you have read and understand the University’s guidance on plagiarism and cheating. Students should be aware that, at the discretion of the module co-ordinator, coursework may be submitted to an electronic detection system in order to help ascertain if any plagiarised material is present. Electronic Submission of Work Students should also be aware that it is their responsibility to ensure that work submitted in electronic format can be opened on a faculty computer and to check that any electronic submissions have been successfully uploaded. If it cannot be opened it will not be marked. Any required file formats will be specified in the assignment brief and failure to comply with these submission requirements will result in work not being marked. Students must retain a copy of all electronic work they have submitted and resubmit if requested. Learning Outcomes to be Assessed: 1. Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of the principles of site management and the pre-tender planning process. 2. Evaluate the application of planning and programming and demonstrate use of planning software. Learning Outcomes to be Assessed: Learning Outcomes to be Assessed: Coursework 1 patchwork 3 (500 words equivalent) Planning Software (10%) Provide a basic project programme for the specified project, identifying the main operations that are required in order to satisfactorily complete the project, within the time frame allotted. 12 months Assessment Details: Each individual student should provide a programme for the specified project . This is an individual (not group) piece of work Assessment Details: Patchwork 3 will be viewed in the laboratory during class time. Further Details on the Programme/Schedule of Construction Works The following apply to the the Programme/Schedule of Construction Works 1) Your Programme/Schedule of construction works should be totally based on the new drawing/project provided. 2) The Programme/Schedule of construction works must be produced with MS Project planning software as taught in the two sessions on 13-Mar-17 and 20-Mar-17. 3) Choosing from what was taught in the two sessions on 13-Mar-17 and 20-Mar-17, and from your own personal research, ensure that only applicable operations that are required in order to satisfactorily complete the project in 12 months are included in your Programme/Schedule of construction works 4) You should provide a review of the Programme/Schedule, explaining how the Programme/Schedule can be of benefit to the main contractor. 5) You should also identify a minimum of one area on your Programme/Schedule where time savings are achievable. 6) Appropriate explanations/identifications with citation of applicable documents/publications will receive the best marks 7) The Programme/Schedule will be viewed and accesses in the 27-Mar-17 class session. Assessment Criteria: The depth in which students cover the relevant material of what is required for the provision of adequate site set up on the specified site will reflect the marks achieved. The following table identifies typical characteristics which are likely to be apparent at the grades shown. It does not imply that all such features will be present in a single piece of work. Please note that it is also indicative of how longer forms of written work will be assessed and is not intended to be applied to mini tests, drawings, calculations, etc. Table of Assessment Criteria and Associated Grading Criteria Assessment Criteria  Patch1. Patch 2. Patch3. CW2. Weighting: 10% 10% 10% 70% Grading Criteria 0 – 29% Clear fail No understanding demonstrated with fundamental errors present. Assignment requirements may not be met or content may be unduly derivative of other sources. Disorganised with no apparent structure. Wholly descriptive or inappropriately subjective, and even then with substantial errors. It may show a disregard for the published word count or equivalent. Little or no attempt at analysis and no evidence that a sound conclusion has been drawn. Poor written expression and layout with frequent grammatical and typographical (spelling and misuse or words) errors. No sources identified in the text and/or no reference list. Where sources have been consulted, likely to be inappropriate, irrelevant, or copied. Where plagiarism is suspected, a mark of 0 will be awarded and disciplinary proceedings commenced. Clear fail No understanding demonstrated with fundamental errors present. Assignment requirements may not be met or content may be unduly derivative of other sources. Disorganised with no apparent structure. Wholly descriptive or inappropriately subjective, and even then with substantial errors. It may show a disregard for the published word count or equivalent. Little or no attempt at analysis and no evidence that a sound conclusion has been drawn. Poor written expression and layout with frequent grammatical and typographical (spelling and misuse or words) errors. No sources identified in the text and/or no reference list. Where sources have been consulted, likely to be inappropriate, irrelevant, or copied. Where plagiarism is suspected, a mark of 0 will be awarded and disciplinary proceedings commenced. Clear fail No understanding demonstrated with fundamental errors present. Assignment requirements may not be met or content may be unduly derivative of other sources. Disorganised with no apparent structure. Wholly descriptive or inappropriately subjective, and even then with substantial errors. It may show a disregard for the published word count or equivalent. Little or no attempt at analysis and no evidence that a sound conclusion has been drawn. Poor written expression and layout with frequent grammatical and typographical (spelling and misuse or words) errors. No sources identified in the text and/or no reference list. Where sources have been consulted, likely to be inappropriate, irrelevant, or copied. Where plagiarism is suspected, a mark of 0 will be awarded and disciplinary proceedings commenced. Clear fail No understanding demonstrated with fundamental errors present. Assignment requirements may not be met or content may be unduly derivative of other sources. Disorganised with no apparent structure. Wholly descriptive or inappropriately subjective, and even then with substantial errors. It may show a disregard for the published word count or equivalent. Little or no attempt at analysis and no evidence that a sound conclusion has been drawn. Poor written expression and layout with frequent grammatical and typographical (spelling and misuse or words) errors. No sources identified in the text and/or no reference list. Where sources have been consulted, likely to be inappropriate, irrelevant, or copied. Where plagiarism is suspected, a mark of 0 will be awarded and disciplinary proceedings commenced. 30 – 39% Marginal fail Inadequate depth to the answer. Incorrect or irrelevant material included with poor or unclear structure. Some very basic understanding shown but still likely to be entirely descriptive and failing to properly address the questions posed in the assignment guidance. Sources not identified or largely inappropriate or irrelevant. Marginal fail Inadequate depth to the answer. Incorrect or irrelevant material included with poor or unclear structure. Some very basic understanding shown but still likely to be entirely descriptive and failing to properly address the questions posed in the assignment guidance. Sources not identified or largely inappropriate or irrelevant. Marginal fail Inadequate depth to the answer. Incorrect or irrelevant material included with poor or unclear structure. Some very basic understanding shown but still likely to be entirely descriptive and failing to properly address the questions posed in the assignment guidance. Sources not identified or largely inappropriate or irrelevant. Marginal fail Inadequate depth to the answer. Incorrect or irrelevant material included with poor or unclear structure. Some very basic understanding shown but still likely to be entirely descriptive and failing to properly address the questions posed in the assignment guidance. Sources not identified or largely inappropriate or irrelevant. 40 – 49% Marginal pass (3rd class equivalent) Learning outcomes satisfied with basic coverage of material relevant to topic but of an overly descriptive nature and with significant errors, inaccuracies or misunderstanding. Some limited development of ideas present. Heavily dependent on an uncritical acceptance and recital of received opinion. Basic structure in place including an introduction and conclusion but lacking clarity or logic in flow or argument. Where a conclusion is present it may be poor, not drawing from or not supported by previous discussion. Attempts to develop ideas, but with points not fully explained or justified. Adequate presentation, but with some carelessness in grammar, spelling or style. Referencing style inconsistent and sparse. Incomplete bibliography. Harvard approach not correctly used. Marginal pass (3rd class equivalent) Learning outcomes satisfied with basic coverage of material relevant to topic but of an overly descriptive nature and with significant errors, inaccuracies or misunderstanding. Some limited development of ideas present. Heavily dependent on an uncritical acceptance and recital of received opinion. Basic structure in place including an introduction and conclusion but lacking clarity or logic in flow or argument. Where a conclusion is present it may be poor, not drawing from or not supported by previous discussion. Attempts to develop ideas, but with points not fully explained or justified. Adequate presentation, but with some carelessness in grammar, spelling or style. Referencing style inconsistent and sparse. Incomplete bibliography. Harvard approach not correctly used. Marginal pass (3rd class equivalent) Learning outcomes satisfied with basic coverage of material relevant to topic but of an overly descriptive nature and with significant errors, inaccuracies or misunderstanding. Some limited development of ideas present. Heavily dependent on an uncritical acceptance and recital of received opinion. Basic structure in place including an introduction and conclusion but lacking clarity or logic in flow or argument. Where a conclusion is present it may be poor, not drawing from or not supported by previous discussion. Attempts to develop ideas, but with points not fully explained or justified. Adequate presentation, but with some carelessness in grammar, spelling or style. Referencing style inconsistent and sparse. Incomplete bibliography. Harvard approach not correctly used. Marginal pass (3rd class equivalent) Learning outcomes satisfied with basic coverage of material relevant to topic but of an overly descriptive nature and with significant errors, inaccuracies or misunderstanding. Some limited development of ideas present. Heavily dependent on an uncritical acceptance and recital of received opinion. Basic structure in place including an introduction and conclusion but lacking clarity or logic in flow or argument. Where a conclusion is present it may be poor, not drawing from or not supported by previous discussion. Attempts to develop ideas, but with points not fully explained or justified. Adequate presentation, but with some carelessness in grammar, spelling or style. Referencing style inconsistent and sparse. Incomplete bibliography. Harvard approach not correctly used. 50 – 59% Competent pass (2:2 equivalent) An essentially sound answer which demonstrates a reasonable conceptual understanding. However, some errors are still likely to be present. Competently written, but limited and restricted in scope. Straightforward in its understanding of topic, showing an unquestioning approach rather than a more sophisticated or critical one. Central issues addressed but lacking awareness of wider frame of reference. Sufficient reading but a tendency to reproduce ideas uncritically and to be descriptive in style. Competent pass (2:2 equivalent) An essentially sound answer which demonstrates a reasonable conceptual understanding. However, some errors are still likely to be present. Competently written, but limited and restricted in scope. Straightforward in its understanding of topic, showing an unquestioning approach rather than a more sophisticated or critical one. Central issues addressed but lacking awareness of wider frame of reference. Sufficient reading but a tendency to reproduce ideas uncritically and to be descriptive in style. Competent pass (2:2 equivalent) An essentially sound answer which demonstrates a reasonable conceptual understanding. However, some errors are still likely to be present. Competently written, but limited and restricted in scope. Straightforward in its understanding of topic, showing an unquestioning approach rather than a more sophisticated or critical one. Central issues addressed but lacking awareness of wider frame of reference. Sufficient reading but a tendency to reproduce ideas uncritically and to be descriptive in style. Competent pass (2:2 equivalent) An essentially sound answer which demonstrates a reasonable conceptual understanding. However, some errors are still likely to be present. Competently written, but limited and restricted in scope. Straightforward in its understanding of topic, showing an unquestioning approach rather than a more sophisticated or critical one. Central issues addressed but lacking awareness of wider frame of reference. Sufficient reading but a tendency to reproduce ideas uncritically and to be descriptive in style. 60 – 69% Strong pass (2:1 equivalent) Good coverage of relevant and appropriate material showing evidence of independence of thought. Well constructed framework with clearly articulated structure and an effective introduction and conclusion. Signposting provided to direct the reader through the paper. Sensible debate with most points developed and justified. A full response, which demonstrates an attempt to engage in comment and discussion and shows knowledge and understanding of the issues, although unlikely to fully consider the wider context. Effective presentation with few significant errors in grammar, spelling, layout or style. Sound range of sources used with largely correct referencing. Strong pass (2:1 equivalent) Good coverage of relevant and appropriate material showing evidence of independence of thought. Well constructed framework with clearly articulated structure and an effective introduction and conclusion. Signposting provided to direct the reader through the paper. Sensible debate with most points developed and justified. A full response, which demonstrates an attempt to engage in comment and discussion and shows knowledge and understanding of the issues, although unlikely to fully consider the wider context. Effective presentation with few significant errors in grammar, spelling, layout or style. Sound range of sources used with largely correct referencing. Strong pass (2:1 equivalent) Good coverage of relevant and appropriate material showing evidence of independence of thought. Well constructed framework with clearly articulated structure and an effective introduction and conclusion. Signposting provided to direct the reader through the paper. Sensible debate with most points developed and justified. A full response, which demonstrates an attempt to engage in comment and discussion and shows knowledge and understanding of the issues, although unlikely to fully consider the wider context. Effective presentation with few significant errors in grammar, spelling, layout or style. Sound range of sources used with largely correct referencing. Strong pass (2:1 equivalent) Good coverage of relevant and appropriate material showing evidence of independence of thought. Well constructed framework with clearly articulated structure and an effective introduction and conclusion. Signposting provided to direct the reader through the paper. Sensible debate with most points developed and justified. A full response, which demonstrates an attempt to engage in comment and discussion and shows knowledge and understanding of the issues, although unlikely to fully consider the wider context. Effective presentation with few significant errors in grammar, spelling, layout or style. Sound range of sources used with largely correct referencing. 70 – 79% Outstanding pass (1st class equivalent) Distinctive in originality, liveliness, and enthusiasm. Comprehensive coverage of directly relevant material. Highly effective approach based on thorough research, an ability to synthesise material, and evidence of wider reading. Very clearly articulated structure with full introduction and robust conclusion which draws together the main issues. An effective framework which enables the smooth flow of ideas. Discursive approach, which engages in a full and reasoned debate around the theme of the question. All important points justified. At higher levels there will be critical thinking clearly and consistently evident, although this may be considered less essential at Level 4. Communicated effectively with appropriate language, impeccable presentation, and polished and reader-friendly style/layout. Harvard style used throughout with a full and correctly presented reference list. Outstanding pass (1st class equivalent) Distinctive in originality, liveliness, and enthusiasm. Comprehensive coverage of directly relevant material. Highly effective approach based on thorough research, an ability to synthesise material, and evidence of wider reading. Very clearly articulated structure with full introduction and robust conclusion which draws together the main issues. An effective framework which enables the smooth flow of ideas. Discursive approach, which engages in a full and reasoned debate around the theme of the question. All important points justified. At higher levels there will be critical thinking clearly and consistently evident, although this may be considered less essential at Level 4. Communicated effectively with appropriate language, impeccable presentation, and polished and reader-friendly style/layout. Harvard style used throughout with a full and correctly presented reference list. Outstanding pass (1st class equivalent) Distinctive in originality, liveliness, and enthusiasm. Comprehensive coverage of directly relevant material. Highly effective approach based on thorough research, an ability to synthesise material, and evidence of wider reading. Very clearly articulated structure with full introduction and robust conclusion which draws together the main issues. An effective framework which enables the smooth flow of ideas. Discursive approach, which engages in a full and reasoned debate around the theme of the question. All important points justified. At higher levels there will be critical thinking clearly and consistently evident, although this may be considered less essential at Level 4. Communicated effectively with appropriate language, impeccable presentation, and polished and reader-friendly style/layout. Harvard style used throughout with a full and correctly presented reference list. Outstanding pass (1st class equivalent) Distinctive in originality, liveliness, and enthusiasm. Comprehensive coverage of directly relevant material. Highly effective approach based on thorough research, an ability to synthesise material, and evidence of wider reading. Very clearly articulated structure with full introduction and robust conclusion which draws together the main issues. An effective framework which enables the smooth flow of ideas. Discursive approach, which engages in a full and reasoned debate around the theme of the question. All important points justified. At higher levels there will be critical thinking clearly and consistently evident, although this may be considered less essential at Level 4. Communicated effectively with appropriate language, impeccable presentation, and polished and reader-friendly style/layout. Harvard style used throughout with a full and correctly presented reference list. 80 – 100% Broadly similar to above but with: Outstanding context which addresses the question in an exemplary manner, with a logical, clear and coherent structure which marshals a wide range of evidence. At higher levels excellent skills of synthesis and critical analysis will also be demonstrated. Broadly similar to above but with: Outstanding context which addresses the question in an exemplary manner, with a logical, clear and coherent structure which marshals a wide range of evidence. At higher levels excellent skills of synthesis and critical analysis will also be demonstrated. Broadly similar to above but with: Outstanding context which addresses the question in an exemplary manner, with a logical, clear and coherent structure which marshals a wide range of evidence. At higher levels excellent skills of synthesis and critical analysis will also be demonstrated. Broadly similar to above but with: Outstanding context which addresses the question in an exemplary manner, with a logical, clear and coherent structure which marshals a wide range of evidence. At higher levels excellent skills of synthesis and critical analysis will also be demonstrated. Checklist Submission Details: Submissions will be checked in class on the university PCs Submission Details: This is an individual piece of work Workload: Patch 3 should consist of a basic programme relating to the given project of the MMH Building (500 words equivalent) Workload: This patchwork should be equivalent to an essay of 500 words only And should take up to 43.75 hours of student time to put together. Feedback: Feedback will be provided in class and written in the moodle upload page titled feedback. Marks and Feedback on your work will normally be provided within 20 working days of its submission deadline.