Faculty of
Computing, Engineering
and the Built Environment
Coursework Assessment Brief
Academic Year 2016-17
Module: BNV5084 Operational Management
Assessment Title: Coursework 2
Assessment Identifier: CWRK002 Weighting: 70%
School: Birmingham School of the Built Environment
Module Co-ordinator: Chris Conway
Hand in deadline date: See iCity and Moodle (iCity.bcu.ac.uk)
Hand back date: See iCity and Moodle ( iCity.bcu.ac.uk)
Re-assessment hand in deadline date: 31st July 2017 at 2:00pm
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 Coursework 2
Full submission of the Project Scenario with inclusion of Health & Safety Aspects for the site.
This submission will include all previous aspects of the project including site set up , the managerial team responsibilities and the updated project programme
By 22nd May 12:00 miday
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.
3. Appraise the control of communication and reporting techniques.
4. Assess health safety and welfare implications relating to the project within the legislative framework.
Learning Outcomes to be Assessed:
Assessment Details:
Coursework 2 (2000 words)
Project Review (70%)
In report format provide a review of the completed project scenario, including all previous reported aspects from site set up, management structure including a project programme and its benefits, and identifying health and safety legislation requirements needed to provide a safe site.
This should include the use of the programming tool Syncro linking a basic drawing of the project with the project time line to create a virtual build.
Assessment Details:
This must be submitted to the moodle page by 22nd May 2017 at 12:00 midday
Further Details on the Report
The following scenarios/conditions apply to the report
1) Your report should contain a review of the three course work patchworks including
a. the site layout of the hospital project,
b. management structure of the hospital project,
c. and Programme/Schedule of works of the Leisure centre project, including the benefits of the Programme/Schedule to a main contractor and identification of a minimum of one area on your Programme/Schedule where time savings are achievable.
2) All the above should NOT be presented as Power Point presentations at this stage but as a report. The report must also include:
3) A 4D model linking the provided 3D model of the Leisures centre and your Programme/Schedule of works of the Leisure centre project which is 1D (3D + 1D = 4D). This must be done with Syncro to create a virtual build.
4) A health and safety section which provides information on the safety legislation requirements needed to provide a safe site
5) Your report must be properly referenced to an adequate standard.
6) Remember, we are assessing your thinking behind a decision or a problem presented hence the reason you give for your decisions is far more important than what you have decided.
7) Appropriate reasons with citation of applicable documents/publications will receive the best marks
8) All the rules that applied to the individual patchworks still applies to them in this coursework 2 final submission hence implementing the feedbacks given for each patchwork is of great usefulness. The idea is that patchworks carried little marks because it allowed for mistakes and great detailed feedback as given so do not panick if you had poor marks. The implementation of the feedback in this coursework 2 will allow you to get most of the marks in the 70% allocated here. I trust you will all take advantage of this.
9) Good Luck!!!
Assessment Criteria:
The depth in which students cover the relevant material with the inclusion of health and safety aspects and project programming, in provision of an adequate plan and the reasoning why planning is used in general for projects 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:
Work should be uploaded to the relevant upload point on the moodle page for Operational Management. The upload should be in a single Zipped file format to include word , Microsoft project and Syncro files.
Submission Details:
Explain how the work is to be submitted (e.g by Moodle upload, physical submission etc). For electronic submission the file format required for all elements of the submission must be specified.
Workload:
Coursework 2 should consist of 2000 words a Microsoft project scheme and a syncro file for the given project site. Ths should take the student up to 37.5 hours to complete the assessment
Workload:
This section should clearly indicate the size of the assessment as a word count. E.g. you may say this item has an equivalent word count of: up to 1500 / up to 4000 / over 4000 to provide guidance for students with support summaries.
You should specify the notional hours that a typical student would be expected to take to pass this assignment
Feedback:
Feedback will be provided through the moodle upload page.
Marks and Feedback on your work will normally be provided within 20 working days of its submission deadline.