Hit The Order Button To Order A **Custom Paper**

>> CLICK HERE TO ORDER 100% ORIGINAL PAPERS FROM AustralianExpertWriters.com <<

31 Jul

BN205 Assignment 1


SOLUTION AT Australian Expert Writers

Prepared by: Samira Baho Moderated by: Dr Karthik Nagarajan July 2020
Assessment Details and Submission Guidelines
Unit Code
Unit Title
Trimester 2, 2020 – Project Management
Assessment Type
Assignment 1
Assessment Title
Individual Assignment
Purpose of theassessment(with ULOMapping)
• Demonstrate project leadership skills; identify and assess risk in designing andexecuting major projects;• Reflect on current project management ethics, research, theory and practice;
Assignment 1a 5%Assignment 1b 10%
Total Marks
Assignment 1a 20 marksAssignment 1b 40 marksTotal Marks = 60 Marks
Word limit
Due Date
Assignment 1a Week 3 Thursday 6th August, 2020, 11:55 PMAssignment 1B Week 7 Thursday 3rd September, 2020, 11:55 PM
• All work must be submitted on Moodle by the due dates along with a completedAssignment Cover Page.• The assignment must be in MS Word format, 1.5 spacing, 11-pt Calibri (Body)font and 2 cm margins on all four sides of your page with appropriate sectionheadings.• Reference sources must be cited in the text of the report, and listedappropriately at the end in a reference list using APA referencing style.
• If an extension of time to submit work is required, a Special ConsiderationApplication must be submitted directly to the School’s Administration Officer,in Melbourne on Level 6 or in Sydney on Level 7. You must submit thisapplication three working days prior to the due date of the assignment. Furtherinformation is available at:• http://www.mit.edu.au/about-mit/institute-publications/policies-proceduresand-guidelines/specialconsiderationdeferment
• Academic Misconduct is a serious offence. Depending on the seriousness of thecase, penalties can vary from a written warning or zero marks to exclusion fromthe course or rescinding the degree. Students should make themselves familiarwith the full policy and procedure available at: http://www.mit.edu.au/aboutmit/institute-publications/policies-procedures-and-guidelines/PlagiarismAcademic-Misconduct-Policy-Procedure. For further information, please referto the Academic Integrity Section in your Unit Description.
Purpose of the assessment:As a project manager, your career will be driven by decisions, often dozens or more per day. Some decisionsare small and barely noticed while others are more prominent and could have serious ramifications onyourself, your organisation and your stakeholders. Decisions like this will most likely require deep thoughtas they involve people, resources and the environment. Sometimes these factors are in conflict, creating adilemma and perhaps significant risks where your awareness of Ethical issues in a professional setting will bevital.BN205 Network Project Management Page 2 of 9Prepared by: Samira Baho Moderated by: Dr Karthik Nagarajan July 2020To guide ethical behaviour and help with tough decisions, the Project Management Institute (PMI) hasdeveloped a Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct and an Ethical Decision-Making Framework. Thisassessment will require you to use your knowledge of the PMI code and framework and apply it in a real lifecase study.Assignment structure and submission guidelineThe assignment is divided into two parts:• The first part of the assignment (1a) focuses on project management code of ethics theory andpractice. Assignment 1a is worth 5% of the total unit marks.Students have to submit the first part of the assignment (assignment 1a) in week 3.• The second part of the assignment (1b) is an extension on assignment 1a. It highlights theimportance of risk identification and assessment while managing projects. Assignment 1b alsoemphasises how decision making in project management requires awareness of both ethical issuesand risks that might affect people resources and the environment. Assignment 1b is worth 10% oftotal unit marks.Once assignment 1a is marked feedback is provided, then students complete assignment 1b takinginto account the feedback provided and submit it in week 7.BN205 Network Project Management Page 3 of 9Prepared by: Samira Baho Moderated by: Dr Karthik Nagarajan July 2020Altex Corporation – Case StudyBACKGROUNDFollowing World War II, the United States entered into a Cold War with Russia. To win this Cold War, theUnited States had to develop sophisticated weapon systems with such destructive power that any aggressorknew that the retaliatory capability of the United States could and would inflict vast destruction.Hundreds of millions of dollars were committed to ideas concerning technology that had not beendeveloped as yet. Aerospace and defence contractors were growing without bounds, thanks to cost-pluspercentage-of-cost contract awards. Speed and technological capability were judged to be significantly moreimportant than cost. To make matters worse, contracts were often awarded to the second or third mostqualified bidder for the sole purpose of maintaining competition and maximizing the total number ofdefence contractors.CONTRACT AWARDDuring this period Altex Corporation was elated when it learned that it had just been awarded the R&Dphase of the Advanced Tactical Missile Program (ATMP). The terms of the contract specified that Altex hadto submit to the Army, within 60 days after contract award, a formal project plan for the two-year ATMPeffort. Contracts at that time did not require that a risk management plan be developed. A meeting was heldwith project manager of R&D to assess the risks in the ATMP effort.PM: “I’m in the process of developing the project plan. Should I also develop a risk management plan as partof the project plan?”Sponsor-: “Absolutely not! Most new weapon systems requirements are established by military personnelwho have no sense of reality about what it takes to develop a weapon system based upon technology thatdoesn’t even exist yet. We’ll be lucky if we can deliver 60-70 percent of the specification imposed upon us.”PM: “But that’s not what we stated in our proposal. I wasn’t brought on board until after we won the award,so I wasn’t privileged to know the thought process that went into the proposal. The proposal even went sofar as to imply that we might be able to exceed the specification limits, and now you’re saying that weshould be happy with 60-70 percent.”Sponsor: “We say what we have to say to win the bid. Everyone does it. It is common practice. Whoeverwins the R&D portion of the contract will also be first in line for the manufacturing effort and that’s wherethe megabucks come from! If we can achieve 60-70 percent of specifications, it should placate the Armyenough to give us a follow-on contract. If we told the Army the true cost of developing the technology tomeet the specification limits, we would never get the contract. The program might even be cancelled. Themilitary people want this weapon system. They’re not stupid! They know what is happening and they do notwant to go to their superiors for more money until later on, downstream, after approval by DoD and projectkickoff. The government wants the lowest cost and we want long-term, follow-on production contracts,which can generate huge profits.”PM: “Aren’t we simply telling lies in our proposal?”Sponsor: “My engineers and scientists are highly optimistic and believe they can do the impossible. This ishow technological breakthroughs are made. I prefer to call it ‘over-optimism of technical capability’ ratherBN205 Network Project Management Page 4 of 9Prepared by: Samira Baho Moderated by: Dr Karthik Nagarajan July 2020than ‘telling lies.’ If my engineers and scientists have to develop a risk management plan, they may becomepessimistic, and that’s not good for us!”PM: “The problem with letting your engineers and scientists be optimistic is that they become reactiverather than proactive thinkers. Without proactive thinkers, we end up with virtually no risk management orcontingency plans. When problems surface that require significantly more in the way of resources than webudgeted for, we will be forced to accept crisis management as a way of life. Our costs will increase andthat’s not going to make the Army happy.”Sponsor: “But the Army won’t penalize us for failing to meet cost or for allowing the schedule to slip. If wefail to meet at least 60-70 percent of the specification limits, however, then we may well be in trouble. TheArmy knows there will be a follow-on contract request if we cannot meet specification limits. I consider 60-70 percent of the specifications to be the minimum acceptable limits for the Army. The Army wants theprogram kicked off right now.“Another important point is that long-term contracts and follow-on production contracts allow us to build upa good working relationship with the Army. This is critical. Once we get the initial contract, as we did, theArmy will always work with us for follow-on efforts. Whoever gets the R&D effort will almost always get thelucrative production contract. Military officers are under pressure to work with us because their careers maybe in jeopardy if they have to tell their superiors that millions of dollars were awarded to the wrong defencecontractor. From a career standpoint, the military officers are better off allowing us to downgrade therequirements than admitting that a mistake was made.”PM: “I’m just a little nervous managing a project that is so optimistic that major advances in the state of theart must occur to meet specifications. This is why I want to prepare a risk management plan.”Sponsor “You don’t need a risk management plan when you know you can spend as much as you want andalso let the schedule slip. If you prepare a risk management plan, you will end up exposing a multitude ofrisks, especially technical risks. The Army might not know about many of these risks, so why expose themand open up Pandora’s box’? Personally, I believe that the Army does already know many of these risks, butdoes not want them publicized to their superiors”.“If you want to develop a risk management plan, then do it by yourself, and I really mean by yourself. Pastexperience has shown that our employees will be talking informally to Army personnel at least two to threetimes a week. I don’t want anyone telling the customer that we have a risk management plan. The customerwill obviously want to see it, and that’s not good for us”.“If you are so incensed that you feel obligated to tell the customer what you’re doing, then wait about a yearand a half. By that time, the Army will have made a considerable investment in both us and the project, andthey’ll be locked into us for follow-on work. Because of the strategic timing and additional costs, they willnever want to qualify a second supplier so late in the game. Just keep the risk management plan to yourselffor now”.“If it looks like the Army might cancel the program, then we’ll show them the risk management plan, andperhaps that will keep the program alive.”References:Kerzner, H 2003, Project Management Case Study, John Wiley & Sons. Inc. Retrieved April, 7 2018h ttp:// Network Project Management Page 5 of 9Prepared by: Samira Baho Moderated by: Dr Karthik Nagarajan July 2020Assignment TasksAssignment 1a: Ethical Analysis of the case studyPrepare a report of about 500 words that gives an ethical analysis of the issues raised in the case study. Yourreport should at least include the following:Executive Summaryo You should provide a brief summary of your main findings and research so that the reader can knowits main purpose.Introductiono In this section you should (briefly) state the case study being analysed. You should also discuss thepurpose and scope of the report and the sources of the information that you have used.Ethical Analysis of the case studyo In this section you should identify the ethical issues of the case study and relevant requirement of PMIcode related to case study.Assignment 1b: Breach of PM Ethical Standard and Associated RisksPrepare a report of about 1000 words that on potential breach of PMI code of conduct and risks tothe project. Your report should at least include the following:o Potential breaches of the Project Management Institute (PMI) ethical standards by the Projectteam.o Consequences to the stakeholders of accepting this aggressive bid and risks involved in thisproject.o Your recommendations to the project manager how to proceed to solve the ethical dilemma he isfacing.o Conclusion: Provide short concluding comments that remind the reader the main purpose of theassessment, how you went about addressing the ethical issues of the case study, what referencesyou used and what the main findings were.BN205 Network Project Management Page 6 of 9Prepared by: Samira Baho Moderated by: Dr Karthik Nagarajan July 2020Marking criteria:Marks are allocated for Assignment 1a as follows:
Section to be included in the report
Description of the section
Executive summary
A brief summary of your mainfindings and research so that thereader can know its main purpose.
-In this section you should (briefly)state the case study being analysed.You should also discuss the purposeand scope of the report and thesources of the information that youhave used.
Analysis of the case study
– Identify the PM ethical issues in thecase study.-Examine the PMI code and identifyrequirements that are relevant tothis case study.
Reference and appendices
APA Style
Total Marks
BN205 Network Project Management Page 7 of 9Prepared by: Samira Baho Moderated by: Dr Karthik Nagarajan July 2020Marks are allocated for Assignment 1b as follows:
Section to be included in the report
Description of the section
Updates according to thechanges/feedback in Part 1a
Update Assignment 1a as per yourtutor’s feedback
Breaches of PM Ethical Standards
– Identify the potential breaches ofthe Project Management Institute(PMI) ethical standards by the Projectteam. Examine the PMI code andidentify requirements that arerelevant to this case study.
Potential Risks
-Identify the potential consequencesto the stakeholder of accepting thisaggressive without risk managementplan.– Identify the potential consequencesof implementing the project withoutrisk management plan.
The project manager is attempting toresolve the ethical dilemma. Havingcompleted your ethical analysis,provide advice as to how he shouldproceed.
Provide short concluding commentsthat remind the reader the mainpurpose of the assessment, how youwent about addressing the ethicalissues of the case study, whatreferences you used and what themain findings were.
Reference and appendices
APA Style
Total Marks
BN205 Network Project Management Page 8 of 9Prepared by: Samira Baho Moderated by: Dr Karthik Nagarajan July 2020
Rubric:Assignment 1a
N (Fail)
Executive Summary/3
Complete in allrespects;reflects allrequirements
Complete inmost respects;reflects mostrequirements
Incomplete in manyrespects;reflectsfewrequirements
Incomplete inmost respects;does notreflectrequirements
Incomplete inall aspects;does notreflectrequirements
Demonstrates asophisticatedunderstanding ofthe case study andissues
Demonstratesanaccomplishedunderstandingof thecasestudyandissues
Demonstrates anacceptableunderstanding ofthe topic(s) andissues
Demonstrates aninadequateunderstanding of thecase studyand issues
Does notdemonstratedunderstanding to thetopics andissues.
Case Study Analysis/10
Presents aninsightful andthorough analysisof all issuesidentified; includesall necessaryinformation
Presents athoroughanalysis ofmost issuesidentified;includesmostnecessaryinformation
Presents asuperficialanalysis ofsome of theissuesidentified;omitsnecessaryinformation
Presents anincompleteanalysis ofthe issuesidentified
Analysis notrelated tothe casestudypresented.
Uses APA styleguidelinesaccurately andconsistently tocite sources
Uses APAguidelineswith minorviolations tocite sources
Reflectsincompleteknowledge ofAPAguidelines
Does not useAPA guidelines
No Reference
BN205 Network Project Management Page 9 of 9Prepared by: Samira Baho Moderated by: Dr Karthik Nagarajan July 2020Rubric: Assignment 1b
N (Fail)
Updates according to thechanges/feedback in Part1a/5
Changes weremade based onall the feedbackprovided inPart1a. Itexceededexpectations.
Modified basedon the feedbackprovided inPart1a
Changes weremade based onmost of thefeedback providedin Part1a
Changeswere madebut not on allthe feedbackprovided inPart1a
Change werenot madebased on thefeedbackprovided inPart1a
Breaches of PM EthicalStandards and PotentialRisks/20
Makesappropriate andpowerfulconnectionsbetween theissues identifiedand the riskmanagement/code of ethicsconcepts studiedin PM.
Makesappropriateconnectionsbetween theissues identifiedand the riskmanagement/code of ethicsconcepts studiedin PM.
Makes appropriatebut somewhatvague connectionsbetween the issuesand the riskmanagement/codeof ethics conceptsstudied in PM.
Makes littleor noconnectionbetween theissuesidentifiedand the riskmanagement/code ofethicsconceptsstudied inPM.
Noconnectionbetween theissuesidentified PMconceptsstudied
Presents detailed,realistic, andappropriaterecommendations clearlysupported by theinformationpresented andPM concepts
Presentsspecific,realistic, andappropriaterecommendations supportedby theinformationpresented andPM concepts
Presents realisticor appropriaterecommendations supported bythe informationpresented andPM concepts
Presentsrealistic orappropriaterecommendations with little,if any, supportfrom theinformationpresented andPM concepts
NoRecommendations presented
Findings lead toconclusions in alogical manner.Strong evidence isgiven to support theconclusions
Findings lead toconclusions in alogical manner,however, someevidence given tosupport theconclusions is weak
The conclusion doesnot Little evidence tosupport conclusions.
The conclusion isnot logical.
Did not provideconclusions
Uses APA styleguidelinesaccurately andconsistently tocite sources
Uses APAguidelineswith minorviolations tocite sources
Reflectsincompleteknowledge ofAPAguidelines
Does not useAPA guidelines
The report doesnot include anycitations and/ora reference list
BN205 Assignment 1 appeared first on .

Order from Australian Expert Writers
Best Australian Academic Writers


READ ALSO  Jottings – Cognitive Development (Cognitive)