Research Methods, Data Analytics and Project Planning .docx

Research Methods, Data Analytics and Project Planning
(BUSS-B 2012) – Spring 20 – CW1– QP
MEC_AMO_TEM_034_01 Page 1 of 10
LO Covered
1. Design a project plan for business improvement.
2. Execute reliable research on business processes and other
phenomenon.
3. Distinguish the different distributions in statistics.
Instructions to Student:
eceived on the assignment will be scaled down to
the actual
weightage of the assignment which is <50> marks

provided if the
draft is submitted at least 10 days before the final submission
date.
27/06/2020
Context of Case Study
SINDBAD Logistics is one of the reputed logistic company in
Oman. When a customer submits the
order list to Order Processing Department then Order
Processing Department forward the order
lists to material handling department. The material handling
department checks the order list. If the
order lists specifications are correct, then order lists will be
forwarded to Purchase department and
if the order lists specifications are not correct, a rejection
documents will be prepared. A copy of
rejection document also will be sent to material handling
department and order processing
department.
After receiving the order list from material handling
department, the purchase department checks
the availability of material for productions. If the material is

available, order list will be sent to
Production department for producing the items. If the material
is not available, The order list will be
sent to finance department. If the finance is approved, material
will be purchased and these material
sent to production department for producing items. At the same
time purchased materials bill
document will be prepared and a copy of bill will be sent to
Finance department. After receiving the
order, the production department checks for the storage space
availability. If the storage space is
`
IN SEMESTER (INDIVIDUAL) ASSIGNMENT
Module Code: BUSS-B 2012
Module Name: Research Methods, data Analytics and PP
Level: 2 Max. Marks: 100
available, then item will be produced. If the storage space is

not available, then production will be
delayed and information will be sent to order processing
department. After creating the additional
space, item will be produced.
After producing the item, production department checks for
delivery time. If the delivery time is
short, item will be sent to warehouse department and stored in
High rotation area. If the delivery time
is long, then also item will be sent to warehouse department, but
stored in Low rotation area. Dispatch
list document will be prepared. At the same time, dispatch list
also forwarded to Transportation
department and Order Processing Department.
On receiving the dispatch list, Transportation department
checks for availability of internal transport.
If internal transport is available, item will be delivered to
customer. It internal transportation is not
available, external transport will be hired and then item will be
delivered to the customer. On delivery
of items to the customer, delivery note will be prepared and
copy of delivery note will also be sent
to Order processing department.

With reference to above context
Q 1. Develop One process map and one Gantt chart for the
entire process described
in the above mentioned case study.
(30 Marks)
Use, only the following symbols in your process map.
Q 2. Imagine / Assume that you have visited and studied the
market. Based on
assumption, select a company/process of your choice and
perform the following task
(40 Marks)
a) Write a paragraph on description about the company
/process / scenario
selected for the questionnaire.

its process from
the above mentioned case study and discuss elaborately about it.
b) Develop Ten questions covering all the measuring areas for
the selected
process.(Example fueling process, shopping process, queuing
process in the
municipality office, ordering process in the canteen, milking
cows etc.).
Start / Stop Process Decision Prepare
Document
Conne
ctor
ernatively you can also select departments / processes in
the above
mentioned case study for designing the questionnaire.

Ordinal, Ratio,
Interval and Dichotomous measurements.
e questionnaire design must be logical, meaningful and
must facilitate
you to do proper data analysis.
c) Identify and clearly mention, which types of measurements
is applied to each
questions.
Q 3. Develop excel tables with data (based on assumptions)
for each questions.
Discuss/apply/demonstrate various Statistical Tests /Reliability
Tests (minimum
THREE), which can be applied to the questions designed in
Q2(b). (30 Marks)
You are required to develop a report (1200-1500 words) not
exceeding 1500 words, which
comprises of the answers to the above questions. The compiled
report also to be included
with introduction, conclusion and references.
Documentation Requirements

planning
submit relevant documents for
data/information
collections.
effort proportionately
Microsoft Word or Adobe
PDF format.
Note :
be uploaded through
Moodle, on or before 09th June 2020.
eclaration Form Must be pasted and Uploaded
along with the

Assignments.
Criteria
The assignment will be assessed out of 100 marks using the
following criteria. The
marks awarded would be then scaled to 50.
Rules & Regulations
Rules & Regulations:
All resources should be cited using CU Harvard style.
ble of
Contents, References/ bibliography using
CU Harvard Style and page numbers.
Session, your name, ID, and the name
of the faculty.

tin
link on Moodle.
Guidelines:
- Times New Roman
– Style - Regular
- Size - 12
Underline.
wherever required. Diagrams
must be drawn using suitable
software or by pencil.
have to do the assignment
collaboratively and each student should write a brief reflection
on their contribution and
learnings from group work.
you should not cut and paste

material from internet nor provide photocopied material from
books. The assignment answers
should be in your own words after understanding the matter
from the above resources.
Important Policies to be followed
1. Student Academic Integrity Policy*:
MEC upholds the spirit of academic integrity in all forms of
academic work and any form of
violation of academic integrity shall invite severe penalty. Any
benefit obtained by indulging in
the act of violation of academic integrity shall be cancelled.
All cases of violation of academic integrity on the part of the
student shall fall under any of the
below mentioned categories:
1. Plagiarism
2. Malpractice
3. Ghost Writing

4. Collusion
5. Other cases
If the student fails a module and has a proven case of academic
integrity violation in this module,
the student is required to re-register the module. This is
applicable to first and second offenders
of plagiarism.
1. Plagiarism
A. First offence of plagiarism
I. If a student is caught first time in an act of plagiarism during
his/her course of study
in any assignment other than project work, the student will be
allowed to re-submit
the assignment once, within a maximum period of one week.
However, a penalty of
deduction of 25% of the marks obtained for the resubmitted
work will be imposed.
II. Period of re-submission: The student will have to re-submit
the work one week from
the date he or she is advised to re-submit.

III. If the re-submitted work is also found to be plagiarized,
then that assessment will be
awarded a zero mark. Re-submission of the work beyond the
maximum period of one
week will not be accepted and the assessment will be awarded a
zero mark.
B. Second offence of plagiarism
If any student is caught second time in an act of plagiarism
during his/her course of study (in
a subsequent semester), the student will directly be awarded
zero for the work in which
plagiarism is detected. In such cases, the student will not be
allowed to resubmit the work. A
warning of suspension shall be issued, and student has to sign
an undertaking and undergo
counselling session in such cases.
2. Malpractice/Ghostwriting/Collusion
A. First offence of Malpractice/Ghostwriting/Collusion
If a student is caught in an act of
Malpractice/Ghostwriting/Collusion for an
assessment component irrespective of coursework or end
semester, the student shall
fail the module and shall be required to re-register the module

B. Second Offence of Malpractice/Ghostwriting/Collusion
If a student is caught a second time in an act of
Malpractice/Ghostwriting/Collusion
for an assessment component irrespective of coursework or end
semester, the
student shall fail the module. A warning of suspension shall be
issued, and student
has to sign an undertaking and undergo counselling session in
such cases.
3. Third Offence of Academic Integrity Violation
If a student is caught a third time in an act of Academic
Integrity Violation for an assessment
component irrespective of coursework or end semester (in a
subsequent semester), the student
shall fail the module and also shall be suspended for one
semester from the College, as
recommended by institutional level academic committee,
Chaired by the Associate Dean,
Academic Affairs.
4. Fourth Offence of Academic Integrity Violation:

If a student is caught a fourth time in an act of Academic
Integrity Violation for an assessment
component irrespective of coursework or end semester (in a
subsequent semester), the student
shall fail the module and also shall be expelled from the
College, as recommended by institutional
level academic committee, Chaired by the Associate Dean,
Academic Affairs.
5. Other cases
If a student commits an act of academic integrity violation as
per the definition of “other cases”
mentioned in the previous section or of a different nature,
student’s case shall be forwarded to
an institutional level academic committee, Chaired by the
Associate Dean, Academic Affairs. The
committee shall investigate the case by means of a viva and/or a
disciplinary hearing and shall
take appropriate decision. The penalty that can be granted to a
proven case of academic integrity

violation which falls in this category of “other cases” can be a
warning/component zero/ module
fail/suspension/expulsion depending on the nature and gravity
of the offence.
6. Types/Variations of Cases:
I. If plagiarism is detected in any component of one assessment,
the deduction in marks will be
applicable for the whole assessment, even if only the component
or part submission alone
needs to be resubmitted.
II. If plagiarism is detected in a group assessment, all students
of the group will be considered as
having committed an act of plagiarism and the policy will then
be applied to all students
III. If plagiarism is detected in any component of a group
assessment, the deduction in marks will
be applicable for the whole assessment even if only the
component or part submission alone
needs to be resubmitted.
All students of the group would be considered as having
committed an act of plagiarism and
the policy will then be applied to all the students of the group.

IV. If the assessment consists of components or part
submissions that could be a group
assessment component (e.g. group assignment) and an
individual assessment component
(e.g. individual reflection), the following will be applicable:
a. If plagiarism is detected in the group assessment component,
all students of the group
will be considered as having committed an act of plagiarism,
The policy will then be
applied to all students of the group. Group assessment
component will be
resubmitted as per the policy.
b. If plagiarism is detected in the individual assessment
component, the individual
assessment component will be resubmitted and the policy will
then be applied to that
student alone.
c. For both (a) and/or (b), the deduction in marks will be
applicable for the whole
assessment.
* for further details Refer to MEC Student Academic Integrity
Policy in Student Handbook.

2. Late Submission Regulations:
It is the students’ responsibility to check all relevant timelines
related to assessments.
As per the Assessment Policy at MEC, late submissions are
allowed for one week (5 working
days) for all UG modules with a penalty. In such cases, a
deduction of 5% of the marks obtained
for the submitted work shall be imposed for each working day
following the last date of
submission till the date of actual submission. Assessment
documents submitted beyond a
period of one week (5 working days) after the last date of
submission will not be accepted and
will be awarded a zero for that assessment. In cases where the
submission has been delayed
due to extenuating circumstances, the student may be permitted
to submit the work without

imposing the late submission policy stated above. The extended
period of submission will be
one week from the original last date of submission. In such
cases, the student is expected to
submit the supporting certificates on or before the original last
date of submission of the
assessment and the decision of extension rests with faculty
responsible for the assessment
.The late submission policy shall be applied if the student fails
to submit the work within one
week of the original last date of submission.
Students may contact their teachers for clarification on specific
details of the submission
time if required.
3. Research Ethics and Biosafety Policy
To protect and respect the rights, dignity, health, safety, and
privacy of research subjects
involved including the welfare of animals and the integrity of
environment, all student projects
are expected to be undertaken as per the MEC Research Ethics
and Biosafety Policy.
Accordingly the following shall apply.

maintaining the high ethical
standards consistent with national and international standards
and conventions.
-risk research
shall be subject to review and
approval by the Research Ethics and Biosafety Committee.
of human or animal
tissues and manipulation of
microbial, animal or plant cells shall be subject to review and
approval by the Research Ethics
and Biosafety Committee.
purpose of research and
intended uses of research findings. Written consent must be
obtained from people involved
prior to the commencement of research.
confidence and should be used
only for the intended purpose of research.
Assessment Evaluation Criteria
Classification

And % Range <to be given
as per requirement>
Reflection and critical
analysis.
Knowledge and
Understanding/
Application of Theory
Evidence of Reading Referencing and
Bibliography
Presentation, Grammar
and Spelling
Outstanding
Highly competent
analytical skills and
reflective practice,
demonstrating personal
learning and growth,
insight into required
professional values and
principles and

professional development
planning.
Extensive knowledge and
depth of understanding of
principles and concepts
and /or outstanding
application of theory in
practice.
Evidence of reading an
extensive range of
educational
literature/research and
where applicable
workplace strategies,
policies and procedures.
Accurate referencing and
bibliography correctly
using appropriate

referencing style
Excellent presentation,
logically structured, using
correct grammar and
spelling, excellent cross-
referencing and links to
supporting evidence
Excellent
Strong analytical skills and
reflective practice used,
professional values,
Excellent knowledge and
understanding of

and /or excellent
knowledge and
understanding of the
Evidence of reading a wide
range of educational
where applicable,
Appropriate referencing
and bibliography correctly
using appropriate
referencing style
Good presentation,
competently structured,
using correct grammar
and spelling, clear and
easy to use links to

supporting evidence
principles and
competencies and
planning.
practice
Very Good Quality
Good use of analytical
skills and reflective
practice demonstrating
personal learning and
growth, insight into
required professional

values, principles and
competencies and
planning.
Good knowledge or key
and/or good knowledge of
the application of theory
in practice
Evidence of reading a good
range of educational
where applicable
Generally well referenced
with correct use of the
appropriate referencing

style
Reasonable presentation,
completely structured,
acceptable grammar and
spelling, acceptable links
to supporting evidence
Good (Acceptable)
Acceptable use of
reflective practice
professional values,
principles and
competencies and
planning.

Acceptable knowledge of
key principles and
concepts and/or
knowledge of the
practice
Evidence of reading an
appropriate range of
educational
where applicable, relevant
workplace policies and
procedures
Adequate referencing.
Generally accurate use of
style
Adequate presentation

and structure, acceptable
grammar and spelling,
adequate links to
supporting evidence
Adequate/ Satisfactory
Adequate use of analytical
required professional
values, principles and
competencies and
planning.
Adequate knowledge of
key principles and
concepts and/or

satisfactory evidence of
in practice.
Evidence of minimal
reading of educational
where applicable relevant
workplace policies and
procedures
Adequate referencing.
Appropriate referencing
style used but may
contain some
inaccuracies.
Weak presentation ,
satisfactory structure,
links to supporting

evidence
Weak /Poor
(all learning outcomes not
adequately met)
Little use of analytical
required competencies
and/or professional
development planning.
Professional values and
principles not reflected in
the submission.
and/or
Insufficient/no use of

reflective practice
competencies and
planning
Little evidence of
knowledge of key
principles or concepts
and/or little evidence of
in practice
and/or
No evidence of knowledge
of key principles or
concepts and/or no

evidence of application of
theory in practice
Little or no evidence of
reading outside of the
course textbook and/or
reference to relevant work
place policies and
procedures
and/or
No evidence of reading
outside of the course
textbook and/or reference
to relevant workplace
policies and procedures
Little or no referencing,
incorrect style, or very
inaccurate use of

style
Poor presentation,
links to supporting
evidence
and/or
Unacceptable
presentation, grammar
and spelling, structure is
very poor, links to
supporting evidence
Assessment Grading Criteria
90-100%
Outstanding
Focused and comprehensive engagement with the question,
showing evidence of in-
depthunderstanding of the issues. Extremely clearly structured
and demonstrating a coherent

argument throughout.
Evidence of wide, independent reading.
No obvious errors in referencing or grammar or syntax as
appropriate.
80-89%
Excellent
Detailed identification of the issues with evidence of clear
understanding of the issues.
Well-structured with evidence of independent reading
supporting the argument.
Very few errors in referencing or grammar or syntax as
appropriate.
70-79%
Very
good

Identification and very good understanding of issues in the
assessment. Full answers to allque
stions/task. Very clear argument with relevant examples used to
illustrate response.
Clear evidence of reading outside the module list.
Few errors in referencing or grammar or syntax as appropriate.
60-69 % Good
Good understanding of the issues. Engages directly with the
question. Clear argumentwith g
ood examples used to support it.
All main points and important issues of the question/task
covered. Some evidence ofreading o
utside the module list
Some small repeated errors in referencing or grammar or syntax
as appropriate
50-59%
Competent
Generally sound understanding of basic theory and concepts.
Content
relevant to thequestion/task. Competently deals with main
issues.
Reading based on main texts ormaterials, but not always fully
utilised in supporting argument.

Some repeated errors in referencing or grammar or syntax as
appropriate.
30- 49%
Retrievable fail
Some learning outcomes and / or assessment criteria not met.
Superficial treatment of issues. Some
is relevant to topic set. Material merely repeatstaught input.
Lacks understanding of basic th
eory or concepts. Possible use of extensive quoted passages.
Evidence of sufficient grasp of learning outcomes to suggest
that the participant will be
able to retrieve the module on resubmission.
20-29% No learning outcomes fully met.
Little evidence of attempts to engage with module materials.
10-19% Little attempt to engage with assignment brief and has
not met learning outcomes.In
adequate demonstration of knowledge or understanding of key
concepts,
theories or practice.
0-9% No real attempt to address the

assignment brief or learning outcomes
BUSS-B 2012 – Research Methods, Data Analytics and Project
Planning - Case Study
ID NO. __________________ NAME :
______________________________________
Deliverables Aspects 0-4 5-20 21-30 Mark
Q. 1 Process Map
and Gantt chart
Poor demonstration
of Process Map /

Gantt chart
No proper sequence
followed
Satisfactory / Good
illustrations and
demonstrations of
Process Map / Gantt
chart
However few Key task
identification and
integration needs
improvements.
Few components of
Process Map / Gantt
chart can be
improved.
Very Good / Excellent
illustration and
demonstrations of Process
Map / Gantt chart
Most / all key components
are identified and properly
integrated.
Q. 2 Description,

Questions
development
covering
measurement
and
Measurement
types
Poor Description
and
Poor compilation of
Questions.
Questions are not
relevant
Measurements not
discussed
Satisfactory / Good
compilation
descriptions.
Satisfactory / Good
compilation of few
questions.
Satisfactory / Good
compilation of

measurements
However few
questions needs
improvements.
compilation of descriptions
compilation of most of the
questions / all questions
and questions were as per
measurement rules.
Questions developed are as
per guidelines and
questions are relevant to
the measurements and
measurement type
mentioned.
Q. 3 Discussion
about
Statistical
Distributions/T
ests
Poor compilation of
discussion about

measurements/distr
ibution / tests.
Discussion not
relevant to the case
study
Satisfactory / Good
discussion about data
types, measurements
and statistical
distributions/tests.
Few discussions needs
improvements.
discussion about data types
and measurements. Very
Good / Excellent discussion
about various statistical
distributions/tests.
Signature of Evaluator
Total Marks
Penalty
Final Marks
Comments

Envisioning
the Region
P A R T V
?
�%$*�%#�(.��
�
��%$�"�&"�$$�$��%(��)+)*��$��"
��#�(��
��%-
��(��*�,��&(%�(�#)��(��&(%#%*�$��&(%)&�(�*.
��$��)�,�$��*��$,�(%$#�$*��*(
��,��(%#��**&
��%%!��$*(�"�&(%'+�)*��%#
�(��*��(%#�) )+�%$�
�
��
��
��
�
%&
.(
��
�*

�/
�
�
�
��
+*
��
()
��
$�
,�
()
�*.
��
(�
))
��
""�
(��
�*
)�
(�
)�

(,
��
�
�%$*�%#�(.��
�
��%$�"�&"�$$�$��%(��)+)*��$��"
��#�(��
��%-
��(��*�,��&(%�(�#)��(��&(%#%*�$��&(%)&�(�*.
��$��)�,�$��*��$,�(%$#�$*��*(
��,��(%#��**&
��%%!��$*(�"�&(%'+�)*��%#
�(��*��(%#�) )+�%$�
�
��
��
��
�
%&
.(
��
�*
�/
�
�

�
��
+*
��
()
��
$�
,�
()
�*.
��
(�
))
��
""�
(��
�*
)�
(�
)�
(,
��
�

327
Creating a Regional
Vision for Regional
Planning
Gerrit-Jan Knaap
c h a p t e r 3 2
?
Reality Check is an approach to crafting a shared vision for how
a region should
manage future growth in population and jobs. My collaborators
and I have devel-
oped and applied this approach in Maryland, and similar efforts
are taking place
in other places around the country. Reality Check provides an
effective model
for reaching shared visions for future growth that can guide
policy, motivate
public support, and thus help shape landscape change to achieve
critical social and
environmental values.
Reality Check Plus was a statewide effort to raise awareness
and initiate critical
thinking about the level, pace, and distribution of growth in
jobs and housing
coming to Maryland over the ensuing twenty-five years. The
word “Plus” was

added to the title to convey the intention of organizers to go
beyond the visioning
exercise to a stage in which the development pattern in the state
and the policies
that govern it would actually be improved. Organizers also used
the project to
encourage both the public and elected officials to think
regionally or even on a
statewide basis about how best to accommodate this new
growth. This process was
carried out through visioning exercises held in 2006 in each of
four regions of the
state: the Eastern Shore and southern, central, and western
Maryland. More than
850 political, business, environmental, real estate, and civic
leaders participated in
these exercises. The exercise is, in a sense, extremely simple—
participants decide
where they would like to see new jobs and housing go by
placing representative
plastic blocks on a table-top map—but the exercise at once
captures key values that
should drive detailed planning for growth, a regional point of
view that integrates
economic, social, and environmental values, and a recognition
that the single most
powerful tool government has in land use planning is the ability
to direct where
new development and conservation are placed on the landscape.
�%$*�%#�(.��
�
��%$�"�&"�$$�$��%(��)+)*��$��"
��#�(��
��%-
��(��*�,��&(%�(�#)��(��&(%#%*�$��&(%)&�(�*.

��$��)�,�$��*��$,�(%$#�$*��*(
��,��(%#��**&
��%%!��$*(�"�&(%'+�)*��%#
�(��*��(%#�) )+�%$�
�
��
��
��
�
%&
.(
��
�*
�/
�
�
�
��
+*
��
()
��
$�
,�
()

�*.
��
(�
))
��
""�
(��
�*
)�
(�
)�
(,
��
�
Intentionally designed as a nongovernmental initiative, Reality
Check Plus had
no government funds or control but was carried out by private
organizations and
funded by charitable foundations and private businesses. It was
not intended to
produce a state plan or detailed development and conservation
map, but instead to
create a statewide set of guiding principles and indicators for
how Maryland’s
citizens believe new growth should occur. The process also
began the task of figur-

ing out how to implement these principles and development
directives—a plan
created by laymen that would look very different from today’s
patterns of growth
in the state.
The planning exercises described here were not aimed at
replacing detailed
professional planning and normal political processes at the state
and local levels.
They were instead aimed at building a consensus and
constituency to do that plan-
ning well, based on truly regional thinking, and to move those
political processes
forward to positive, sustainable outcomes. In this sense, Reality
Check Plus and
similar efforts elsewhere are a beginning and a motivator for,
not an alternative to,
sound government planning.
The initiative was led by the National Center for Smart Growth
Research and
Education at the University of Maryland, the Baltimore District
Council of the
Urban Land Institute, and 1,000 Friends of Maryland. The
largest individual fun-
ders were the Home Builders Association of Maryland and the
Lincoln Institute of
Land Policy, although the largest percentage of the initiative’s
budget was raised
through a variety of contributions from nonprofit foundations.
The initiative was
organized by a statewide leadership committee and four regional
committees for
the Eastern Shore and central, southern, and western Maryland.

The motivation for developing Reality Check Plus was a
recognition that
Maryland is already one of the nation’s most densely populated
states and is
expected to continue growing at a rapid pace. The U.S. Census
Bureau predicts
that Maryland will grow from its 2000 population of about 5.5
million to
7.0 million by 2030—more than half a million more people than
the state itself
projects over that period. In these circumstances, Maryland is
faced with some
critical, urgent questions:
• Where will these new residents—and the millions more to
follow them in
subsequent years—live and work?
• What will be the cumulative effect of such an increase in
population and
development on the state’s transportation network, housing
costs, taxes, and
the health of the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries?
• What, ultimately, will be the effect on the quality of life for
all Marylanders?
Regional Planning Exercises
The regional sessions brought invited participants together for a
briefing session
on trends in each region, then an extended exercise in planning
for growth within
the region. The regional committees spent a great deal of effort
on their invitation

e n v i s i o n i n g t h e r e g i o n328
�%$*�%#�(.��
�
��%$�"�&"�$$�$��%(��)+)*��$��"
��#�(��
��%-
��(��*�,��&(%�(�#)��(��&(%#%*�$��&(%)&�(�*.
��$��)�,�$��*��$,�(%$#�$*��*(
��,��(%#��**&
��%%!��$*(�"�&(%'+�)*��%#
�(��*��(%#�) )+�%$�
�
��
��
��
�
%&
.(
��
�*
�/
�
�
�
��
+*
��

()
��
$�
,�
()
�*.
��
(�
))
��
""�
(��
�*
)�
(�
)�
(,
��
�
lists, as the balance of those invited to participate in this
exercise is critical to the
project’s credibility. Regional committees took great pains to
include a representa-

tive sample of the region’s economic, political, geographic, and
ethnic diversity.
Farmers, business owners, developers, environmental activists,
community lead-
ers, and local, county, and state government officials were all
represented. While
elected officials and other government employees took no part
in organizing
Reality Check Plus, together they made up nearly one-third of
the invited partici-
pants. In the afternoon of each session, results from each table
at the morning exer-
cise were presented, and the meeting was opened to the general
public for a review
and discussion of the morning’s actions.
The heart of Reality Check Plus is the planning exercise in
which participants
collectively planned where to place the growth anticipated for
their region through
2030. For this process, the forecast growth in jobs and housing
was taken as a given
with which they, as representatives of their own and the public
interest, must deal.
At each regional session, participants were divided into groups
of eight to ten
people representative of the various interests and points of view
at the session. Each
group worked at a table on which a large, detailed map of the
region was spread.
The maps used colors to represent existing population and
employment density
and included major roads and transit lines, parklands, rivers and
water bodies,
floodplains, major public facilities, and other key infrastructure.

To encourage
regional thinking and discourage parochialism, the maps did not
include political
boundaries of counties and municipalities. Each table had a
facilitator and a com-
puter operator/scribe.
Participants first were asked to reach consensus on a set of
general principles to
guide their decisions about where on the map to place expected
growth—using
ideas such as protecting open space and natural resources,
making efficient use of
existing infrastructure, and balancing jobs and housing. Once
they had created a
set of guiding principles, participants were given Lego blocks
of four different col-
ors, each color representing jobs, higher priced housing (the top
80 percent), lower
priced housing (the bottom 20 percent), and low density housing
(exchangeable
for the other housing pieces on a ratio of 4:1). Each group was
given a number of
pieces in each color representing the anticipated amount of jobs
and housing cur-
rently projected for the region through 2030. The maps were
overlaid with a grid,
with each square the size of a Lego piece and representing about
1 square mile
(depending on the scale of each region’s map). Participants
planned where to put
growth by stacking pieces on each square. Stacking all jobs or
housing pieces on a
block produced single-use neighborhoods; stacking mixed
pieces produced mixed
use districts. Participants were required to use all of their

blocks. They could not
put them in another region, a neighboring state, or their
pockets!
After they had placed their Lego pieces to their satisfaction, the
members of
each group discussed a series of questions:
• How does the group feel about the amount of growth projected
for the
region?
e n v i s i o n i n g t h e r e g i o n 329
�%$*�%#�(.��
�
��%$�"�&"�$$�$��%(��)+)*��$��"
��#�(��
��%-
��(��*�,��&(%�(�#)��(��&(%#%*�$��&(%)&�(�*.
��$��)�,�$��*��$,�(%$#�$*��*(
��,��(%#��**&
��%%!��$*(�"�&(%'+�)*��%#
�(��*��(%#�) )+�%$�
�
��
��
��
�
%&
.(
��

�*
�/
�
�
�
��
+*
��
()
��
$�
,�
()
�*.
��
(�
))
��
""�
(��
�*
)�
(�
)�

(,
��
�
• Given that some level of growth is inevitable,
• What policies do you think state and local governments should
adopt in
order to accommodate the additional growth, yet maintain the
region’s
quality of life?
• What are the implementation tools required to achieve the
envisioned
growth pattern and maintain or improve quality of life?
• Based on your knowledge of the region, what infrastructure
improvements
would be required to achieve the envisioned growth pattern?
National Center for Smart Growth Research and Education staff
and graduate assis-
tants collected and analyzed the guiding principles, Lego
distribution decisions, and
responses to the post-planning questions from each group in
order to report to all
the participants and the public during the afternoon portion of
each program.
Using the average allocation of jobs and housing from all the
groups, staff pro-
duced a composite regional map for every table at each session

and later produced
a composite map for the state as a whole. After the exercises
were over, the center
also analyzed the Reality Check plans by comparing them
against current forecasts
of growth distribution by the Metropolitan Washington Council
of Governments
and the Baltimore Metropolitan Council, and a statewide build-
out scenario based
on current zoning. Organizers also compared the participants’
job and housing
distributions with existing distribution within Maryland’s
current priority funding
area boundaries, inside the Baltimore and Washington beltways,
and near existing
transit stations. Finally, the center estimated the amount of new
impervious
surface, the increase in lane miles of highways and roads, the
impacts on the state’s
green infrastructure, and the degree to which participants mixed
or segregated
higher and lower priced housing.
Outcomes of the Regional Planning Exercises
It is impossible to capture all of the ideas, dialogue, and
learning that take place at
events such as the Reality Check visioning sessions.
Nevertheless, the discussions
gave rise to a number of important consensus principles for
guiding future growth:
• Adopt stronger measures to protect farms, forests, and
environmentally
sensitive areas.

• Concentrate new development in existing communities or
designated growth
areas.
• Give priority to new development where infrastructure already
exists.
• Provide more housing for families of modest incomes.
• Locate housing and jobs closer together.
• Preserve the rural and/or historic character of Maryland’s
small towns.
• Provide more transit services in all four regions of the state.
• Encourage greater regional cooperation.
While these principles may now seem obvious to many, it is
valuable to enable
leaders across a region and across a range of interests and
societal roles to generate
�%$*�%#�(.��
�
��%$�"�&"�$$�$��%(��)+)*��$��"
��#�(��
��%-
��(��*�,��&(%�(�#)��(��&(%#%*�$��&(%)&�(�*.
��$��)�,�$��*��$,�(%$#�$*��*(
��,��(%#��**&
��%%!��$*(�"�&(%'+�)*��%#
�(��*��(%#�) )+�%$�
�
��
��
��

�
%&
.(
��
�*
�/
�
�
�
��
+*
��
()
��
$�
,�
()
�*.
��
(�
))
��
""�
(��

�*
)�
(�
)�
(,
��
�
such principles through their own dialogue. In doing so, the
process builds gen-
uine commitment among diverse constituencies for shaping
public policies to
achieve these principles.
Several indicators showed that the participants wanted
development to occur in
ways that are different from current trends and policies.
Participants placed a
higher percentage of new growth inside Maryland’s designated
growth areas (the
priority funding areas) than is the case today, and a far higher
percentage than zon-
ing currently allows. By the same token, participants provided
greater protection
for the state’s green infrastructure land—the ecologically
significant lands outside
designated growth areas—than current patterns and zoning.
Central Maryland
participants placed enough growth inside the Baltimore and
Washington beltways

to keep the percentage of houses and jobs in those areas about
the same as they are
today, even with all the anticipated population growth for the
state.
Participants favored denser development than typical current
patterns and
zoning allow—regimes that have often led to significant low-
density sprawl.
Even in the traditionally conservative and home-rule-oriented
Eastern Shore,
participants suggested the use of urban growth boundaries and
state-sponsored
management to preserve the rural hinterlands. The Central
Maryland participants
also placed more jobs and considerably more housing closer to
transit stations than
is forecast today.
Of course, not all participants were of one mind. In the Western
Maryland ses-
sion, for example, different perspectives appeared to reflect the
amount of new
growth each area had already seen: participants from high
growth areas, such as
Frederick, more strongly favored growth controls, while those
from areas that were
still very rural, such as Allegany County, were often more
concerned about gener-
ating new employment and improved infrastructure.
All four regions showed a fairly strong preference for locating
housing for
people of different income levels in the same places. All in all,
the visions developed
through Reality Check Plus would produce substantially less

new impervious sur-
face than permitted under current zoning.
Implementation
Reality Check Plus participants discussed the challenge of
implementing their
vision for Maryland’s future, and a consensus arose around
several basic strategies:
• Increase the education of public and elected officials on
growth and related
issues.
• New infrastructure must be coordinated with new growth and
supported
financially by the state.
• Efforts to protect the environment and other resources should
be
strengthened.
• Zoning and planning should be modified to permit improved
development
patterns.
• More transit and transportation options should be provided.
e n v i s i o n i n g t h e r e g i o n 331
�%$*�%#�(.��
�
��%$�"�&"�$$�$��%(��)+)*��$��"
��#�(��
��%-
��(��*�,��&(%�(�#)��(��&(%#%*�$��&(%)&�(�*.

�*.
��
(�
))
��
""�
(��
�*
)�
(�
)�
(,
��
�
• Economic development incentives should be increased to
support growth
where it is wanted.
• Regional and intergovernmental cooperation should be
increased.
Scenario Development
The National Center for Smart Growth Research and Education
at the University
of Maryland is assuming primary responsibility for research

projects associated
with the development of future growth scenarios and policy
recommendations.
The center, working with the Maryland Department of Planning
and Department
of Transportation, is in the process of developing and analyzing
alternative
statewide development scenarios. These scenarios will be based
on plausible stories
about how various driving forces could affect development
patterns in the state in
the decades to come, but in ways that suggest decidedly
different spatial distribu-
tion. Once those scenarios are developed, researchers will then
compare their
effects on such indicators as the creation of vehicle miles
traveled, effects on water-
sheds, consumption of energy, or encroachment into
environmentally sensitive
areas.
Also with assistance from the Maryland Department of Planning
and support
from the Abell Foundation and the Chesapeake Bay Trust, the
center is developing
a Maryland Smart Growth Indicators Program that will offer
periodic performance
measures of land development, housing, and environmental
trends. The center is
also leading a multiorganizational effort to evaluate the efficacy
of land use pro-
grams in five states that have established programs that are
nationally prominent:
Maryland, Oregon, New Jersey, Florida, and California.
Smart Growth @ 10

With the assistance of several organizations, the center hosted a
conference in
October 2007 titled “Smart Growth @ 10,” timed to provide an
update on the
ten-year anniversary of the passage of Maryland’s Smart
Growth legislation. The
center commissioned twenty-six papers from academic
researchers and practition-
ers for this conference, which was held in Annapolis and
College Park, Maryland.
The Urban Land Institute’s Baltimore District Council, one of
the original
cosponsors of the Reality Check Plus effort, is providing
educational programs
related to growth issues in Maryland. The other partner, the
statewide citizens’
coalition 1,000 Friends of Maryland, is advocating change in
policy at both the
state and local levels. The National Center for Smart Growth
and 1,000 Friends
have also formed a new coalition, called PLUS (Partnership for
Land Use Success)
that includes the Baltimore Urban League, the Citizen Planning
and Housing
Association, the Maryland Municipal League, and the Home
Builders Association
of Maryland. The goal of this group is to try to harness their
disparate views on
land use issues into constructive consensus whenever possible.
�%$*�%#�(.��
�

��%$�"�&"�$$�$��%(��)+)*��$��"
��#�(��
��%-
��(��*�,��&(%�(�#)��(��&(%#%*�$��&(%)&�(�*.
��$��)�,�$��*��$,�(%$#�$*��*(
��,��(%#��**&
��%%!��$*(�"�&(%'+�)*��%#
�(��*��(%#�) …
Book Name: Regional Planning for a Sustainable America: How
Creative Programs Are Promoting Prosperity and Saving the
Environment
by Carleton K. Montgomery (Editor) Rutgers University Press
(2011)
What should be the contents of the report?
•Your Name (does not count toward word count)
•The title of your chapter Chapter:32 (Creating a Regional
Vision for Regional Planning)
•The author of your chapter (Gerrit-Jan Knaap)
•A Brief Summary Of The Chapter(about 100-200 words)
•Describethemaineconomicconceptsemployedinthechapter(about
200-300words)
•Describe the main public policy issue addressed in the chapter
(about 200-300 words)
•Describe empirical data mentioned in the chapter and how it is
employed by the author (about 200-300 words)
•Explain whether you were persuaded by the argument presented
by the author or not persuaded (about 100-200 words)
Total: 1000 words

Research Methods, Data Analytics and Project Planning .docx

Research Methods, Data Analytics and Project Planning .docx

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Ähnlich wie Research Methods, Data Analytics and Project Planning .docx

Ähnlich wie Research Methods, Data Analytics and Project Planning .docx (16)

Mehr von madlynplamondon

Mehr von madlynplamondon (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Research Methods, Data Analytics and Project Planning .docx