1. (Mt) – Critically evaluate the importance of Project Life Cycle to the
INTRODUCTION A project is a “temporary endeavor undertaken to produce a unique result,
product or service” (Anon, 2017, pg 4). Projects are successfully accomplished by
incorporating a set of skills like specialist human knowledge, planning tools like Work
Breakdown Structure and a series of management processes like scope, resources, and risk
(Westland, 2006). This art is termed as project management by Anon (2017) and is
effectively accomplished through different methodologies which are categorized into
traditional and modern approaches by Ungureanu & Ungureanu (2014). A traditional
approach, known as waterfall project life cycle, incorporates a series of linear steps and
works well when the project requirements are sufficiently defined (McBride, 2016). Modern
approaches do not follow linear steps (Ungureanu & Ungureanu, 2014). Examples are six
sigma which resorts to eliminating wastes to ensure accuracy in implementation of
processes and agile which is more flexible in terms of scope and budget as project
requirements are mostly undefined. (ibid) This essay will discuss the waterfall project life
cycle with four stages that Westland (2006) mentions as initiation, planning, execution, and
termination and evaluate their importance to the successful completion of a project. Success
hereby will consider the efficiency and effectiveness of a project (Shenhar et al., 2015). An
efficient project meets the competing constraints of time, budget and quality (ibid).
Whereas an effective project is defined by the success of the project’s product in meeting
the desired needs of a customer (ibid). Furthermore, this essay will discuss the automated
baggage handling system at Denver International Airport and evaluate factors for its failure
regarding the project life cycle activities. 1 MAIN BODY Initiation phase Projects begin as
ideas whose desired solutions cannot be accomplished by integrating them in the existing
organizational processes like production and sales (Griffin, 2010; Wysocki, 2014). These
ideas include unmet demands that require new product development or a need to leverage
untapped business opportunities like expanding to new markets (Cooke & Tate, 2010;
Wysocki, 2014). Hence, according to Griffin (2010), the primary purpose of this phase is to
pitch the feasibility of the idea through a business case to the key decision makers like the
management and stakeholders and see whether the project will be approved or not. A
business case is a documented analysis that justifies the investment in a project through:
Firstly, the business needs to undertake the project and its relevance to the organization
strategic initiatives. Secondly, the potential benefits of the project like increased sales,
brand recognition and profitability and lastly, the associated costs and risks (Axelos, 2009;
Cooke & Tate, 2010). Additionally, this phase aims to ensure that all details of the project

2. are explicitly communicated and acknowledged by the project’s sponsor, senior
management and the team (De, 2008; Barrett, 2018). This is achieved by creating a project
charter; a high-level document that contains information about the business reason for the
project, typical milestones, critical success factors and conditions under which it will be
performed, high-level estimate of resources, potential risks, proposed roles and
responsibilities, project stakeholders and approval requirements (Barrett, 2018; Cooke &
Tate, 2010; Meredith et al., 2015). As discussed by Cadle & Yeates (2008), initiation is an
important phase which sets the direction of the project to success or failure. Success or
failure depends on whether there is alignment and shared vision with everyone in the team
from the onset (Lock, 2013). Alignment is demonstrated through aspects like the project
scope, whether it is explicitly stated and understood or not. It is further demonstrated
through whether the interests of different stakeholders like senior management, project
team members, clients, competitors and activists’ groups like environmentalists are
considered or not. (Lock, 2013; Pinto, 2013). This is because misalignment is costly in terms
of cost, time, human energy and team or organizational reputation (Anon, 2017). 2 Planning
phase According to VanOosten (2008), the planning phase generates a roadmap of
activities, resources, and tools through which the project will be executed to meet the
objectives identified in the project charter. This roadmap is consolidated into a planning
document, known as a project plan (Barrett, 2018). A project plan details the project’s scope
in terms of work content, deliverable, activities to be performed and resources to be
consumed with the aid of the Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) tool (Pinto, 2013). WBS
defines the scope of the project by illustrating the hierarchy of all work units, sub projects,
tasks and subtasks and their interdependency to completing the entire project, thus
creating a path to track cost, schedule and performance specification of each element in the
project (Pinto, 2013; VanOosten, 2008). Additionally, a project plan answers the where,
when and how the activities of the project will be performed through project scheduling
(Pinto, 2013). This is aided by tools like Program Evaluation and Review Technique (PERT)
(Srinavasan, 2004). By visually presenting all tasks required to complete the project, PERT
identifies a critical path that prioritizes critical activities which require close monitoring for
the project to finish in time over non-critical activities which can be delayed without
affecting the completion time of the project (ibid). Planning, as emphasized by Haugan
(2011), is the most critical process in the project life cycle because it provides guideline
needed to execute a project and maximizes the certainty of a successful outcome. This is
because, as a characteristic feature, all projects aim at producing unique outcomes, hence
project managers and a team cannot rely on existing plans, as the new project does not fit
neatly in the normal ways of working (Cooke & Tate, 2010). As pointed out by Barrett
(2018), however, the importance of the planning phase is debatable. With the process being
costly and laborious, it does not guarantee a smooth execution phase where unpredicted
real-world activities and issues may emerge, creating a variance between the actual and
planned work. However, this is exactly what makes planning important. During this phase
the team gets thoroughly familiarize with all details of the project, preparing them to handle
all unpredicted events that happen during the execution phase (Barrett, 2018; Wysocki,
2014). 3 Execution phase In the words of Pinto (2013), during execution, actual work to

3. create the project’s product or service is carried out by using the project plan created
during the planning phase. Execution combines both leadership and management skills to
delegate work and coordinate resources to meet the project deliverable (Delpico, 2013).
Alongside execution, a series of management processes are undertaken to control the
project in line with the constraints of quality performance, time and cost (Greasley, 2008).
Scope control ensures the purpose of the project, as outlined in the project charter, and its
underlying limitations are adhered to (Cooke & Tate, 2010). To achieve this, tools like “in
control checklist” which contains a list of questions that cover both internal and external
aspects of the project is used (Melton, 2007). Questions like “Is the business ready for the
project?” “What project stages have been completed?” “What is the likelihood of achieving
project’s critical success factors?” are asked and the quality of answers determine whether
the project is in control or not (ibid). Moreover, project schedule control monitors the
progress of the project in line with the project baseline (Cooke & Tate, 2010). In the event
where the project, for instance, is lagging behind schedule or pressing changes in market
needs require the deliverable earlier than it was anticipated, a crashing technique may be
applied (ibid). Crashing is applied to accelerate the project’s completion date (Kelly, 2009).
Depending on the level of resource constraints, it may be achieved by fast-tracking the
project where the longest critical activities are shortened or by partially overlapping the
activities where the successor tasks start a bit earlier before the predecessor tasks are fully
completed (Cooke & Tate, 2010). 4 Termination phase Project termination is the last phase
of the project life cycle where the project work is concluded, and the final deliverable is
transferred to the client (Westland, 2006). According to Havila & Salmi (2008), a project is
naturally terminated after successfully meeting the competing constraints of time, budget
and quality. However, there may be instances where a project is prematurely terminated
due to being completed earlier than planned, or subjected to shortage of funds, legal
concerns and a complete change in scope (Lock, 2013 cited by Havila & Salmi, 2008).
Additionally, a project may be terminated late due to operational, financial or organizational
factors (Sohmen, 2002). Typical activities include finishing project tasks, handing over the
deliverable to the client, getting client acceptance, closing contracts with suppliers, closing
project’s accounts and conducting project audit (Pinto, 2013). Post-project audit is
especially important because: It helps In analyzing the benefits accrued from the project
and account for all project properties and expenditures (Meredith et al., 2015). Also, it helps
the team members to reflect on what was right and wrong, paving a way for future
improvement (Aston, 2016). De (2008) emphasizes on terminating the project in a
professional manner – that reflects well on the project team and the organization. This is
because the customer’s interest in the project is high during this phase as they are
concerned about whether the project’s deliverable will successfully meet their desired
needs, putting the organization’s reputation at stake (Sohmen, 2002). Despite the realized
importance of this methodology, it is criticized for being bureaucratic, predictive and
demanding of heavy documentation, thus limiting the ability to change the plan when real
world issues occur along the way (Kerzner, 2015). 5 CASE STUDY Automated Baggage
Handling System at Denver International Airport Steering as the prime economic driver for
the state of Colorado, Denver International Airport (DIA) generates about $26 million

4. revenue annually and stands as the 6th busiest airport in the United States of America
(Denver International Airport, 2018). It was constructed in 1989 to replace the aging
Stapleton International Airport, following the need for a greater airport capacity to
accommodate about 58.3 million passengers who travel through the airport annually
(Goatham, 2008; Denver International Airport, 2018). The critical component of DIA
construction was the automated baggage handling system which emerged as an
afterthought with the construction of DIA underway (Fan, 2008). It was initiated to cover
the long distance of the airport and reduce the aircraft turnaround time to about 30
minutes, hence keeping flights on schedule and increasing airlines’ profits (Schloh, 1996).
The system was designed to automatically serve 3 concourses, all airlines, departing and
arriving flights (Goatham, 2008). The planning began in 1991, but it was not until 1992
where Denver Project Team directly approached BAE Automated Systems Inc. and
requested a bid for the project (Goatham, 2008). The execution began in 1992 with a budget
of $175.6 million and a scope of three concourses fully running on the BAE automated
handling system to be completed by 1993. It was terminated in February 1995 after missing
four deadlines, with the final system serving only one concourse, instead of three (Fan,
2008). This project was not successful due to inefficiency of the construction process and
ineffectiveness of the final product. Inefficiency is demonstrated through how the project
was not completed in 1993, the total budget overshoot to $5.2 billion and the final
deliverable departed from the initial plan with the automated baggage system serving only
one concourse instead of three (Fan, 2008). Factors that led to this are: During initiation,
the project’s senior leadership team ignored the experts advise about the complexity of the
project and a low chance to be completed in one year (Goatham, 2008). This decision
contributed to a poor delivery plan given a tight time frame and wide scope. Also, as
highlighted by Fan (2008), there was partial involvement of key stakeholders like
Continental and United Airlines in decision making. This set the project for failure during 6
execution, where many scope changes were made by the stakeholders and BAE was forced
to accept them due to the pressure to meet the stakeholders needs. Changes like addition of
ski equipment racks and maintenance tracks required redesign of completed work, causing
further delays (ibid). Lastly, poor risk management prevented timely review and reporting
to the key stakeholders leading to narrow chances of spotting and mitigating the rising
issues. The German external consultant was brought in too late to review the situation in
1994 and advised to slash the project and build a manual trolley system while the project
was out of hand. The project was ineffective because the baggage system did not meet the
airports’ strategic need of having the world’s most efficient airport. With the system being
an afterthought and complex, the team failed to link it with the strategic need (Fan, 2008).
This proved the system’s unreliability by failing to serve all three concourses by the time of
its opening in 1995 and was completely abandoned in 2005 after proving total failure and
high maintenance costs (Harden, 2015). 7 CONCLUSION On the whole, this essay has
established each step in the project life cycle is pivotal to the success of the project (Delpico,
2013). When alignment is established in the initiation phase, a robust project plan can be
prepared in the planning phase. A robust plan leads to smooth execution of the project to
suit the project objectives. Monitoring and control keeps the project on track, in line with

5. the competing constraints of time, scope and budget. The Automated Baggage Handling
System at Denver International Airport which followed a waterfall methodology has
demonstrated how each step of the project lifecycle set the project to failure. This has been
analyzed through how ineffective decision making in the initiation phase led to a poor plan
constrained by time and scope and partially involved the key stakeholders. This made the
execution phase even more difficult with scope creep that contributed to delay in
completion and eventual failure of the project. 10 REFERENCE LIST A GUIDE TO THE
PROJECT MANAGEMENT BODY OF KNOWLEDGE ( PMBOK® Guide)—6th ed. (ENGLISH).,
2017. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute. Available from:
https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/gcal/reader.action?docID=5180849&query=project
+life+c ycle [Accessed 28 Oct. 2018]. ALAM, M. D. & GÜHL, U. F., 2016. Project-Management
in Practice A Guideline and Toolbox for Successful Projects. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer
Berlin Heidelberg. Available at: https://link-springer-
com.gcu.idm.oclc.org/book/10.1007/978-3-662-52944-7 [Accessed 26 Oct. 2018]. ANON.,
2017. A guide to the project management body of knowledge : (PMBOK guide). 6th ed.
Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.
https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/gcal/reader.action?docID=5180849&ppg=5
[Accessed 28 Oct. 2018]. ASTON, B., 2016. Project Management Life Cycle: Complete Guide
To Project Delivery Process. [online] The Digital Project Manager. Available at:
https://thedigitalprojectmanager.com/project-management-life-cycle/ [Accessed 31 Oct.
2018]. AXELOS, A., 2017. Managing Successful Projects with PRINCE2 2017 Edition. London:
The Stationery Office Ltd. Available from:
https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/gcal/reader.action?docID=4863041&query=Project
+Mana gement [Accessed 28 Oct. 2018]. BARRETT, D., 2018. Understanding Project
Management: A practical Guide. Toronto, Ontario: Canadian Scholars. Available at:
https://books.google.mu/books?isbn=1773380885 [Accessed 28 Oct. 2018]. CADLE, J. AND
YEATES, D., 2008. Project management for information systems. 5th ed. Harlow: Pearson
Prentice Hall. Available at: https://books.google.mu/books?isbn=0132068583 [Accessed 28
Oct. 2018]. COOKE, H. & TATE, K., 2010. Project management. 2nd ed. Maidenhead:
McGraw-Hill Professional. Available at:
https://www.dawsonera.com/abstract/9780071750424 [Accessed 28 Oct. 2018].
DAVIDSON, J., 2005. Project management. Petaling Jaya: Advantage Quest. Available at:
https://books.google.mu/books?isbn=0028639669 [Accessed 28 Oct. 2018]. DE, F., 2008.
Project Management Recipes for Success. London: Auerbach Publications. Available from:
11
https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/gcal/reader.action?docID=427037&query=Project+
manag ement [Accessed 28 Oct. 2018]. DELPICO, W. J., 2013. Project control : integrating
cost and schedule in construction . Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Available
at: https://onlinelibrary-wiley-com.gcu.idm.oclc.org/doi/book/10.1002/9781118802717
[Accessed 28 Oct. 2018]. DE NEUFVILLE, R., 1994. The baggage system at Denver: prospects
and lessons. Journal of Air Transport Management, 1(4), pp.229-236. Available at: The
Baggage System at Denver: Prospects and Lessons – Mit [Accessed 28 Oct. 2018]. DENVER
INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, 2018. About DEN. Denver International Airport. [online]

6. Available at: About DEN | Denver International Airport [Accessed 28 Oct. 2018].
DONALDSON, A., 2002. Denver Airport Baggage Handling System – SEBoK. [online]
Sebokwiki.org. Available at:
https://www.sebokwiki.org/wiki/Denver_Airport_Baggage_Handling_System [Accessed 28
Oct. 2018]. ESKEROD, P & JEPSEN, A. L., 2013. Project stakeholder management. Farnham:
Gower. Available at: https://www.dawsonera.com/abstract/9781409404385 [Accessed 28
Oct. 2018]. FAN, J., 2008. Denver Airport Baggage Handling System Case Study – Calleam
Consulting Case Study – Denver International Airport Baggage Handling System – An
illustration of ineffectual decision making Calleam Consulting Ltd – Why Technology
Projects Fail. [online] Academia.edu. Available at: Case Study – Denver International Airport
Baggage Handling System …[Accessed 28 Oct. 2018]. GOATHAM, R., 2008. Disaster DNA –
Decoding the DNA of failed technology projects. [online] Calleam.com. Available at: Disaster
DNA – Decoding the DNA of failed … – Calleam Consulting [Accessed 28 Oct. 2018].
GREASLEY, A., 2008. Operations management. Los Angeles: SAGE. Available at:
http://sk.sagepub.com.gcu.idm.oclc.org/books/operations-management [Accessed 28 Oct.
2018]. GRIFFIN, J., 2010. Residential construction management. Ft. Lauderdale, FL: J. Ross
Publishing. Available at: https://books.google.mu/books?isbn=1604270225 [Accessed 28
Oct. 2018]. HARDEN, M., 2015. DIA20: The high-tech airport baggage system that failed to
launch [Online]. Denver Business Journal. Available at:
https://www.bizjournals.com/denver/ [Accessed 31 Oct. 2018]. HAUGAN, G. T., 2011.
Project management fundamentals : key concepts and methodology. 2nd ed. Vienna, Va.:
Management Concepts. Available at: [Accessed 28 Oct. 2018]. 12 HAVILA, V. & SALMI, A.,
2008. Managing project ending. New York: Routledge. Available at:
https://books.google.mu/books?isbn=1134098952 [Accessed 28 Oct. 2018]. HILL, G., 2007.
The Complete Project Management Office Handbook. 2nd ed. London: CRC Press. Available
at: https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/gcal/reader.action?docID=314320&ppg=40
[Accessed 28 Oct. 2018]. JOHNSON, K., 2005. Denver Airport to mangle last bag. [online]
Nytimes.com. Available at: Denver airport to mangle last bag – The New York Times
[Accessed 28 Oct. 2018]. KELLY, É. V., 2009. Crash with confidence. Paper presented at
PMI® Global Congress 2009—North America, Orlando, FL. Newtown Square, PA: Project
Management Institute. Available at: https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/performing-
crash-analysis-alternative-cost-schedule-6750 [Accessed 28 Oct. 2018]. KERZNER, H., 2015.
Project management 2.0 leveraging tools, distributed collaboration, and metrics for project
success. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Available at:
https://www.vlebooks.com/vleweb/Product/Index/444408?page=0 [Accessed 28 Oct.
2018]. KERZNER, H., 2017. Project management : a systems approach to planning,
scheduling, and controlling. 12th ed. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Available
at:
https://app.knovel.com/web/toc.v/cid:kpPMASAPSC/viewerType:toc//root_slug:project-
manage ment-a?kpromoter=marc [Accessed 28 Oct. 2018]. KUSTER, J. et al., 2015. Project
Management Handbook. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Available at:
https://link-springer-com.gcu.idm.oclc.org/book/10.1007/978-3-662-45373-5 [Accessed
28 Oct. 2018]. LESTER, A., 2007. Project management, planning and control : managing

7. engineering, construction and manufacturing projects to PMI, APM and BSI standards. 5th
ed. Amsterdam: Elsevier/Butterworth-Heinemann. Available at:
https://app.knovel.com/web/toc.v/cid:kpPMPCE008/viewerType:toc//root_slug:project-
manage ment-planning [Accessed 28 Oct. 2018]. LIM, C. & MOHAMED, M., 1999. Criteria of
project success: an exploratory re-examination. International Journal of Project
Management [online], 17(4), pp.243-248. Available at:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0263786398000404#! [Accessed 28
Oct. 2018]. LOCK, D., 2013. Project Management. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing Ltd .
Available at: https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/gcal/detail.action?docID=1139931
[Accessed 28 Oct. 2018]. 13 MAYLOR, H., 2010. Project management. 4th ed. Prentice Hall:
Financial Times. Available at: https://www.dawsonera.com/abstract/9780273743521
[Accessed 28 Oct. 2018]. MCBRIDE, M., 2016. Project Management Basics. Berkeley, CA:
Apress. Available at: https://link-springer-com.gcu.idm.oclc.org/book/10.1007/978-1-
4842-2086-3#authorsandaffiliati onsbook [Accessed 28 Oct. 2018]. MELTON, T., 2007.
Project Management Toolkit: The basics for project success. 2nd ed. Elsevier Ltd:
Burlington, USA. Available at: https://books.google.mu/books?isbn=0750684402 [Accessed
28 Oct. 2018]. MEREDITH, J., MANTEL, S., MANTEL. AND SHAFER, S., 2015. Project
Management: A Managerial Approach. 9th ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Available at:
https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/gcal/reader.action?docID=5120557 [Accessed 28
Oct. 2018]. MILOSEVIC, D. AND MARTINELLI, R., 2016. Project management toolbox.
Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Available at:
https://app.knovel.com/web/toc.v/cid:kpPMTTTPP1/viewerType:toc//root_slug:project-
manage ment-toolbox?kpromoter=marc [Accessed 28 Oct. 2018]. PINKERTON, W., 2003.
Project Management. Blacklick, USA: McGraw-Hill Professional Publishing. Available at:
https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/gcal/reader.action?docID=4656137&query=Project
+mana gement [Accessed 28 Oct. 2018]. PINTO, J. K., 2013. Project management: Achieving
competitive advantage. Boston: Pearson. Available at:
https://www.dawsonera.com/abstract/9780273767435 [Accessed 28 Oct. 2018]. SCHLOH,
M., 1996. The Denver International Airport Automated Baggage Handling System [online].
Available at: Analysis of the Denver International Airport baggage system [Accessed 28 Oct.
2018]. SHENHAR, A., ORHOF, O., & DORI, D., 2015. For want of a nail: how critical
components analysis can save your project from failure. Paper presented at PMI® Global
Congress 2015—EMEA, London, England. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management
Institute. Available at: https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/conceptual-framework-of-
cca-9890 [Accessed 31 Oct. 2018]. SHENHAR, A. AND DVIR, D., 2007. Reinventing Project
Management: The Diamond Approach to Successful Growth and Innovation. Boston:
Harvard Business School Press. Available at:
https://books.google.mu/books?isbn=1422163474 [Accessed 28 Oct. 2018]. SOHMEN, V.,
2002. Project termination: why the delay? Paper presented at PMI® Research Conference
2002: Frontiers of Project Management Research and Applications, Seattle, Washington. 14
Project Management Institute: Newtown Square, PA. Available at
https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/project-termination-delay-1931 [Accessed 28 Oct.
2018]. SRINAVASAN, M., 2004. Program evaluation and review technique (pert) and project

8. management. In M. J. Stahl (Ed.), Encyclopedia of health care management (pp. 458-459).
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. doi: 10.4135/9781412950602.n652. Available
at: https://sk.sagepub.com/reference/healthcaremanagement/n652.xml?fromsearch=true
[Accessed 28 Oct. 2018]. TURNER, J., 2007. Gower Handbook of Project Management. 4th ed.
Hampshire: Gower Publishing Limited. Available at:
https://www.dawsonera.com/abstract/9780566089947 [Accessed 28 Oct. 2018].
UNGUREANU, A. & UNGUREANU A., 2014. Methodologies used in Project Management.
Annals of Spiru Haret University Economic Series. [Online] 14 (2), 47–54. Available from:
http://anale.spiruharet.ro/index.php/economics/article/view/1425 [Accessed 28 Oct.
2018]. VANOOSTEN, D., 2008. ‘Project management’, in Given, LM (ed.), The sage
encyclopedia of qualitative research methods, SAGE Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA,
pp. 689-690, doi: 10.4135/9781412963909.n343. Available at
https://sk.sagepub.com/reference/research/n343.xml?fromsearch=true [Accessed 28 Oct.
2018]. WESTLAND, J., 2006. The project management life cycle: A complete Step by Step
methodology for initiating, planning, executing, and closing the project. London: Kogan
Page. Available from: https://books.google.mu/books?isbn=0749449373 [Accessed 28 Oct.
2018]. WILL, K., 2012. Project management. Delhi: Learning Press. Available at:
https://www.dawsonera.com/abstract/9788132319955 [Accessed 28 Oct. 2018].
WILLIAMS, M., 2008. The principles of project management. Collingwood, Vic.: Sitepoint.
Available at: https://books.google.mu/books?isbn=0980285860 [Accessed 28 Oct. 2018].
WYSOCKI, R. K., 2014. Effective project management traditional, agile, extreme. 7th ed.
Indianapolis, Indiana: Wiley. Available at:
https://www.vlebooks.com/vleweb/Product/Index/335584?page=0 [Accessed 01 Nov.
2018]. 15 According to Association of Project Managers (APM), Project Related to
definitions. Management is the application of processes, methods, skills, knowledge and
experience to achieve specific project objectives (APM BOK, 2020). Various authors have
defined project management in different ways. While there are some subtle differences in
these definitions, they all have a number of common aspects. For example, APM BOK, 2020,
PMI, 2022, Munns & Bjeirmi, 1996, Kerziner, 2017 and Gardiner, 2015) all include in their
definitions the aspects of agreed objectives, meeting the time and cost parameters, and use
of resources. In addition, PMI, 2022 also mentions the importance of use of specific (project
management) knowledge, skills, tools and techniques; and, Kerzner (2017) links the
purpose of project management with adding business value. The importance of project
management in the modern day organisation cannot be overlooked. According to Kerzner
(2017), organisations are now linking project management to firm survival. This is
important to note as this is firmly Importance of suggesting that project management is not
only important for management project success and to fulfil project parameters, but also
necessary for meeting organisational objectives, clearly suggesting that delivering projects
successfully adds business value for the stakeholders. Continuing the topic of project
management and project success, using specific knowledge, skills, tools, and techniques
Successful (PMI, 2022), ensures delivering something of value to people, management and
perhaps helps to fulfil project objectives, at the same time success etc. doing so effectively
and efficiently. or project Project project To achieve these, Gardiner (xxxx) incorporated

9. breaking down the management of project into various stages of planning, Stages of PM,
monitoring and control of all aspects of the project. He/she also highlighted the human
aspect of the importance of motivating those involved in the project to maintain quality of
deliverables and overall project performance. Project management lifecycle framework is
one of the most common frameworks used for project management. According or life cycle
framework. to xxx (20xx), PMLC is….. This is clearly of importance, as Samset & Volden
(2016) mentioned about a clear linkage between good decision making Importance of PMLC
in the earlier stages of a project life cycle and the long term success of the project. PART A
What is Project Management? Definition of PM from multiple authors (2-3). Why is PM
important? PMLC and Successful completion of projects Introduction (Common to both
parts) Defining Project Management (Definition and you can also show the iron Triangle
(diagram). PMLC – Define (what is PMLC) and tell about different stages of PMLC Different
authors have provided multiple stages of PMLC. According xyz (2010) there are 4 st ages –
Initiation, Planning, Implementation Monitoring & Control and finally Handover/
Termination. However, other authors such as Archibald et al 2012 have highlighted that
there are 7 stages i.e. imitation…. etc etc In this essay, the 4 stage PMLC has been chosen as
it is understood it covers all the main activities that are included in initiation and
completing a project based on the 4D model created by Maylor (2010) Define it, Design it,
Do it and Deliver it. In Part A, the various stages and its components will be described in
detail. The London Olympics case Study was chosen for evaluation in this report. It was
found that the London Olympics project was a successful project as it followed the PMLC
stages in detail. In addition to this, there were other aspects as well, such as Strategic fit,
good communication, stakeholders’ management, risk assessment etc. was all undertaken
meticulously. Overall, all these aspects were found to contribute to the success of the
project. Part B will discuss the evaluation in detail. PART A The focus of this part will be to
describe in detail the 4 main stages of a PMLC i.e. 1. initiation, 2. planning, 3.
implementation, monitoring and control and finally, 4. Termination/ Closure or handover.
Initiation – define/ describe/ inputs/ outputs Planning – define/ describe/ inputs/ outputs
(tools – WBS/ Network Diagrams/ CPM etc), you can show some diagrams. Implementation,
Monitoring & Control – define/ describe/ inputs/ outputs Termination, Handover or
Closure – define/ describe/ inputs/ outputs Risk Management Benefits of Life cycle
approach (Critical Discussion) Project Management Life Cycle; THIS IS ALL MADE UP –
THESE REFERENCES ARE NOT REAL AND THIS WAS ONLY TO SHOW HOW CRITICAL
DISCUSSION IS WRITTEN. Project management lifecycles has been defined as a multiple
stage approach to managing projects (Smith, 2016). Add more definitions from various
authors. The benefits of PMLC has been established or promoted by many different authors
most notably by Wilson (2017); Smith (2016); Harvey & Nicol (2014) and Duncan (2018).
According to Wilson (2017), PMLC has been used for many years by project Mangers in
different fields. They further noted that PMLC is a structured approach to project
management and as stated by Harvey & Nicol (2014), PMLC as an approach has helped
many project managers to transform their projects and bring success to it. For example, of a
project (NASA’s Mars project) Smith (2016) has also highlighted the various benefits of
using a Lifecycle approach as it helps the PM to manage their teams, resources such as time

10. and cost, of the project most effectively. Duncan (2018) further adds that having stage by
stage approach not only breaks down the entire project into more manageable stages, but
also helps in monitoring and control of the project implementation and execution. So far, I
have written in support of a structured approach to PM using the PMLC and I have used 4
articles to support that viewpoint. Now for critical discussion, I need to find authors who
talk against this. While the above mentioned authors have highlighted the benefits of a
structured approach to project management such as PMLC, there have been others who
have found that a highly structured approach comes with some limitations too. Notable
among these are Halcro, (2018) and Fraser & Khan (2019). According to Halcro (2018),
while many project managers prefer to use a structured approach to project management as
it breaks down the complexity of the managing a project, it doesn’t support management of
risk and uncertainties that a project manager has to deal with. This view is further
supported by Fraser & Khan (2019), when they mentioned that the external environment
plays a crucial role in the management of a project, notably in deciding about its success or
failure. Due to these reasons some authors have described a structured approach as not
flexible enough in managing projects. Even though there are multiple viewpoints regarding
project management, however, there is overwhelming support that a structured approach
such as PMLC has more benefits than limitations (Smith, 2016). On the basis of this it can be
concluded that a structured approach with some element of flexibility has overall more
advantages for a PM than not using a structured approach. In the situation where both
arguments are equally strong, there may be another author who has given a solution. For
example: On the basis of the above discussion it is not completely clear which approach is
better suited for a PM to adapt. However, Trump & Biden (2019) has stated that this
selection should be subjective to the project itself and this cannot be simply applied to all
projects in all sectors. Part B: Evaluation of London Olympics Project The LOP was initiated
by the UK government in the year 2006 when they won the bid from IOC to stage Olympics
in London in July 2012. The key specifications of the project are shown below: Start time
Expected End time Total Budget allocation Key Stakeholders Key deliverables March 2007
June 2012 8.1bn GBP A, b, C etc Build Olympics stadium, 7 parks, 20km of road, athletes
village etc Figure 4, Summary of project, Source: London Olympics Case Study. Evaluation of
project based on Life cycle framework: Initiation Planning Implementation, Monitoring &
Control Handover Risk assessment Other key factors contributing to success/ Failure
Conclusion Summary of learning and brief summary of project evaluation Blanka Tunnel
Complex by Glasgow Caledonian University The Bianka Tunnel Complex: A Case Study of
Project Management (BENEFIT,2016) Student lD: Project Management Word count: 2 286
Table of Contents Table of Contents
……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 1
Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………………………Z The
project ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….Z Initiation
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 2 Planning
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..3 Execution
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..4 Risk
management……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

11. ……. 4 Management of stakeholders
……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 5 Closing
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 6 Project
review…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 6
Conclusion
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 7
References
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
8 1 You could have mentioned the basis aspects of the project in terms of the time and cost
budget and the specific objectives. And also its business case. Later of course you would
elaborate on these. The purpose of the introduction must be to set the scene of the project
report/ essay overall. how about the stakeholders? What were the selection criteria? 1 Was
this not evaluated in the initiation phase in terms of ground strength, composition etc.
Appears to be a severe failure of the planning process. what about measures for
accountability? Any reasons why? While the discussion is good and informative, there
needed to be more depth in understanding the role of the stakeholders, aspects of
accountability of various phases of project, and monitoring and control. This is a well
written section Closing As a result of the scope creep, the end of the project was delayed by
four years (Lang,no date). The project was finally closed with rigorous safety checks in
September 2015 and a training of the rescue team on the 17th of September 2015. Once
these had been successfu lly comp leted, the tunnel was opened for a tr ial operation on the
19th of September 2015 {SATRA, 2019). Followingthe completion of the fina l milestone,the
European Commission {2016) also recommends an administrative closing though a project
end-review meeting held to discuss the overa ll performance and the lessons learned, which
shou ld then be summa rised into a final report. A similar report was also published by the
project management company SATRA, but only in reference to the levels of traffic, noise and
emissions. There was no mention of the process of managing the project. Project review The
tunneldelivered the expected benefits to the customer, reducing the density of traffic in the
city centre {HeidelbergCement, no date). A lthough the aim or scope of the project was
successfu lly ach ieved, the cost doub led from the initially est imated 20 billion Czech
Crowns to approximately 43 billion (CTK,2015). The poor estimation of costs is partially to
bla me for this as well as the fact that the or iginal contract did not have a cap set on the
maximum possible cost of the project to motivate the sub-contractors to complete the wor k
on time (BENEFIT, 2016). There are, however, other factors that were performed to a poor
standard, many of which were pub lished in the audit by White & Case (2011). One of these
was the poor project pla nning and preparat ion. Desp ite the 11-year planning period
between the selection of the proposal in 1996 and the construction implementat ion in
2007, it seems that the project’s planning and management was handledvery poorly, as the
timeline and budget were greatly exceeded. The scope creep could have been avoided by
thorough risk planning and management in the initia l phases of the project (Osipova,
2007), following Baloi and Price’s {2003) seven-step model of “risk management
planning,risk identification, risk assessment, risk analysis, risk response, risk monitoring
and risk communication” (2003,p.262). A lthough the planning and production phases are

12. the most vita l for the management of risk,it is impossible to foresee all possible risks ear ly
on in the process, for they are likely to change over time. Rahman and Kumaraswamy
(2004), therefore, recommend that risk be managed jointly and consistent ly throughout all
phases of the project. This was, however, impossible, as the project was split into four
contracts -design, construction, technology and supervision -and so the Prague City Hallwas
held responsible for the overall risk and cost overruns (BENEFIT, 2016). Instead, Osipova’s
{2007) adv ice should have been fo llowed, that in cases of first-time collaboration between
different actors “the management of a specific 6 This is a very good critical evaluation and
provides meaningful recommendations Good evidence of engagement with literature.
Locatelli,G.,Mariani,G.,Sainati,T. and Greco, M.,2017. Corrupt ion in public projects and mega
projects: there is an elephant in the room! International Journal of Project M anagement,
35(3), pp. 252-268. Maylor, H.,2010. Project Management, 4th edition. Harlow: Pearson
Education Limited. Ochrana F. and Hrncf rova, K.,2015. Does the Lowest Bid Price
Evaluation Criter ion Make fo r a More Efficient Public Procurement Selection Criter ion?
(Case of the Czech Republic). NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy, 8( 1),
pp. 41-59. Osipova, E.,2007. Risk Management in the Different Phases of a Construction
Project: a Study of Actors ‘ Involvement [online]. Lulea: Lulea tekniska universitet. [viewed
24 March 2019). Available from: http://www.divaportal.org/smash/get/diva2:
1005212/FULLTEXT01.pdf Rahman, M. and Kumaraswamy, M.,2004. Contracting
relationship trends and transitions. Journal of M anagement in Engineering, 20(4), pp. 147-
161. Richter, J., 2013. Completion of Prague’s tunnel complex threatened by legal issues
[online]. Radio Praha. [viewed 16 March 2019). Available from:
https://www.radio.cz/en/sect ion/ marketplace/co mpletio n-of-p ragues-tu nnel-
complexthreatened-by-lega 1-issues SATRA, 2019. Historie Projektu [online). BrusnickY,
Dejvicky a BubenecskY tunel. [viewed 16 March 2019). Ava ilable from:
http://www.tunelblanka.info/projekt/ SATRA, no date. Study of the Urban Ring tunnel
sections operation safety [online]. SATRA. [viewed 20 March 2019). Ava ilab le from:
http://www.satra.cz/en/study-of-the-urban-ringtunnel-sections-operation-safetyI Stuchlik,
J., 2018. The main risk factors leading to cost overrun in delivery of Czech public building
projects [online]. Business & IT. [viewed 25 March 2019). Ava ilable from: White &
Case,2011. Zpr6va o pr6vn f proverce smluvnf dokumentace k vystavbe tunelu Bianka
[online]. Praha.eu. [viewed 25 March 2019). Available from:
http://www.praha.eu/public/48/37/al/1142985_ 153973_Tunel_ Blanka_ Red_ Flag_
Report.pdf 9 Blanka Tunnel Complex GRADEMARK REPORT FINAL GRADE GENERAL
COMMENTS Section Wise Instructor Comments below _ /100 INTRODUCTION (15%)
Provide a general overview of the organisation and the background to the project, including
the business case. Generally satisfactory but could be enhanced by expanding on the scope,
business case and background to project. PROJECT PLAN (15%) Overview of the main
project plan: the timescale, phases and tasks (work breakdown), including
ownership/responsibilities; schedule of work; key milestones; resources involved including
budget and staff; project constraints and priorities. More details would be helpful in this
section. There is limited descriptions of the project itself. What were the key phases of the
project? and what was the basis of breakdown? in terms of milestones and costs etc. What

13. about resource availability and usage. These were important points and needed some more
in-depth discussion. IMPLEMENTATION (20%) Critical evaluation of the project work
carried out including changes to project scope, management of stakeholders and others
involved in the supply chain; the effectiveness of monitoring, review and control
mechanisms (of project tasks and schedules as well as customers, suppliers, subcontractors,
etc). Evaluate how the practice compares to principal project management methodologies,
theories and research. I am taking ‘Execution, Management of Stakeholders and Closing’
sections as one here for the sake of marking within this section. Again, more depth needed
here. You have mentioned about the landslides etc, you could have linked these to some
more information provided in the initiation phase where these aspects could be tested.
What about monitoring, evaluation and control. Not much about that. The section about
management of stakeholders is good and in-depth. PROJECT RISKS (15%) Identify the risks
associated with the project and analyse how they were managed. By comparing theory to
practice, evaluate the effectiveness of risk management within this project. There is
evidence of linking theory to practice. Again shows importance of accountability to avoid
some issues. Need to further evaluate risk management effort in this project. It appears that
there was limited to no risk management strategy in place at all. CONCLUSIONS (25%)
Critical evaluation of the overall success or failure of the project (NOTE: if project is not yet
fully complete, provide an evaluation of work to date); effectiveness of the project plan;
overall management of the project; the staff/customers/suppliers/subcontractors involved;
management of project scope; risk management; what aspects of the project were
successful and why; what aspects of the project failed and why; could problems that
emerged have been foreseen; how could problems have been avoided. Provide
recommendations on how the project could be improved; what lessons can be learned from
the project. These recommendations should be derived from the report findings. Project
Review section and conclusions are clubbed for marking purpose. The is a well detailed
section and provides good in-depth evaluation of what went wrong and why. What could
have been the impact of scope creep and time overruns on a project and its meeting of the
strategic objectives. QUALITY OF WRITING (10%) The report should be structured
appropriately and written in a formal style, free from any spelling or grammatical errors.
Please thoroughly proofread your work before submission. The report must be written in
your own words, with the exception of any quotes which must be clearly indicated using
double quotation marks. The quality of writing is overall good. The report is well presented
and follows a logical structure. You could have stuck to the suggested structure as it makes
the marks allocation process easier. Project Management Coursework Final by l! Caledonian
University Project Management – The Helix and The Kelpies in Falkirk Student Name:
Matriculation Number: Programme Title: Module Title: Project Management Module Code:
MMN224935 Word Count: 2,168 Plagiarism Checklist Form Module Title: Project
Management Module Code: MMN224935 Student Name (Print): Matriculation No: In
accordance with University regulations,please read carefully through the following
statements, tick each box and sign the declaration at the bottom on the sheet. Iconfirm that
the coursework that Iam submitting is my own original work,and that Ihave: • Read and
understood the guidance on plagiarism in the Module Handbook; • Cleary referenced,both

14. withinthe text andon the end reference page, all sources used inthe work; • Used inverted
commas and the full reference details (including page numbers) for all text quoted from
books,journals,web-based or other sources; • Provided the sources for all data intables and
figures that are not my own work; • Not made use of the work of any other student(s) past
or present without acknowledgement.This includes any of my own work,that has been
previously, or concurrently,submitted for assessment,either at this or any other educational
institution, including school; • Not sought or used the services of any professional agencies
or other individuals,to produce this work; • In additional, Iunderstand that any false claim
in respect of this work will result in disciplinary action in accordance with University
regulations. Hence, as required by clause 9.10 of the University Assessment Regulations,I
declare that: “This piece of coursework is my own original work and has not been submitted
elsewhere in fulfilment of this or any other award.” I Student Signature: Date: 2 Contents
Introduction ………………………………………………………………………………………….4 Project
Plan………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 5 Implementation
…………………………………………………………………………………….. 6 Project Risk Management
…………………………………………………………………………….. 8 Conclu sion
…………………………………………………………………………………………… 9 References
……………………………………………………………………………………… 10 3 Does this meet the strategic
objectives of the Local Council? Good background provided. You could have mentioned the
business case here. An introduction is meant to set the scene for the entire report. Incorrect
citation This is a good section overall. Even though, as mentioned, there was no end date
specified, there may have been interim completion dates of phases when started. Also, some
more linking of theory to practice would be useful. Implementation Due to the large scale of
the project, the focus in this section wi ll be on The Kelpies. These are very well associated
within the Falkirk area and attract people around the world to come and visit them in
person. The idea to create a monumental structure in The Helix was always part of the
original concept. The name “The Kelpies” was created by Scottish Canals in 2005 as the
name relates to the mythological transform ing beasts of strength and reflects the heavy
horse of Scottish industry that pu lled ploughs, barges and wagons which helped to shape
the Falkirk area (Falkirk Community Trust, 2018). The first step that was taken before The
Kelpies were built was to gain the major planning permission by Falki rk Council whi ch
would involve The Kelpies, an area for visitor facilities and the extension of roads and
pathways (The Helix Trust, 20 10). The idea for the structures never changed from the
beginning of the concept to when they were being constructed. Out of the £43 million overal
1 budget, £5 million was dedicated to the manufacturing and the assembling of the
structures in their place. The sculptures were designed by a Scottish creator Andy Scott who
worked alongside SH Structures, Atkins Global and SKM, the only suppliers of the
structures, to develop stainless steel cladding that would form into the horse’s heads (SH
Structures, 2019). They would reach an impressive 30 metres high and weigh an incredible
300 tonnes each. It took several years for the steel to be developed meaning a close-knit
timeframe had to be followed. The sculptures had to be ready to open to the public by 2013,
sticking to deadlines is a huge aspect of project management (Martin and Tate, 2002) and
was important in this project due to multiple phases need ing to be bu ilt one after another.

15. Construction of The Kelpies began in June 2013, taking only 90 days to put together the
sculptures were complete by October 2013.Summer 2017 was the first maintenance and
cleaning of the structures which will take place on yearly schedules. The Kelpies main
purpose was to increase the tourism industry in and around the Falkirk area which has
been monitored closely since it was first opened. Visitors to The Kelpies have increased by
50.2% from 2009 to 2016 however, numbers have dipped slightly especially in comparison
to their projections (The Helix, 2018).The reason for this can be linked to the product life
cycle framework. Although normally associated with the world of business, it can be used
within the realms of project management to discuss how the end of the project 7 Could have
discussed further in detail about the management of Stakeholders, any monitoring and
control mechanisms developed and implemented. need references This is a good point. You
need to evaluate a project beyond the aspects of scope, time and cost. A further discussion
of this aspect would have been beneficial. Any recommendations? References BALAll, S. &
MURUGA IYAN, M.S., 2012. WATEERFALLVs V-MODEL Vs AGILE: A COMPARATIVE STUDY
ON SDLC. I nternational Journal of I nformation Technology and Business Management. 2(1)
[viewed 31 March 2019]. Available from: http://jitbm .com/Volume2NoI/waterfa ll.pelf .
BOURNE, L.& WALKER, D.H.T., 2005. Visualising and mapping stakeholder influence.
Management Decision. 43(5), pp.649-660. [viewed 31 March 2019]. Available from:
10.1108/00251740510597680. BUTLER, R.W., 2006. The tourism area life cycle. Clevedon :
Channel View [viewed 31 March 20 19]. Available from : http ://bvbr.b i bbvb.de:899
l/F?func=service&doc library=BV BO I &local base=BVBO I &doc number=O 146
52900&sequence=OOOOO I&I ine number=OOO I&func code=DB RECORDS&service type=
MEDIA . CACCAMESE, A. & BRAGANTIN I, D., 20 13. Beyond the Iron Triangle: Year Zero. PM
World Journal. 2(11) [viewed 14 March 2019]. Available from: https://pmwor ldjou rna
l.net/wp-content/u ploads/20 13/ 12/pmwj I7-dec2013-caccamesebra gantini-beyond -
iron-triangle-year-zero-ipma-SecondEdition.pdf. ERRRSEN, J_R_ & HOPE, A., 2011.Re-
im;igining the Iron Tri;ingle:Rmheclcl ing Sustainability into Project Constraints. Ebbesen,
Jonas Ba/shoe} and H ope, Alex (2013) Relmagining the Iron Triangle: Embedding
Sustainability into Project Constraints. PM World Journal, II (lll). ISSN 2330-4480. [viewed
31 March 2019]. Available from: http://nrl.northumbr ia.ac.uk/l I 31 1/. ENVIRONMENT,
FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE., 2007. Brief Description of Five Current
Restorations; .In : Great Britain and House of Commons eds., British Waterways : Follow-up;
Eighth Report of Session 2007-08 United Kingdom :The Stationary Office. FAIRFIELD
CONTROL SYSTEMS. 2015. Falkirk Wheel Boat Lift. FALKIRK COMMUNITY TRUST.,2018
History. [viewed 31 March 2019]. Available from: http://www.thehelix.co.uk/things-to-
do/the-kelpies/history#XKEml ZFzIU . FALKIRK COUNCIL., 20 17. Falkirk Gateway Zones 1
& 4 Planning Statement. Falkirk : FALKIRK COUNCIL., 20 14 New Year brings £1.45 million
visitor centre building for the kelpies. [viewed 31 March 2019]. Available from:
http://www.falk irk.gov .uk/news/article.aspx?aid=3374. FALKIRK COUNCIL ., 2013. Tax
Incremental Financing (TIF) Initiative. Falkirk: Falkirk Council Development Services.
IRONSIDE FARRAR ., 2010. The Helix Central Park PPP Planning Supporting Statement.
Ironside Farrar. JO KARLSEN ,J.T., 2002. Project Stakeholder Management. Engineering M
anagement Journal. 14(4) [viewed 31 March 20 19]. Available from: https://www.tandfon

16. line.com/doi/abs/ 10.I 080/ 10429247.2002. I 1415 180. KERZNER, H.,2017. Projec t
management. Twelfth edition ed.Hoboken; New Jersey:Wiley [viewed 31 March 2019].
Available from: http://www.gbv.de/dms/zbw/87109732X.pdf . MARTIN, P.&TATE, K.,
2002. Developing a Schedule; .In : Getting Started in Project Management, John Wiley and
Sons, pp. 128-146. MCANGUS, S. 2016. Kelpies creator demands burger stall is removed -or
else! The Falkirk Herald. MURRAY, G. 2017. Rough Guide readers name Scotland the ‘most
beautiful country in the world’. Independent. OLANDER , S.,2007. Stakeholder impact
analysis in construction project management. Construction Management and Economics.
25(3), pp.277-287. [viewed 31 March 2019]. Ava ilable from:
10.1080/01446190600879125. RADUJKOV IC, M. & SJEKAVICA, M., 2017. Project
Management Success Factors. Procedia Engineering. 196, pp.607-6 15. [viewed 31 March
2019].Ava ilable from: 10.1016/j.proeng.2017.08.048. SCOTTISH CANALS., 2014. Scottish
Canals Corporate Plan 2014-17. SH STR UCTURES.,2019 The Kelpies, Falkirk. [viewed 31
March 2019].Available from: http://www.shstructures.com/pro jects/the-kelpies-falkirk/.
STEVEN KLEPPER, 1996. Entry, Exit, Growth, and Innovation over the Product Life Cycle.
The American Economic Review. 86(3), pp.562-583. [viewed 31 March 2019]. Available
from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/21 18212. THE HELIX., 2018. The Helix Business Plan
2018119. THE HELIX TRUST Proposal of Application Notice, 2010. [Viewed 31 March 2019].
WILLIAMS, R., BERTSCH, B., DALE,B.,WIELE, T.V D.,IWAARDEN, J.V., SMITH, M. & VISSER, R.,
2006. Quality and risk management: what are the key issues? .The TQM Magazine. 18(1)
[viewed 31 March 2019]. Available from: https://www .emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/
I0.1108/09544780610637703 . II Project Management Coursework Final GRADEMARK
REPORT FINAL GRADE GENERAL COMMENTS Section wise Instructor Comments below
INTRODUCTION (15%) Provide a general overview of the organisation and the background
to the project, including the business case. Generally satisfactory but could be enhanced by
expanding on the scope, business case and background to project. PROJECT PLAN (15%)
Overview of the main project plan: the timescale, phases and tasks (work breakdown),
including ownership/responsibilities; schedule of work; key milestones; resources involved
including budget and staff; project constraints and priorities. Key areas of project plan
outlined including goals, phases and stages. Constraints and priorities could be highlighted
further. IMPLEMENTATION (20%) Critical evaluation of the project work carried out
including changes to project scope, management of stakeholders and others involved in the
supply chain; the effectiveness of monitoring, review and control mechanisms (of project
tasks and schedules as well as customers, suppliers, subcontractors, etc). Evaluate how the
practice compares to principal project management methodologies, theories and research.
Some evaluation of the project has been carried out. Answer could be enhanced by
evaluating how practice compares to project management methodologies and theories.It is
unclear what monitoring and review control mechanisms they had in place PROJECT RISKS
(15%) Identify the risks associated with the project and analyse how they were managed.
By comparing theory to practice, evaluate the effectiveness of risk management within this
project. – You have provided a broad outline of a range of internal and external risks to the
project. Some effort has been made to evaluate their risk management effort in relation to
theory. CONCLUSIONS (25%) Critical evaluation of the overall success or failure of the

17. project (NOTE: if project is not yet fully complete, provide an evaluation of work to date);
effectiveness of the project plan; overall management of the project; the
staff/customers/suppliers/subcontractors involved; management of project scope; risk
management; what aspects of the project were successful and why; what aspects of the
project failed and why; could problems that emerged have been foreseen; how could
problems have been avoided. Provide recommendations on how the project could be
improved; what lessons can be learned from the project. These recommendations should be
derived from the report findings. Good points discussed in this section. Structure of this
section could be improved to clearly address:critical evaluation; recommendations.
QUALITY OF WRITING (10%) The report should be structured appropriately and written in
a formal style, free from any spelling or grammatical errors. Please thoroughly proofread
your work before submission. The report must be written in your own words, with the
exception of any quotes which must be clearly indicated using double quotation marks.
Well-presented and well structured. Good style of writing.