Strategic Project Management

School of Management
Assessment
Brief
Content
Assessment Details…………………………………………….2
Submission Details …………………………………………….3
Assessment Criteria……………………………………………4
Further Information …………………………………………….7
Who can answer questions about my assessment? ………..7
Referencing ……………………………………………………………………7
Submission problems …………………………………………………….7
Unfair academic practice ………………………………………………..7
How is my work graded? ………………………………………………..8

 

Module Code Module Title
MPM7003 Strategic Project Management
Academic Year Semester
2022/23 1
Module Leader email
[email protected]

2
Assessment Details

Assessment title Abr. Weighting
Strategic Business Case (SBC) WRIT1 70%
Pass marks are 40% for undergraduate work and 50% for postgraduate work unless stated otherwise.

 

Task/assessment brief:
You are required to develop a Strategic Business Case for a project or a programme to achieve one or
more strategic goals of an organisation’s (or business unit) of your choice. You need to do the
following:
Select an organisation of your choice (public, private, NGO), and describe the business
background. Describe the organisation’s vision, mission and relevant strategic goals.
Develop a Strategic Business Case for a project or a programme that contributes to one or more
strategic goals of the selected organisation (or business unit). The Strategic Business Case should:
Explain the strategic context and the business need (the business problem and opportunity);
Describe the potential scope of the proposed project or programme (in terms of outputs and
outcomes) that is required to meet the business needs and strategic goals;
Explain the project or programme’s benefits, risks, constraints and dependencies; and
Recommend a performance measurement framework (success criteria and a set of KPIs) to
monitor and track the project or programme’s progress and performance and evaluate its
success.
Notes:
This is an individual assessment.
Word count (or equivalent): 3,000
This a reflection of the effort required for the assessment. Word counts will normally include any text,
tables, calculations, figures, subtitles and citations. Reference lists and contents of appendices are
excluded from the word count. Contents of appendices are not usually considered when determining
your final assessment grade.

3

Academic or technical terms explained:
In this assessment, you are required to define, describe, explain and critically evaluate/assess
a number of concepts and argue or justify a position. Below is a glossary of the assessment
terms:
Define – state what is meant by a concept
Describe – state the main aspects of an idea or topic, or the sequence in which a series of things
happened.
Explain – state how things work or how they came to be the way they are, including perhaps some
need to describe and to analyse.
Analyse – break an issue down into its component parts, discuss them and show how they interrelate.
Evaluate (Assess, or Critique) – consider the value and importance of something and weigh up its
different aspects, citing evidence and argument in support of your case.
Discuss – requires analysis and evaluation of evidence, as well as weighing up arguments and
drawing conclusions.
Argue – make a case, based on appropriate evidence and logically structured for and/or against some
point of view.
Justify – express valid reasons for accepting a particular interpretation or conclusion, probably
including the need to argue a case.

Submission Details

Submission
Deadline:
9th January 2023 Estimated
Feedback
Return Date
6th February 2023
Submission
Time:
By 2.00pm on the
deadline day.
Moodle/Turnitin: Any assessments submitted after the deadline will not be marked and will be
recorded as a non-attempt unless you have had an extension request agreed
or have approved mitigating circumstances. See the School Moodle pages
for more information on extensions and mitigating circumstances.
File Format: The assessment must be submitted as a pdf document (save the document
as a pdf in your software) and submit through the Turnitin submission point in
Moodle.
Your assessment should be titled with your:

4

Student number, module code and assessment ID,
e.g. st12345678 MPM7003 WRIT1
Feedback Feedback for the assessment will be provided electronically via Moodle. Feedback
will be provided with comments on your strengths and the areas which you can
improve. View the
guidance on how to access your feedback.
All marks are provisional and are subject to
quality assurance processes and
confirmation at the p
rogramme Examination Board.

Assessment Criteria

Learning outcomes assessed
LO1: Apply strategic thinking and planning in a broader project environment
LO5: Develop a business case and project charter
Other skills/attributes developed
This includes elements of the Cardiff Met EDGE (Ethical, Digital, Global and Entrepreneurial skills) and
other attributes developed in students through the completion of the module and assessment. These
will also be highlighted in the module guidance, which should be read by all students completing the
module. Assessments are not just a way of auditing student knowledge. They are a process which
provides additional learning and development through the preparation for and completion of the
assessment.
Cardiff Met EDGE skills/attributes:
Ethical: The assessment encourages students to reflect on the global priorities as defined in the United
Nations’ Strategic Development Goals (UN SDGs). Focusing on one or more specific priority areas
(e.g. sustainability, climate change, waste and recycling, poverty reduction, access to clean water etc.),
the students are required to propose a project or programme that contributes to the achievement of
one or more of these strategic priorities. This assessment fosters a sense of social responsibility in
students as it requires them to think of various social, economic and environmental problems.
Digital: using various search engines and academic databases (e.g. MetSearch, Scopus, Google
Scholar) to find reliable and credible sources, using a word processing software to write and
communicate effectively.
Global: the curriculum showcases a wide range of applications of project management in different
areas, and it discusses case studies from different countries.
Entrepreneurial: the assessment encourages students to think of global problems and propose
solutions to these problems. Problem-solving and the ability to view each problem as a business
opportunity are important elements of entrepreneurial thinking. The assessment requires students to
brainstorm alternative options to achieve strategic goals. It allows students to enhance their creativity
and problem-solving skills.
General/transferable skills:
Strategic Thinking and Strategic Planning
Communication (Written)
Critical Thinking
Problem solving

 

Marking/Assessment Criteria
0 <39 40 – 49 50 – 59 60 – 69 70 – 79 80-100
Criteria and Weighting Fail Clear Fail Narrow Fail Pass Merit Distinction Distinction+
Describe the organisation’s
business environment, vision,
mission and relevant strategic
goals (strategic context) (20%)
No work
submitted
This work has not
met the LOs and
shows inadequate
knowledge or
understanding of the
subject knowledge.
Unsuccessful
application of theory
to practice. The work
is descriptive,
uncritical, and
includes factual
inaccuracies.
Incomplete attempt
with missing or
irrelevant content.
This work has not met all
of the LOs and only
shows a basic
understanding of the
subject knowledge.
Application largely
unsuccessful. The work
is in the most part
descriptive. Little or no
recognition of the
complexity of the subject
with no attempt at
evaluative judgement.
Entirely based on given
sources. Unsubstantiated
assertions.
This work has met the LOs
and demonstrates a good
understanding of the
subject knowledge, but a
limited ability to apply
knowledge in practice. No
or little critical evaluation of
theory and the interface
between theory and
practice. Limited analysis,
frequently descriptive and
largely based on given
sources. Arguments not
fully substantiated but
sometimes lacking clear
and logical lines of thought.
This work has met the LOs
and demonstrates a solid
understanding of the subject
knowledge, and high ability to
apply knowledge in practice.
Some detailed analysis and
critical evaluation of theory
and the interface between
theory and practice.
Appropriate range of literature,
and good ability of critical
evaluation and synthesis
within the professional
context. Arguments are clear
and substantiated.
This work has met the LOs and
demonstrates excellent understanding of
the subject knowledge, and high ability to
apply knowledge in practice, and offer
innovative solutions to problems. Detailed
analysis and critical evaluation of theory
and the interface between theory and
practice, clearly elaborated to evaluate
theoretical adequacy. Excellent, wide
range of literature, demonstrating reading
beyond sources provided, and excellent
ability of critical evaluation and synthesis
within the professional context.
Arguments are well developed, sustained
and substantiated, and expressed through
clear and logical lines of thought.
Exceptional mastery of
subject/research. Extensive
analysis and independent
enquiry to solve problems.
Insight and critical awareness
of research/scholarship.
Substantial range of
reference citations, beyond
expectations. New insights
informed through critical
evaluation. Innovative and/or
creative thinking. May
challenge the boundaries of
knowledge

6

Develop a Strategic Business
Case (60%)
Explain the business
problem and the business
needs (10%)
Define the scope of the
project or programme
required to meet the
business needs and goals
(10%)
Explain the project or
programme’ benefits, risks,
constraints and
dependencies (20%)
Recommend a performance
measurement framework
(20%)
No work
submitted
This work has not
met the LOs and
shows inadequate
knowledge or
understanding of the
subject knowledge.
Unsuccessful
application of theory
to practice. The work
is descriptive,
uncritical, and
includes factual
inaccuracies.
Incomplete attempt
with missing or
irrelevant content.
This work has not met all
of the LOs and only
shows a basic
understanding of the
subject knowledge.
Application largely
unsuccessful. The work
is in the most part
descriptive. Little or no
recognition of the
complexity of the subject
with no attempt at
evaluative judgement.
Entirely based on given
sources. Unsubstantiated
assertions.
This work has met the LOs
and demonstrates a good
understanding of the
subject knowledge, but a
limited ability to apply
knowledge in practice. No
or little critical evaluation of
theory and the interface
between theory and
practice. Limited analysis,
frequently descriptive and
largely based on given
sources. Arguments not
fully substantiated but
sometimes lacking clear
and logical lines of thought.
This work has met the LOs
and demonstrates a solid
understanding of the subject
knowledge, and high ability to
apply knowledge in practice.
Some detailed analysis and
critical evaluation of theory
and the interface between
theory and practice.
Appropriate range of literature,
and good ability of critical
evaluation and synthesis
within the professional
context. Arguments are clear
and substantiated.
This work has met the LOs and
demonstrates excellent understanding of
the subject knowledge, and high ability to
apply knowledge in practice, and offer
innovative solutions to problems. Detailed
analysis and critical evaluation of theory
and the interface between theory and
practice, clearly elaborated to evaluate
theoretical adequacy. Excellent, wide
range of literature, demonstrating reading
beyond sources provided, and excellent
ability of critical evaluation and synthesis
within the professional context.
Arguments are well developed, sustained
and substantiated, and expressed through
clear and logical lines of thought.
Exceptional mastery of
subject/research. Extensive
analysis and independent
enquiry to solve problems.
Insight and critical awareness
of research/scholarship.
Substantial range of
reference citations, beyond
expectations. New insights
informed through critical
evaluation. Innovative and/or
creative thinking. May
challenge the boundaries of
knowledge
Presentation and referencing
(20%)
No work
submitted
Limited ability to
communicate.
Unclear
presentation, clumsy
and inappropriate
format. Frequent
errors in the
referencing. Some
sections are
incomplete.
Confused and clumsily
expressed. Unclear.
Frequent errors in the
referencing. Some
sections are
undredeveloped.
Satisfactory communication.
Lacks academic rigour.
Some errors in referencing.
Appropriately structured.
The report contains the
required sections but lacks
clarity or comprehension.
Organisation and structure of
the work is comprehensive
and coherent, well presented,
with considerable attention to
detail which facilitates
effortless comprehension.
Supporting material is well
presented and ordered with
accurate referencing and
minimal errors of detail. The
report contains the required
sections (e.g. cover page,
concise and precise executive
summary, table of contents),
and is properly formatted..
Exceptional clarity of presentation that
demonstrates ability to attend to all
detailed aspects of organisation and
structure of discussion and all supporting
evidence. Accurate referencing with a few
errors. The report contains all required
sections (e.g. cover page, concise and
precise executive summary, table of
contents), and is properly formatted.
Eloquent and professional
style

 

Further Information
Who can answer questions about my
assessment?
Questions about the assessment should be
directed to the staff member who has set the
task/assessment brief. This will usually be the
Module Leader. They will be happy to answer
any queries you have.
Staff members can often provide feedback on
an assignment plan but cannot review any
drafts of your work prior to submission. The
only exception to this rule is for Dissertation
Supervisors to provide feedback on a draft of
your dissertation.
Referencing and independent learning
Please ensure you reference a range of
credible sources, with due attention to the
academic literature in the area. The time
spent on research and reading from good
quality sources will be reflected in the quality
of your submitted work.
Remember that what you get out of university
depends on what you put in. Your teaching
sessions typically represent between 10%
Technical submission problems
It is strongly advised that you submit your
work at least 24 hours before the deadline to
allow time to resolve any last minute
problems you might have. If you are having
issues with IT or Turnitin you should contact
the IT Helpdesk on (+44) 2920 417000. You
may require evidence of the Helpdesk call if
you are trying to demonstrate that a fault with
Moodle or Turnitin was the cause of a late
submission.
Extensions and mitigating circumstances
Short extensions on assessment deadlines
can be requested in specific circumstances. If
you are encountering particular hardship
which has been affecting your studies, then
you may be able to apply for mitigating
circumstances. This can give the teachers on
your programme more scope to adapt the
assessment requirements to support your
needs. Extensions and mitigating
circumstances policies and procedures are
regularly updated. You should refer to your
degree programme or school Moodle pages
for information on extensions and mitigating
circumstances.
and 30% of the time you are expected to
study for your degree. A 20-credit module
represents 200 hours of study time. The rest
of your time should be taken up by self
directed study.
Unless stated otherwise you must use the
HARVARD referencing system. Further
guidance on referencing can be found in the
Study Smart area on Moodle and at
www.citethemrightonline.com (use your
university login details to access the site).
Correct referencing is an easy way to
improve your marks and essential in
achieving higher grades on most
assessments.
Unfair academic practice
Cardiff Met takes issues of unfair practice
extremely seriously. The University has
procedures and penalties for dealing with
unfair academic practice. These are
explained in full in the University’s Unfair
Practice regulations and procedures under
Volume 1, Section 8 of the Academic
Handbook. The Module Leader reserves the
right to interview students regarding any
aspect of their work submitted for
assessment.
Types of Unfair Practice, include:

8
Plagiarism, which can be defined as using
without acknowledgement another person’s
words or ideas and submitting them for
assessment as though it were one’s own
work, for instance by copying, translating
from one language to another or
unacknowledged paraphrasing. Further
examples include:
Use of any quotation(s) from the
published or unpublished work of other
persons, whether published in textbooks,
articles, the Web, or in any other format,
where quotations have not been clearly
identified as such by being placed in
quotation marks and acknowledged.
Use of another person’s words or ideas
that have been slightly changed or
paraphrased to make it look different from
the original.
Summarising another person’s ideas,
judgments, diagrams, figures, or
computer programmes without reference
to that person in the text and the source
in a bibliography/reference list.
Use of assessment writing services,
essay banks and/or any other similar
agencies (NB. Students are commonly
being blackmailed after using essay
mills).
Use of unacknowledged material
downloaded from the Internet.
Re-use of one’s own material except as
authorised by your degree programme.
Collusion, which can be defined as when
work that that has been undertaken with
others is submitted and passed off as solely
the work of one person. Modules will clearly
identify where joint preparation and joint
submission are permitted, in all other cases
they are not.
Fabrication of data, making false claims to
have carried out experiments, observations,
interviews or other forms of data collection
and analysis, or acting dishonestly in any
other way.
How is my work graded?
Assessment grading is subject to thorough
quality control processes. You can view a
summary of these processes on the
Assessment Explained Infographic.
Grading of work at each level of Cardiff Met
degree courses is benchmarked against a set
of general requirements set out in Volume 1,
Section 4.3 of our Academic Handbook. A
simplified version of these Grade Band
Descriptors (GBDs) with short videos
explaining some of the academic terminology
used can be accessed via the
Facilitation of
Learning
resource page.
We would strongly recommend looking at the
Study Smart area of Moodle to find out more
about assessments and key academic skills
which can have a significant impact on your
grades. Always check your work thoroughly
before submission.