MODULE OUTLINE

Department: Management & Marketing

Module: MN6903 In Company Project Semester/Academic Year: Summer 2020
Module Leaders : John Kelly & Paul Maguire Contact: via moodle messaging function
eModerators Neil McKenna & Lloyd Harnett Contact: via moodle messaging function
ECTS Credits: 12 Recommended Study hours per week: 15-20

Module aim:
The aim of the module is to complete an in-depth study of a project and identify specific proposals that may be
implemented to enhance value on that project or on future similar projects.

Module content:
Using the value process covered in MN6912 Programme Value Risk and Decision Making -this In Company Project
provides students with the opportunity to conduct a study of their own organisation and its overall approach to
achieving value/benefits through projects and programmes. They are expected to investigate a problem of strategic
importance to the organisation and report on recommendations at the end of the exercise, in the form of a
presentation and written report. They must follow a structured approach comprising defining the problem
statement, identifying value options/proposals, analysis of options, analysis of risks & development of specific
recommendations. Following completion of the exercise, the student will produce a final report on the application of
the framework to the problem in question and an individual reflective piece.

Learning Outcomes (include reference to the graduate attributes):

LO1 - Identify the key components of the value/benefits management and risk management processes

LO2 - Develop value objectives for projects and programmes using inputs from project stakeholders

LO3 - Critically evaluate options within project and programmes to deliver value to stakeholders

LO4 - Model project and programme uncertainty and develop value proposal implementation plans

LO5 - Recommend value proposals to project sponsors through a formal presentation and report

LO6 - Relate value and risk management frameworks to other project and programme settings

LO7 - Participate in a collective team endeavour to achieve a common purpose.

LO8 - Display a professional commitment to delivering sustainable benefits through organisational

programme initiatives
Prime Text/s:
Available as eBooks.

Thiry (2010) Program Management, Gower.

Dallas (2007) Value and Risk Management, Wiley-Blackwell

Morris & Pinto (eds) (2011) Wiley Guide to Project, Program and Portfolio Management, Wiley

Other relevant text and sources:

Society of American Value Engineers Standards Committee (2015), Value Methodology Standard, SAVE, Ohio.

Assessment:
Learning outcome(s) % of total Week due
addressed grade
Executive Summary LO1-LO8 5% Week 7
Etivities & peer reviews LO7 10% Weekly
Final Report LO2, LO3, LO4, LO6 50% Week 7
Presentation & feedback from project LO5, LO7, LO8 10% Week 6
sponsor
Reflective Journal LO6, LO8 25% Week 7

Note: A minimum grade C3 is required on this module.

Repeat Process
In the event a student does not achieve the minimum grade C3 and fails to complete the module – they will have an
opportunity to either link-in to the next occasion the module runs in the next academic year or to re-submit their project in
line with the annual repeat cycle in August, or complete an alternative assessment which will take place in July.

Note - Students must complete this module before being allowed to progress to year 2 in line with current UL academic
regulations.

Timeframe:
The module will commence on 25th May and will run for 7 weeks.

The module is broken down into 5 phases - details and timeframe for each phase are outlined below.

Plagiarism:
Plagiarism is copying someone else’s work (whether or not in the public domain) and passing it off as one’s own, or
inappropriately resubmitting one’s own already graded work and passing it off as original. Plagiarism can be considered
academic cheating which is a serious offence under the Code of Conduct. The penalty for academic cheating may include
suspension or expulsion. Please refer to the student handbook for more details.

Feedback:
Formative feedback will be provided through peer reviews and moderators at each stage of the project. Final
module grades will be provided in September after approval by the University exam board. Marks and feedback for
the reflective journal, executive summary and etivities will be made available within 4 weeks after the end of the
module.
Live Webcasts
Live webcast sessions will be held throughout the 7 weeks, these will take place on Weds evenings 7pm (Irish Time)
during weeks 1,3,4,5,& 6. These sessions will provide an opportunity for students to engage with the moderator and
module leader and to ask questions about their projects. These sessions will be recorded and made available
afterwards.
Learning Pathway and Implementation

The module is broken down into 5 components or stages. At the end of each stage an interim report is to be
submitted. During each stage students will be expected to conduct work on their project. This will involve
stakeholder consultations and workshop facilitation with key project team members. There is limited new content
being provided as part of this module -students are expected to refer back to previous modules – specifically the
module MN6912 Programme Value Risk and Decision Making.

The completion of each stage and interim reports are intended to build towards the final submission. The stages
have been adapted using Thiry (2010) and the stages of the Job Plan outlined by the Society of American Value
Engineers guidelines for conducting a value management study. There are 5 stages to be completed over 7 weeks
with a set of deliverables at the end of each stage.
Stage Deliverables
1 – Value Study Project Proposal Report to include completion of value study project proposal template -
(2 Weeks) Section A relates to the project itself and Section B relates to the value
study and should be used to set the boundary to the study being done as
part of the overall project.

Reflective Journal -entry (Max 500 words)

2 – Information Gathering and Report with weighted value tree and critical success factors and brief
Stakeholder Analysis explanation. Outline of stakeholders identified as part of the study and an
(1 week) explanation of how their needs are captured in the value tree. (max 500
words)

Reflective Journal entry (Max 500 words)

3 – Identification of Value Proposals Brief account of value proposal development – including brainstorming
(1 week) filtering/selection etc. and a brief explanation of the value proposals to be
selected for more detailed assessment and evaluation (max 1000 words)

Reflective Journal entry (Max 500 words)

4 – Development of Value Proposals Interim report should include commentary on development, risks,
& Implementation Planning lifecycle costing, sensitivity analysis, recommendations and
(1 week) implementation. (max 1500 words)

Reflective Journal entry (Max 500 words)

5 – Final Report and Presentation PowerPoint file outlining value study findings – this should be the basis of
(2 weeks) a presentation to be made to the project sponsor – the presentation
should be short and to the point and give the sponsor an opportunity to
ask questions about the findings of the study.

1 – Introduction to the problem investigated

2 – The process – what was done?
3- What was found?
4 – Recommendations and next steps
5 – Q&A

Final report a combination of the above interim reports

Chapter 1 – Introduction and Rationale
Chapter 2 – Information Gathering and Stakeholder Analysis Chapter 3 –
Identification of Value Proposals
Chapter 4 – Development of Value Proposals and Implementation
Planning
Chapter 5 – Conclusions and Recommendations
(Max 5000 words)

Executive Summary – (Max 500 words)

Reflective Journal Final Submission (Max 2500 words)

The completion of each stage and interim reports are intended to build towards the final submission.
Reflective Journal (25%)

This part of the module assessment requires you to submit a reflective paper focusing on your most
salient learning experience(s) from the module. The reflective paper is due in Week 7, and should be
ca. 2,500 words long. It is recommended that you make weekly entries into the reflective journal to
assist you in this regard. Entries should focus key learning experiences each week; taken either from a
source of academic reading of your choosing – this may be an academic article or book chapter, or
from an interactive experience with a peer which enhanced or challenged your conception of a topic
covered that week.

For the final submission, select a maximum of 3 of the most salient learning experiences. Remember
that the final submission should be in line with the reflective writing guidelines on Moodle. These you
will see in the Week 1, Reflective Journal section.

Reflections will be assessed based on the following criteria:

o A writing style that is reflective, logical, personal and critical

o An appropriate balance between theory/academic evidence and
experience/personal
o Demonstration of evidence of having engaged with the academic content of the
module
o Demonstration of evidence of critical and reflective thinking
o Demonstration of an ability to connect individual context and practice to the
content of the module
Grade Descriptors

E-tivity Engagement (10%)

The grade descriptors used when assessing e-tivities are as follows

All e-tivities completed with a high level of engagement across all e-tivities. Good
10%
contributions and responses to peers’ contributions, drawing on evidence of having
engaged with content and reflected on impact on practice.
All e-tivities completed with a high level of engagement. A lower score than perfect if the
8% contributions are a bit descriptive and more opinion rather than evidence based, or are too
brief or unsubstantial.. Students get credit for engaging.
6% All e-tivities completed but too unsubstantial or too descriptive and lacking any depth of
analysis or evidence of having engaged with content.
Must have attempted at least 2 e-tivities to a reasonable standard showing some evidence
4%
of having engaged with the content
0% Less than 2 e-tivities completed and no level of engagement.

Scheme of Grade Descriptors for Exec Summary, Final Report & Presentation
Grade Award Level QPV Description
o Outstanding performance..
o In-depth knowledge and understanding of principles and concepts
related to the topic. Integrates information into a wider context.
o Excellent analysis and interpretation.
A1 First 4.00 o Evidence of a significant amount of outside reading.
o A logically structured and clear approach
o Answer is original and reflective.

o Excellent performance.
o A comprehensive knowledge and understanding of principles and
concepts.
o Excellent analysis and interpretation.
A2 First 3.60 o Evidence of a significant amount of outside reading.
o Answer may have neglected to deal with one or two minor aspects
of the issues involved.
o A logically structured and clear approach.

o Very good performance.

o A substantial but not totally comprehensive knowledge and
understanding of principles and concepts.
o Shows a very good competence in the subject without being
outstanding.
B1 2.1 3.20 o Very good analysis and interpretation.
o Some gaps in knowledge. Student can argue the key issues in an
intellectually organised manner.
o A logically structured and clear approach.

o Good performance.
o A competent and organised approach to the subject matter.
o A reasonable knowledge and understanding of principles and
concepts.
B2 2.2 3.00 o Very good analysis and interpretation.
o Student is very familiar with the material covered in lecture notes,
but may show limited evidence of wider reading.
o Answers may be organised rather than inspired.

o Competent performance.
o Shows evidence of having put significant work into studying the
subject.
B3 2.2 2.80 o A reasonable level of knowledge.
o Good analysis and interpretation.
o Some gaps/oversights in either knowledge, or in the approach
taken. Limited evidence of wider reading.
 o Reasonable analytical and interpretative skills.
o The work is still of sufficient standard to merit an honours award.

o Satisfactory performance.
o Shows a familiarity with the subject material covered in the
question.
o The approach taken to answering the question is rather limited
C1 2.2 2.60 o Focuses on material covered in lecture notes. Little or no evidence
of wider reading.
o A basic knowledge of key principles and concepts only.
o Limited analytical and interpretative skills.

o Acceptable performance.
o Conversant with the subject area.
Third Class o A good average answer, which does not stray beyond the basics.
C2 2.40 o Some significant gaps in knowledge.
Honours
o Limited analytical and interpretative skills.

o Minimally acceptable performance.

o A basic pass. Shows a basic knowledge of key principles and
concepts.
o Significant gaps in knowledge or understanding.
Third Class o May have omitted to answer part of the question.
C3 2.00
Honours o Answer is basic and factual with some errors.
o The standard of work is sufficient to obtain a passing grade.
o Limited analytical and interpretative skills.

o Weak performance, compensating fail.

o A poor answer, unsatisfactory in some significant ways.
o Student is unable to correctly recall important material related to
Compensating the question at hand.
D1 1.60
Fail o Little evidence of analytical and interpretative skills.
o Answer is disorganised and lacks intellectual depth.

o Poor performance, compensating fail.

o Very poor answer. The student either has very little knowledge of
the subject area, or lacks the ability to express their knowledge in
Compensating an organised fashion.
D2 1.20
Fail o Student may have shown some small knowledge of the area.
o Little evidence of analytical and interpretative skills.

o An outright fail no compensation allowed.

o The work is completely unsatisfactory and shows very little
evidence of effort.
F Fail 0.00 o Little or no evidence of knowledge of key principles and concepts.
o No evidence of analytical or interpretative skills.
Scheme of Grade Descriptors for Reflective writing
Grade Award Level QPV Description
o Outstanding Performance
o Extremely reflective in terms of depth with the chosen
learning experience clearly salient
o Outstanding connections with relevant theory
o Evidence of deep interrogation of practice, together with
appropriate empirical examples
A1 First 4.00 o A logically structured approach comprising description,
interpretation and outcomes, with a strong focus on
interpretation and outcomes.
o A writing style which is deeply personal and takes a critical
stance

o Excellent Performance
o The depth of reflection is comprehensive with the chosen
learning experience clearly salient
o Excellent connections with relevant theory
o Evidence of deep interrogation of practice, together with
A2 First 3.60 appropriate empirical examples
o A logically structured approach comprising description,
interpretation and outcomes, with a strong focus on
interpretation and outcomes.
o A writing style which is personal and takes a critical stance

o Very Good Performance

o The depth of reflection is substantial but not totally
comprehensive with the chosen learning experience clearly
salient
o Very good connections with relevant theory
o Evidence of relatively deep interrogation of practice, together
B1 2.1 3.20 with appropriate empirical examples
o A logically structured approach comprising description,
interpretation and outcomes, with a strong focus on
interpretation and outcomes.
o A writing style which is personal and takes a critical stance

o Good Performance
o The depth of reflection is reasonable with the chosen learning
experience clearly salient
o Very good connections with some relevant theory
o Evidence of relatively deep interrogation of practice in parts,
B2 2.2 3.00 together with appropriate empirical examples
o A logically structured approach comprising description,
interpretation and outcomes, with a strong focus on
interpretation and outcomes.
o A writing style which is personal and takes a critical stance

o Competent Performance
o The depth of reflection is reasonable with the salience of the
chosen learning experience not entirely clear
o Good connections with relevant theory with some gaps
o Good evidence of deep interrogation of practice in parts,
together with limited appropriate empirical examples
B3 2.2 2.80 o A logically structured approach comprising description,
interpretation and outcomes, with a strong focus on
interpretation and outcomes.
o A writing style which is mostly personal and takes a critical
stance

o Satisfactory Performance
o The depth of reflection is limited and the salience of the
particular learning experience is not interrogated sufficiently
C1 2.2 2.60
o Limited connections with relevant theory
o Limited evidence of interrogation of practice, with limited
empirical examples
 o Structurally focuses mostly on description, with limited focus
on interpretation or outcomes
o A writing style which isn’t adequately personal or which lacks
a critical stance

o Acceptable Performance
o The depth of reflection is average and surface level only with
the salience of the particular learning experience not evident
o Very limited connections with relevant theory
o Very limited interrogation of practice, with limited empirical
Third Class examples
C2 2.40
Honours o Structurally focuses mostly on description, with some
significant gaps with regard to interpretation or outcomes
o A writing style which isn’t adequately personal or which lacks
a critical stance

o Minimally Acceptable Performance

o The depth of reflection is basic and surface level only with the
salience of the particular learning experience not evident
o Significant gaps in connections with relevant theory and
Third Class practice, with no empirical examples
C3 2.00 o Structurally focuses purely on description, with very
Honours
significant gaps with regard to interpretation or outcomes
o A writing style which isn’t adequately personal or which lacks
a critical stance

o Weak Performance
o The depth of reflection is poor with the salience of the
particular learning experience not evident
o Poor links with relevant theory or practice, with no empirical
Compensating examples
D1 1.60 o Structurally focuses purely on description, with no focus on
Fail
interpretation or outcomes
o A writing style which isn’t adequately personal or which lacks
a critical stance

o Poor Performance
o The depth of reflection is very poor with the salience of the
particular learning experience not evident
o Very poor or no links with relevant theory or practice, with no
Compensating empirical examples
D2 1.20
Fail o Structurally focuses purely on description, with no focus on
interpretation or outcomes
o A writing style which is neither personal nor critical

o An outright fail no compensation allowed.

o The work is completely unsatisfactory and shows very little
evidence of effort.
o The depth of reflection is extremely poor with the salience of
the particular learning experience non existent.
F Fail 0.00 o No links with relevant theory or practice, with no empirical
examples
o Structurally focuses purely on description, with no focus on
interpretation or outcomes
o A writing style which is neither personal nor critical