ENGM 116

Leadership and the Management of Project Risk, Quality and People

Assignment 2

Canvas (Turnitin) Submission Deadline: Thursday, 15th September 2022 by 2pm

Assignment 2

The following learning outcomes will be assessed:

Skills

3. The ability to assess risk associated with a given project or activity and to develop
strategies to manage risk.

4. The ability to develop and apply strategies to apply risk in a given project context.
.

Important Information
You are required to submit your work within the bounds of the University Infringement of
Assessment Regulations (see your Programme Guide). Plagiarism, paraphrasing and downloading
large amounts of information from external sources, will not be tolerated and will be dealt with
severely. Although you should make full use of any source material, which would normally be an
occasional sentence and/or paragraph (referenced) followed by your own critical
analysis/evaluation. You will receive no marks for work that is not your own. Your work may be
subject to checks for originality which can include use of an electronic plagiarism detection service.
Where you are asked to submit an individual piece of work, the work must be entirely your own.
The safety of your assessments is your responsibility. You must not permit another student access
to your work.
Where referencing is required, unless otherwise stated, the Harvard referencing system must be
used (see your Programme Guide).
 ENGM116 Assignment 2: Project Risk Management
Read and analyse the First Solar Case Study (provided)

Task 1: 50%
Identify three key risks that could impact on quality outcomes.
Justify and support your choice of risks by reference to the literature. For each risk:

1. Build up the relevant risk specifications (see that attached template as a reminder of the field
included in this)
2. For each risk
a. Justify your choice of impact and probability ratings.
b. Explore the potential mitigation and contingency plans and consider the budgetary
implications of these plans.

Task 2: 35%
Use two of the techniques covered in the module to explore one or more of these risks in more
detail. Choose from: Pareto analysis, Riskit Analysis Graph, or the Ishikawa diagram.
Justify your choice of techniques considering their relevance and identifying at which part of the
risk management lifecycle they are of most value. Support your argument by making reference to
relevant risk literature.

N.B. for this assignment you must explicitly state and justify any assumptions you have made in
addition to the information provided in the case study.

The assignment should be submitted in report form with major sections matching the two tasks and
minor sections matching the sub-tasks identified.

The assignment should be of 3000 words in length.

Citation and References List: 15%

• All literature that is cited in the report must be listed; any references listed must also be cited
within the report.
• All references must be presented using formal Harvard Referencing style.

Format for the assignment.

Use the format given below
• A4 pages with margins 2cm.
• A standard font such as Arial, Times New Roman, or Calibri in 11pt.
• Single line spacing.
• Paragraphs followed by 6pt spacing preceded by zero spacing.
• Headers on each page giving your name, student number and course.
• Footers on each page giving your assignment title, page number and count (page x of y) Do
not use:
• A cover page
• table of contents
• abstract
• executive summary
• an introduction
• a conclusion or summary
Submission of the assignment.
The assignment is to be submitted electronically as either one MS Word or pdf file in CANVAS
‘Turnitin’ identified within the module’s CANVAS area, by the date and time specified.

N.B. Assignment drafts can be submitted into the Turnitin class in advance of the final submission
as each draft will be overwritten up until the final submission date/time after which no further
submissions will be allowed.
Risk Specification Template
Risk Item Description: Risk ID:
Author:

Risk Statement Condition: if

Risk Statement Consequence(s): then

[and ... ]

Probability: V.Low / Low / Medium / High / V.High Impact: V.Low / Low / Medium / High / V.High

Earliest the risk could have an effect: Latest the risk could have an effect:

Mitigation Plan: [to prevent/reduce the chance that the situation will occur]

Contingency Plan: [to deal with situation when it occurs]

Risk History:

Date Event Author

Current Date
ENGM 116 Risk Assignment Feedback Form
% 0 1-19 20-39 40-54 55-69 70-84 85-99 100

Risk specification 20 Not very poorly specified poorly specified specifications are specifications make Very clear highly insightful Perfection
elements: condition, done limited - make sense in sense overall but with specifications: definition of risks
consequence, impact parts, but have some flaws specifications, impact
& probability significant limitations and probability
Mitigation and 20 Not Very little linkage Little linkage between Acceptable linkage Clear linkage between Clear linkage between Explicit explanation and Perfection
contingency plans done between risks and risks and mitigation and between risks and risks and mitigation and risks and mitigation and justification given of
mitigation and contingency plans mitigation and contingency plans contingency plans plans. Explicit linkage to
contingency plans suggested. Poor plans contingency plans suggested. Effective suggested. Plans well the risks. Plans very well
suggested. Plans very suggested. Plans OK. plans constructed. constructed. constructed.
poor.
Use of literature to 20 Not Unclear and descriptive Limited overview, very Limited overview, some Some independent Review of the field used Insightful review of the Perfection
support independent done with no independent little independent attempt at analysing and judgement and critical as a basis for field used as a basis for
judgement and judgement, or critical judgement and very little applying the literature evaluation evident based independent judgement independent judgement
critical analysis in evaluation critical evaluation but with limited success on reading and good critical and extensive critical
identification and evaluation analysis
choice of risks
Use of two 15 Not very poor use of poor use of techniques passable use of good use of techniques very good use of Explicit, relevant, links Perfection
techniques done techniques - no - very limited techniques - some techniques with made to the chosen
understanding shown understanding shown understanding shown justification of their risks and their
choice management with
thorough and excellent
use of two techniques
Use of literature to 10 Not Unclear and descriptive Limited overview, very Limited overview, some Some independent Review of the field used Insightful review of the Perfection
support independent done with no independent little independent attempt at analysing and judgement and critical as a basis for field used as a basis for
judgement and judgement, or critical judgement and very little applying the literature evaluation evident based independent judgement independent judgement
critical analysis in evaluation critical evaluation but with limited success on reading and good critical and extensive critical
choice of techniques evaluation analysis
References used in 10 Not Very few citations used, Little evidence of Limited citations but Adequate references Good quality references High quality references Perfection
the text done not used appropriately reading, citations those used are generally cited showing some cited to support the used in the text showing
frequently irrelevant. appropriate evidence of relevant arguments made extensive evidence of
reading reading, citations are all
appropriate to the
argument being made
and have been chosen
thoughtfully.
Reference list 5 Not References not References not References presented References cited and References cited and Citations and reference Perfection
done presented in Harvard presented in Harvard bear some resemblance presented in style presented in Harvard list provided fully and in
style, very poor match style, mismatch between to Harvard style, but approximating Harvard. style. Some slight complete Harvard style.
between citations and some citations and need improvement. Match between citations limitations, e.g. full Match between citations
reference list reference list Match between citations and reference list. bibliographic details not and reference list.
and reference list. always given or slight
mismatch between
citations and list.