Teaching teamwork and project management using virtual projects

1

• Teaching teamwork and project management using
  virtual projects
• Peter Goodhew FREng
• University of Liverpool

2
Some background

• For all Engineering programmes at Liverpool
• Management is taught via one module each year
• 2nd year students receive MNGT202 Project and
  Risk Management
• Until 2006/7 this was taught via 18 lectures and
  a conventional exam
• The class is typically 250 students

3
The problems

• It was boring for the students
• It was boring for the lecturer
• It was totally inactive
• . But the students need this topic for
  employment, and for projects within their
  programme.

4
The solution - 1

• Three additional learning outcomes
• Use of Microsoft Project
• Ability to work in a team
• Ability to work to deadlines

5
The solution - 2

• Virtual projects
• Accessible to every student
• Five intermediate team deliverables every 2
  weeks
• Reduced number of lectures (now 6 or 7)
• Hard deadlines (one minute late no marks)
• All delivered via VLE
• MCQ exam

6
The bargain

• Presented to the students
• Deadlines are firm, no excuses
• Deliverables will be marked in 2 days and
  feedback given at next lecture
• All team members take turn as chairman (PM) and
  secretary
• Team minutes assessed
• In case of problems, if it is not recorded in the
  team meeting minutes, we do nothing about it!

7
The teams

• Mixed disciplines (first run), same discipline
  (second run)
• 5 persons (first run), 6 persons (second run)
• Teams determined by me (random but no
  all-same-minority or all-female teams)

8
The projects

• Setting up a restaurant, or
• Providing a building for a third-world village
• Every team has different data
• During every project a change order is issued (no
  warning of this!)

9
The tasks

1. SMART objective and SWOT analysis
2. Work Breakdown Structure and Gantt chart
3. Change order so revise plan, critical path, slack
4. Stakeholders, risk register, mitigation
5. Depreciation, discounted cash flow and overhead
   absorption calculations
6. (MSc only) requirements document, reflective
   analysis of process and effectiveness of team
7. An on-line test in similar MCQ format to exam

10
Assessment

• 60 on MCQ exam
• 40 on tasks (5 x 6 10 for on-line test)
• No peer marking or moderation of marks (a pity,
  but )
• Coarse (3-point) mark scale for each part of each
  task
• Markers (2 or 3) switched among project teams

11
How it went

• It was hard work! (especially marking 60 teams in
  2 days, five times)
• Students liked it
• 07/08 87 enjoyed VP
• 08/09 94 enjoyed VP
• Marks went up

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Class ave 62 57 60 55 61 64 71 71
12
Some comments

• It illustrated to me that even a minor project
  (in our case was the village barn) can be complex
  and highlights the importance of planning,
  management and control to the success of the
  project .
• I just realised that management is not easy as I
  thought.
• I think use of VITAL was exceptional and that
  the team projects were an interesting and
  practical way of learning.
• The virtual projects were useful because it
  enabled us to apply what we learnt in the
  lectures to a real-life situation. It also
  enabled us to build on our team working skills
  and allowed us to use industry-standard tools for
  project management

13
Changes in response to feedback

• No mixed discipline teams (a pity!). 
• Smaller class size for lectures (120 vs 300).
• Each lecture videoed and put on VLE. 
• Shared teaching (Goodhew plus Murphy)

14
Conclusions

• VPs delivered benefit to students
• Dull subject which appeared irrelevant to many
  students is made both relevant and lively
• It took 5 TA-months to prepare VPs
• Matt and I enjoyed it