MASTERS OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION (MBA) - SEMESTER II

DESCRIPTIVE PRACTICE QUESTION PAPER

MB0049 PROJECT MANAGEMENT
(BOOK ID B1632)
(4 CREDITS)
SET 1

Q.
No
1.

2.

Question

Marks

Describe the CPM model. Explain network cost system. (Refer unit 5)

10

Value Engineering (VE) may be applied in all phases of the project life cycle.
Discuss the scope of applying VE in a project. (Refer unit 8)

10

Building a Project Team

DuPont and Environmental Defense Fund-Framework for Responsible
Nanotechnology
Nanotechnology holds great promise for new applications in materials, energy,
medicine, and other fields, but more needs to be known about the potential
risks. In 2005, DuPont and Environmental Defense Fund partnered to ensure
the responsible development of nanoscale materials and develop a tool to
share information with stakeholders. The project also aimed at facilitating
public understanding of the new technology and providing an input for future
government policy.
Tackling a project of such scope and complexity required a wide range of
expertise. The partnership brought together a multidisciplinary team from both
organisations, with experience in relevant branches of science, law, and
business. The team solicited input from stakeholders including large and small
companies, government agencies, universities, and public interest groups.
Based on discussion, analysis, interviews, and research, a Nano Risk
Framework was released by DuPont and Environmental Defense Fund in
2007. DuPont pilot tested the framework on several materials and applications
to ensure that the approach is flexible, practical, affordable, and effective.
Since launching the Framework, the partnership has presented to government
and industry audiences and worked with other companies to implement the
Framework in their own operations.
Environmental Defense Fund considered DuPont to be an optimal partner for
the project considering the companys research and technology capabilities,
commitment to product stewardship, powerful marketplace position, role in
the value chain as a potential purchaser and seller of nanoscale materials,
global reach, reputation, and outlook toward nanotechnology policy. DuPont
and Environmental Defense Fund have collaborated on several other projects
for over 20 years.
The partnership was extremely effective the project goals were achieved in
less time than originally planned, and the feedback has been overwhelmingly
positive. Using the Framework has greatly enhanced DuPonts interactions
with regulatory agencies over the nanoscale materials that they are developing.
Other companies have also reported the effectiveness of the framework in
simplifying decision making regarding environmental, health, and safety
issues around nanomaterials.

Source: http://www.gemi.org/resources/GEMI-EDF%20Guide.pdf

3.

4.

Answer the following questions after reading the case study.

What are the key goals of implementing nanotechnology by EDF. What
factors lead to development of Nano Risk Framework released by DuPont and
Environmental Defense Fund? (Refer unit 12)
Give proponents in favour of the EDF and DuPont partnership? (Refer unit
12)

10
10

MASTERS OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION (MBA) - SEMESTER II

DESCRIPTIVE PRACTICE QUESTION PAPER
MB0049 PROJECT MANAGEMENT
(BOOK ID B1632)
(4 CREDITS)
SET 2

Q. No

1.

2.

Question

Describe the project planning process in detail. (Refer unit 3)

Project performance evaluation is an independent study conducted systematically from
time to time to identify the progress of a project.
Describe the process of project performance evaluation. (Refer unit 11)
Case Study

The M25 is a 117-mile (188 km) highway that encircles Greater London,UK,
making it the second largest orbital road in Europe. Skanska was awarded the
contract to widen two sections of road to increase the number of lanes and to
refurbish the mile long Hatfield road tunnel. The contract value was in
excess of 1 Billion (over $1.6b) and represented a major step change in UK
infrastructure procurement in terms of scale and risk.
The contract was fixed cost, lump sum with an immovable end date. The
project had to be completed in time for the start of the 2012 London Olympics,
with potential costs and liquidated damages of 70m (over $100M) if
deadlines were not met. If the end date was missed then the entire project had
to completely demobilize for the duration of the Olympics and then remobilize
afterwards.
This was an extremely high profile project, with numerous stakeholders
including UK government ministers and agencies, several local authorities,
utilities providers, emergency services and the public. The M25 is a vitally
important part of London and the UKs transport infrastructure and so any
delays or failures would have attracted major negative publicity and had major
reputational and economic impacts.
The inherently risky nature of the project was compounded by the fact that the
contract was signed five weeks later than expected, making an incredibly tight
deadline even tighter. The lump sum nature of the contract also transferred

Marks

10
10

considerable risk to the contractor. Traditional methods of generating

additional value were not an option and at the point of tender a significant
number of incorrect assumptions were likely due to the lack of detail
available.
Two broad approaches were adopted to help mitigate the high level of risk
inherent in the project. The first was to gain an in-depth understanding of
obligations to minimize the potential of being in breach of contract. The
second was to treat partnering seriously.
To support this strategy it was decided from the outset to utilize Active Risk
Manager (ARM) Enterprise Risk Management software rather than hold risk
registers in spreadsheets. This provided the benefits of increased security,
better auditability, and custom reporting capabilities.
Risks were split into several registers within ARM to enable the different
teams to take ownership of the process. A core register was also produced for
macro risks that affected the whole project such as overall design risks. Risks
within the top ten per section and any items selected for in-depth monitoring
were substantiated with a current breakdown of impact cost from the
commercial department. This cost data was hyperlinked to from within ARM,
allowing users to view the movement of the risk over time.
Construction in the UK has an inherent culture of fire fighting. By utilizing
Monte Carlo simulation in ARM to hold single risks with super-high impacts
and very low probabilities, it enabled the teams to keep sight of the big
picture and helped prompt early investment in mitigation.
The level of reporting provided for the stakeholders was substantial, enabling
all parties to have considerable confidence in the projects current status. This
in turn led to simple resolution of issues rather than contentious disputes.
The increased level of transparency, trust and communication enabled by
ARM ensured that issues were resolved at a greater pace and the nonconfrontational approach aided all stakeholders.
Source:http://www.activerisk.com/wp-content/uploads/Skanska-Case-Study-2pp-2012-V1.pdf.
Retrieved on 4-7-2013

Answer the following questions after reading the case study:

3.

4.

List and describe the different types of risk given in the case study What were the
benefits or results of implementing this project? (Refer unit 7).

10

Describe the key strategies used to mitigate the risks. How were the strategies
supported? (Refer unit 7).

10

***********