Teaching teamwork and project management using virtual projects Peter Goodhew FREng

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 • SMART objective and SWOT analysis • Work Breakdown Structure and Gantt chart • Change order so revise plan, critical path, slack • Stakeholders, risk register, mitigation • Depreciation, discounted cash flow and overhead absorption calculations • [(MSc only) requirements document, reflective analysis of process and effectiveness of team] • 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:

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