Page 1 of 4

Assignment Feedback Form

Updated 24/06/2020
QA/UNIT

Student Name/ID/Section 22110348 Zaid Feda' Mohammad Nasoh Qarkash / Sec 2

HTU Course Title and No. Managing a Professional Engineering Project / 00102220
BTEC Unit, Title and ID Managing a Professional Engineering Project [Unit 4] A/615/1478
Assignment Number 1 Assessor Eng. Mohammad Abu-Rumman
Date Received 1st 04/June/2024
Submission Date 04/June/2024
submission
Date Received 2nd
Re-submission Date
submission

1
 Page 2 of 4

Ongoing formative feedback from assessor:

Ongoing formative from assessor between 27/March/2024 till 26/May/2024:

Group Formative:

• Instructor gave general introduction about the course content and learning outcomes.
• Assignment brief details were explained beside evaluation criteria description.
• Instructor discussed the suggested projects with the student and their group.
• General formative sessions for class and separate groups beside individuals’ discussions after lecture.
• Instructor explained project management, business value and need, project lifecycle and stage gates.
• Instructor discussed project and product scopes, RAMS, quality, QA, QC and Design for Maintainability.
• Instructor explained problem research process.
• Instructor demonstrated and clarified in the class, the steps and procedures for a literature review and
methodology and how perform a chronological review of technology as applied to the students' projects.
• Instructor clarified added value and market-driven aspects of a project.
• Instructor explored problem definition process tools including problem tree analysis, problem statement and
root cause analysis.
• Instructor clarified stakeholders analysis using PESTEL tool along the mapping using the power-interest
matrix.
• Instructor explained importance of evaluating the success of the project plan and making future
recommendations using Critical Success Factors CSFs and Key Performance Indicators KPIs.
• Work Break Down Structure WBS and work plan were explained.
• Instructor explained market research elements, cost structure of project, Bill of Material BOM and time phased
budget.
• Instructor explained the methodology of feasibility and how to use it to compare and select between different
projects.
• Instructor highlighted the effect of ethics in developing the project plan using several samples like NSPE, The
Engineering Council and Royal Academy of Engineering’s Statement of Ethics and UK standard for
Professional Engineering Competence and Commitment UK-SPEC.
• Instructor highlighted the effect of legislation on project plan using several samples like Jordan Metrological
and Standards Organisation JSMO, Health and Safety Executive HSE and ISO.
• Instructor explained the tasks relations and types and how to illustrate them in PERT and Gantt charts beside
Lab sessions on MS Project.
• Instructor clarified how to perform critical analysis and evaluation for the project plan using the critical path
analysis CPA.
• Steps to complete components of user instruction manual were discussed and explained.
• SWOT analysis for individuals and for project plan were discussed.
• Weighted evaluation technique for prototype evaluation was thoroughly explained in lab sessions.
• Instructor explained how to critically analyse the project outcomes making recommendations for further
development using FMEA method.
• Instructor clarified how to analyse own behaviours and performance during the project and suggest areas for
improvement using Schon’s reflective model, CPD discussion and performance review.
• Instructor discussed presentation skills, time management skills, Minimum Viable Product MVP.

2
 Page 3 of 4

Assessor feedback for summative assessment:

LO-1
• Student showed strong ability to select an appropriate engineering-based project, giving reasons for the
selection as evidenced by their problem definition tool, literature review, and stakeholders’ analysis.
• Student showed strong ability to create a project plan for the engineering project as evidenced by their BoM,
WBS and time-phased budget, and work plan.
• Student showed strong ability to undertake a feasibility study to justify project selection as evidenced by their
feasibility study discussion and components.
• Student showed weak ability to illustrate the effect of legislation and ethics in developing the project plan as
evidenced by their discussion of different regulations and ethics section.

LO-2
• Student showed strong ability to conduct project for improvements activities, recording progress against
original project plan as evidenced by their meetings entries.
• Student showed weak ability to explore alternative methods to monitor and meet project milestones, justify
selection of chosen method(s) as evidenced by their Gantt chart, PERT chart, and objective tree analysis and
justification.
• Student showed weak ability to critically evaluate the success of the project plan making recommendations as
evidenced by their KPIs.

LO-3 & LO-4

• Student showed strong ability to produce a project report covering each stage of the project and analysing
project outcomes based on their user manual and project SWOT analysis.
• Student showed strong ability to use appropriate critical analysis and evaluation techniques to analyse project
findings as evidenced by their CPA and weighted evaluation matrix for prototype testing.
• Student showed strong ability to present the project report using appropriate media to an audience as
evidenced by their presentation.
• Student showed strong ability to analyse own behaviours and performance during the project and suggest areas
for improvement as evidenced by their Schon’s model for reflection and performance review section.
• Student showed weak ability to critically analyse the project outcomes making recommendations for further
development as evidenced by their FMEA.

Viva questions asked:

Pert, legislation and ethics, RPN of FMEA, KPI.

Viva answers:

Wrong answers for all the D criteria in addition to wrong answer for Pert chart which is an M criteria.

Strengths: Good presentation.

Weaknesses: CPM not demonstrated well in the report.

3
 Page 4 of 4

Grade: P Assessor Signature: Date: June 25th 2024

Resubmission Feedback (if required):

Grade: Assessor Signature: Date:

CRITERIA
(to be filled before
Re-submission)
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 M1 M2 M3 M4 Final Grade

D1 D2 D3
INTENTIONALLY EMPTY

STUDENT DECLARATION:

I certify, that the formative and summative assessments for this assignment have been fully
explained and understood by me, I also understand that the grade above is subject to
verification processes, which might result in some cases in a grade change.

Student Name : Zaid Feda' Mohammad Nasoh Qarkash Signature:

Date : June 25th 2024