Title: Project Design and Management (not offered in Academic Year 2018-19)
Keywords: Team-work (incl. interdisciplinary, inter-professional)
Planning and programming (incl.. budgeting and evaluation)
Health indicators
Country: United Kingdom
Institution: UK - Institute for Global Health and Development, Queen Margaret University, Edinburgh
Course coordinator: Dr Carola Eyber
Date start: 2018-02-26
Date end: 2018-03-28
About duration and dates: 9 weeks, 5 weeks interactive learning & 4 weeks working on assignment
Classification: advanced optional
Mode of delivery: Face to face
ECTS credit points: 5 ECTS credits
SIT: 150 hours SIT of which:
Lectures (24 hours)
Group exercises and discussions (8 hours)
Seminar Presentations (3 hours)
Guided study using structured manual in support of each session and Key Learning Resources guide (30 hours)
Group work developing project proposals (45 hours)
Independent study (40 hours)
Language: English
• Apply and defend the principles of project cycle management and the logical framework in structuring health and development interventions
• Construct project memoranda linking situational analysis, project rationale and project appraisals (from a range of disciplinary perspectives) in a coherent manner
• Develop detailed project implementation plans (relating to budgetary commitments, the scheduling of activities etc.)
• Develop coherent strategies for the monitoring and evaluation of projects, and the management of project staff, in a manner aligned with project objectives and environmental constraints.
• Deploy effective presentational, team-working, conflict resolution and task management skills in a context of time pressure and resource limitations.
Assessment Procedures:
There are three components to the assessment structure:

Part 1 Seminar Presentation (30%)
same mark awarded to each member of the group
Groups will make 20 minute presentations of their preliminary project proposals to colleagues, the module co-ordinator and another member of academic staff.
Presentations will be evaluated with regard to the following criteria:
• Adequate introduction of topic for non-specialists
• Problem and solutions tree
• Stakeholder analysis
• Application of logical framework principles at a basic level (no indicators, for example)

Part 2 Project Proposal (50%)
same mark awarded to each member of the group
A written submission of no more than 5,000 words which includes:
1. Executive Summary (15%)
2. Logical Framework (25%)
3. Project Rationale & Situation Analysis (20%)
4. Implementation (20%)
5. Risks and Undertakings (10%)
6. Overall Structure and Presentation (10%)

Part 3: Reflection on own performance (20%)
Individual marks awarded
Students will write no more than two pages (Arial size 11 font 1.5 spaced) of reflective writing on the group experience. Self-reflection is in essence a process that involves self-study whereby you seek to identify and analyse your own actions and reactions with the aim of improving your practice. The task is to reflect on your own actions and reactions in relations to the challenges that PDM has presented and to identify how these can be improved upon.
The reflective writing will marked according to

• Precision of description
• Analysis of significant issues experienced during PDM to which the writer needs to pay attention
• Acquisition of knowledge relevant to significant issues
• Decisions about future practice
• The philosophy of projects
• Projects as vehicles for development assistance, the project cycle and logical frameworks
• Problem analysis and stakeholder analysis: concepts of community, partnership and accountability
• The Logical Framework: concepts, structure and purpose
• Applying the Log Frame: critical discussion of strengths and weaknesses of log frame examples.
• Theory of Change
• Identifying indicators
• Assumptions & risk mitigation
• Developing the project memorandum: institutional and technical assessments & DFID Business Case/Value For Money
• Project management – people, time, and material resources
• Monitoring & evaluation & Output to Purpose Reviews
• Aid effectiveness
• Lectures (24 hours)
• Group exercises and discussions (8 hours)
• Seminar Presentations (3 hours)
• Guided study using structured manual in support of each session and Key Learning Resources guide (30 hours)
• Group work developing project proposals with feedback from facilitator through VLE (45 hours)
IELTS band 6.0 with a minimum of 5.5 in each language skill
Max 30 students, no limit to number of TropEd students
Selection: None
Fees: Home/EU: GBP 700
International: GBP 1400
Scholarships: No specific scholarship
Major changes since initial accreditation:
• Course co-ordinator: the previous course co-ordinator retired and Carola Eyber took over the module. Carola works closely with an experienced ex-DFID project manager, Marilyn McDonagh, who provides input on developments in the field from the perspective of the large donor agencies as well as draws on her own experience of project work.

• Assessment procedure: removed the previous ‘peer assessment’ component and increased the ‘self reflection’ component. This was based on feedback from students who felt that the peer assessment component was too cumbersome and added to their stress as they felt they were being evaluated by others in the group.

• Assessment weighting: changed break-down in marks to give more weight to the individual self-reflection (now 20%) and less to the group proposal (now 50%). The presentation also receives a greater weighting now (now 30%) as student said this took a lot of time and was worth very little. Our external examiner recommended this change in weighting to give more weight to the individual input and balance out the other two components more.
Student evaluation:
Students generally evaluate the module very positively: They comment on the usefulness of this module: “This class provided a very practical understanding and ‘Real life’ tools by which to engage with project development.” They often comment that it is hard but also one of the most worthwhile ones to do during their MSc.
Negative comments focus on the time and work associated with identifying a project area. In order to assist with this the lecturer now makes concrete suggestions on where groups can focus their proposal so that not too much tie is pent on identifying a topic.
Lessons learned:
• Important to acknowledge individual contributions in the module and hence have increased the individual component
• devise ways of reducing time spent on unnecessary tasks like identifying a project topic and location.
• close monitoring of group work prevents problems form escalating within groups.
tropEd accreditation:
Accredited in Berlin 1998, re-accredited in Madrid, May 2004, re-accredited in London September 2009, re-accredited in Bergen, September 2014. This accreditation is valid until September 2019.
Email Address: ceyber@qmu.ac.uk
Date Of Record Creation: 2012-01-14 08:00:25 (W3C-DTF)
Date Of Record Release: 2017-07-20 04:09:45 (W3C-DTF)
Date Record Checked: 2017-07-20 (W3C-DTF)
Date Last Modified: 2018-06-21 16:18:36 (W3C-DTF)

Report a Problem with this Resource Record

Log In: