Structure, Organization, Ease of reading, Grammar

  • This Assignment had a very, very specific structure.  Identify 2-4 issues.  Come up with solutions for those issues and summarize them briefly. Provide a table with Pros and Cons for each, and wrap it all up with an overall (but brief) recommendation – what could have been done to help prevent this disaster from a PM perspective.  DID YOU FOLLOW THIS STRUCTURE?
  • Did you follow the advice given in the lectures and From Your Instructor about the format?
  • Did you follow rules of English grammar, spelling, and syntax?  Did you fix errors pointed out via Word’s editing capabilities (e.g. squiggly blue or red underlined text)?

Content: 8 Points

  • Is it clear from reading your assignment that you read the case and understood what happened that led up to the Deepwater Horizon explosion?
  • Did you ‘dig deeper’?  Some people identify very technical issues – did you find the underlying reasoning that may have driven decisions to go a certain way technically?
  • Did you keep your writing concise and to the point?  Part of the intent of this assignment is an exercise in expressing important ideas in as efficient a way as possible.
  • Was there a logical flow from your Issue Identification to your Proposed Solutions, to your Pros and Cons and to your conclusion?
  • If you did have ‘extra’ information to exhibit, did you put it in an Appendix rather than in the body of the text?  Again, the focus is on a concise, crisp presentation of your arguments.

References and resources: 1.5 Points

  • Did you provide several relevant references that helped make your points?  Of course you can use the main MIT/Sloan case as a reference, but did you reach out and find out more about the Deepwater Horizon from other sources?

Other things to consider:

  • Did you add value from your own professional and/or personal experience?
  • Did you make appropriate use of figures and tables in an appendix?  Don’t substitute quantity for quality here – one good, relevant, and meaningful small table is worth 100 randomly inserted graphs and charts.
  • Did you really take on the viewpoint of a project leader here, and consider the way the team was motivated, the way the different stakeholders communicated (or didn’t), the culture of the different companies?

Leave a Reply