Assignment Overview

Background and Rationale

Project management is applied across a wide range of industry sectors, including engineering, construction, information technology, finance and healthcare. Each sector carries its own operational demands, and the information systems developed to support project processes reflect that diversity. Despite the growth of the market, no single platform addresses every project management need completely, and practitioners must critically assess available tools before committing to them.

Managing projects effectively requires more than project planning and scheduling. It requires technology that integrates well across multiple project functions, scales with organisational complexity, and supports real-time decision making. This assignment challenges you to investigate the software landscape for a specific project management knowledge area, develop an objective evaluation methodology, and produce a recommendation grounded in evidence.

General Aims

• Select an appropriate software tool for a specific project management application.
• Develop a methodology to evaluate and compare software tools systematically.
• Broaden your knowledge of current software use within the project management discipline.
• Develop skills in self-directed research, professional written communication, critical analysis and self-discipline.

Assignment Task

Each student is required to select one (1) sub-category from the project management knowledge areas listed below. Your chosen area must be unique — you are required to consult with other students and confirm your selection has not already been taken before your Stage 1 proposal is approved. Students must not share their chosen option.

Select ONE of the following Project Management Knowledge Areas:

1. Stakeholder Management
2. Risk Management
3. Quality Management
4. Communication Management
5. Human Resource Management
6. Procurement Management

Once your topic is confirmed, you will investigate the software tools currently available that support project processes within that knowledge area. You must select at least three (3) distinct software tools for evaluation, critically review each one, and apply a weighted evaluation matrix to compare them against a defined set of criteria. The final deliverable is a structured research report, accompanied by an oral defence.

Staged Delivery Schedule

Stage 1 – Project Proposal (Due: Friday, Week 5)

Develop and submit a project proposal of no more than 6 pages, outlining your approved area of software investigation. Your proposal must include all of the following elements:

• Topic title
• Aim(s) of the investigation
• Proposed methodology for evaluating the selected software tools
• List of at least three software tools identified for evaluation
• Expected outcomes of the investigation
• Proposed structure of the final report (table of contents)
• Preliminary reference list (Harvard format)
• Appendix content plan
• Project Delivery Plan with timeline — prepared in MS Project software, comprising no fewer than 20 tasks incorporating key milestones (WBS format)

Proposal approval is required before commencing Stage 2.

Stage 2 – Final Report (Due: End of Week 8)

Develop and submit the final report detailing all investigation findings. The report must not exceed 2,000 words or 12 A4 pages (whichever is greater) and must follow the report structure outlined below. Upload the electronic version to the Dropbox folder on VU Collaborate.

Stage 3 – Oral Assessment (Week 8, In-Class)

Each student will present their findings individually during scheduled class time in Week 8. Presentations are strictly limited to 5 minutes per student. Failure to attend the oral assessment will result in no marks being awarded for the assignment.

Report Structure

Your final report must be structured as follows:

1. Cover Sheet — Include a relevant front-cover image related to your project topic, together with the project title, student name, student ID, unit code and unit name.
2. Table of Contents — List all sections with corresponding page numbers.
3. Executive Summary / Abstract — A concise summary of approximately 100 words stating what the report investigates and what its primary findings are. Drafted last, placed first.
4. Introduction — Provide background context for the investigation, explain reasons for undertaking it, and briefly acknowledge prior work in the area.
5. Significance of the Investigation — Explain why the chosen knowledge area and its supporting software matter to contemporary project management practice.
6. Overview of Available Software — List and describe all software tools identified as relevant to your chosen knowledge area. Include diagrams illustrating the interaction between software components and the IT procurement process where appropriate.
7. Software Selection for Evaluation — Identify the three (or more) software tools selected for detailed evaluation and provide a justification for your selection.
8. Critical Review of Selected Software — Conduct a detailed critical review of each selected tool, addressing capabilities, integration potential, scalability, cost structure, and user experience.
9. Evaluation Criteria and Weighting — Define the criteria used to evaluate the software. Discuss and justify the weighting assigned to each criterion, supported by evidence from literature and industry sources.
10. Weighted Evaluation Matrix — Set up and populate a weighted evaluation matrix comparing all selected software tools against the defined criteria. Provide clear evidence and comparative justification for each score assigned.
11. Discussion of Results — Interpret the matrix outcomes. Identify trends, discuss the accuracy and reliability of the data, and account for any discrepancies.
12. Problems and Pitfalls — Discuss limitations, challenges or risks identified during the investigation, including any constraints that may affect software adoption.
13. Conclusions — Draw clear, numbered conclusions that state how far the aims of the investigation have been achieved and suggest directions for future work. Do not conflate this section with the Executive Summary.
14. Recommendations — Provide a clearly justified final recommendation identifying which software tool best suits the chosen project management application and why.
15. References — List all sources alphabetically by author in Harvard format. Include author, title, year, publisher or journal, and page numbers where applicable, so that any source can be independently located.
16. Acknowledgements (if applicable)
17. Appendices — Include all supporting evidence for each software tool evaluated (screenshots, vendor documentation extracts, feature comparison tables, etc.).

Submission Requirements

• Upload the electronic version of the final report to the Dropbox folder on VU Collaborate by the end of Week 8.
• Findings from literature and other software materials must be clearly quoted and referenced throughout the report in Harvard format.
• Relevant diagrams illustrating the interaction between software components and the IT procurement process must be included.
• Reports will be retained by Victoria University. Feedback will be provided after submission.
• Oral presentations are held in Week 8 during class time. Non-attendance results in zero marks for the entire assignment.

Marking Criteria and Weighting

Sample Answer Guidance – EPM5700 Software Evaluation Report

Risk management software plays a critical role in enabling project teams to identify, assess and respond to potential threats before they escalate into project failures, and tools such as RiskyProject Professional, Active Risk Manager (ARM) and Oracle Primavera Risk Analysis represent three distinct approaches to quantitative and qualitative risk modelling that are well worth evaluating against a structured set of weighted criteria.

A well-designed evaluation matrix for project management software typically assigns the highest weights to criteria such as integration capability with existing project systems, scalability across project size and complexity, reporting functionality and vendor support quality, because these factors most directly influence long-term adoption success and total cost of ownership within enterprise environments.

When critically reviewing software for procurement management, for example, the ability of a platform to interface with contract management databases, ERP systems and supplier portals is a non-negotiable baseline rather than an optional feature, since poor integration creates data silos that undermine visibility across the supply chain and introduce risk at the very point the software is meant to mitigate.

Selecting and justifying evaluation criteria before populating a matrix is an essential methodological step, as Kerzner (2022) notes in his discussion of technology adoption frameworks, because criteria that are defined post-hoc based on a preferred outcome introduce confirmation bias and reduce the objectivity on which valid software selection decisions depend (Kerzner, 2022).

Problems and pitfalls worth addressing in the report include vendor lock-in risks, the hidden cost of training and change management, compatibility gaps between software versions used by different project stakeholders, and the tendency for tool complexity to outpace the capability of the project team to use the software effectively.

A strong conclusion in this type of report does not simply restate the matrix scores; rather, it synthesises the critical review findings, qualifies the numerical outcome with contextual observations about organisational fit, and delivers a specific, actionable recommendation that the reader can act on without needing to re-read the entire report.

 References

1. Kerzner, H. (2022). Project management: A systems approach to planning, scheduling, and controlling (13th ed.). Wiley. https://www.wiley.com/en-au/9781119805373
2. Marcelino-Sadaba, S., Gonzalez-Jaen, L. F., & Perez-Ezcurdia, A. (2019). Using project management as a way to sustainability: From a comprehensive review to a framework definition. Journal of Cleaner Production, 190, 62–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.04.223
3. Tereso, A., Ribeiro, P., Fernandes, G., Loureiro, I., & Ferreira, M. (2019). Project management practices in private organisations. Project Management Journal, 50(1), 6–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/8756972818810966
4. Nguyen, T. S., Mohamed, S., & Panuwatwanich, K. (2018). Stakeholder management in complex project: Review of contemporary literature. Journal of Engineering, Project, and Production Management, 8(2), 75–89. https://doi.org/10.32738/JEPPM.201807.0002
5. Project Management Institute. (2021). A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK Guide) (7th ed.). PMI. https://www.pmi.org/pmbok-guide-standards/foundational/pmbok