2.50
Hdl Handle:
http://hdl.handle.net/10547/565039
Title:
Meals for Free (M4F): was this public project a success or failure
Authors:
Philpott, Elly; Owen, David; Wright, D.
Abstract:
Public sector projects are frequently subjected to professional scrutiny and increasingly to public scrutiny. The nature of stakeholders in public projects means that the level of scrutiny is somewhat different to that of private projects. Scrutiny - or a close or detailed examination of projects - requires data about the project to be independent, robust and available. Theory and best practice provides us with performance measures and frameworks against which to measure progress and results. Public sector projects are particularly vulnerable to changes in scope and disruptive externalities. Using available frameworks we can evaluate in?project and post?project data and conclude as to whether a project was a success or failure. But, what happens when views/data clash? This case study describes a fictional public sector project. Arguments for and against success are provided. Students are asked to consider the arguments and sources of data and then to conclude as to whether the project was a success or failure identifying the main themes impacting their decisions and justifying their decisions using their own research. The case study has been used with students at postgraduate level. With additional scaffolding it may be used at undergraduate level.
Affiliation:
University of Bedfordshire
Citation:
Philpott, E. Owen, D. Wright, D. (2014) “Meals for Free (M4F): was this public project a success or failure?”, The Case Centre, CASE Reference no. 914-010-1
Publisher:
The Case Centre
Issue Date:
2014
URI:
http://hdl.handle.net/10547/565039
Additional Links:
http://www.thecasecentre.org/educators/products/view?id=120873
Type:
Other
Language:
en
Appears in Collections:
Business and Information Systems Research Centre (BISC)

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.contributor.authorPhilpott, Ellyen
dc.contributor.authorOwen, Daviden
dc.contributor.authorWright, D.en
dc.date.accessioned2015-08-04T09:38:14Zen
dc.date.available2015-08-04T09:38:14Zen
dc.date.issued2014en
dc.identifier.citationPhilpott, E. Owen, D. Wright, D. (2014) “Meals for Free (M4F): was this public project a success or failure?”, The Case Centre, CASE Reference no. 914-010-1en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10547/565039en
dc.description.abstractPublic sector projects are frequently subjected to professional scrutiny and increasingly to public scrutiny. The nature of stakeholders in public projects means that the level of scrutiny is somewhat different to that of private projects. Scrutiny - or a close or detailed examination of projects - requires data about the project to be independent, robust and available. Theory and best practice provides us with performance measures and frameworks against which to measure progress and results. Public sector projects are particularly vulnerable to changes in scope and disruptive externalities. Using available frameworks we can evaluate in?project and post?project data and conclude as to whether a project was a success or failure. But, what happens when views/data clash? This case study describes a fictional public sector project. Arguments for and against success are provided. Students are asked to consider the arguments and sources of data and then to conclude as to whether the project was a success or failure identifying the main themes impacting their decisions and justifying their decisions using their own research. The case study has been used with students at postgraduate level. With additional scaffolding it may be used at undergraduate level.en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherThe Case Centreen
dc.relation.urlhttp://www.thecasecentre.org/educators/products/view?id=120873en
dc.subjectN213 Project Managementen
dc.titleMeals for Free (M4F): was this public project a success or failureen
dc.typeOtheren
dc.contributor.departmentUniversity of Bedfordshireen
All Items in UOBREP are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.