For information and reference only – not to be submitted as your own work.
This Technolite WBS sample extract shows how a strong answer to the European Business University Business Project Management brief on the Technolite project and a workplace facility proposal can be structured. It is abridged: the Technolite tasks are covered in fuller form, and the facility project is shown in condensed model paragraphs and tables. For the planning method behind it, read our guide on how to write a business project management WBS assignment.
Planning table
| Brief part | Marks | Suggested words (if the limit is about 2,500) | What markers look for |
|---|---|---|---|
| Technolite: life cycle stages | 10 | 250 | Each stage named, then applied to the software project, not just defined |
| Technolite: reasons for failure | 10 | 250 | Causes tied to the case, ranked, with a link to prevention |
| Technolite: WBS | 15 | 375 | Hierarchical, deliverable-based, complete, with numbering and a short rationale |
| Facility proposal for the HR director | 25 | 625 | Business case, scope, cost, benefits, timeline and a clear recommendation |
| Stakeholder identification and analysis | 15 | 375 | Primary, secondary and key groups, then a matrix used properly |
| Tuckman stages and team support | 10 | 250 | Leader actions matched to each stage |
| Project closure | 8 | 200 | Handover, lessons learned, release of resources, final review |
| Risks and preparation | 7 | 175 | Common risks, their sources and a response for each |
Word splits above are only a suggestion based on marks. Check your own brief for the exact limits and format.
Hire a Professional Essay & Assignment Writer for completing your Academic Assessments
Native Singapore Writers Team
- 100% Plagiarism-Free Essay
- Highest Satisfaction Rate
- Free Revision
- On-Time Delivery
Technolite WBS sample: Project 1
Task 1: Project life cycle stages (10 marks)
A project life cycle describes the phases a project passes through from idea to closure. The PMBOK Guide treats the life cycle as a series of phases that may be predictive, iterative or adaptive, depending on how much is known at the start (Project Management Institute, 2021). For a client software project such as Technolite, a hybrid approach is sensible: fixed contract milestones for the client, with iterative build cycles inside them.
Kerzner (2022) describes a typical sequence of initiation, planning, execution, monitoring and control, and closure. The table applies each stage to a software build. All durations and activities are illustrative.
| Stage | Purpose | What it looks like at Technolite (illustrative) |
|---|---|---|
| Initiation | Confirm the need and authorise the project | Client workshop, feasibility check, signed project charter naming the sponsor and success measures |
| Planning | Define scope, time, cost, quality and risk | Requirements specification, WBS, release plan, budget baseline, risk register |
| Execution | Deliver the work | Design, coding in two-week sprints, integration, regular demonstrations to the client |
| Monitoring and control | Compare progress with the baseline and correct it | Burn-down tracking, change control board, defect metrics, monthly sponsor report |
| Closure | Hand over and learn | User acceptance testing, deployment, training, support handover, lessons-learned review |
The stages overlap in practice. Monitoring and control runs alongside planning and execution, so I would show it as a continuous activity rather than a single step. Meredith, Mantel and Shafer (2017) make the same point when they note that effort and cost rise through the build and fall sharply near delivery.
Task 2: Why the project could fail (10 marks)
Software projects fail more often through management causes than through technical ones. Flyvbjerg and Budzier (2011), studying more than a thousand IT projects, found that a small share of projects suffer extreme cost overruns that average figures hide. A student answer should therefore discuss tail risk and not only typical delays.
For Technolite, I would argue that the following causes are the most likely, in this order:
- Unclear or shifting requirements. If the client keeps adding features without a change process, scope creep drains the budget and the schedule.
- Weak stakeholder engagement. Users who are not consulted early reject the product at acceptance, even if it meets the specification.
- Unrealistic estimates. Optimistic effort figures for coding and testing leave no contingency.
- Skills and resource gaps. Losing a lead developer mid-project delays integration.
- Poor communication and governance. Without a clear sponsor and escalation route, decisions stall.
Each cause links to a control: a signed scope baseline and change log, a stakeholder plan, estimates with ranges, cross-training, and a steering group that meets on a fixed rhythm. Showing the cause and its control together earns more marks than a bare list.
Task 3: Work breakdown structure (15 marks)
A WBS breaks the total scope into smaller deliverables until each element can be estimated and owned. The PMBOK approach is to decompose by deliverable rather than by activity, so that nothing outside the scope appears and nothing inside it is missed (Project Management Institute, 2021). A common rule of thumb is that the lowest level, the work package, should be small enough to estimate and assign to one person or team. The WBS below is a Level 1 to Level 3 extract and is illustrative.
| WBS code | Element | Level | Example deliverable |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Technolite software project | 1 | Working system accepted by the client |
| 1.1 | Project management | 2 | Plans and reports |
| 1.1.1 | Charter and plan | 3 | Approved charter, schedule, budget |
| 1.1.2 | Monitoring and reporting | 3 | Monthly status reports |
| 1.2 | Requirements and design | 2 | Signed-off specification |
| 1.2.1 | Requirements gathering | 3 | User stories and priorities |
| 1.2.2 | System design | 3 | Architecture and interface designs |
| 1.3 | Development | 2 | Tested software modules |
| 1.3.1 | Core modules | 3 | Code, unit tests |
| 1.3.2 | Integration | 3 | Integrated build |
| 1.4 | Testing and quality | 2 | Test evidence |
| 1.4.1 | System and security testing | 3 | Test report, defect log |
| 1.4.2 | User acceptance testing | 3 | Client acceptance certificate |
| 1.5 | Deployment and handover | 2 | Live system |
| 1.5.1 | Release and training | 3 | Deployed system, trained users |
| 1.5.2 | Closure | 3 | Lessons-learned report |
After the table, add two or three sentences explaining your choices, for example why project management sits as its own branch and why testing is separate from development. Markers reward a short rationale more than a very large diagram.
Project 2: Workplace facility for an e-commerce firm
Task 1: Project proposal for the HR director (25 marks)
Assume the chosen facility is a staff café and relaxation area. The proposal should open with a one-paragraph recommendation: the firm should fund a pilot café space because it supports retention, collaboration and wellbeing at a modest, bounded cost. All numbers below are illustrative, not drawn from the brief.
| Proposal section | Content (illustrative) |
|---|---|
| Objective | Open a staff café within four months, within the approved budget |
| Scope | Fit-out of one existing floor area, furniture, equipment, a vendor contract; excludes building structural work |
| Budget | One-off fit-out plus a running-cost allowance, with 10% contingency |
| Benefits | Higher staff satisfaction scores, lower voluntary turnover, more cross-team contact |
| Timeline | Approval, design, procurement, fit-out, soft launch, review |
| Success measures | Usage rates, a pulse survey before and after, and cost per user |
Link the proposal to motivation theory briefly, as the brief concerns workplace motivation. A café meets social and belonging needs, so tie your argument to whichever motivation theory your module uses, and cite a source you have actually read.
Task 2: Stakeholder identification and analysis (15 marks)
Mitchell, Agle and Wood (1997) classify stakeholders by power, legitimacy and urgency, which is useful when you must explain why some groups matter more than others. Most project courses also use a power and interest grid, so use whichever matrix your module teaches.
| Stakeholder | Type | Power | Interest | Suggested approach |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR director (sponsor) | Key | High | High | Manage closely, weekly updates |
| Employees (users) | Primary | Medium | High | Consult through surveys and a user panel |
| Finance team | Primary | High | Medium | Keep satisfied, agree budget controls |
| Facilities and building management | Secondary | Medium | Medium | Coordinate access, safety, permits |
| Catering vendor | Secondary | Low | High | Keep informed, contract review |
| Neighbouring tenants | Secondary | Low | Low | Monitor, notify of noise |
State your classification rule in one sentence: primary stakeholders are directly affected by or directly affect the outcome, and secondary ones are affected indirectly. Then say how the analysis changes the plan, for example by adding an employee panel in the design stage.
Task 3: Supporting the team through Tuckman’s stages (10 marks)
Tuckman (1965) proposed four stages of group development: forming, storming, norming and performing. Tuckman and Jensen (1977) added a fifth, adjourning. The table shows the leader’s role at each stage for the facility project team.
| Stage | What happens | Support I would give |
|---|---|---|
| Forming | Members are polite but unsure of roles | Clear goals, introductions, defined roles and a team charter |
| Storming | Conflict over priorities and methods | Listen, mediate, agree decision rules, keep focus on the objective |
| Norming | Shared habits and trust emerge | Reinforce good practices, delegate more, set up regular reviews |
| Performing | The team works effectively | Remove blockers, give autonomy, recognise results |
| Adjourning | The project ends and the team disperses | Acknowledge contributions, hold a review, support the next assignments |
Note that teams do not always move in a straight line. A new member or a scope change can send the team back to an earlier stage, and a good answer says so.
Task 4: Closing the project (8 marks)
Closure should be planned from the start. Kerzner (2022) stresses formal closure so that benefits are confirmed and learning is captured. For the facility, the arrangements would include:
- a final inspection and sign-off by the sponsor against the acceptance criteria;
- handover of keys, warranties, manuals and the vendor contract to facilities management;
- settlement of invoices and release of unused budget;
- a lessons-learned session with the team and a user survey after the first month;
- release of team members back to their roles, with feedback.
Task 5: Common risks and preparation (7 marks)
Risk sources can be grouped as internal, external, technical, financial and human. The register below is illustrative and uses a simple high, medium or low rating.
| Risk | Source | Likelihood | Impact | Response |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cost overrun on fit-out | Financial | Medium | High | Fixed-price quotes and 10% contingency |
| Vendor delay | External | Medium | Medium | Penalty clause and a backup supplier |
| Low staff uptake | Human | Medium | High | Early consultation and a pilot period |
| Safety or hygiene non-compliance | Regulatory | Low | High | Early inspection and licensed contractors |
| Scope creep | Internal | High | Medium | Change control with sponsor sign-off |
For each risk, choose a response type: avoid, reduce, transfer or accept, and name an owner. Meredith, Mantel and Shafer (2017) treat risk management as an ongoing process, so mention that the register is reviewed at each stage gate.
Where to go next
If you want structured support with similar coursework, see our project management assignment help and report writing help. You can also compare the style of another module in our EBU leadership skills essay brief, browse a project management assignment template, or see every European Business University assignment question. When your own brief is ready, you can submit your assignment details here.
References
Flyvbjerg, B. and Budzier, A. (2011) ‘Why your IT project may be riskier than you think’, Harvard Business Review, 89(9). Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2229735 (accessed 6 November 2026).
Kerzner, H. (2022) Project management: a systems approach to planning, scheduling, and controlling. 13th edn. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-1-119-80537-3.
Meredith, J.R., Mantel, S.J. and Shafer, S.M. (2017) Project management: a strategic managerial approach. 10th edn. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Mitchell, R.K., Agle, B.R. and Wood, D.J. (1997) ‘Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: defining the principle of who and what really counts’, Academy of Management Review, 22(4), pp. 853–886. doi:10.5465/amr.1997.9711022105.
Project Management Institute (2021) A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK guide) and the standard for project management. 7th edn. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute. ISBN 978-1-62825-664-2.
Tuckman, B.W. (1965) ‘Developmental sequence in small groups’, Psychological Bulletin, 63(6), pp. 384–399.
Tuckman, B.W. and Jensen, M.A.C. (1977) ‘Stages of small-group development revisited’, Group & Organization Studies, 2(4), pp. 419–427.
