No I think you did understand OK, but the question did ask for MAJOR stages and that gives you some flexibility of what you count.
Also be aware that different organisations do make the sub-division into stages slightly differently.
1. Partly it depends when one considers a project "starting"- is it at the first possibility of an idea, is it when a significant amount of money has been committed for a feasibility study, is it when the concept design starts or only when some design for actual implementation starts?
2. Having just changed from the Network Rail to the London Underground world, I am having to get used to the fact that the stage-gates are a little different. For example one organisation may see site installation as a separate phase to site pre-testing, yet these often have to go hand-in-hand and so another organisation may reflect that and therefore lump them together.
I do agree though that you could reasonably take the view that for 7 marks it is good to list 7 stages in the initial section a.
In section b I think I'd have certainly referred to all the lifecycle but not so rigidly divided on a per stage basis. I'd have treated all the early stages (i.e all the early feasibility, optioneering, concept architecture design) together as these are all about capturing and allocating requirements, undertaking initial Hazard Analysis and moving through qualitative to quantified risk assessment when necessary; I would do it more by theme alluding to what is done earlier or later rather than rigidly presenting on a per stage basis.
Your approach was not wrong in this respect; it is just that I feel that my approach may be more beneficial on the basis of marks per minute; also feel less likely to duplicate what was already covered to some extent in section a).
==========================================================================
Coming to your other query (I have now posted the remainder of my comments on your answer by updating my earlier entry) re allocation of your time within the exam.
Actually you need to take a risk based approach!
Consider this:
1. If you don't write anything for a section, you WILL NOT GET ANY MARKS.
2. If you are not very certain that you are on the right track for a section, then it probably doesn't make much sense to spend too much time on it. Put something down but make it quite brief and sketchy- perhaps leave some space which gives you the chance to come back to it later.
3. Always consider how else you might be spending your time ; you need to invest it where it has the best chance of a good return (in marks per minute).
4. The first marks in any allocation are always the easiest to get and then they become progressively harder. So if there are 4 marks for a section, if you write nothing you will get 0. If you write anything at all relevant you'd get 0.5 and more probably 1. If an examiner I wouldn't allocate 2 unless I actually felt that you'd got enough to be at "pass" level and therefore I'd cap at 1.5 if I felt insufficient in quality or quantity. To get the third mark for the section is going to be difficult, as you need to have convinced me that that portion of the answer is more or less at "Distinction" level and to give the full 4 then it really has to be very good indeed.
5. In reality you are never going to get full marks and you will be short of time. Thus you can only afford to "go to town" in selected areas. Therefore if you are hesitant that you have really understood what is required in one section, but are happier that you are "on message" for another section then it makes sense to invest your time in the latter.
So I recommend using the mark score as an indication of how to spend your time; a 30 min question has 25 marks so that is easy to calculate- you can't afford to spend more than a minute for each mark (you need some initial thinking/ planning time, admin time, catch breath time). Unless you are happy that what you are writing is achieving a 100% hit rate, then don't spend more than 45secs per mark in order to gain that little bit more time for the areas where you think you are on firmer ground. However do spend 30sec per mark as a minimum on the section or you won't gain the easy marks you otherwise might.
Be very rigid and do not get carried away on any one section of a question and most certainly not on any question as it will definitely hurt your performance on another one. Whereas there often is a little overlap between what is needed in sections of one question and potentially some mark transfer by the examiner, this is explictly NOT the case between questions. Give yourself the full 30mins on each
Also be aware that different organisations do make the sub-division into stages slightly differently.
1. Partly it depends when one considers a project "starting"- is it at the first possibility of an idea, is it when a significant amount of money has been committed for a feasibility study, is it when the concept design starts or only when some design for actual implementation starts?
2. Having just changed from the Network Rail to the London Underground world, I am having to get used to the fact that the stage-gates are a little different. For example one organisation may see site installation as a separate phase to site pre-testing, yet these often have to go hand-in-hand and so another organisation may reflect that and therefore lump them together.
I do agree though that you could reasonably take the view that for 7 marks it is good to list 7 stages in the initial section a.
In section b I think I'd have certainly referred to all the lifecycle but not so rigidly divided on a per stage basis. I'd have treated all the early stages (i.e all the early feasibility, optioneering, concept architecture design) together as these are all about capturing and allocating requirements, undertaking initial Hazard Analysis and moving through qualitative to quantified risk assessment when necessary; I would do it more by theme alluding to what is done earlier or later rather than rigidly presenting on a per stage basis.
Your approach was not wrong in this respect; it is just that I feel that my approach may be more beneficial on the basis of marks per minute; also feel less likely to duplicate what was already covered to some extent in section a).
==========================================================================
Coming to your other query (I have now posted the remainder of my comments on your answer by updating my earlier entry) re allocation of your time within the exam.
Actually you need to take a risk based approach!
Consider this:
1. If you don't write anything for a section, you WILL NOT GET ANY MARKS.
2. If you are not very certain that you are on the right track for a section, then it probably doesn't make much sense to spend too much time on it. Put something down but make it quite brief and sketchy- perhaps leave some space which gives you the chance to come back to it later.
3. Always consider how else you might be spending your time ; you need to invest it where it has the best chance of a good return (in marks per minute).
4. The first marks in any allocation are always the easiest to get and then they become progressively harder. So if there are 4 marks for a section, if you write nothing you will get 0. If you write anything at all relevant you'd get 0.5 and more probably 1. If an examiner I wouldn't allocate 2 unless I actually felt that you'd got enough to be at "pass" level and therefore I'd cap at 1.5 if I felt insufficient in quality or quantity. To get the third mark for the section is going to be difficult, as you need to have convinced me that that portion of the answer is more or less at "Distinction" level and to give the full 4 then it really has to be very good indeed.
5. In reality you are never going to get full marks and you will be short of time. Thus you can only afford to "go to town" in selected areas. Therefore if you are hesitant that you have really understood what is required in one section, but are happier that you are "on message" for another section then it makes sense to invest your time in the latter.
So I recommend using the mark score as an indication of how to spend your time; a 30 min question has 25 marks so that is easy to calculate- you can't afford to spend more than a minute for each mark (you need some initial thinking/ planning time, admin time, catch breath time). Unless you are happy that what you are writing is achieving a 100% hit rate, then don't spend more than 45secs per mark in order to gain that little bit more time for the areas where you think you are on firmer ground. However do spend 30sec per mark as a minimum on the section or you won't gain the easy marks you otherwise might.
Be very rigid and do not get carried away on any one section of a question and most certainly not on any question as it will definitely hurt your performance on another one. Whereas there often is a little overlap between what is needed in sections of one question and potentially some mark transfer by the examiner, this is explictly NOT the case between questions. Give yourself the full 30mins on each
(08-07-2011, 05:30 PM)libracpy Wrote: Thank you very much for your valuable comment and feedback.
In fact, after review your comment about the answer, I think that I originally mis-understand the meaning of the question: {i.e. Describe how safety can be assured through each of these major stages.} The meaning of "EACH of these major stages" in my original mind is refer to "major stages in the project lifestyle", because the common wording - "major stages" is used. As a result, I use the table format for all 7 stages. However, I also think that it is not make sense for all 7 stages in practice as your view, and so I also have difficulty to answer this part of the question.
Besides of the content about the answer, may I ask one question about the skill of IRSE. Just use the above example and assume I have no better choice for other questions, if I have the difficulty to understand or answer this part of question, is it prefer to ignore this part of question, or try to answer which may be wrong.
Anyways, thanks again.
PJW